New Testament Introduction

New Testament
Introduction
Dr Mark Keown
Table of Contents

1. The New Testament in Context 1
2. The Jewish Background to the New Testament 15
3. The Greco‐Roman Background to the New Testament 35
4. The Synoptics and their relationship 61
5. Understanding Mark's Gospel 67
6. The Distinctive Emphases and Features of Matthew's Gospel 93
7. The Distinctive Emphases and Features of Luke's Gospel 11
8. John's Gospel 129
9. The Kingdom of God 151
10. The Power of the Kingdom 173
11. The Teaching of the Kingdom: Parables 197
12. The Teaching of the King 215
13. The Passion of the King 229
14. The Resurrection of the King 249
15. The Consummation of the Kingdom 271
16. Acts 1‐8 295
17. The Expansion if the Gospel to Samaria, Judea and the Jerusalem Council 331
18. Paul's Life and Conversion 349
19. Paul's Missionary Strategy 367
20. Some Basic Contours of Paul's Thought 289
21. Paul's Letters 403
22. Galatians 413
23. Ephesians 433
24. The Other Letters of Paul, Hebrews and the General Letters 477
25. Revelation 493
Appendix 1: Writing a Thematic New Testament Essay 523
Appendix 2: Tips for Content Tests 527
Appendix 3: Recommended Texts 529

New Testament Introduction
Chapter One
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN CONTEXT
Contents
Why study the New Testament?...........................................................................................................2
Its impact...........................................................................................................................................2
The impact of its main character, Jesus.............................................................................................2
Its importance to the faith it spawned, Christianity..........................................................................2
Its message........................................................................................................................................2
It is exciting!.......................................................................................................................................3
Its power! ..........................................................................................................................................3
It is inspired!......................................................................................................................................3
Questions for your consideration......................................................................................................4
What is the New Testament?................................................................................................................4
The New Testament is one chapter within one huge cosmic story....................................................4
The New Testament is a library of books...........................................................................................5
Dating the books....................................................................................................................................6
The formation of the New Testament...................................................................................................6
A period of oral and fragmented written transmission.....................................................................7
The writing of the original documents...............................................................................................7
The grouping of the documents.........................................................................................................8
The text of the documents................................................................................................................8
The NT and the OT.............................................................................................................................9
Course Approach...................................................................................................................................9
The nature of Scripture......................................................................................................................9
The nature of the Bible......................................................................................................................9
The big story (the Bible as narrative)...............................................................................................10
The place of NT in the big story.......................................................................................................12
Christ the centre..............................................................................................................................13
Hermeneutics..................................................................................................................................13
Questions to consideration..................................................................................................................14
The New Testament in Context
Why study the New Testament?

Before launching into deep and meaningful discussion about the New Testament of the Bible, it is
worth pausing and considering why we would want to study the New Testament at all. In my view,
there are number of reasons that make intensive study of the New Testament a worthwhile
exercise.
Its impact
First, the impact of the NT cannot be underestimated. Since its final ratification and the adoption of
Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine (c.312+), the NT has been
foundational to life in Europe and then beyond in the missionary movement that accompanied
European colonization. Our own culture, while rejecting some aspects of a Judeo-Christian world-
view, has been and remains based to a large degree on the ethics embodied in the NT. In that up to
a third of the population of planet earth adhere to its principles and faith to some degree or
another, its impact can only be described as astonishing. While books like the Da Vinci Code and
Harry Potter appear to have periods of sensational appeal, the whole Bible remains the greatest
seller of all time.
The impact of its main character, Jesus

While the books of the NT have had a huge impact, the person who lies at the heart of its message,
Jesus the Christ, is without doubt the most influential person who has lived in human history and
particularly the last 2000 years. His teaching, ethics, miracles, resurrection and subsequent impact
are without peer. Hence, study of the NT is a valuable historical task in its own right, even without
the added dimension of faith. Central to this of course is the study of the Gospels, which tell the
story of Jesus and allow the student to assess who he was and whether he is worthy of their faith.
Examination of Acts and the letters is of equal value as we consider how these writers saw Christ,
how the gospel spread out, how the first Christians sought to live out the commands of Christ, the
mistakes they made, and the way in which they dealt with them.
Its importance to the faith it spawned, Christianity

Without the NT, it is very likely that Christianity would have died or become absorbed into the
syncretistic mesh of world religions. The NT holds the foundational documents for the faith. For
those of an evangelical persuasion,1 the NT gives the parameters and principles that define
Christianity. These teachings provide the boundaries upon which other sources of possible
revelation such as tradition, the church, experience and human reason can be assessed. So it is that
study of the NT is absolutely pivotal to understanding what Christianity should be.
Its message
The message of the NT is powerful arguing that God has sent his son Jesus as the Messiah/Christ to
save the world from the essential problem of evil. It teaches that relationship with God depends on a
faith-based relationship with its central character, Jesus the Christ. It also indicates that those
outside of this faith-based relationship will remain separated from God eternally. If this is true, it is
1
By evangelical I mean someone who believes that Christian faith is defined primarily by the principles found
in the teachings of the Bible and, in particular, the NT, rather than any other possible source. This does not rule
out other factors influencing theological decision making including tradition, reason, experience etc. However,
the truth drawn from the biblical narrative has priority.
2
important to study the documents to assess their truth as part of being human. After all, none of us
want to see anyone in this world be separated from God eternally.
It is exciting!
Understood in the context of the whole bible the NT is amazing and exciting. It speaks of a God who
becomes a part of his creation, a human, to save his dying world. It tells of a cosmic conflict between
good and evil involving real people even including us; we being invited to join God in his great
project! It has all the hallmarks of a great sci-fi movie with an archetype of evil (Satan), cosmic war in
the heavenly and earthly realms, death, destruction, courage, tragedy and eventually, a saga that
spans millennia and the ultimate victory of good over evil. For lovers of Lord of the Rings, Star Wars
and other cosmic good vs. evil thrillers, the Bible and the NT is a real living story of cosmic
proportions.
Its power!
The NT has changed the world. Since the resurrection of Christ the NT along with the OT has caused
Christianity to expand dramatically to the point that in the 4th century it became the State Religion
of the leading world power (the Roman Empire). Today, according to researcher David Barrett, there
2.1 billion of the 6.4 billion people on Planet Earth are Christian (33.1%).2 Literary history is filled
with dramatic stories of the power of the NT message to convert and change lives. As the Bible itself
tells us, it is a living and active Spirit empowered sword that sears the human heart (Heb 4:12-13;
Eph 6:17); it is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16); it is a fire that refines the human heart (Jer 23:29); it is a
hammer that softens our heart (Jer 23:29); it is a mirror that reveals our true selves (James 1:23); it
is the power of God for salvation where faith is found (Rom 1:16)!
It is inspired!
The word that theologians use to describe the Bible is ‘inspired’. This means that it is not merely the
handiwork of people in living and real situations, but behind its every word is God by his Holy Spirit.
Evangelical theologians debate the nature of this inspiration with some arguing that it is itself the
direct revelation of God’s word; for a dictation theory of its origin whereby God placed every word in
the minds of the writers; or arguing for its inerrancy and infallibility (without error). Others take a
moderated view of inspiration, still accepting that God is behind its authorship overseeing its every
word, but allowing for more humanity in its authorship; its authority and reliability not relying on
21st century reckonings of exactitude, but that behind its human words are the principles and stories
that speak God’s word to shape human existence.
Whichever perspective is correct, the Bible is inspired or ‘God-breathed’ (theopneustos); it is

revelatory in which God and particularly, his saviour redeemer Son Jesus Christ are found. It lays out
what Christianity is through the words of Christ, in regards to the OT accounts of God’s people,
through the voices of Luke, Paul, John, John Mark, Matthew, Peter, James, Jude and others (the
writer of Hebrews is unknown) who were first or second generation believers and who sought
faithfully to record the accounts for us to find and be encouraged in faith and salvation. The whole
NT is found in four categories of literature (see below) intended to encourage full of Greco-Roman
forms and conventions. Yet it is all inspired, and through this book God speaks. As such, it is in this
writer’s opinion, so far and away the most important book to study in the world, that every other
book can be regarded as the dead reflective moon in comparison with the nuclear power and
unimaginable heat of the sun which consumes anything that approaches it.
2
See http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html (Dec, 2008) which summarises religion by
population. Christianity has been holding firm at about a 1/3 of the population for the last century.
Questions for your consideration

Why are you studying the New Testament in this way?
What do you hope to get out of the course?
How has the New Testament story shaped and impacted your life?
How would you describe the inspiration of the Scriptures?
What is the New Testament?

The word testament comes from the Latin testamentum which translates the Greek diathēkē
meaning ‘covenant’. Hence it relates to the covenant made with humanity through God by Jesus.
When we speak of the New Testament we are talking about what has become one book.3 Yet on
analysis there is much more to the New Testament than a book.
The New Testament is one chapter within one huge cosmic story
As I mentioned above, the New Testament is exciting, centred on an apocalyptic story involving a
glorious cosmic being and the people of his creation. It is a story of a loving glorious being who
because of his loving, creative character could not but help create (creation). It is a tragedy involving
the rejection of this magnificent being by his people who rebelled against his beneficence (the Fall)
leading to the chaos on earth (see esp. the Flood and Babel). It is a drama involving this beings
determination to save his people beginning with the call of one man and his family, Abraham and
Sarah. This drama plays out for several centuries as God leads this family (wilderness and on) which
became a nation giving them land (conquest); saving them repeatedly from enemies, twice when
oppressed by foreign nations (Egypt-Exodus; Babylon-Exile); giving them the law by which they are
to order their existence (Sinai) and protecting them, providing for them, speaking to them and being
their God. Their history is one of struggle, victory and worship, rebellion and a growing hope of
God’s ultimate intervention to restore Israel, to redeem humanity and restore them and God’s world
to the original intended eternal relationship with their God and to see evil overthrown! Their story
and the first part of the whole narrative are found in the Scriptures of Israel, the OT; part one of the
great cosmic story.
The New Testament begins with the wonderful story of God’s decisive and surprising intervention to
save his world and his people. It builds on and grows out of the indispensable first part of the story,
Jesus coming as a man of Israel to save the world. Indeed, Jesus can only be fully comprehended
against the history and traditions of this one people; he being a Jew among Jews. His ministry is an
amazing account of nondescript beginnings, miraculous birth, amazing miracles, powerful
proclamation, the forming of community and prophetic insight. The climax of this story is the tragic
killing of the innocent Son of God and Messiah by Jew and Roman (Gentile) and his astonishing,
unique and rationality–defying resurrection. This bewildering moment of utter surprise and the
subsequent granting of the very essence of God to those who believe (the Sprit) set ablaze a
movement that has grown like the tree in the mustard seed parable, to dominate God’s world. The
books from Acts to Jude tell the story of how the movement expanded; its first struggles, glories,
pains, martyrs, failures and above all, the glory of the triune God in his movement. The final chapter
hinted at in the first chapter, and repeatedly throughout the story of the NT, points ahead to the
glorious consummation of history when God’s wonderful Son and redeemer will return and gather
his people to himself, when evil will be utterly defeated, heaven and earth will be made new and
3
It is also called the ‘Second’ Testament in relation to the ‘First Testament’.
4
merge and those who accept the Godship of their creator, Father, Son and Spirit, will be with God
forever free from suffering and evil. It is a great story! The greatest story of all!
What makes it even greater is that we are involved in it. We are characters in the cosmic play. It
transcends the Matrix or any internet or television ‘reality show or game’; we are participants like it
or not. The story challenges us to join one or other of the two sides in the cosmic conflict and work
for good or ill. Hence, it is the greatest book in the world we are dealing with, at least part two of the
drama. We are to join the team of this creator God and work to make part three, four, five and on
glorious to his name.
The New Testament is a library of books

While the NT is seen as one book and one glorious story, it is in reality 27 books (or chapters of the
full story) which have been brought together and can be broken up in different ways. There are four
categories of NT book:
1. The Gospels: 4 are ‘Gospels’ (euangelion = good news) which tell the story of Jesus (Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John). They are four portraits of Jesus, four recollections, four windows into his life,
ministry and impact.
1.1. The Synoptic Gospels written by the ‘Evangelists’ (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which are all similar
in structure and have a great deal of common material.4
1.2. John which has some common material and some similarities in structure, but is in its detail
very different.
2. Acts: The ‘Acts of the Apostles’ which is effectively first century history and which tells the story
of the expansion of the church from the perspective of the spread of mission and the work of
the Spirit (cf. Acts 1:8):
2.1. The development of the Jerusalem church (Acts 1-8:4).
2.2. The expansion of the church into Judea, Samaria and the beginning of its impact in the
Gentile world particularly by members of the Jerusalem church (Acts 8-12).
2.3. The expansion of the church to the ends of the earth, and particularly Rome, through the
ministries of Paul and others (Acts 13-28).
4
Called Synoptic because they can be placed alongside one another in a Synopsis i.e. viewed (optic)
simultaneously (syn) and so contain common material.
3. Letters to churches and individuals:5

3.1. Paul’s letters to churches (Romans, 1/2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians,
Colossians, 1/2 Thessalonians) and to individual co-workers (1/2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon).6
3.2. Hebrews, a letter of unknown authorship to Jewish Christians under pressure.7
3.3. James, (Jesus’ bro) a letter to Christian Jews in the Diaspora.8
3.4. Peter’s letters to churches (1/2 Peter).9
3.5. John’s letters to churches and individuals (1/2/3 John).
3.6. Jude’s (another of Jesus’ bro’s) letter.10
4. Revelation: which is not only a letter, but is early Christian apocalyptic literature and prophecy
addressing the people of God under suffering and speaking of the culmination of world events.11
Dating the books

The dating of the various books is a matter of great controversy and debate. Such details will be
discussed in future NT classes. At this stage we can generally date them in this way:
ca. 6-4 BC The birth of Christ.

AD 30 The death and resurrection of Jesus.
AD 48-64 The letters of Paul.
AD 55-65 The Gospel of Mark.
AD 60’s-70’s The Gospels of Matthew and Luke.12
Late AD 60’s-80’s The Gospel of John.13
AD 60-90’s Other NT letters.14
The formation of the New Testament

Initially the Christians did not have their own Scriptures. They relied on the OT, particularly in its
Greek form (Septuagint or LXX). We can see this in that the NT, written in the main to Gentile
believers, is replete with quotes from the Greek OT. It is initially believed that the teachings of Christ
and the apostles were initially retained orally along with fragments of written tradition. It was only
as time evolved after Christ’s resurrection that the individual documents were formed into
collections, particularly towards the time of the death of key figures like Peter, Paul and John. Here, I
will note in general terms how it came together.
5
There is great debate about whether or not Paul wrote 1/2 Timothy, Titus; about whether Peter wrote 2
Peter. There is some debate out whether Paul wrote Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians.
6
Note in a number of these books there are co-authors/co-senders (e.g. 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1 or secretaries (e.g.
Tertius [Rom 16:22]).
7
Most popular as authors are Apollos and Barnabas; but this is speculation.
8
The Diaspora refers to the significant number of Jews who are scattered in the Gentile world beyond Israel.
9
Peter’s authorship is questioned by many, especially 2 Peter.
10
Hebrews, James, Peter’s letters, John’s letters and Jude are also called ‘Catholic Epistles’ or ‘General
Epistles’.
11
We will discuss apocalyptic literature in the NT Intro B. It is a type of literature which is full of vivid
symbolism, addresses a people in need of hope, has a strong sense of good and evil, judgement, reward and
speaks of the present and the future.
12
Some date these later in the 80’s; we will discuss this as we come to these books.
13
Most place John in the 80’s but a case can be made for the 60’s.
14
Some would argue James was written earlier; similarly, Hebrews.
6
A period of oral and fragmented written transmission

Our earliest NT documents are Paul’s letters beginning around 48-50AD (Galatians,15 Thessalonians).
The earliest Gospel is Mark, which was probably formed between 55-65AD. In terms of the stories of
Jesus which are so central to Christian belief, this means a period of 20-30 years from this time of his
death and resurrection to the writing of the first Gospels. It is believed that in this pre-literary and
pre-printing press time, in common with other cultures of the ANE, Christians remembered the
accounts through the passing on of the stories orally. Many evangelical scholars also argue that,
although we have little evidence, it is probable that during that time some of the accounts were
written down perhaps in Aramaic; accounts that were later translated into Greek. There have been
attempts to prove that Mark was originally an Aramaic document. Certainly this is possible with the
number of Aramaic phrases which remain in the text (cf. Mk 7:34; 14:36; 15:34) and Aramaisms
(Greek phrases which are dependent on Aramaic phraseology). However there is no real substantial
evidence of this.
This period of oral and fragmented written transmission leads some to argue against the authenticity
and certitude of the accounts (especially from Form Critics [see later]). However, this does not need
to be the case. Jesus, as a rabbinic teacher, would undoubtedly have taught the same stories and
sayings repeatedly and expected his intimate group of followers to remember these in true disciple
fashion. In addition, studies of ANE oral transmission show an amazing accuracy in the passing on of
material; key people (apostles, prophets, priests etc), charged with ensuring the accurate retelling of
the stories. In recent times the work of Richard Bauckham has shown that the Gospels demonstrate
evidence of the use of eye-witnesses, the evangelists gathering data direct from those who ‘were
there’ and so giving us great confidence that the stories were transmitted accurately as these eye-
witnesses recalled them.16
The writing of the original documents

The documents themselves each emerged from a moment in history. They were written by a person
(or people) to a person or group with a specific intention in mind. The study of the process of this
initial authorship is quite technical especially where the text itself does not tell us who wrote the
documents. Even where there is a name attached to the document it can become complex as people
note differences in style and theology which lead some to suggest alternative authors. Anyway,
when we read the NT we must be aware of these original contexts as we seek to find their meaning
and apply them today. We must remember too that while these accounts are inspired and so have a
divine side to them, they are also human documents whereby the account of Jesus and the early
Church is shaped by the purposes of the writer. So for example, Luke sets out his Gospel with the
intention of bringing clarification to a Greco-Roman aristocrat Theophilus and those people he
represents and organizes his material around the themes of salvation and mission; all of which leads
to a part two i.e. the story of the expansion of this salvation/mission to the ‘ends of the earth’,
Rome. We need to read the Gospels in particular with two contexts in mind (a double horizon); the
context in which Jesus ministered (First-century Palestine) and the context of the writer-recipients.
This complicates interpretation, but as we will see does not present us with an impossible task. In
fact, when you ‘get it’, biblical interpretation gets all the more exciting and interesting.
15
If we accept the earlier dating; others date it in the mid-50’s. Some see James earlier.
16
See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006).
The grouping of the documents

The process of bringing the documents together began rather early. The acceptance of the Gospels
as authoritative is apparent by the end of the second century. This process was catalysed by heretics
such as Marcion who rejected all but Luke and Gnosticism which produced a whole range of spurious
pseudonymous17 gospels (see later). By the end of the second century the unanimous voice of the
orthodox church accepted the Gospels. The Muratorian Canon which most date in the late first
century includes also Acts, Paul’s letters, Jude, 1-2 John and Revelation. It excludes Hebrews, James,
3 John and 1-2 Peter. Surprisingly it accepts the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter;
however, the acceptance of these documents is not general. In the early fourth century Eusebius the
church historian notes that the Gospels, Acts, the 14 letters of Paul (including Hebrews in his view), 1
John, 1 Peter and perhaps Revelation are undisputed (‘acknowledged’). James. Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3
John, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the
Didache, perhaps Revelation and the gospel of the Hebrews, he lists as disputed. Absolutely rejected
are the gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, the Acts of Andrew and John among others.18
It appears then that by the middle of the second century the ‘canon’ was forming and various lists
can be found among the ‘Church Fathers’ which indicate their view of which documents were in and
which were out. It was by the 4th—5th centuries that the church settled on the New Testament Canon
in the form of the 27 books we have today.19 As evangelicals we believe that this gathering is to be
understood as the work of the Spirit through the community of God’s faithful; God ensuring his word
is limited to those books he considers acceptable to bring a revelatory experience of Christ, the
establishment of orthodox Christianity and the guidelines by which his people will live.
The text of the documents

When we read a bible in our native tongue today we are reading a translation or paraphrase of the
original. There are various types of translation. Some seek to be literal to the text (NASB), some seek
to be as literal as possible to the text while retaining a level of interpretation and quality of writing
which makes its meaning more attainable to the reader (NIV, NRSV, NKJV, TNIV). Some are very
loose and try to make them easy to read and more prepared to take liberties with the text (Message,
Living Bible, GNB). This does not rule out their use as they have an important place in making the
message of the Scriptures understood; however, we who wish to study the text closely and glean its
original meaning need to be aware of the nature of the text in our hand.
Originally all the documents were written in Koine Greek (‘common dialect’).20 Koine Greek was the
dominant language of the educated people at the time of Christ and beyond (lingua franca). Some
believe that there was an original Aramaic Gospel from which Mark was derived but this is hard to
prove (see above). That it is written in Greek points to the dominance of Greek culture at the time. It
also indicates the missiological nature of the documents, the writings of the NT in the main dating
around the point at which the gospel extended beyond Israel to the Greek world.
17
Documents written in the name of another person to give it authority. Some believe 1-2 Timothy and Titus
(the Pastoral Epistles) are pseudonymous works. While it was common for pseudonymous works to be written
in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, there is strong evidence that the early church rejected any work that
was pseudonymous.
18
David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 1:856.
19
See Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 1, 852-858.
20
Introduced by the armies of Alexander the Great and common even among Jews in Palestine at the time of
Christ.
8
Finding the original text of each document is a science called textual criticism in which people study
the various Greek texts and versions that we now have and seek to trace the history of the text back
to the original. On the whole because of this science, we can be pretty confident of the Bibles we
have, there being general agreement over almost all of the text. Where there are differences these
are minor and do not alter the message of the NT.
The NT and the OT

Of course, the NT cannot really be read and understood without a good understanding of the Old
Testament. This is because the NT grows out of the OT, continuing its story. Put another way, ‘in
relation to Jesus, the OT precedes and anticipates, the NT follows and proclaims.’21 This is seen in
that Jesus was a Jew whose lineage is traced through the OT (Mt 1:1-16; Lk 3:23-38); in the
enormous number of OT passages which are quoted in the NT and the notes of fulfillment
throughout; in the language and culture of the original Christians who were Jewish through and
through. Similarly, the God of the OT is the God of the NT. Hence, to become competent as a
student of the NT requires study of the OT.
Course Approach
The nature of Scripture
When you come to Laidlaw it can be a bit of a shock. I remember my first few weeks of College and I
remember coming out of it battered and bruised. In the first year of College I found my way of
looking at the Bible pretty well smashed! Sometime in the second and third year it all came
together! It all related to trying to understand the Scriptures. Before I came to College I had a very
basic understanding of the Bible. I believed that it was the infallible Word of God, that it had
authority to lead us to truth on God’s behalf, that God had dictated it to human authors, that it was
written to me and I could take the word directly for my life without much critical thought. I came to
College and encountered a completely different way of doing things and it kind of freaked me out.
After a while of feeling suspicious and unsure and even finding that the Bible seemed to
stop speaking to me, I found that it came together. In fact, I love reading the Bible more than ever.
The nature of the Bible

At College we believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Our Statement of Faith says that we
as a College community believe that ‘God has revealed himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments. All Scripture is uniquely inspired by God and is therefore totally trustworthy and of
supreme and final authority in faith and life’. I believe this wholeheartedly. The details of this are
hard to nail down.
Some believe in a literal dictation of the Bible from God into the minds and pens of the writers. They
believe it is utterly inerrant.
Others who accept the authority of the Bible believe that humans wrote under the divine influence
of the Spirit and while not directly dictated,22 the words through the work of the Spirit in inspiration
21
Achtemeier, Green and Thompson, 1.
22
Rather than dictation, if forced to define this, I would refer to the Spirit hovering over the writer as in the
case of creation and governing the process rather than direct word-by-word dictation. Then, through the very
human words of Scripture, as the Spirit and Word interconnect in the reader (s), the message God has for that
person and situation was conveyed in its original setting. This process goes on as we read it or hear it
and illumination, God speaks his Word. Many believe that the concept of inerrancy and infallibility is
not that helpful because these notions are so hard to define, they tell us what the Bible isn’t,23 and
are modern concepts read back into ancient documents. While not denying inerrancy,24 they prefer
to define the authority of the Bible in terms of its reliability, consistency, inspiration and while never
conceding it is errant (some do, not me), realise that the notion of inerrancy/errancy is a distraction
and it means we have to continually defend the text of Scripture and not discern its meaning.
Such people, of which I am now one, accept there is a mystery over the interplay of the human and
divine in the text. We believe we do not worship the text (bibliolatry) but that through the text and
the illumination of the Spirit as we encounter it, we find God and his will for life. The inspiration of
Scripture is seen in where it leads, to God, to Christ, to the Spirit and to salvation. In other words, to
quote Stuart Lange, the Living Word is found through the Written Word.
So, this course is central to our understanding, because in it we study the central part of the Bible,
the account of the life of Jesus. We are studying the words and life of the Son of God who came from
God to reveal the truth of who God is and how to know God. For me personally, when it comes to
theological decision making, I weigh these texts very heavily for they provide central account of the
lens through which all of the Bible and life is read (Christ).
The big story (the Bible as narrative)

At College we are increasingly taking the approach that the Bible needs to be understood as one big
coherent story, a narrative. Now don’t get confused at this point and think that by story we mean
something fictional. We don’t believe that at all. We believe that through the work of the Spirit
through human authors, the big story or narrative of God’s cosmic plan for humanity and his
governance of history is known. The Bible then is the story of God and his dealings with earth (I
recommend that here you pause and read Acts 7 and get the feel of this big story from Stephen
before his death).
It starts with God who we know to be one pre-existent Being in three eternal personal forms. It
moves to the Creation of this glorious world and God’s beloved, humanity. It tragically moves to Fall
and the rebellion of God and his and her rejection of relationship with God on his terms. This Fall
extrapolates exponentially into human sin and cosmic decay seen not only in war, violence,
oppression and more, but in natural disasters which are also a result of the fallen cosmos. The story
then moves to redemption as God calls a man and his wife Abraham and Sarah who walk in
relationship with him and through whom God’s plan is conceived. Their descendants the Patriarchs
Isaac (and Rebekah), Jacob (and Leah and Rachel) continue walking with this God.
The OT is the story of this family that became a nation Israel and their relationship with God through
covenant. The story is a real life blood and guts account of the promise of a land which was
frustratingly unfulfilled for hundreds of years; nomadic living; famine; salvation in Egypt through the
grace of the lost son Joseph; brutal oppression under Rameses II, salvation through God’s
intervention and call of Moses and the plagues; the foundational event of the nation’s history the
Exodus; the soul-destroying Wilderness experience as Israel struggled to hold firm to God in the
proclaimed; the Spirit connecting with the Word and producing a living word in the moment for our lives.
23
That is they are without error (in-). I prefer to define the Bible by what it is: reliable, authority, trustworthy
etc.
24
If pushed I would agree that the Bible is without error in the sense of the intention of the author, the original
documents in their original language (now lost), its genre and function. However these are all so slippery that
one ends up an impasse. One cannot prove error; one cannot disprove error… there is always an
epistemological (study of knowledge) gap whereby we cannot prove our case.
10
brutal heat of the desert including God’s sovereign guidance of Israel through fire and cloud, the
tabernacle and God’s presence; the establishing of the covenant on Sinai where Moses met God on
the mountain and received the terms of the covenant the Ten Commandments; the tragedy of the
Golden Calf as Israel in the absence of Moses turned to idolatry and paid the price.
From the Wilderness the story moves to the Conquest of the Land and the fulfilment of the promise;
the period of the Judges as Israel cycled between obedience and disobedience and the intervention
of God to save them again and again under inspired Spirit-empowered leaders; the move to
monarchy which led to idolatry as Israel under successive kings, struggled between obedience to the
covenant and God and turning to foreign gods becoming like the nations around them; the Prophets
who arose to call Israel back to YHWH, to the covenant, to concern for social justice in the people of
God; the failure of Saul, the arising of the archetypal King David to whose house, and despite his
failings, God promised an eternal covenant; to the tragic Division of Israel, the split of the
community of Israel into north (Israel) and south (Judah) as the north rebelled against the
oppression of Solomon; to first demolition and Exile of the north (Israel) by the Assyrians, judgement
for idolatry; to the demolition and Exile of the south by the Babylonians and the destruction of
Judah, the beloved temple and Jerusalem.
After this seventy year period of suffering, comes the miraculous restoration of the nation under
Cyrus of Persia, the rebuilding of the temple at the instigation of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi and the reestablishment of Jerusalem and the nation; yet the continual subjugation of Israel
under foreign rule as they failed repeatedly to honour God and fulfil their mission call to be the light
to the Gentiles; the hope of a Messiah who would come from the line of David and restore Israel,
overthrow her oppressors, reign with justice and power, establishing God’s kingdom on earth.
And so humanity at the end of the OT period and into the intertestamental period (or as it is now
commonly called, Second Temple Judaism) is lost in sin, oppression and confusion about who God is.
Israel itself is a melting pot of different beliefs and perspectives; yet, at the centre, is the hope of a
Messiah.
This is where this course kicks in. God moves and sends his Son Jesus who enters his world and
humanity in a totally unexpected way who, through a miraculous virgin birth, became a human baby
in the womb of an ‘insignificant’ women in a tiny town. He is preceded by an important figure John
the Baptist, who as the last in the line of pre-Christ prophets and the forerunner to the Messiah
anticipated by Malachi and Isaiah, prepares people for the coming of the Messiah. He grows up and
at 30 is filled with the Spirit and propelled into a three-year ministry that changed the world. And yet
his identity is veiled and only some get it. He performs unbelievable miracles even walking on water,
calming a storm, raising the dead. Yet he refuses to do signs on demand to satisfy the demands of
the hypocritical power-hungry leaders of the nation. He feeds the poor, he hangs with sinners, he
heals the sick, restores the marginalised, he teaches an ethic of love and a renunciation of power,
materialism and human depravity that revolutionises humanity. He calls people to follow him, a
small band of people accept the call, and he appoints leaders from them; hardly the type of people
one might expect from the World’s CEO. They recognise that he is the Messiah, but do not have any
idea of what that means! They only get half the story.
And then it all goes wrong. He enters Jerusalem, his followers heralding him as their Messiah and
King. They see him enter the Temple to challenge its blasphemy. The followers no doubt expect him
then to take on the Romans and establish God’s reign as the prophets had predicted. But they had
failed to read the story well and notice the other things the Prophets had said about a suffering
servant who would die for the nation and world! And so tragically and totally unexpectedly he is
unjustly arrested, beaten, sentenced to death, crucified and buried in a rich man’s tomb. All hope is
gone! He is not Messiah! He is dead! Messiahs do not suffer and die! Messiahs are not crucified for
anyone who is hung on a tree is cursed! God’s Messiah is not killed by the Roman or this means that
YHWH is inferior to their gods and their emperor!
But then on the following Sunday, at first light, it all changes… the women find the grave empty and
do not get it; that he has risen from the dead. He appears to Mary, to Peter, to James, to two on the
road, to the twelve, to Thomas, to 500, to seven in Galilee; giving convincing proofs. He calls them to
go to all nations and tell the Good News. He gives them the mission he himself began, to call all
humanity into relationship to God and to work for the restoration of God’s original intention for his
world. His movement explodes, thousands come to believe, they receive power from on high and
they come to understand who this man was and is. He is the Messiah, he is the Son of God, he is the
Lord of the cosmos, he is the creator become flesh, he is the redeemer of the world.
So they begin to spread the message. Opposition arises, they are imprisoned, they are beaten and
are killed. They refuse to relent. They refuse to take up the weapons of this world, violence, power
and coercion; choosing rather, the weapons of love, servitude, sacrifice and proclamation.
Then, miraculously, the leader of their enemies, the architect of the destruction of their movement
Paul, has an experience of this same resurrected one. In that moment of meeting Jesus, he realises
in an instant that he is wrong to resist, he is converted, he is filled with the Spirit and it is he who
really works through the cosmic significance of what has occurred. He sets about telling the world.
He travels with teams through Asia and Greece establishing communities of believers.
Others join him and are catalysed into action because of him. The message takes on a life of its own
and goes global! Men and women are impelled by the Spirit and message and take the good news to
the world. It is a movement that cannot be stopped. It spreads like a forest fire with a life of its own
as average people like you and me get it and cannot help but spread it.
This story goes on. The mission goes on. The story of the church has gone on for 2000 years and we
continue the drama! It is a story of obedience and disobedience, truth and heresy, State and Church,
clashes with other beliefs, unity and schism, love and war! Yet through it God’s glory has shone! And
we are participants in the story. The Acts of the Apostles ends at chapter 28 in terms of the
Scriptures, but it goes on.
Each of us is a chapter and our lives intersect to form new chapters. As we study the formative story
of our faith, we will find our own lives and stories continually intersecting by the power of the Spirit,
and so the Spirit will lead us to take our part in the Story.
The place of NT in the big story

Everything you study at College is about this big story. In OT you study the story of humanity and
Creation through to the last of the Prophets Malachi, at which time prophecy died in the land.
In NT you study the climactic event of the coming of the Messiah and the accounts. In the first part
of the course we will look in particular at the central events of the Gospels; the four accounts; the
coming of the Messiah; the Kingdom of God; the miracles; the parables; the teaching of the Great
One; the death and resurrection of the Messiah and Son of God.
Then we will look at the continuation of the story in the chapter of the Church. We look through the
eyes of Luke in Acts at the account of the first Church in Jerusalem; the Spread of the Gospel through
Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth through Philip, Peter and Paul.
12
Finally, we will look in brief at the letters of the NT which give deep insight into the purposes of God
and the life of the Church and mission; we look at Revelation and seek to understand its message to
us.
In Church History you will look at the story as it unfolded throughout the World from the end of the
Biblical Account in the late first century to the present. You will look at good parts and bad parts of
the story. At times the Church has walked closely to the Word and the Spirit honouring God and
Jesus; at times it has lost the plot. As we study this part of the story, we learn invaluable lessons for
living out our part faithfully.
In Theology we will seek to bring it all together, developing a methodology for understanding God
and his purposes; bringing the best insights of the OT, the NT, church history, philosophy and human
experience and thinking about God. Central to this exercise with be the Scriptures and the truth that
comes from their pages through exegesis, reflection and thought. You will work through the faith
and find your beliefs transformed. While many questions can be answered with great certitude, you
will find that not all questions can be answered conclusively; rather, there will be a multiple
possibilities; and you will learn to work through them, weigh them and make your own decisions.
Most importantly, you will learn how to think theologically and apply the faith to your life, to
ministry, to church and world.
In Biblical Interpretation you will look at how to interpret these Scriptures; how to read the Story;
how to weigh the various parts of the story; how to bring together a coherent picture of God, Jesus,
the Spirit, the church, the world and all of life.
In other papers such as Christian Ed, Pastoral Care, mission, preaching, leadership, spiritual
formation etc, you will apply the insights of theology with the Bible to the various dimensions of
ministry and life. Each of these is an element of the Story as the message goes to the world to see
the lost found and to transform all of life on behalf of God and his project.
Christ the centre

It is a big story, but we believe there is a centre. The centre is Christ! The story moves from God, to
creation, to Fall, to Israel and there is an ever-growing sense of crescendo; the Messiah. The coming
of Christ means we need to go back to the first parts of the story and re-read them; he is the lens of
Scripture. The story goes bleak and desperate for 3 days as this Messiah is killed. Then, the
resurrection is the ultimate moment in the story; the climax of the narrative, from which all else
flows. What follows in the letters of the NT then must also be read in the light of Christ, always
pointing us to Christ and what he means for us, for the church, for life and for everything! The
Gospels then are central in that they take us directly to the account of his life. Hence, I cannot stress
the importance of this course more. If you want to know Christ and the purposes of God, this is the
starting point for here we have the four central historical accounts.
Hermeneutics
Many people who come to College tend to read the Scriptures in a simple way. They read the text,
reflect on it devotionally, and apply it to their lives. Now this is good, God wants humanity to read
his text and apply it. Many great Christians have lived this way for centuries and go on living like this
today. However, we believe that as we mature that our methodology for reading the Scriptures, as
with all our Christian lives, should grow toward maturity. As we are here to become more adept with
the Word and to go out and teach it to others, we are to move beyond this simplistic approach and
teach others to do the same.
As such, we see that there is a little bit more to reading the Bible than just reading it flatly and
applying it to our lives.
What we do here, and there are variations which you will learn as you go, is this.
1. Reading it in context: We believe the first step is to understand the text in its original context.
That is, we don’t just read it, we study it and we seek to understand what it meant back when it
was first written. This means working out what the author meant, what the words narrated
mean, what they meant to the first hearers, what was going on in the historical and social
background of the text… the goal; to understand what it meant when it was written. We believe
care needs to be taken not to simply and without thought interpret one part of Scripture against
another; rather, John should be first interpreted against John and the obvious connections he
makes; rather than reading John through the eyes of Paul. One way of understanding this is to
ask ‘what is the story behind a particular text?’ That is, what is going on? How does it fit into the
big story? Here the work of biblical scholars is the basis.
2. Drawing from the text in context meaning: We believe that we should then draw from the text
meaning based on this first reading of the text. This is what is applied; not the text itself without
thought; but the principles and lessons drawn from the story of the text. Here the work of
theologians is exceedingly helpful, as they seek to bring together meaning from text and apply
it.
3. Reading our world: We believe that to apply the lessons and meaning of the story of the text to
today’s world means that we need to understand the world just as deeply as we understand the
text. We realise that the world today is hugely different from the world of the OT and NT. We
need to know the differences and know our own situation. Here sociological, world view and
culture studies are important so we know our world.
4. Careful application: Then we apply what we have learned to the world. In this way, we are
careful not to make the Bible say what it does not or falsely apply it and come up with strange
results.
5. Now this is not a linear process! There is a constant movement between these four dimensions
as we study the Word. It is, as Grant Osborne suggests, a spiral (hermeneutical spiral), we
moving back and forth between these elements of interpretation.25 Sometimes we start with the
World and a question; at times we start with the Text and a question. We all bring our own
assumptions to the Text based on our experience in life and faith and these sometimes need
sorting out. We will study more on this in the future in Interpretative Method.
Questions to consideration
• How would you summarise the importance and message of the New Testament in one or
two short sentences?
• How would you describe the relationship of the NT to the OT?
• What questions does the concept of One Story bring to your minds?
• How do you feel about the approach to Scripture mentioned here? What questions does it
raise? Does it make sense?
25
See Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.
14

Chapter Two
THE JEWISH BACKGROUND TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
Contents
The nation of Israel ............................................................................................................................... 16
The Intertestamental Period (Second Temple Judaism) ................................................................... 16
Geographical Features ...................................................................................................................... 17
Population ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Language ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Cultural influences ............................................................................................................................ 18
An Occupied Nation .......................................................................................................................... 19
A Nation under Roman Rule ............................................................................................................. 20
Special Jewish privileges under Rome .............................................................................................. 23
Key Dates concerning Rome ............................................................................................................. 24
Jewish attitudes to Romans .............................................................................................................. 24
Judaism in NT Times .............................................................................................................................. 25
Theological features .......................................................................................................................... 25
Institutions of Judaism ...................................................................................................................... 26
The Literature of Judaism ................................................................................................................. 27
Important Jewish Parties ...................................................................................................................... 28
The Sadducees .................................................................................................................................. 28
The Pharisees .................................................................................................................................... 28
The Zealots (Or Nationalists). ........................................................................................................... 29
The Essenes (Qumran Community) .................................................................................................. 30
The Common People (‘the people of the land’) ............................................................................... 30
The Samaritans ................................................................................................................................. 30
The Diaspora (‘Dispersion’) ............................................................................................................... 31
Popular Prophetic Movements ......................................................................................................... 31
Peasant and Urban Life ......................................................................................................................... 31
The life of the peasant ...................................................................................................................... 31
Urban and Elite life ........................................................................................................................... 32
Corporate mindset ............................................................................................................................ 32
Patronage .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Status honour/shame ....................................................................................................................... 33
Patriarchy .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Questions for your consideration ......................................................................................................... 33

15

The Jewish background to the New Testament
The nation of Israel
Understanding the NT requires getting a good handle on the context. The content of the NT falls in
the period 6BC‐90AD and covers the region from Israel, around the north‐eastern rim of the
Mediterranean through to Rome. The writing of the NT falls in the period 48‐90AD.

That being the case, a good understanding of the history, culture, religious, political and social
setting of life at this time greatly helps us grasp the meaning of the NT. First, we will look at the
context in Palestine. Secondly, we will look at the wider context of the Gentile world.
The Intertestamental Period (Second Temple Judaism)

Traditionally, prophecy ended in Israel after Malachi (ca. 433BC), the last book in the OT. The time
between Malachi and the NT is called ‘the intertestamental period’. 1

Our knowledge of this period comes from a set of important historical writings including Josephus,
the apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls (see below on the literature of Judaism).

In this period Israel experienced the rule of Greece under Alexander the Great (331‐323BC); Egypt
under the Ptolemies (323‐198BC); Syria under the Seleucids (198‐167BC). Then followed the
Maccabean revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty (167‐63BC) and finally Rome (63BC+). As we will see,
Jewish culture and theology was influenced greatly during these experiences.

2
A Map of Palestine

1
Today scholars speak more of ‘Second Temple Judaism’ rather than the Intertestamental period.
2
Taken from Nelson’s Book of Maps and Charts from Libronix.

Geographical Features
Israel or Palestine at the time of Christ was characterised by a number of geographical features. It
was flanked on the west by the Great Sea (Mediterranean); on the east by the Jordan River (in which
Jesus was baptised) and the Dead Sea beyond which was the rugged and arid lands of the
Transjordan. To the north was Lebanon and to the south Egypt. Israel was divided up into three
areas:

Judea (south) in which is found Jerusalem.
Samaria (north of Judea).
Galilee (north) in which Jesus primarily ministered.
Another important key geographical features include the Sea of Galilee where much of Jesus’
ministry occurred. It is also know in the Bible by the names ‘sea of Chinnereth’ (Num 34:11), ‘sea of
Chinneroth’ (Jos 12:3), ‘lake of Gennesaret’ (Lk. 5:1), ‘Sea of Tiberias’ (Jn. 21:1). Today it is known as
Yam Kinneret. 3 It is 21km long and 11km broad. Most of the towns in which Jesus ministered were
on its shores e.g. Capernaum, Bethsaida.
The land in which Jesus ministered was dry and hot. The annual rainfall is about 800mm/yr in Galilee
approximating the rainfall of the Canterbury Plains or Hawkes Bay. The annual rainfall was about
500mm/yr in Jerusalem which is approximately equal to the driest places in Central Otago.
Temperature wise, while there are variations, the region experiences on average mild winters (in
Jan. 7°C [Jerusalem]; 12°C [Gaza]) and hot summers (in July 23°C [Jerusalem]; 26°C [Gaza]; 38°C
[Jericho]) which can even peak in Jericho at 43‐49°C.

Palestine has a great contrast in altitude ranging from to 390 m below sea level at the Dead Sea to
1,020 m above sea‐level near Hebron meaning there is a wide range of vegetation. 4

Population
The population in Galilee at the time of Christ is estimated to be between 200,000‐ 300,000
(Josephus), 5 about the population of the Waikato. The population of Jerusalem was about 80,000, 6
about that of Tauranga‐Mt Maunganui and like this NZ centre at Christmas‐New Year, increased
dramatically during festivals (cf. Mt Maunganui at New Year). The overall worldwide Jewish
population was approximately 7,000,000, with over 5,000,000 living outside of Palestine in the
Diaspora (dispersion). The Jewish population of Palestine was around 1,000,000 – 1,500,000, with
the total population being around 2,000,000 meaning that only half the population of Palestine were
Jewish. Most of these lived in Judea and a pocket in the North in Galilee.

The city of Jerusalem was very much the heart of the nation. It was cosmopolitan and not isolated
from the world as we sometimes think. Jerusalem contained the amazing temple that was one of the
wonders of the world; it had a hippodrome, gymnasium, theatres etc. It was the centre of Judaism,
the site of the temple and so a centre for religious pilgrimage and festival.

Socio‐Economic Conditions

3
D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 395.
4
5 See Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 252.
6
See Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 3, 753
17

Socio‐economically the main income/revenue came from agriculture, fishing, trade and commerce in
that order. From 10‐70 AD the economy had declined due to over‐population, high taxation, natural
disasters, and the class struggles resulting in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Hence there was substantial poverty. These conditions provide an illuminating backdrop to the many
parables and teachings of Jesus on wealth and poverty.

There were three main socio‐economic groups in Palestine.
The wealthy: These tended to be land owners, those in political positions, etc. It included
the Royal family (the Herodians) who owned around half the land and the Chief priests and
their families. They derived income from the sacrifices and the temple treasury as well as
through a number of means of exploitation against the poorer people. Finally, there were
the aristocrats (landed nobility).
The Upper‐Lower Class: There was no real middle class in the nation. However, there were
those tradesmen, artisans and priests who serviced the nobility and lived above a
subsistence level. These first two groups were a vast minority, of only around 5 ‐ 10%.
The Poor: These made up 90% of the population who were in the main poor and lived a
subsistence existence. They lived on the edge of poverty and often lost their land due to
debts etc. They were encumbered with taxation from Rome, the temple system, the tithing
structure and at the mercy of the weather and other natural events.
Language
Four languages existed in common use in this era; Aramaic, Hebrew, Koine Greek and Latin. Aramaic
had become the dominant language in the Persian period but was being replaced by Greek. It would
probably have been the dominant language spoken in Palestine and by Jesus Himself. Koine Greek
had been introduced through Alexander the Great (331‐323 BC) and those who followed and was
the lingua franca of the Roman Empire and was the dominant language among the educated in
Palestine and the Mediterranean world. Hebrew was the official religious language of Judaism
among scholars, at worship and in temple activity. Latin was the official Roman language of the
Government and its citizens but was rare among the general populace.

Cultural influences
As a result of the impact of foreign powers and their cultures (see below), Israel at the time of Christ
was not mono‐cultural. Apart from the obvious influences of Jewish culture (see Judaism below),
some of the influencing cultural and social factors include Hellenism and Rome in particular:

Hence, although Paul's world was under Roman rule, it was Greco‐Roman with a dominance of the
Greek culture.

Hellenism: Philip II of Macedonia defeated the Greeks in 338BC. His son Alexander the Great
became emperor of Macedonia in 336BC and there followed an amazing dissemination of
Greek culture. Alexander himself established thirty Greek cities. After his death in 323 BC the
Diadochi (“successors”) split the kingdom in three, the Antigonids in Macedonia, the
Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Seleucids in Syria. The Ptolemies also controlled Palestine until
198BC. This control was relinquished to the Seleucids who controlled Palestine until the
Maccabean revolt in 167BC. Through this expansion the culture of Hellenism had a
tremendous impact. This included language (Attic/Koine Greek), business models, education
and politics. There was a substantial spread of the Greek language (Koine Greek [common

language]). Aramaic was the language of the people while Koine became the language of
business, commerce, politics etc A good example of the influence of Hellenism is Philo who
was ‘willing to dress the Law of Moses in Hellenistic culture’ 7 (see below). Palestine was
under Greek rule for several hundred years so the influence was great. 8 Greater cultural
interaction and openness meant urban populations were more heavily influenced than rural.
This led to a syncretism and fusing of Jewish and Greek ideas and movements of separatism
as a response. The Romans were also highly influenced by Greek culture from the 8th
century BC. While the Romans vanquished the Greeks, every aspect of Roman culture was
highly influenced by the Greeks. E.M. Yamauchi states, “there is hardly any aspect of higher
culture that was not decisively influenced by the Greeks: art, architecture, literature, drama,
9
medicine, philosophy and religion which were highly affected by the Greeks.” Romans were
expected to know Greek by the second century AD.
Rome: The desire for political peace throughout the empire and the free flow of goods and
taxes led to the establishment of the famed Roman road and sea transport systems. Roman
military bases were found throughout the Empire. The Roman approach to colonisation
through cooperative means meant that their culture did not influence nations as much. For
example, the use of local tax‐collectors to gather taxes. Their influence was greatest among
the elite who received citizenship and tended to favour cooperation with Rome. Latin was
not widespread.
An Occupied Nation
At the time of the NT Israel had been an occupied country, at least in part, since the 8th century BC.
Lying on the Fertile Crescent, it was essential for trade to dominate Israel as it provided the link from
Europe, Asia Minor and Mesopotamia to Africa. The key historical points include:
The division of north and south by Jereboam (930‐913BC cf. 1 Kgs 12). This indicated and
inflamed long term north‐south hostility which extended through to the NT where
Samaritans were despised by Jews.
The conquest and exile of the north including Galilee and Samaria by Shalmanesar V and
Sargon II (722BC cf. 2 Kgs 17).
The conquest and exile of the south including Jerusalem by Babylon Nebuchadnezzar in 587
(cf. 2 Kgs 24‐25).
The restoration at the release of exiled Jews from Babylon by Cyrus when Babylon fell to the
Persians and Medes (539‐537BC cf. Ezra).
The conquest of Israel by Greece under Alexander the Great (332‐198BC). This led to an
improved standard of living and administration, Hellenisation and the extension of Greek
culture (above).
Ptolemy rule (Egypt) (323‐198BC):10 This was a time of peace and freedom for Jews. 11 In this
time there was the development of ‘tax farmers’, locals who took taxes for the Hellenistic

7
Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, 23.
8
Consider the influence of Europeans on Maori culture over 200 years and one gets a feel for the possible
impact.
9
E.M. Yamauchi. 'Hellenism', in DPL, 385.
10
Alexander left no heir so there was a power struggle among his generals. After 22 yrs (323‐301BC) the
empire was divided into two dynasty’s: Seleucids (based in Syria); Ptolemies (based in Egypt). From 311BC
Israel was under Ptolemaic reign.
19

authorities cf. tax collectors. Ptolemy III (246‐222BC) promoted scientific investigation
including the idea that the world was spherical (he was right!).
Seleucid control of Israel (198BC): This period saw an increase in taxation and the promotion
of Hellenism. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) (175BC+) (a ‘madman’ [Polybius]) profaned the
temple by erecting Zeus in the temple, enforced Hellenism and enforced the violation of the
law leading to rebellion. Faithful Jews called Hasidim (‘Pious ones’) stood up to this
perceived syncretism and conflict ensued.
The Maccabean revolt against Seleucid (Syria) control (166‐142 BC): After the desecration of
the temple Mattathias and the old priests refused to sacrifice to Zeus and the war began.
Judas (Maccabeus) continued the attacks and by 164BC had regained control of the temple.
Hannukah celebrates the liberation of Israel (cf. Jn 10:22). By 142BC Seleucid control was
removed which led to 80 years of independence seen as ‘the golden age of Jewish
nationalism’. 12 This gives background for anti‐Gentile sentiment in the NT (cf. Acts 22:3‐21).
It was a time when tremendous Messianic hopes were kindled. The zeal diminished in the
dynasty over time. During this time there was increased antagonism to Samaritans.
Ultimately the Hasidim, the probable forerunners to the Pharisees, became critics of the
Maccabeans.
Roman occupation by Pompey and control (63BC): By the time of Christ’s ministry, Israel had
been under Roman rule for about 100 years (see below).
Thus, Israel, apart from the Maccabean period, Israel had been a nation under foreign rule for 600
years. Even in the time of the revolt, the Hasmonean Dynasty resembled an aristocratic, Hellenistic
regime sometimes hard to distinguish from the Seleucids. On the whole then, the people of Israel
yearned for freedom from oppression at the hands of foreign powers. This gives important
background to the New Testament.

A Nation under Roman Rule

As noted above, the people of Judea had been under Roman rule since 63BC. There are a number of
Roman emperors who are relevant to study of the NT.

Emperors in NT times
DATES NAME RELATIONSHIP TO NT
27BC‐14AD Augustus Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s births
14‐37AD Tiberius Jesus’ childhood and ministry
37‐41AD Gaius (Caligula) Acts
41‐54 AD Claudius Acts; famine (11:28); expulsion of Jews
from Rome (Acts 18:2)
54‐68AD Nero Acts; Paul in Roman prison (prison
letters), persecution, Revelation?
68‐69AD 13 Jewish Civil War Not directly mentioned
69AD Otho
69AD Vitellius
69‐79 Vespasian The fall of Jerusalem under Titus (66‐70)

11
Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 13.
12
Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 17.
13
‘Called the year of the four emperors’, a period of conflict until Vespasian emerged as Emperor.

79‐81AD Titus
81‐96AD Domitian Revelation, persecution
96‐98 Nerva
98‐117 Trajan

Governance of Roman Provinces
The Roman Empire at the time of Jesus, as we can see below, was immense covering Italy, modern
Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and areas of northern Africa.

The Roman Empire at the Time of Christ 14

Such a huge area required careful administration. There were two kinds of provinces governed by
governors of senatorial rank:

‘Public’ or ‘consular’ provinces governed by proconsuls under the authority of the Senate in Rome.
Usually these were richer and more settled provinces.

‘Imperial’ provinces governed by legates, appointed by the Emperor (mostly frontier provinces, such
as Syria, where legions were stationed).

14
Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps & Charts : Old and New
Testaments., "Completely Revised and Updated Comfort Print Edition"; Includes Indexes., Rev. and
updated ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1996), no page.
21

There was a third class of governors known as prefects or procurators of lower ‘equestrian’ rank,
who looked after smaller provinces like Judea (e.g. Pilate in Judea). They were financially astute, had
judicial and military power and had military troops. They tended to rule in a ‘supervisory’ rather than
executive manner with a minimum of Roman officials and using local administration. Hence the
Roman governor was ultimately responsible for the area, but a local council or king administered the
day to day running of the province. In Palestine the area was administered by the Sanhedrin
('seventy', 70 members + high priest). The Sanhedrin consisted of wealthy aristocrats who were
mostly Sadducees and priests. The high priest had control over this group. They appear to have had
a great degree of authority except the right to sentence someone to death.

Through this medium Rome tended to respect local laws and customs to ensure smooth
government. Those locals who were Roman citizens came under Roman law.

Rome took Judea under Pompey 66‐63BC. When he captured Jerusalem he cleansed the temple and
reinstated the High Priest Hyrcanus. Syria became a Roman imperial province including Samaria.
Judea, Galilee, Idumea and Perea were left under the Jews but remaining accountable to Rome.
Julius Caesar appointed Antipater procurator of Judea. His son Herod, who had been governor of
Galilee, won from Rome the title ‘King of the Jews’, and he reigned from 37 to 4 BC (cf. Mt 2:1; Lk
3:1) including the time of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. He extended his territories, rebuilt and enlarged
Caesarea into a port city for the Romans that served as the Roman provincial capital for Palestine
during the NT period. The magnificent aqueducts are still visible there today. He also restored the
Jerusalem Temple over a period of almost fifty years on a lavish scale (including Greco‐Roman
architectural features). Herod the Great loved Hellenistic and Roman culture and encouraged it.
However, he was considered cruel and ruthless by the people.

After his death, his kingdom was split into three. First, Herod Antipas was appointed Tetrarch
(governor of a fourth part of a province) of Galilee and Perea (4 BC‐AD 39). He was responsible for
the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist (cf. Mt 14:1‐12; Lk 3:19, 20). Secondly, Philip was
appointed Tetrarch of Trachonitis and Iturea (4 BC ‐ AD34) (cf. Lk 3:1). Thirdly, Archelaus was
appointed ethnarch (governor of a province) in Judea, Idumea and Samaria (4 BC ‐ AD 6; cf. Mt 2:22;
Lk 3:1). Archelaus’ rule ended in terrible riots, and he was banished with Judea coming under the
control of Roman governors. Another Herod of importance to the NT is Herod the Great’s grandson
Agrippa was named ruler over all of Palestine by the Roman emperor Caligula. Agrippa is known as a
persecutor of early Christians. He had James put to death and had Peter arrested. Because of his
cruelty and blasphemy, Agrippa was slain by an angel of the Lord (Acts 12). In AD50, Agrippa’s son,
known as Agrippa II, was made ruler of the king of Chalcis’s territory. Later he was given Abilene,
Trachonitis, Acra, and important parts of Galilee and Perea. The only reference to this Herod in the
New Testament occurs in Acts 25:13–26:32, which deals with Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea.
Agrippa II listened to Paul’s defense, but the apostle appealed to Rome. Agrippa had no power to set
him free.


Family Tree of Herod 15

Special Jewish privileges under Rome

In line with their attitude of tolerance to local religions, Jews were granted special privileges. They
were granted exemption from the worship of Roman god's and given modified participation in the
Imperial cult, due to their passionate Yahwistic monotheism and stubborn resistance to the point of
death. They were allowed to offer sacrifices and prayers 'on behalf' of Caesar not 'to' Caesar. Jewish
religious customs such as Sabbaths, and dietary laws were sanctioned. Rome did this for pragmatic
reasons, to maintain their hold on the nation and to ensure the taxes came through. It was also
feared by Rome that the Jews who were by now very dispersed, would join with the Pantheons and
cause an uprising. The existence of strong Jewish messianic prophesies suggesting another king
would come to lead the Jews against the Romans meant that Rome took care to keep an eye on this
belief that another kingdom but Rome would arise. One of the results of these privileges was a lot of
anti‐Semitism in the empire.

15
Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts : Old and New Testaments. electronic ed.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1996.
23

Key Dates concerning Rome

Date Event
63BC Pompey captures Jerusalem
63BC Hyrcanus appointed ethnarch, reinstated high priest
55-43BC Antipater procurator of Judea
34BC-4BC Herod the Great
4BC-AD6 Archelaus, ethnarch
AD6 Judea made into a Roman province
AD 6-9 Quirinius governer of Syria
4BC-AD34 Philip, tetrarch
4BC-AD39 Herod Antipas, tetrarch
AD26/27-36 Pontius Pilate governor of Judea
AD41-44 Herod Agrippa I rules as ‘King of the Jews’
AD44 Palestine’s rule returns to Roman governers
AD66-70 Jewish War and siege of Jerusalem (70)
AD73 Masada (the last stand)
AD132-135 Bar Kokhba revolt, Judea becomes a Roman colony

How the unity of the Roman Empire was achieved
An important question is how the Romans managed to hold together such a diverse empire. First,
Rome’s military might enabled them to overrule and where necessary, to use force. Secondly, the
granting of Roman citizenship particularly to those in power (to the elite, puppet kings and
aristocrats) enabled Rome to illicit support in the power structures of the conquered peoples. This
meant they could rule through these means. Thirdly, through a common cultural basis based around
language, trade and travel they could maintain unity. In particular, the Romans are famous for
creating a network of roads throughout the empire, many of which remain as the basis of modern
reading. Finally, their policy of allowing freedom to local religion enabled them not to challenge the
power structures of the societies they encountered, in which religion was central. They would only
intervene where religion got in the way of Rome’s power or taxes, or if Jewish (and other)
proselytism was gaining Roman citizens who then lost interest in their own religions. The Imperial
cult was enforced but this was as much a political measure as religious.

Jewish attitudes to Romans

There was a great variety among the Jews toward Romans. They can be broken up very generally
into pro‐Roman, anti‐Roman and pragmatic approaches.

Pro‐Roman: These included those who benefited most from Roman rule most particularly the
Herodian rulers tended to be very pro‐Roman. The Sadducees tended to cooperate with Rome for
expediency, to retain their position of privilege.


Anti‐Roman: Mainly for religious reasons, there were a number of different groups in Judaism who
expressed anti‐Roman sentiments, each in different ways. The Essenes responded by withdrawing
into the desert and forming an exclusive community. The Zealots worked for armed rebellion against
the Romans seeking an opportunity to overthrow them. The Pharisees saw their first loyalty as
absolute adherence to the Mosaic Law and traditions. They varied, some actively resisted; others
were more acquiescent. Among those who opposed Rome there was a great deal of feeling. There
were a number of reasons for their opposition. First, there was religious resentment whereby
intentionally or unintentionally the Romans committed grievous offence to things that the Jews held
sacred. Second there was economic resentment caused by the huge tax burden placed upon the
Jews. The temple tax took about 20% of Jewish money and the Roman taxes took around 16% 16 so
the economic situation for the Jew was grim. Many faced poverty, and violence became popular,
many lost possessions and land in this environment. Thirdly, there were political grievances; after all
the Romans were occupying their country, the holy land (Dt. 17:15)! All this was at the hands of the
pax Romana; a peace supported by a reign of blood! These combined led to intense resentment
toward Rome and the intensification of the hope of a Messiah to release people from bondage to
Gentile rule. One can see why Jesus’ message of ‘good news to the poor' and egalitarianism was so
widely received.

Pragmatism: Many of the common people who were in the main poor and had little time to worry
about who was in control were focused on survival and making the best of heir situation. While they
were not happy to be under Roman and Gentile rule which was offensive, their lives were in the
main spent trying to scrape together a living in a society where there was great inequality between
rich and poor and much scope for oppression.

Judaism in NT Times
No study of the Gospels and the NT can take lightly the central fact that Jesus was a Jew and that
Christianity grew out of Judaism. Furthermore, the early church was profoundly Jewish (Acts 1‐8) as
were the initial missionaries. Hence it is essential to grasp as fully as possible Judaism at the time of
Christ to understand the NT.

Theological features

Monotheism: A belief in one transcendent God. This belief in Yahweh the one God and his utter
holiness lay at the heart of the worship system and is evidenced in the foundational creedal
statement, the Shema (‘Here O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord, is one. Love the Lord your God…’)
which is confirmed in Jesus’ teaching (Deut 6:4‐5 cf. Mk 12:29‐30) and through the New Testament.

Nationalism or Election: Due to its astonishing heritage in the Exodus‐Sinai event (cf. 19:5‐6; 20:2),
the giving of the law and land, Israel believed that it was the chosen race and she never lost this
sense of being the children and people of God. However, knowing they were chosen by God tended
to foster a sense of superiority in the nation which led to prophetic rebuke.

Nomism: 17 The centrality of the Law. This was the ultimately distinctive feature of Judaism,
especially after the exile. The Law included the Torah and especially the Decalogue or Ten
Commandments along with the Oral Law created by the Pharisees (and rejected by the Sadducees),

16
This varied across context. See Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, 30.
17
From the Greek nomos meaning law i.e. nomism is a focus on the law as central to Jewish life.
25

a set of laws which helped explicate the laws of the Torah (Gen‐Deut) to ensure people adhered to
the written law.

Covenant: The concept of election and nomism centred on the sense of covenant in which God had
called them to be his people and they were to respond by living according to the law of the
covenant.

Eschatology (future hope): Israel had a strong sense of corporate and individual eschatology.
Corporately, Israel saw themselves as the chosen people of God who awaited cosmic redemption on
the ‘day of the Lord’ (Yom YHWH) when God would restore the nation, raise the dead, judge the
nations and triumph over evil. This will happen at the end of time. Individually, there developed in
the intertestamental time an expectation of individual resurrection although this was denied by the
Sadducees (cf. Mt 23:23). The eschatological hope was increasingly pushed into the future after the
exile. In particular there was a strong expectation of a Messiah and deliverer of great power and
whose coming was imminent. It was believed that God would intervene and remove the Roman
Empire from rule and establish his Kingdom on earth.

Angelology and demonology: In the intertestamental period there was a considerable increase in
interest in this area as compared to the OT where, while Satan and evil spirits are not absent (e.g. 1
Sam 16:14; Job 1:6‐12; 2:1‐7; 1 Chron 21:1; Zech 3:1‐2), they are not prominent.

Apocalyptic themes and literature: In the intertestamental period there was a considerable increase
of interest in the coming of the Kingdom, the Messiah, separatism, judgement.

A missiological interest; While it is debated whether Judaism had an active proselytising approach
(cf. Mt 23:15), Judaism was increasingly seen as a religious option for Gentiles due to its monotheism
and morality. Some God‐fearing Gentiles (cf. Cornelius) converted, were circumcised and became
full proselytes.

Institutions of Judaism
The Jerusalem Temple: The temple was first built under Solomon to replace the Tabernacle 900BC
(1 Kgs 6). It was then destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in 586BC (2 Kgs 25). The
second temple was built 520‐15BC by the returned exiles (Ezra 3:7‐6:18), and was enlarged and
enhanced 500 years later by Herod the Great who completed it in 62AD. It was known as the
Herodian temple, and was one of the wonders of the ancient world. Its outer court was 35 acres, it
had a fortress like wall around it and one stone has been recorded to weigh 415 tonnes. It was made
out of white stone (which melts if burnt thus explaining how it was razed to the ground by the
Romans in AD70). Both Josephus and Mark 13:1 comment on its construction.

The temple was both the spiritual, economic and political centre of the Jewish people. It was a
spiritual symbol of God’s presence with the Jews; God's glory dwelt there (cf. Ezek 1‐2). Sacrifices
and tithes were offered there. It was also the centre of the Jewish festivals and pilgrims flooded
there regularly. Every Jewish male was expected to make at least one pilgrimage to the temple on
Passover in his life. It also served as the economic centre of the Jews. It was thus a large tourist
attraction with people needing everything from accommodation to a suitable sacrifice and temple
money to use and offer. The builders and tradesmen were kept employed as they built the temple
and the markets flourished. The tax was a burden on the people but they still paid it. The sacrifice
system also required money changers to exchange foreign money and merchants to enable pilgrims
to purchase sacrifices. This provides background to Jesus clearing the temple cf. Jn 2; Mk 11. It was a

political centre, with the Sanhedrin meeting in a hall beside the Temple (below). The temple was the
central point of Judaism at the time of Christ.

The Synagogue: (Gk. ‘gathering place’): The origins of the synagogue are obscure. It probably
developed during the exile in Babylon as groups of Jews would meet to read the Scriptures and to
pray and worship. In the NT synagogues were found in every town and city in Palestine and the
Diaspora. There were hundreds in Jerusalem alone. The best analogy of a synagogue today would be
a community‐centre not a church. Originally they were established in homes or altered homes to
accommodate the people. Whereas the temple was a priestly institution the synagogue was a lay
institution run by local elders (not in competition with the temple though), where the Scriptures
were read, prayers offered, psalms sung and where scribes would expound the Torah. They met on
the Sabbath and two other days. It was the place the common people were educated; the schools of
Judaism. The synagogues kept Judaism alive after the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

The Sanhedrin: This was a Jewish council (parliament), of aristocrats, mainly Sadducees and other
priests, and the chief priest, 71 in all. They met in a hall adjoining the temple. They had unlimited
civil authority over Judea except they could not decide on political offences and they could not
enforce capital punishment (at least in Jesus time cf. Jn 18:31).
Symbolism: Every culture has its symbols. For Kiwi’s these are the silver fern, the All Blacks, the haka
etc. Some of the key symbols of Jewish culture were the Sabbath, circumcision, prayers and purity
rituals etc. There was a strong emphasis on the external symbols of the faith in Jesus time.

The Literature of Judaism

There are a number of writings from the time which are important for illuminating our
understanding of the world of the Jews from the period of Second Temple Judaism and the time of
Christ.

The Jewish Targums: These were Aramaic paraphrases of the OT.

The Septuagint: This is also called the LXX. It is the Greek OT translation. It was begun 275BC in
Alexandria. It is called the Septuagint (Latin ‐ 70) because tradition has it, 72 scholars were
commissioned to translate the Hebrew OT and came up with word for word identical copies (legend
at work here I think)! It was later revised and edited to meet the needs of non‐Hebrew speakers.
Within the different versions are different arrangements to the Hebrew text. It also includes
apocryphal books like Tobit, Ecclesiasticus etc which are included in the Catholic OT canon.

The Apocrypha: There are 14‐15 books not found in the Hebrew Bible. These were written in the 2
centuries before Christ. All but one are in the LXX. These include the Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1‐2 Maccabees. The latter is important in giving historical background
leading up to the time of Christ.

The Pseudepigrapha: These were books written under false names like Moses, Adam etc
(pseudonymity). 18 There are 65 books so far known including ‘last testaments’ of dying leaders and
OT narratives expanded including books like the Book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon.

18
A pseudonymous work is a work written in someone else’s name. This was not uncommon in the day and is
a feature of apocalyptic and Gnostic works. Some argue many of the NT works are similarly pseudonymous.
However, early Christians rejected those works that were pseudonymous.
27

Philo: A contemporary of Paul who was based in Alexandria, a centre of philosophical and religious
thought, who wrote extensively in a philosophical, theological and missiological fashion. In particular
his writings reflect the influence of Hellenism on Jewish thought, he being motivated in part to
communicate Judaism to Greek thinking and speaking peoples.

Josephus (37‐ca. 100 AD). He was a Jewish historian who wrote Jewish Antiquities, the Jewish War,
Life (autobiography) and Against Apion. His writings are critical for giving us an insight into Jewish
history in NT times.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: These were found in 1947 in a cave at Qumran. They were written by a
community of Essenes in the desert. There are about 800 manuscripts which represent the library of
separatist apocalyptic Jews (the Essenes) and give insight into the nature of the text and Judaism at
the time. 90 scrolls so far have been published all dating from the 2nd century BC. They contain
commentaries, copies of texts, documents on community rule etc.

Important Jewish Parties
The Sadducees
This group arose after the Maccabean Revolt (166‐142 BC) but the neither specifics of its
development or the meaning of the term Sadducees are available. It is possible that they descended
from the high priest Zadok and so saw themselves as the true priestly descent (2 Sam 8:17). The
majority of chief priests were members of the Sadducees as were ‘the nobles and the most eminent
citizens’ and ‘the leading men’ (according to Josephus). The power base of the party was in
Jerusalem. The Sadducees were a vast minority within Israel, but welded a lot of power and were
very influential until their extinction in A.D 70 at the destruction of the temple.
Theology: Theologically they were true conservatives who believed the Law was to be interpreted
literally as it was written without any explanatory tradition. Thus, they rejected the oral law of the
Pharisees. In this sense they are like fundamentalist conservatives. As a result they believed that the
soul perished with the body and so did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or the immortality
of the soul, there being little reference to these in the Torah. 19 Neither did they believe in any
angelology, demons/devil or lax approaches to the law. They rejected the belief in a
Messianic deliverer which was a later Jewish development. Their chief concern was the maintenance
of the Temple worship cult. In another sense they can be perhaps likened to liberal Christians in their
retention of tradition especially in regards to liturgy, and their rejection of the supernatural.

Politics: Politically, as noted above, they tended to be compromisers/collaborators with Roman
oppressors. They were liberal in the sense of being very open to Hellenistic lifestyle and values.
Possibly because of the favourable position they found themselves in they believed that the chief
priests should give their support to Roman rule and to cooperate with the Roman governors. As a
result they were very unpopular with the common people due to their cooperation with Rome and
the oppressive tactics they used to manipulate the populace for money and possessions.

The Pharisees
Their name derives from the Hebrew for ‘separate ones’ and emphasises their commitment to the
law and its strict observance. This set them apart from Pagans and other less pious Jews. They

19
See Josephus, Ant. 18.1.4 cf. Mt 22:22‐28; Acts 22:8.

believed they were the only truly holy ones. While some were priests, most were not aristocratic or
priestly but were from the laity, the upper‐middle class. They were small in number and were active
supporters of the synagogue. They were highly popular except among the upper classes. They joined
and formed small 'societies' in which they lived and studied. They originated by 135BC from the
Hasidim or ‘called out ones’.

Theology: The Pharisees can be likened to modernists. Unlike the Sadducees they were open to new
religious ideas. Some of these included the resurrection of the dead, the immortality of the soul,
angelology, judgement and eternal reward/punishment and the hope of a Messiah. 20 They
developed a system of oral tradition by which to interpret the law. They saw in the law 613
commandments, 248 positive and 365 negative that they had to observe. They then set about
interpreting these laws with thousands of others so as to ensure that the law was not broken. Their
system was based on the traditions of famous Rabbis. This oral law was the Halakah, an
interpretation and commentary of the law. They developed traditions that said this oral law was also
given to Moses and was passed down through the successive generations. In time this oral law was
written down as the Mishna in the 2nd Century AD and then modified and expanded. The scribes
and lawyers were the people who studied these laws and applied the interpretations. This ongoing
system of interpretation meant the Pharisees were the most flexible sect as they constantly assessed
the law in light of their context and applied it thus. They were distinctive in that they believed the
Mosaic laws regarding ritual purity were binding on all Jews, not just the priests. Hence we see a
number of controversies between Jesus and Pharisees concerning table fellowship, Sabbath and
other areas where they had developed complex oral law. Perhaps in today’s church legalistic
evangelicals/fundamentalists can on occasion, bear resemblance to the Pharisees. In other ways
they reflect liberals in their freedom to adapt the Jewish message to the influence of other religious
ideas (e.g. demons, etc) and their acceptance of oral law.

Politics: Politically they were conservative/quietistic. They did not enjoy the Roman domination of
Israel but did nothing about it. They believed Rome was God's judgement on the nation. Commoners
respected them due to their strict observance of the law. Like all parties there was within the
Pharisees the good and the bad. From the Christian perspective, the good included those like
Nicodemus (Jn 3:1‐8; 7:50; 19:31) and Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:43) who were devout and sought
to please God. The bad included those who succumbed to the dangers of legalism and put the
appearance of observing a law before the purpose, to please God (read Mt 23).

The Zealots (Or Nationalists).

A more independent view of the history of the times would perhaps lead us to regard the whole
country as ranged either with or against this party. Their watchword was negatively to call no human
being their absolute lord and positively that God alone was to lead as absolute Lord. They adhered
literally to the 1st commandment (‘you shall have no other god’s before me’) and represented
almost a revival of the Maccabean movement in its national rather than political form. The
movement’s real home was Galilee not Jerusalem. To pay taxes to Rome or to even handle Roman
coinage was treachery. They enjoyed the support of the people and were punished severely when
caught by the Romans due to the threat to their rule, they were often crucified. The Zealots first
appeared in those guerrilla‐bands that traversed Galilee under the leadership of Ezekias, whom
Herod executed. One of the disciples of course probably came from this background, Simon the
Zealot (Mk 3:18).21 Perhaps initially he was excited about the nationalistic and military possibilities

20
See Josephus, Ant. 18.1.3; Acts 22:8.
21
Some dispute this and argue that he should be Simon the Canaanite. See for a brief discussion Geulich, Mark
1‐8:26, 163.
29

he saw in Jesus? It is hard to find Christian equivalents to this, but extremist Muslims who seek to
establish Shariah law and overthrow what they see as western oppression may be seen in this light.

The Essenes (Qumran Community)

The Jewish historian Josephus refers to them as populating about 3,000 to 4,000 people in Judea. In
1947 the Qumran scrolls were found and revealed much of their activity. They were characterised by
an ascetic lifestyle, strict adherence to the ritual laws, belief that the Temple and priesthood were
completely defiled and the hope of a coming Messiah. They believed they were living in the last
days, Sabbath observance and circumcision, community life and a compulsory common purse. 22 Not
many were married. They were led by a rebel priest. They opposed Roman rule but not actively at
this stage. They were apocalyptic in outlook, viewing themselves as the faithful ‘sons of light’ who
would join the battle against the ‘sons of darkness’. They can be likened to a Christian cult who
separate themselves from the church and society perceiving it all to be completely corrupted.

The Common People (‘the people of the land’)

These made up 90% of the population. These people were on the whole unaffiliated to any major
sect but retained the essential faith of Judaism. In many ways these are the key recipients of Jesus
message i.e. the crowds he encountered as he ministered. There were common religious factors
which held all groups and the common people them together including:

The Shema recited twice daily: ‘Here O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’ (Deut 6:4). This
guarded against pluralism and retention of monotheism.
The Covenant/election: The belief that Israel was God’s chosen people giving them a privileged
position in the world.

Anti‐Gentilism: While on the one hand the populace were prepared to tolerate the Gentiles for
economic gain by selling them produce etc; generally they despised the Romans and other
oppressors and longed for their defeat and destruction. They believed they were God’s favoured
people and believed in and longed for their ultimate subjugation and destruction.
The Law (Torah): The ordinary people lived in a general sense by the law. The core boundary
markers of Israel include the food laws, ritual purity and exclusive table fellowship (See for example
Dan 1; 1 Macc 1:62‐63). These included a refusal to eat with Gentiles; Circumcision: for every male
child on the 8th day in accordance with the Law of Moses (cf. Gen 17); Sabbath: a refusal to work on
the Sabbath (cf. Gen 2:1‐3; Exod 20:9‐11); Sacrifice: at key points, adhering to the requirements of
the Torah; the primacy of the temple. There were exceptions. For example; the Essenes saw
themselves as the temple; there were temples in other places. However, on the whole Israel saw the
temple as central to their faith; Festival: Israel’s society revolved around key dates in which they
remembered God’s acts on their behalf. The common person participated and sought to get to
Jerusalem when they could.

The Samaritans
The Samaritans were hated by the Jews who considered them half Jews because those who had
been taken into exile in 722BC by Assyria had intermarried and mixed with other nations thus
producing a ‘half‐breed’. They had their own temple on Mt. Gerazim. During the reign of Antiochus
Epiphanies (168BC) the Samaritans complied with his decrees and stopped observing the Sabbath

22
This is different from NT giving in Acts and Paul which is ‘without compulsion’ (2 Cor 9:7).

and circumcision, and they dedicated their temple to Zeus causing the Jews to hate them even more.
In 128BC their temple was destroyed by the Maccabean family as it was considered blasphemy. The
Samaritans did worship the same God however, they observed the Sabbath and circumcision, the
Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, and they too looked for a Messiah deliverer. They recur throughout
the NT (see Mt 10:5; Lk 9:52; 10:25‐37; 17:16; Jn 4:7‐42; 8:48; Acts 8:4‐25).

The Diaspora (‘Dispersion’)

As noted above, another important feature of Israel at the time was the number of Jews living in
communities outside the nation itself. It is estimated that over 5 million Jews lived outside of
Palestine (only 2 million within). Thus, just as there are more Cook lslanders living in New Zealand
than in the Cooks themselves, there were many more Jews outside of Palestine than within it. This
came about not only through natural migration but through enforced emigration after the exile and
through the continuous oppression of Israel. After the exile itself the exodus of Jews was intense
under Alexander the Great (332BC). Significant Jewish populations developed in Alexandria, 23
Rome 24 and Sardis. For our purposes, the primary significance of the Diaspora is that it enabled the
spread of the Gospel quickly through Jewish pilgrim converts (cf. Acts 2) and in particular through
the ministry of Paul in synagogues and Gentile proselytes and God‐fearers.

Popular Prophetic Movements

These popped up at various times and in various ways. When discovered by Roman rule they were
usually immediately crushed as they were seen as a threat to her rule (see Mk 13:6, 22 Act 21:38, Lk
13). The most well known movements of this type to us are John the Baptist and Jesus himself. Both
were hailed as a Messiah and both preached and promoted revolution. Neither advocated violence
however. John preached a revolution of repentance and good works. Jesus preached a revolution of
repentance and love.

Peasant and Urban Life
In general one can draw a distinction between rural and urban life. As with the world today, rural life
tended to be more conservative and biased against new ideas such as those of Hellenism and Rome.
Urban life tended to be a ‘locus of change’ 25 where new ideas often infiltrate. Interestingly, Jesus
ministry was focussed almost exclusively in rural areas while Paul focussed on cities. What was life
like in this world?

The life of the peasant

The majority of people in Israel lived in villages and small towns. They worked the land and had
strong kinship bonds, valuing loyalty highly. They tended to have mixed views of the urban world.
Negatively, they distrusted people of the city which were centres of power, wealth and privilege. On
the other hand they interacted with the city economically. One can relate to this in terms of
relationships between rural NZ and the larger cities; or between the south Island and Auckland!

23
Philo numbered Jews in Egypt in the first century AD at 1 million. See In Flaccum 43.
24
There were 20,000 to 50,000 Jews in Rome at the turn of the eras (see Anchor Bible Dict, Vol 3: 1048).
25
Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, 38.
31

Life was lived at a subsistence level, reliant on the vagaries of the weather etc. Life revolved around
the harvest which needed to supply all that was needed for food, for trade, for seed for the
following year and to satisfy those who wanted taxes. Ceremony was important such as weddings,
funerals and festivals. With no health or social services, personal health was of huge importance to
survival. Jesus’ ministry of healing, preaching, feeding, deliverance and salvation was in the main, set
in such settings.

Urban and Elite life

There is little reference to Hellenistic‐Roman cities such as Tiberias and Sepphoris (est. pop. 24,000
cf. Wanganui) in the Gospels. The primary setting then for Jesus’ ministry was the small towns like
Capernaum (est. pop. 1700‐2500).

These cities provided the point of trade, the harvests of the peasants feeding the people of the city.
These cities included harvest based industries (mills, presses, granaries), small businesses (e.g.
bakeries, pottery) and served as the base for interregional commerce. They were self‐governed.

The key city in the Gospels is Jerusalem. Its importance was based almost solely on the temple which
brought together religion, politics, economics and social strands of life in Israel (it not really being a
trade centre lying off trade routes and without river or port).

When the gospel expanded beyond Israel the movement became based around urban centres, a
substantial shift (see further below).

Corporate mindset
Our European western mindset is characterised by a rampant individualism in which the centre of
our world is self or more pointedly; ‘me, myself, I’. This is reflected in our laws which favour the
individual (individual human rights) and our private attitudes to life and property (privatism). The
world Christ encountered in Israel was on the contrary highly corporate with emphasis on the
household in an extended family sense and on table fellowship. The mantra, ‘I think, therefore I am’
can be replaced by ‘we are, therefore I am’. 26 Hence, the culture of the NT was more akin to Maori
or Polynesian culture than western European culture. This is very important as we read Scripture,
remembering always that the individual, while not obscured, was set in the context of community.

The family (‘fictive kinship’)
As in most pre‐industrial societies, human identity at the time of Christ was formed in the context of
family, genealogy, community i.e. kin‐groups. The family was the basic unit of the empire. It included
husband, wife, children, slaves and others in the home. The authority rested in the senior male
ascendant (paterfamilias). In Greco‐Roman culture his authority was widespread including retention
of children, life and death of children, the right to punish, divorce, take a child’s property and even
sell the child into slavery! Children and slaves were the most vulnerable. Women maintained their
place through child‐bearing and rearing. This sets the context for Jesus’ treatment of children, his
redefinition of family as those who do God’s will, and of calling God Abba an expression of intimacy.
The church and other voluntary societies create what is called ‘fictive kinship’ whereby the family
circle is spread to others who are not genealogically family. ‘Fictive kinship’ then refers to persons
who, while not literal family, are treated as if they are kin as in the church.
Reciprocity

26
An old African proverb; see Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, 47.

There are two types of reciprocity found in the world of the NT. First, ‘generalised reciprocity’ which
refers to giving within close kinship ties. This tends to be one‐sided, altruistic without expectation of
response. Secondly, there is ‘balanced reciprocity’ which dominated the whole of society; the direct
exchange of goods of approximately equal value for a relatively short period. 27 So, if one gives, it is
expected that the gift is received and reciprocated. How this played out depended on the social
relationships of the group (e.g. patronage).

Patronage
Patronage was also a feature of interpersonal relationships. This involved a patron who resources a
client whilst the client gives loyalty and honour useful to the patron (cf. Theophilus/Luke?). In fact
the whole Roman Empire was based on a system of patronage whereby the Emperor was seen as
the ultimate patron to humanity and the structures of towns and communities were based on
patronage support structures (see further below).

Status honour/shame
The ancient social world was not classist in a Marxist sense, but was based around power and
privilege which involved a complex interplay of religious purity, family heritage, land ownership,
vocation, gender, ethnicity, education, wealth and age. Essentially it related to ascribed honour
based on others social estimation of a persons being and ability. Shame was the great enemy of
honour; the world based on honour and shame. Personal reputation was critical and great efforts
were made among the more Romanised to seek personal glory through bragging, patronage and
selfish ambition. The Christian community sought to cut across issues of status honour by being
open to people of all levels of status honour.

Patriarchy
The status of women was essentially homemaker and support to the husband. Women did not own
property but were at the mercy of their father and when married, their husband. Women had few
legal rights. In Jewish culture they were unable to be religious leaders in the sense of priestesses and
disciples of rabbis. They were to be subservient to their husbands and the goal of the unmarried was
to find a husband through whom their identity was formed.

• Write down the key differences between the culture of Israel and your own culture which
need thinking through when seeking to interpret the NT?

27
See Achtemeier, Green and Thompson, 48‐49.
33



Chapter Three
THE GRECO‐ROMAN BACKGROUND TO THE NEW
TESTAMENT
Contents
Hellenism .............................................................................................................................................. 36
The City ................................................................................................................................................. 36
Social Institutions .................................................................................................................................. 37
The synagogue .................................................................................................................................. 37
The Household .................................................................................................................................. 38
Voluntary Associations ...................................................................................................................... 40
Greek Religion ....................................................................................................................................... 40
The gods ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Rituals ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Roman Religion ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Pax deorum (“peace with the gods”) ................................................................................................ 45
Roman gods: 3 types of deity. ........................................................................................................... 45
Priests ................................................................................................................................................ 45
Hellenistic Religions .............................................................................................................................. 48
The Eleusinian Mysteries .................................................................................................................. 49
The Mysteries of Mithra ................................................................................................................... 49
Paul and Greco‐Roman Religion ........................................................................................................... 50
Philosophy ............................................................................................................................................. 51
Epicureans ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Stoics ................................................................................................................................................. 52
Cynics ................................................................................................................................................ 53
Paul and Platonism............................................................................................................................ 53
Paul and Stoicism .............................................................................................................................. 53
Paul and Cynic moral exhortation ..................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Travel in the Roman world .................................................................................................................... 54
Overland Roads and Highways .......................................................................................................... 55
Sea Routes ......................................................................................................................................... 55
Postal Services................................................................................................................................... 55
Social Stratification ............................................................................................................................... 55
Upper Classes .................................................................................................................................... 56
Lower Classes .................................................................................................................................... 56
Patronage .......................................................................................................................................... 57
Sexual Immorality ................................................................................................................................. 60
Life after Death ..................................................................................................................................... 60

The Greco‐Roman Background to the New Testament
Hellenism
Here we will discuss some of the historical, political and social factors important for New Testament
study drawn from the wider Greco‐Roman setting. This is particularly important in terms of
understanding the spread of the gospel into the Gentile world, Paul’s missions, the audiences of the
gospels of Mark, Luke and John in particular and the other letters of the NT which, in the main, were
written from and/or into that environment. It is important to note that many of the features in this
section also relate to the Jewish background because it is not as if there are two distinct and
disconnected worlds, Greco‐Roman and Jewish. Judaism had been influenced strongly by
Hellenisation for over 300 years and Rome for 100 years; a significant time for the interpenetration
of cultural ideas. As we looked at the Greco‐Roman world we see that it was a cosmopolitan fusion
of cultures, in particular Greek. To understand the New Testament we must have an understanding
of certain basic concepts from this time.

As noted above, Hellenistic culture remained strongly influential through the whole of the Roman
world.

1
The City
As noted above, unlike Jesus’ mission, which was primarily to the rural world of Galilee, the Paul's
mission was based around a remarkable social shift in the early Christian church. That is, the
movement from a predominately Palestinian and rural movement to a predominately Gentile and
urban movement.

The Greek world consisted of hundreds of poleis (“city‐states”). Each polis was fiercely independent
with its own distinctive internal political and religious structure. The polis became fully formed by
the late 6th century and typically included an acropolis, walls, market, temples, a theatre and
gymnasium.

The cities of the empire were located on important roads and ports. They were important centres of
consumption and distribution. Their streets and marketplaces were bustling centres for traders and
peddlers. Most had a main street with colonnades and a covered walkway from the city gate to the
public square where large buildings were found e.g. temples, palaces. The public‐square or agora
was a marketplace and centre for public discourse concerning business, philosophy and for
meetings. The major cities also included a gymnasia, schools for the rich. While physical labour
dominated rural life, it was not popular in the city. Values included virtue, character, self‐sufficiency
and if possible, a life of leisure. Civic leadership and public service were valued among the elite and
found especially among those wealthy with ‘old money’ based on real capital not work. There were
many in the city who were not wealthy but many were workers including leather workers, grocers,
bakers etc. Their children took over the family business.

Paul focussed his mission on these cities, establishing the church in these centres, leaving them with
the task of continuing the mission and extending it into the rural regions (e.g. Acts 13:49; 19:10; 1
Thess 1:8). The cities Paul visited lay on the east‐west trade routes. Antioch in Syria was the early
base for his operations (Acts 13:1‐3; 14:26‐27; Gal 2:11). Antioch had a population of about 250,000
and was prosperous. It was located on the main road from Rome to the Persian border and the east.
It was the capital of the imperial province and an intellectual focal point. It had a long‐standing and
large Jewish population. It was a meeting point of Eastern and Western cultures.

1
For detail see D.J. Tidball. 'The Social Setting of Mission Churches" in DPL, 883‐92
36


The other cities Paul visited were also on trade routes and were relatively prosperous. Laodicea,
Hierapolis and Colossae (Colossians) were centres for wool trade. Philippi was distinct in that it was
more Latin in character and an agricultural rather than commercial centre and well known for its
harbour and the temple of Artemis. Corinth and Thessalonica similarly were important trading
centres. The cities of Galatia, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium and Lystra were like Philippi, Roman
colonies.

As noted above, the lingua franca of the educated populace in the cities was Koine Greek and they
were commonly orientated toward Rome. They were all conveniently located on road or sea. They
varied in size, Antioch the largest and Philippi the smallest. Ephesus was a government centre.

As much of their space was afforded to public facilities, their residential areas were densely
populated. There was thus, little privacy. People tended to gather in ethnic groups and so ethnic
quarters were easily identifiable. For Paul's mission Jewish quarters were most important. The Jews
of the Diaspora were well integrated but politically quiescent and religiously focussed. They were
well distributed throughout the status system.

The temples were important centres for city life and Paul would have encountered a wide variety of
religious and philosophical viewpoints in each centre.

In terms of mission the cities had much greater potential than villages. This was due not only to ease
of communication through common language and movement but due to their culture. Villages
tended to be conservative and closed. They were subsistence based and as such had few
opportunities for upward social mobility. On the other hand cities were open and changeable. They
would have within them more independently minded people who were open to the new message of
the gospel.

There were a number of clubs in the cities including voluntary associations based on religion,
business. Religion was important to city life found in institutions and public worship. Especially
important were the official gods and the imperial cult. As noted above, the cities were critical to the
mission of Paul who focussed on these main centres with the message, planting churches and
moving on, leaving them to extend the gospel into their communities and regions (cf. 1 Thess 1:8).

Social Institutions
Three key social institutions are especially important for understanding Paul's mission.

The synagogue
The synagogue provided Paul with an immediate platform for his message and in many ways served
as a model for the new churches. These were politically recognised so that Jews were under the
secular political system. These were the scene of Jewish political matters. The buildings were called
aedes sacrae (“sacred buildings”) in Roman law. Those without a permanent fixture for the Torah
ark, could be meeting houses for secular matters i.e. justice, slaves released, poor fed, community
life managed. Many functioned as schools for the youth.

The archisynagogos was a local Jewish political ruler. There were a number on each synagogue. We
see these people regularly in Acts (13:15; 18:8, 17 cf. Jairus in Mk 5:22; Lk 13:14).

2
The Household
In the time of Paul, the household (oikos) differed greatly from the private picket fenced residences
of today. Most likely they were large houses which provided shops at the front and living
accommodations at the rear. There would have been room for worship and living quarters for
dependants and visitors. Such settings were ideal for Paul for accommodation and living purposes
(tentmaking). Like itinerant Cynic philosophers of the day, Paul used manual labour as a means to
model his philosophy to his disciples.

The households were large inclusive communities consisting of the central family, slaves, friends,
and tenants, partners or clients who would have been involved in a common or agricultural
enterprise. When the church developed they provided an ideal context for church meetings. They
were hierarchical and patriarchal under the authority of the father (paterfamilias). Wealthy home
owners often acted as patrons of the early church communities (Rom 16:4, 5, 14, 15, 23; 1 Cor 1:11;
16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 2). The households would not have been based around the rampant
individualism of contemporary western society but the leader of the household on behalf of others
would have corporately taken decisions on behalf the remainder of the household. Hence whole
households were converted (Acts 16:15, 31‐34; 18:1; 1 Cor 1:16). Hence mission was not met with
equal commitment among the converted. It may be that the focus on house churches led to division
based around affiliation with certain preferred leaders (cf. 1 Cor 1:10‐17). On the whole the
household was a ready‐made 'basic cell' for the spread of the faith through existing relationships.

The houses in which the church met were owned by the wealthy and were probably laid out in a
manner similar to the pictures below. The area around the impluvium is the atrium where they
probably met for their meetings, meals (and baptisms).

Layout of two Roman Homes3

See over page for a picture of the same layout. Impluvium = bath; tablinum = table. 4

2
For detail see D.J. Tidball. 'The Social Setting of Mission Churches" in DPL, 883‐92d
3
http://romanhistorybooksandmore.freeservers.com/images_j/diagram1.jpg
4
http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/schoenauer/arch528/lect05/c09.jpg
38


Artist’s Impression of a Roman Home (not unlike the first one above) 5

5
http://home.att.net/~b.b.major/domuscol.jpg
Voluntary Associations
The Roman Empire was the setting for the development of a number of voluntary associations.
These included private clubs requiring initiation based on a common trade or objective. These
centred on festivity and meals. Often these provided people with religious and emotional
satisfaction lacking in the more public or official cults. Some were burial societies. Rome tolerated
these with suspicion.

Rome viewed Judaism in this way, as a large international voluntary association. Hence the early
Christians were viewed similarly in that they had private meetings, voluntary membership, initiation
ritual, meal fellowship and a certain exclusivity. The Christian Church differed in that they crossed
the social strata, were inclusive of women and slaves, called for a high degree of commitment and
was international. The category of voluntary association was important in that it enabled the Pauline
churches to be accommodated in the Roman world.

Greek Religion
Numerous cults were devoted to worship of the Olympian gods, the reigning emperor, mystery
religions or oriental deities. These were very important for the economies of the cities. Their temples
were among the most prominent buildings in the cities. Festivals shaped the annual calendar and the
public holidays. The imperial cult was a vehicle for reinforcing political allegiance and cohesion. 6
However the more popular religions gave meaning and order to life. A common feature of religion at
the time was syncretism i.e. the blending of different religious ideas.

The religious and cultural institutions accessible to all Greeks included the Panhellenic games held
every 2‐4 years (e.g. The Olympic Games, 776BC+), the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, the healing cult of
Asclepius at Epidauros and the Eleusinean mysteries at Eleusis. In a number of Greek cities in the late
6th century BC the civic cult of the 12 gods was instituted. Greek religion was not centred on a set of
coherent doctrines but on observance of traditional ritual such as procession, prayer, libations (drink
offerings usually made up of a mixture of water and wine) and sacrifice and feasting.

The gods
The Greek gods were not transcendent (distant) and passive but immanent (present) and active.
They did not create the cosmos but came into being after the cosmos. The sun (Helios), moon
(Selene), stars were eternals while Zeus (king of the gods, husband of Hera), Hera (sister and consort
of Zeus) and Poseidon (god of the sea) were ‘immortals’. Both gods and humanity were subject to
fate (moira). Ambrosia and nectar sustained the gods, and ‘ichor’ flowed through their veins. They
were neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Humans were mortal, the gods were immortal. In archaic
or classical Greek religion immortality was not possible for humans.

6
From the time of Alexander the Great there was an increasing tendency to deify Kings i.e. see them
as gods. This was logical in a pantheistic environment based on religious heroes who were both
human gods. Julius Caesar and Augustus were deified, and, consecrated as part of the official Roman
pantheon by acts of the Roman senate. The importance of the imperial cult was greater away from
Rome (especially in Asia) where the emperor was able to be present while based in Rome. In the
traditional form of the imperial cult, the emperor was worshiped as a god only after his death and
apotheosis. However, two emperors Caligula (Philo Leg. Gai. 353), and Domitian (Suetonius Domitian
13.2) took the name dues (‘god’) upon themselves in their lifetimes.

40


In Hesiod's Theogany the gods were genealogically linked. In Homer's Iliad and Odyssey the gods
were depicted as a pantheon of Olympian gods. The cult of the 12 gods first appears in the sixth
century (c.520BC). These were not identical with the later 12 Olympians including Zeus, Hera,
Poseidon, Hades (death), Apollo (god of sunlight, prophecy, music and poetry), Artemis (Greek moon
goddess), Hephaestus (fire and metalworking), Athena (goddess of wisdom), Ares (war), Aphrodite
(goddess of love and beauty), Hermes (commerce, invention, travel, theft, eloquence), Hestia
7
(goddess of health, domestic beauty). Below is a table with more detail of the Olympian gods. 8

The Olympians are a group of 12 gods who ruled after the overthrow of the Titans. All the
Olympians are related in some way. They are named after their dwelling place, Mount Olympus.

The
Description
Olympians

Zeus Zeus overthrew his Father Cronus. He then drew lots with his brothers Poseidon
and Hades. Zeus won the draw and became the supreme ruler of the gods. He is
lord of the sky, the rain god. His weapon is a thunderbolt which he hurls at those
who displease him. He is married to Hera but, is famous for his many affairs. He is
also known to punish those that lie or break oaths.
Poseidon Poseidon is the brother of Zeus. After the overthrow of their Father Cronus he
drew lots with Zeus and Hades, another brother, for shares of the world. His prize
was to become lord of the sea. He was widely worshiped by seamen. He married
Amphitrite, a granddaughter of the Titan Oceanus. At one point he desired
Demeter. To put him off Demeter asked him to make the most beautiful animal
that the world had ever seen. So to impress her Poseidon created the first horse.
In some accounts his first attempts were unsuccessful and created a variety of
other animals in his quest. By the time the horse was created his passion for
Demeter had cooled. His weapon is a trident, which can shake the earth, and
shatter any object. He is second only to Zeus in power amongst the gods. He has a
difficult quarrelsome personality. He was greedy. He had a series of disputes with
other gods when he tried to take over their cities.
Hades Hades is the brother of Zeus. After the overthrow of their Father Cronus he drew
lots with Zeus and Poseidon, another brother, for shares of the world. He had the
worst draw and was made lord of the underworld, ruling over the dead. He is a
greedy god who is greatly concerned with increasing his subjects. Those whose
calling increase the number of dead are seen favourably. The Erinyes are
welcomed guests. He is exceedingly disinclined to allow any of his subjects leave.
He is also the god of wealth, due to the precious metals mined from the earth. He
has a helmet that makes him invisible. He rarely leaves the underworld. He is
unpitying and terrible, but not capricious. His wife is Persephone whom Hades
abducted. He is the King of the dead but, death itself is another god, Thanatos.

7
Demeter and Dionysus are sometimes substituted for Hades and Hestia.
8
http://www.hol.gr/greece/olymp.htm
Hestia Hestia is Zeus sister. She is a virgin goddess. She does not have a distinct
personality. She plays no part in myths. She is the Goddess of the Hearth, the
symbol of the house around which a new born child is carried before it is received
into the family. Each city had a public hearth sacred to Hestia, where the fire was
never allowed to go out.
Hera Hera is Zeus wife and sister. She was raised by the Titans Ocean and Tethys. She is
the protector of marriage and takes special care of married women. Hera's
marriage was founded in strife with Zeus and continued in strife. Zeus courted her
unsuccessfully. He then turned to trickery, changing himself into dishevelled
cuckoo. Hera feeling sorry for the bird held it to her breast to warm it. Zeus then
resumed his normal form and taking advantage of the surprise he gained, raped
her. She then married him to cover her shame. Once when Zeus was being
particularly overbearing to the other gods, Hera convinced them to join in a revolt.
Her part in the revolt was to drug Zeus, and in this she was successful. The gods
then bound the sleeping Zeus to a couch taking care to tie many knots. This done
they began to quarrel over the next step. Briareus overheard the arguments. Still
full of gratitude to Zeus, Briareus slipped in and was able to quickly untie the many
knots. Zeus sprang from the couch and grabbed up his thunderbolt. The gods fell
to their knees begging and pleading for mercy. He seized Hera and hung her from
the sky with gold chains. She wept in pain all night but, none of the others dared
to interfere. Her weeping kept Zeus up and the next morning he agreed to release
her if she would swear never to rebel again. She had little choice but, to agree.
While she never again rebelled, she often intrigued against Zeus's plans and she
was often able to outwit him. Most stories concerning Hera have to do with her
jealous revenge for Zeus's infidelities. Her sacred animals are the cow and the
peacock. Her favourite city is Argos.
Ares Ares is the son of Zeus and Hera. He was disliked by both parents. He is the god of
war. He is considered murderous and bloodstained but, also a coward. When
caught in an act of adultery with Aphrodite her husband Hephaestus is able
publicly ridicule him. His bird is the vulture. His animal is the dog.
Athena Athena is the daughter of Zeus. She sprang full grown in armour from his
forehead, thus has no mother. She is fierce and brave in battle but, only fights to
protect the state and home from outside enemies. She is the goddess of the city,
handicrafts, and agriculture. She invented the bridle, which permitted man to
tame horses, the trumpet, the flute, the pot, the rake, the plough, the yoke, the
ship, and the chariot. She is the embodiment of wisdom, reason, and purity. She
was Zeus's favourite child and was allowed to use his weapons including his
thunderbolt. Her favourite city is Athens. Her tree is the olive. The owl is her bird.
She is a virgin goddess.
Apollo Apollo is the son of Zeus and Leto. His twin sister is Artemis. He is the god of
music, playing a golden lyre. The Archer, far shooting with a silver bow. The god of
healing who taught man medicine. The god of light. The god of truth, who can not
speak a lie. One of Apollo's more important daily tasks is to harness his chariot
with four horses and drive the Sun across the sky. He is famous for his oracle at
Delphi. People travelled to it from all over the Greek world to divine the future. His
tree was the laurel. The crow his bird. The dolphin his animal.
42


Aphrodite Aphrodite is the goddess of love, desire and beauty. In addition to her natural gifts
she has a magical girdle that compels anyone she wishes to desire her. There are
two accounts of her birth. One says she is the daughter of Zeus and Dione. The
other goes back to when Cronus castrated Uranus and tossed his severed genitals
into the sea. Aphrodite then arose from the sea foam on a giant scallop and
walked to shore in Cyprus. She is the wife of Hephaestus. The myrtle is her tree.
The dove, the swan, and the sparrow her birds.
Hermes Hermes is the son of Zeus and Maia. He is Zeus messenger. He is the fastest of the
gods. He wears winged sandals, a winged hat, and carries a magic wand. He is the
god of thieves and god of commerce. He is the guide for the dead to go to the
underworld. He invented the lyre, the pipes, the musical scale, astronomy, weights
and measures, boxing, gymnastics, and the care of olive trees.
Artemis Artemis is the daughter of Zeus and Leto. Her twin brother is Apollo. She is the
lady of the wild things. She is the huntsman of the gods. She is the protector of the
young. Like Apollo she hunts with silver arrows. She became associated with the
moon. She is a virgin goddess, and the goddess of chastity. She also presides over
childbirth, which may seem odd for a virgin, but goes back to causing Leto no pain
when she was born. She became associated with Hecate. The cypress is her tree.
All wild animals are scared to her, especially the deer.
Hephaestus Hephaestus is the son of Zeus and Hera. Sometimes it is said that Hera alone
produced him and that he has no father. He is the only god to be physically ugly.
He is also lame. Accounts as to how he became lame vary. Some say that Hera,
upset by having an ugly child, flung him from Mount Olympus into the sea,
breaking his legs. Others that he took Hera's side in an argument with Zeus and
Zeus flung him off Mount Olympus. He is the god of fire and the forge. He is the
smith and armourer of the gods. He uses a volcano as his forge. He is the patron
god of both smiths and weavers. He is kind and peace loving. His wife is Aphrodite.
Sometimes his wife is identified as Aglaia.

The Greeks recognised 3 kinds of deity: a. Olympian gods; b. chthonic (earth) gods and c. heroes. 9
Some were of Indo‐European origin e.g. Zeus = Jupiter. Most of the chthonic gods appear to have
been deities indigenous to the Greek world and associated with the earth, crops and the
underworld. The heroes were mortals who had been deified upon death and received cultic honours
at their tomb.

In general the Greeks were very open to new deities and cults and often identified their own deity
with foreign ones. We see this with cross‐identification with Egyptian cults.

The Greek gods were linked by a genealogy (see Appendix); derived from sexual relations between
god’s and goddesses.

Thus we can see that the Greco‐Roman religious worldview was polytheistic with affinities to
contemporary Hinduism. The concept of monotheism was alien to them. The Christian religion called
for exclusivity which stood in stark contrast to the notion of syncretism, tolerance and acceptance of
new gods into their pantheon.

Rituals
All religion has its rituals. The Greco‐Roman religions were based around certain rituals:

Prayer: This involved formulas to ensure god would not be offended. Prayers were uttered in
connection with public sacrifices, public ceremonies and before battle. Christian prayer would have
taken on the same forms.

Sacrifice: The primary mode of sacrifice was the slaughter of approved domestic animals. Part was
burned on the altar and part consumed by the offerers. Animals were associated with divinities e.g.
Cows‐Athena, pigs‐Demeter/Hades. Different gods required different sacrifices. An example was at a
great civil event such as Hyacinthia at Sparta. A procession of sacrifice victims and citizens was
followed by the slaughter, the burning of part, and the division of what remained for the populace.
Hence Christ's death as a sacrifice was easily understood in the Greek context.

Festivals: In the polis of Athens 120 days were devoted to religious festival. Most were rural in
origin. Thesmophoria is the most common in honour of Demeter. The development of the Christian
calendar based on festival grew out of this and the Jewish tradition of festival.

Temples: The Greek temples originated in the early 8th century BC in conjunction with the rise of
the polis. Rectangular, a central room (cella) with a half size statue of the cult deity. Inside were
stored offerings and dedications. Sacrifice and worship occurred outside the temple. These formed
important centres for city life. Hence, idolatry was a major problem for early Christian Gentile
converts cf. 1 Thess 1:9‐10.

Divination: The interpretation of signs or messages from the gods was important in Greek religion.
These included cleromancy (casting lots), ornithomancy (observing bird flight), hieromancy
(observing animal sacrifice and organs), cledonomancy (random omens or sounds) and oneiromancy
(dream interpretation). The diviner was the mantis, which means “diviner”, “soothsayer”, “seer”,
and ‘prophet’ (cf. Simon Magus [Acts 8:9]). The “oracle” (cf. the Matrix) was both the verbal
response of a god or the place where the god was consulted. The most famous is the Panhellenic
oracle of Apollo at Delphi. On the seventh day of the month inquirers could pose questions to the
priestess (Pythia) who was a spokesperson for Apollo seated on Apollo throne‐tripod. He would give
Apollo's response. The oracle could relate to any area of life.

Domestic Cults: The hearth was a fire that burned all year round and was used for cooking. It was
put out each year ritually. Prayers were said each day and libations poured on the ground or on the
hearth. The male head (paterfamilias) acted as a priest and offerings were made for dead ancestors
who were divine upon death (also at tombs).

Roman Religion
Those who were not Roman citizens did not adopt Roman religion in any significant way. Rather,
they retained their traditional or Greek religious viewpoint. This was not a problem in a syncretistic
and polytheistic context where mixing and mingling religious viewpoints was part and parcel of
religious life. There were a number of central features to Roman religion.

44


Pax deorum (“peace with the gods”)

This involved maintenance of peaceful relationship with gods. This was considered key to temporal
prosperity (cf. prosperity teaching) and success (i.e. the status quo). All public disasters were
interpreted in this light. That is; a disaster like an earthquake was considered a result of failure to
maintain right relationships with the gods. Divination helped find the problem. 4 measures were
designed to maintain this peace:
Sacrifice and prayer.
Exact fulfilment of vows and oaths.
Ritual of lustratio to preserve from hostile influences. 10
Strict attention to all outward signs of the will of the gods.

In the imperial period a fifth element was of great importance
Support and protection of the emperor by the gods.

This indicates the danger Christians were instantly in when they turned away from Greco‐Roman
religious practices i.e. they were liable to be seen as the cause of problems which occurred and
severely punished for destabilising the situation.

Roman gods: 3 types of deity.

Autonomous divinities: Often arranged in triads e.g. Jupiter (husband of Juno; light, sky, weather,
state, welfare, laws), Mars (war) and Quirinius (early state god); Jupiter, Juno (companion of Jupiter;
light, birth, women, marriage) and Minerva (companion of Jupiter; wisdom). They were individually
honoured and of fixed character. They could be called mother, father but had no marital
relationships or offspring. Hence there is no genealogy corresponding to the Greek gods. The most
important god, Jupiter had two partners, Juno and Minerva who were not wives but consorts.
Archaic Roman religion linked him with Mars and Quirinius. It seems they were grouped in 12 as
with the Greek gods i.e. Juno = Hera; Vesta = Hestia; Minerva = Athena; Ceres = Demeter; Diana =
Artemis; Venus = Aphrodite; Mars = Ares; Mercury = Hermes; Jupiter = Zeus; Neptune = Poseidon;
Vulcan = Hephaestus and Apollo = Ennius.

Secret Beings: These were jealous for their anonymity and helped or hindered Roman people. They
could not be named and influenced.

Indigitimenta: Teams of minor deities with a minor function hindering or assisting human activity.

Priests
Different terms were used for priests including pontifex (college of priests member and later
inferior); flamen (priest of sacrifice and later emperor’s priest). Priests were part‐time positions that
stopped a priestly class from forming. Two exceptions were rex sacrorum (“king of sacrifices”) and
flamen Dialis (“priest of Jupiter”).

10
Lustratio was an ancient Roman purification ceremony, involving a procession and the sacrifice of a pig, a
ram, and a bull (suovetaurilia). The procession traced a “magical boundary" around the area to be purified. The
ceremony was designed to purify the area from all previous religious lapses as well as to protect it from all
external dangers. It was the religious act that closed the Roman census every five years. The ceremony usually
applied to a private estate, but there are also examples of purification ceremonies involving cities and
households. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustratio.
Four colleges of priests developed in the late period of the republic. Only the emperor could belong
to all four simultaneously.

Public divination to discern the things that interrupted peace with the gods was central.

Prayer: The invocation of god or gods by name was universal. Worshipers always prayed with their
heads covered (cf. 1 Cor 11). Great care was taken to address the right god for appropriate
circumstances. Worshipers used a kind of “to whom it may concern” formula. Janus was the first
deity invoked in prayers, then Jupiter, Mars and Quirinius; Vest last.

Sacrifice and Temples: Sacrifice important publicly and privately. Male animals were sacrificed to
male deities and female animals to female gods. It was a good sign when the animal went willingly to
slaughter.

Temples: Temples were rectangular on a raised platform. They included:
Inner room (cella) with statue of deity, altar of incense.
Room behind cella with treasure.
Anteroom in front of cella.
Roofed colonnade.
A stone altar was placed in front of temple for sacrifice. The priests ate the small sacrifices.
The larger sacrifices fed bigger groups with the excess sold at the meat market (2 Cor 8).

Example of a Roman Temple
Temple of Fortuna Virilis (or Portunus) 611

11
http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/Maecenas//rome/t_fortuna_vir/ac740621.html
46


The Imperial Cult: The Roman imperial cult involved the ‘offering of divine honours to a living or
dead emperor.’ 12 The concept originated in Egypt, Persia and Hellenistic ruler cults of Greece and
developed in the Republic, under Julius Caesar and Augustus. Julius Caesar and Augustus were
deified and added to the Roman official pantheon. The imperial cult tended to be of greater
significance outside of Rome especially in Roman Asia giving presence to the absent emperor in
these regions. Traditionally, the emperor was worshiped as a god after his death and apotheosis
(transformation into a deity).

Different emperors responded differently to the notion. Tiberius refused all such deification
including refusing to let some Spaniards build a temple in his name. He declared, ‘I am a mortal, and
divine honours belong only to Augustus, the real saviour of mankind’ (Tacitus, Ann. 4.37–38; Étienne
1958: 420). He issued an edict refusing swearing of allegiance and statues (Suetonius, Tib. 26.1). The
title divus was found on a denarius of Tiberius and he was called ‘son of god’ in some papyri. Caligula
was convinced of his own divinity, he being the incarnation of Jupiter and demanded that he be
worshiped. Temples were erected in his honour in Miletus and Rome (Dio Cass. 59.11.12 and 28.1–
2). He also declared his deceased sister Drusilla a deity (Dio Cass. 59.11.3). He deeply offended Jews
when in 39AD statues of him were erected in Alexandrian synagogues and he ordered that one be
erected in the Jerusalem temple; he abandoned the latter idea. After his assassination he was not
deified. While Claudius did not like to be considered divine, he did permit some statues to be
erected and some temples were built in his honour in Britain; he was also called “lord” and “saviour
of the world”.

Nero who is important for our understanding of Christianity in the late 50’s and 60’s and provides a
backdrop to the events of Philippians, the Pastorals and the deaths of Peter and Paul. He deified
Claudius despite the ridicule of Seneca. He was depicted as a ‘god’ on coins from 65AD. He saw
himself as an incarnate Apollo ‘the Lyre player’. He wore the radiate crown of a deified emperor. In
55AD his statue was erected in the temple of Mars Ultor (Tacitus Ann. 13.8.1); the first such direct
association since Caesar. While he rejected a proposed temple to ‘the divine Nero’ in 65AD on the
basis that only dead emperors were divine, he did have a hundred‐foot bronze statue of himself as
the sun with a star‐shaped crown erected. Imperial announcements such as ‘Our Apollo… by thyself
we swear’ and ‘O Divine Voice! Blessed are they that hear you’ were also divine in intent (Dio Cass.
62.20.5 and 63.20.5). He was also called ‘lord of the whole world’ in a Boeotian inscription in 67AD.
However, on his death, he was no deified but declared an ‘enemy of the state’ by the Senate. It is
possible that this elevated self‐perspective lies behind Revelation.

The emperors that followed are not so relevant to our study. Vespasian generally refused divine
honours but joked on his deathbed, ‘I suppose I am becoming a god’ (Suet. Vesp. 23.4) and was
regularly labelled ‘lord’ and ‘saviour’. Titus his son consecrated Vespasian and had a temple erected
in his name. He himself was called ‘saviour of the world’ and was consecrated by Domitian his
brother. Domitian insisted that he be recognized as a divine deus praesens (divine presence). He was
pictured on a throne as ‘father of the gods’ in coins and had a huge marble statue of himself erected
in Ephesus where he became the focal point of the imperial cult in Asia Minor. He demanded that he
be addressed as ‘our lord and god’ (Suet. Dom. 13) and punished those who refused (cf. Thomas to
Jesus in Jn 20:28. By this time, emperor deification, offerings, incense, prayers and vows were
obligatory and were the basis for the punishment of Christians who refused. Trajan who followed
Domitian in 98AD general rejected divine honours.

12
See ABD.
Although it is outside the range of this course it is interesting to consider the interchange between
Pliny the Younger and Trajan concerning Christians in Bithynia and Pontus (cf. Pliny the Younger,
10.96‐97.

Pliny:
This is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I
ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third
time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. . . . All who
denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because
they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your
image which I had ordered to be brought forward for this purpose.

Trajan then offered this reply (10.97):

You have taken the right line, my dear Pliny, in examining the cases of those denounced to
you as Christians, for no hard and fast rule can be laid down, of universal application. They
are not to be sought out; if they are informed against, and the charge is proved, they are to
be punished, with this reservation—that if anyone denies that he is a Christian, and actually
proves it, that is by worshiping our gods, he shall be pardoned as a result of his recantation,
however suspect he may have been with respect to the past.

Although this interchange postdates Paul’s letters, the underlying attitude toward Christians surely
was prevalent from the earliest points of Christian reticence concerning Greco‐Roman gods and the
imperial cult.13 As such, the Christian gospel was a direct challenge to the supremacy and divinity of
the Emperor. It claimed that a false‐king (Messiah) and rebel killed by the Romans and thus inferior
to their gods and emperor, is indeed saviour, Lord and God. When we read in the NT documents
Jesus is Lord, king and saviour, this calls to mind the direct political and social confrontation of the
Christian gospel with the Empire.

Hellenistic Religions
Historically, the Hellenistic period ran from Alexander (336BC) to Actium (31BC). In reality however,
it continued into the Roman period due to the enormous cultural influence of the Greek culture. We
have already noted that the Imperial Cult developed out of the Hellenistic ruler cults. 14 In addition,
some key private associations developed in this time including:
Professional corporations or guilds e.g. fisherman, fruit growers, ship owners.
Funerary societies (collegia tenuirum).
Religious or cult societies (collegia sodalicia).

The greatest religious impact from the Hellenistic period were the so‐called ‘mystery religions’. The
‘mystery religions’ are a variety of ancient public and private cults who shared certain features.
‘Mystery’ comes from Latin mystes meaning initiation and hence secret initiation ritual. Thus they
were private associations with secret initiation rituals (cf. today the Masons). Many of the mystery

13
You can read up on this in the article “Imperial Cult” in ABD.
14
The ruler cult of Alexander the Great and following rulers was a political adjustment to the loss of
independence of the cities. The cities required a cult appropriate to their subordinate status. These
cults with priests, processions, sacrifices and games were founded in honour of Greek rulers like
Lysander of Sparta and Dion of Syracuse. Alexander requested and received such a cult. The city in
question was afforded special honour if they established a cult.

48


cults trace their ancestry back to the oldest of the mystery cults called ‘the mysteries’ i.e. the
Eleusinian mysteries from Eleusis in Attica. The initiation had three features:
Dromena, ‘things acted out’. Enactment of the cultic myth.
Legomena, ‘things spoken’. Oral presentation of the cultic myth.
Deiknymena, ‘things shown’. The ritual presentation of symbolic objects to the initiant.

The initiants who experienced the ritual were sure of sōteria (salvation) in the sense of present
health and prosperity and future blissful afterlife. It was believed all mystery cults were based on the
annual decay and renewal of vegetation. Now we know this not to be the case, there was great
variety. Two key examples of the mystery religions include:

The Eleusinian Mysteries

The religion is native to Attica (southern Greece) and taken over by Athens. It flourished until 395AD.
The central myth involved Hades (god of the underworld) who took his wife Persephone (goddess of
the underworld and fertility), daughter of goddess of the harvest Demeter to the underworld as his
wife. Demeter sought her for nine days when Helios (sun god) revealed to Demeter the truth. Angry,
Demeter left Olympus and caused a drought that deprived humans of food and sacrifices. Zeus sent
Hermes to do a deal with Hades and Persephone was returned to her mother on the condition that
she spend one third of every year in the underworld with Hades. Demeter is ‘earth mother’ in the
story and Persephone is grain. This corresponds to the seasons.

The vegetation deities were metaphors of life and death and the initiant was guaranteed a blissful
afterlife in the spirit world through identification with Persephone.

Initiation was voluntary and in two stages; an initiation into the lesser and then greater mysteries. It
began with the offering of a pig in Athens in honour of Demeter, a torchlight parade to Eleusis to the
Teleserion, the ‘hall of initiation’. When they entered the inner room the initiation was complete.
While we are unsure it is probable there was an enactment and oral presentation of the myth and a
display of grain and others symbols.

The Mysteries of Mithra

Mithras was the Persian sun god, the god of light. It seems not to have originated in Iran but in the
first century BC. It flourished to the fourth century AD until Christianity was established. It was
popular in Italy and the Danube. It included soldiers, bureaucrats, merchants and slaves but women
were excluded. Astral salvation was central with ascent of the seven planetary spheres after death.
There were seven grades of initiation each with protection of a planetary god:
Corax, ‘raven’ (Mercury)
Nymphus, ‘bride’ (Venus)
Miles, ‘soldier’ (Mars)
Leo, ‘lion’ (Jupiter)
Perses, ‘Persian’ (Moon)
Heliodromus, ‘courier of the sun’ (Sun)
Pater, ‘father’ (Saturn).
They worshiped in artificial caverns called mithraea below sea level. The killing of a bull formed the
centre of their ritual as artistic evidence suggests.

Paul and Greco‐Roman Religion
Paul was a man of his era from Tarsus and was well aware of this plethora of religions (cf. 1 Cor 8:5).
In regard to the mystery religions an earlier group of NT scholars tried to place Paul in their context.
The so‐called ‘history‐of‐religions school’ (e.g. Bousset; Reizenstein) saw Christian interest in the
Eucharist and baptism as connected intimately to the concept of a dying and rising god (Rom 6).
Some argued that Paul was contending against such ideas in Rom 6 and 1 Cor 15 (Bultmann).
However Wedderborn has argued:
The mystery cults were widespread in the time of Paul.
They had no standard theology centred on the promise of immortality through participation in the
death and resurrection of the deity.
The offer of immortality to the initiant is not verified in evidence.
The connection between baptism and Spirit is not found in any mystery.

Paul may have been influenced by such cults but as is more likely the common language is taken
from the general religious language of the time including Greek, Roman, Jewish and early Christian
practice.

In regard to the Imperial Cult particularly influential in Asia and Tarsus; we note that the names
given to the emperor are used of Jesus e.g. kurios (Lord) , sōter (saviour). ‘Son of god’ was also used
of Augustus (son of Julius Caesar) and hence may have been inspired by the Imperial Cult. The
concept gospel (euangelion) is also considered by some to have been drawn from the Imperial Cult,
especially concerning the announcement of good news concerning the Emperor e.g. a military
victory or birth of a son. However, it at least equally influenced by the OT and in particular Is 40‐66
where it refers to the good news of God’s deliverance of his people from exile and the salvation of
the world (new heavens and earth).

Paul considered pagan sacrifice as a sacrifice to demons (1 Cor 10:20) a view common in Judaism.
Paul also expressed a difficulty with eating meat from temple worship unless it caused others
unbelief (1 Cor 10:28).

Acts has regular references to the cults of Greco‐Roman culture related to Paul’s mission:
In Acts 16:16‐18 Paul exorcises a ‘spirit of divination’ from a young female slave girl causing a loss of
income for her owners and thus a threat to pax deorum; a classic example of the sociological clash
between Christianity and the status quo.
In Ephesus the new Christians rejected sorcery and burnt their magical books (Acts 19:18‐19). These
clashes with paganism are used by Paul as opportunities for proclaiming the existence and claims of
the one true God and reflect pagan hostility in response to Paul's proclamation of the gospel.
In Acts 14:11‐13 after Paul and Barnabas heal a disabled man; the people believed the gods had
come in human form. Barnabas is identified as Zeus and Paul the chief speaker, as Hermes (Zeus’
spokesman). Since Homer, it was believed that the gods could take on human form.
In Act 17:23 Paul picks up the Athenian concept of the unknown god as a basis for his message.
Although no altar with the exact inscription has been found it is consistent with altars to unknown
god's found in Athens and Olympia.
In Acts 19:23‐41 Paul's success caused a threat to the livelihood of silver‐workers from the temple.
The temple of Artemis was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and the city was entitled
‘temple‐keeper’. The acclamation ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians’ was a popular title of the
goddess.

Paul's ministry and Christian existence is set in the context of a multitude of pagan cults. His mission
involved direct encounter with these cults and as such threatened the economic and political
stability of these societies. While it is difficult to make the associations accurately because of fluid
50


use of language, it is certain Paul's selection of language and theological theme was governed by the
religions of the day and his recipients. Paul considers these religions rooted in the demonic and as
15
such enslaving others.

Importantly today we note that Paul's world was pluralistic i.e. it was able to embrace a wide
number of religious viewpoints. As such it was very tolerant, granting a number of religions legal
status. However it is also apparent that where Christianity and Judaism and other religions clashed
particularly with the power, economic, political, social and religious basis of the Greco‐Roman world,
then hostility resulted. It is in the context of mission that this is intensified as the gospel is
proclaimed and converts are made. The exclusivity of Christianity based on salvation by faith is
manifested in the context of mission and it at this very point that Paul experienced resistance.

In this regard there are many similarities with today’s context where tolerance and pluralism are
becoming increasingly rampant. However this ‘masks a certain hostility to Christian religion in the
west that is revealed when anyone seeks to be evangelistic and proclaim and gospel calling people
to faith in Christ for salvation. The mask of tolerance is then revealed. It is tolerance of anything that
does not demand a change of allegiance. As such Paul is the primary biblical informant to westerners
in the context of post‐modern mission.

Philosophy
One must have a certain basic understanding of philosophy of the first century to place Paul in his
context. This helps us understand Paul's theology, letter and mission praxis. There were four main
philosophies held in the intellectual field in the first century: the middle Platonists, the Stoa, the
Peripatetics 16 and the Epicureans. Another important group were the Cynics who begged for a living
and mixed with the people, offering moral advice on a popular level. In the ancient world philosophy
was considered a normal part of education for public life or even the military.

Its influence was widespread among the upper educated classes. While not many were professional
philosophers, digests of school philosophy was commonplace. Paul's hometown of Tarsus had a
philosophy school which Paul probably did not attend but which would have ensured circulation of
philosophical ideas. In addition Paul would have encountered philosophy in Jerusalem where
Hellenistic ideas had infiltrated to the degree that any training under Gamaliel would have
interfaced with Greek philosophy.

Common key Ideas in all Greek philosophical thinking
There were a number of key ideas which were common to all Greek philosophical thought. Some of
these included:
There is a supreme deity above and behind all supernatural force. Hence philosophy was rarely
atheistic. ‘Theology’ was assumed and studied alongside physics, logic, maths etc.
The pantheon of gods was considered children or servants of the higher power and the concept was
seldom challenged.
Philosophy remained aloof from popular religion and was critical of myth, anthropomorphism
(interpreting God through human categories) and the trivia of god's struggles, passions and
activities.

15
D.E. Aune. 'Religions, Greco‐Roman' in DPL, 786‐96.
16
The Peripatetics are not of great importance to our era with Platonism dominating. These people
followed Aristotle (384‐322 BC), Plato's disciple. He rejected Plato's immaterial soul arguing that the
soul and the body were inseparable except for thought.
Middle Platonists and Peripatetics saw God as utterly transcendent, immaterial divine force, pure
mind and rationality. Lesser gods, to avoid contact with matter carried out God’s will. God dwelt
beyond the moon in the stellar sphere. Whereas Stoics saw God as immanent and active in the
world.
Especially in middle Platonism there was a dualism between the world above and the world of
matter; matter was despised and inferior while the world above was ideal and perfect (rationalism).
This led to death being seen as a blessed release.
All three schools held the highest and most divine attribute of God to be mind (nous) or reason
(logos). The reasoning part of the human was divine, the seed of God.

Epicureans
Some of the features of Epicurean thought included:
The gods were ‘blessed and immortal beings’.
However they lived as though religion was irrelevant.
Everything is explainable by natural forces (cf. naturalism) and composed of ‘atoms’.
Random collisions of atoms caused all events and chance predominated i.e. a world of chance.
They believed in free will contra‐fate.
The goal of the philosophy was to free the mind of fear and trouble so that mental peace could
flourish.
They defined pleasure as the primary good. While Epicurus himself reviled excess as incompatible
with true pleasure, his followers were lambasted as effeminate or extravagant.

Middle Platonists
Some of the features of the Middle Platonists include:
Plato believed that the rational element of the human soul was immortal. God bestowed this on
universe. The rest of the human person was entrusted to lesser gods who were creations of the
demiurge. These included the ‘irrational passions’ and appetites (thus a dualism).
By the first century the Demiurge was a lesser god and the supreme deity remote from the material
world. This led to material things as inferior substances and body as a hindrance in progress toward
God. Not that the body was evil by nature.
The universe was peopled by a host of intermediary beings that acted as servants of the supreme
God involved in oracles and who attended sacrifices.
Ascent to deity and freedom from the cycle of reincarnation and body was made via the pursuit of
philosophy.
Reason was also placed in other ‘bodies’ such as stars or demigods.

Stoics
Some of the features of Stoic thought included:
It was a pantheistic concept. The Stoa rejected “immaterial substance” i.e. all is material including
God.
God was fire, reason (logos) or spirit (pneuma) which was material not like the Holy Spirit.
God exists in everything, shapes fate and all reality through divine reason.
There was real reverence for this God who shaped nature by wisdom.
Paul quotes a fellow Cilician, Aratus in Acts 17:28: “we are his offspring”. Other famous Stoics came
from Tarsus including Athendorus friend of Augustus.
By the first century ethics were central especially: “how can the wise man live in accordance with
nature?” i.e. live rationally with acceptance of one's fate with God.
Virtue was the only absolute good recognised. All else including health, wealth, strength, beauty, life
from death were adiaphora (indifferent).
52


A Stoic was highly individualistic, self‐centred in pursuit of “virtue”.
Stoics developed diatribe that was used by Paul (cf. Rom 2).

Cynics
Some of the features of the Cynics include:
It was more a way of life than a philosophy and was often combined with other different
philosophies.
One key was to live ‘according to nature’ meaning independence from external props i.e. by the
barest of essentials (begging).
For example, one Cynic, Diogenes of Sinope, lived in a barrel with only a cloak and a cup, eventually
giving up the cup! (cf. the monastic movement).
They begged with ragged cloaks, although some worked.
They rejected social norms, were ‘shameless’ and saw themselves as moral reformers.
They often spoke publicly with caustic, abusive and arrogant speech exposing the sins of the
audience.
They were concerned with ethics and right living and not abstract thought.

Paul and Hellenistic Philosophy
General connection
We can see that Paul reveals similarities and differences with these ideas. He agreed with the middle
Platonists that God was immaterial but he also believed he was immanent seen as active in the earth
particularly in Jesus and the Spirit. Paul's immanent God is outwardly similar to the Stoics. However
God was separate from nature not part of it. Paul agreed with Hellenistic philosophers that God
created the universe. However they did not think God created from nothing. Neither is God and
creation co‐eternal to Paul. Jesus and God pre‐existed creation (Col 1:17). For philosophers
reasoning from first principles gave knowledge of God. For Paul, while reason is still important,
revelation was the only source of knowledge (1 Cor 1:17‐18; 2:6‐16) and wisdom is from God.

The Acts 17:16‐34 account of the mission to Athens represents Paul's best known encounter with
philosophy, albeit through Luke’s lens. There he is in debate with Stoics and Epicureans. As Socrates
was rejected in the Areopagus so is Paul.

The connections in Paul are hard to trace as Judaism was highly influenced by Greek ideas at this
time as in the case of Philo of Alexandria (c. 30B.C. ‐ c. A.D.45).

Paul and Platonism

There are similarities with Platonic thought in Paul. Some scholars include:
The idea that what is divine can be grasped by intelligence and not sensory perception (‘we set our
gaze not on what is seen, but what is unseen’ (2 Cor 4:18).
The idea of a heavenly archetype or ‘idea’ upon which earthly particulars are modelled (the allegory
of Gal 4:24‐26).
The ‘inner man’ of 2 Cor 4:16 is similar to Plato's idea. For Plato this is the rational will. For Paul it is
the whole being that will be resurrected.

Paul and Stoicism

Scholars note a number of similarities:
There are numerous similarities in thought and language e.g. Rom 1:19‐20, 26; 11:36; 12:1; 1 Cir
3:21‐23; 6:12; 7:31; 9:1, 19; 12:12‐27; Col 1:16; Eph 4:6; 5:22‐6:9.
However the similarities are often superficial suggesting Paul took common Stoic ideas and
reworked them as part of his proclamation.
For the Stoic and the Cynic autrakeia was ‘self‐sufficiency’ and involved long training and
renunciation of material goods, and so independence. For Paul (2 Cor 9:8; Phil 4:11) it meant
renunciation of material need based on dependence on God not independence. Hence it is not self
centred.
‘Paul's practice of deliberately using Stoic themes in redefined ways is an early Christian attempt at
cross‐cultural communication, even more significant if Stoicism or a Stoicising influence were at
17
work in the Gentile churches.’

Paul and Cynic moral exhortation

Malherbe has noted points of connection in Thessalonians between Paul and the mild Cynic
philosopher (e.g. Dio Chrysostom):
Paul's description of ministry in 1 Thess 2. The philosopher speaks ‘boldly’, without ‘guile’ and with
‘purity of mind’. He attacks the charlatans who deceive their hearers from impure motives (1 Thess
2:2‐3, 5). Such a philosopher was idealised by Dio and others. The theme of gentleness of correction
was well known among milder Cynics (1 Thess 2:6‐8).
Paul as with Stoicism re‐orientates the common material to a Christian world‐view. His boldness was
not due to self‐confidence and independence but through confidence and dependence in the God
who had called him.
Paul never supports the notion of begging as a means of support preferring self‐support and, at
times, the support of the churches.

Conclusion
Paul picked up the common philosophical parlance of the first century Greco‐Roman world. However
he used it with Christian content and framework. "As a man of his era he was aware of intellectual
18
currents" .

Travel in the Roman world
One of the great developments in the Roman era was the establishment of a comprehensive
network of travel and communications. The construction of roadways connecting the far reaches of
the Empire and the systemisation of sea travel was a key factor in the spread of the message. Pax
Romana was a divine preparation for evangelism.

19
R. Hock has estimated that Paul travelled 16,000km in his missionary travels by land and sea.
Hence Paul was probably the most widely travelled NT character and benefited hugely from the
travel developments of Rome. 3 factors were vital in Paul's mobility (and the spread of the Christian
message through other Christians):

17
T. Paige. 'Philosophy' in DPL, 713‐18, 716.
18
T. Paige. 'Philosophy' in DPL, 713‐18, 717.
19
R. Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1980, 27). L.J. Kreitzer. 'Travel in the Roman World' in DPL, 945‐46, arrives at a distance of 6
200 miles or 10 300 km's.
54


Overland Roads and Highways

The Roman world was criss‐crossed by a network of 80,000 km's of main military highways and
300,000 km's of secondary roads. Hence ‘all roads lead to Rome’! Many were public building projects
and bear the name of the benefactor e.g. Via Appia (Rome‐Capua) built by Appius Claudius in 312
BC. These were for military movement and later trade. Many still survive today and are integrated
into contemporary roading. Paul travelled along this road en‐route to Rome as a prisoner (Acts
28:14‐16)

Travel was usually by foot with about 30km travelled in a day. Travel by animals whether horse or
carriage meant about 8‐10km per hour.

Paul used a number of these major trade routes including the Egnatia Way across Macedonia
connecting the Adriatic (Illyricum cf. Rom 15:19) with the east (Neapolis). Paul's second missionary
journey took him along this road from Neapolis, through Philippi and onto Thessalonica before he
turned to Berea and then onto Athens. He also claims to have visited as far west as Illyricum (Rom
15:19), but we have no record of this trip.

Sea Routes
Emperor Augustus (27B.C.‐A.D.14) declared, ‘I made the sea peaceful and freed it from pirates.’ In
the NT period the long‐term problem of piracy was stabilised through the establishment of
permanent Roman fleets at key points in the Mediterranean. Sea was important for trade between
Egypt, Rome, Tyre, Caesarea, Ostia and Pisidian Antioch.

The ships included warships (biremes and triremes) fitted with oars and manned by rowers (not
indoor rowers although they rowed indoors!). Most commercial ships were sailing vessels
dependent on wind and weather. Winter travel was particularly dangerous. Hence, travel was mainly
at day with regular stops at night on routes that hugged the coastline.

Paul made use of sea travel in all four of his major‐recorded journeys. The trip in Acts 27:1‐28:16 to
Rome is illustrative of typical journeying and the hazards of winter travel. The three shipwrecks
referred to 2 Cor 11:25 and which falls before the major Roman journey illustrates how dangerous
sea travel could be.

Postal Services
A regular postal system was established based on the ease of travel in the Roman world. Paul used
this to great effect in the delivery of his letters. Timothy, Tychicus and Epaphroditus operated as
couriers for his letters (1 Thess 3:2; Col 4:7; Phil 2:25).

Social Stratification
Today class is primarily based on economic position. In the time of Paul this was not the case and
class (rank and status) was based more on birth and legal status. Greco‐Roman society was highly
hierarchical and classist. There was very limited possibility of movement between classes. In early
Rome, society was split between the ‘orders’ of Patricians (prob. from Latin patres [‘fathers’]) and
Plebeians (from pleb meaning ‘common people’). Patricians were the highly privileged aristocrats
based on heredity alone i.e. inherited rank. Plebeians were Roman citizens who were not Patricians.
Marriage across these orders was originally forbidden. Between 500BC and 287BC there was a
continuous conflict between the two orders. The aristocracy of birth was then broken down being
replaced with an aristocracy based on holding of political office, wealth (especially land‐based
wealth). However, this did not remove the hierarchy of rank in the culture nor improve the lot of the
poorer groups in Roman society. 20 Greco‐Roman society remained highly stratified with a great gulf
between rich and poor. While it was possible to move upwards with the acquisition of wealth, it was
not easy to do so. Here are the basic classes:

Upper Classes

Senatorial Class (senatores): These were men involved in the Senate and their families. Hence, this
was a class based on political power. The dominant group were nobles (nobiles), families who
included at least one consul. Nobility was achieved through the family often requiring three
generations to establish noble status. Senators had to prove they had property of 1 million sesterces
(a Roman coin worth ¼ of a denarius which was a working man’s wages for a day); public office being
self supporting with no salary and senators being forbidden from non‐agricultural business, trade or
public contracts. These men wore a tunic with broad stripes (laticlavi).

Equestrian Class: These were men who were wealthy i.e. possessed stable wealth of 400,000
sesterces. The families of such men were included by extension. Sometimes some moved into the
senatorial class. However, this was rare because Equestrians were often involved on business
dealings banned for the senators. In addition, the senatorial ranks were dominated by families who
had maintained their position for years. It was possible but very rare for a freeborn Roman citizen to
move into the equestrian class through the acquisition of wealth. They wore tunics with narrow
stripes (augusti clavi).

Women: While families dominated the above orders, membership was defined by male activity and
birth. Women belonged to the social class of their fathers and then husbands. They wore no special
dress to show their status.

Privilege: Great privilege and prestige was associated with being a part of these orders including
greater economic, political and educational opportunities; legal rights and benefits.

No Middle Class: Unlike contemporary western society, there was no real middle class but an
immense gulf between the classes.

Lower Classes

Commons (plebs or vulgus): All other freeborn (not slaves) Roman citizens were in this grouping. The
men wore togas. All Roman citizens were free to marry and Roman citizen and have legitimate
children who were thus Roman citizens (conubium).

Latins (Latini): Freeborn residents of Italy were granted full citizenship until 89BC. Former slaves
freed by Roman citizens were a special group called “Junian Latins”.

20
Barbara F. McManus from http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/socialclass.html. The information in this
section comes from this website.

56


Foreigners (peregrini): All freeborn men and women who lived in Roman territories were granted
full Roman citizenship until 212 AD.

Freedpeople (liberti or libertini): men and women who were slaved but had bought their freedom or
had been liberated (manumission). They had some restrictions and were bound in some ways to
their former masters who were now their patrons. They became citizens if they were formally
manumitted and their masters were Roman citizens. They were not eligible for public office. Hence,
it was not possible to leave this class for a generation. Their children were granted full citizenship
and could become equestrians if rich enough. There was social stigma however, in being a
freedman’s son. They tended to be of low social status and poor although if successful in trade, they
might become wealthy. They wore no special dress but tended to be identified by their names.
Slaves (servi): People were born into slavery or sold into slavery through war or piracy. They were
the property of their owners by law. They might be allowed to save (peculium) to buy their freedom.
Alternatively, their masters may manumit them enabling movement of class. Roman slavery was not
racially based, there was no special dress. However, sometimes run‐away slaves (cf. Onesimus)
might be made to wear metal collars with the inscription like this: ‘I have run away. Capture me.
When you have returned me to my master, Zoninus, you will receive a reward.’

Women: In the lower classes, women were automatically members of the social class of their
parents except in the case of freedmen since only one generation could be thus named. If their
parents were Roman citizens and legally married, the children were Roman citizens. In the case of
Latins, foreigners and slaves, children retained the social status of their mother even if their father
was a freeborn Roman citizen.

During the Roman Empire at the time of the NT most of these classes continued. From the time of
Augustus the imperial household gained greater status including women who were often entitled
Augusta and mater castrorum (‘mother of the military camps’) and even gained power without
formal office. Freedmen associated with the Emperor tended to gain prestige and wealth, while
remaining in their social class. Imperial slaves also gained a certain social prestige; hence there were
anomalies within the social orders of the day. During the Empire, the Senate tended to lose political
power (cf. the modern Queen of England) and membership depended on the favour of the Emperor.
However, rank was still pivotal to the Empire and became more marked and formalised.

The churches of the NT crossed the spectrum with few from the highest and lowest of these classes.
There were some wealthy people who owned property which the church met in. Some of these
include Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:5), Phoebe (Rom 16:1), Nympha (Col 4:15), Philemon (Phm 1),
Lydia (Acts 16:15) etc. Erastus is mentioned in Rom 16:24 and is a man of some rank within the
Corinthian government (an employee of Rome). An inscription reading: ‘Erastus, in return for his
aedileship, laid this pavement at his own expense.’ The aedile was the commissioner of public works
and a high ranking public official belonging to the Roman ruling class in a city. As such, Erastus of
Corinth was probably a man of rank and means. However, the majority of the church were probably
from the lower stratum of society (see 1 Cor 1:26). The radical ethic of egalitarianism allowed the
poorer Christians to gain a higher status within the church then in the wider society.

Patronage
Greco‐Roman society existed under the patronage and benefaction of the emperor and the gods.
The whole Empire was seen as being under the patronage of Rome and the Emperor. To resist Rome
was thus an act of rejection of the patronage of Rome. In religious terms, festivals were held under
the patronage of the gods and emperor. 21 This also provides a potential background to Paul’s
approach to eating food at temple meals (1 Cor 10:14‐22); the participant in the meal placing
themselves effectively under the patronage of the deity who was being worshiped, violating the
monotheistic nature of the Christian faith. 22 Hence, when Christianity emerged it challenged this
system by its implicit suggestion that the Yahweh was the only true patron and Jesus as Lord
assuming the role ascribed to the gods and Emperor. As such it was destabilising. Patronage in
society was also basic; the noble Greek‐Roman aristocrat being generous to the city; contributing to
civic developments (e.g. libraries) and the arts (cf. Erastus above). It was not uncommon for the
nobleman to be patron to writers, orators and philosophers; patronage being one of the basic means
of support (others included charging fees and less commonly, self‐support [often looked down upon]
or begging [Cynics]). This system was based on friendship and the whole Greco‐Roman society
functions on a network of obligation.

At the core of the controversy in Corinth was Paul’s refusal to place himself under the patronage of
members of the Corinthian church. Rather, he chose to be self‐supporting, which was not only
considered demeaning, but to violate the principles of patronage. His reticence may have been
because of the constraints of freedom such a relationship may bring; the benefactor potentially
being a limiting factor of the philosopher’s freedom to teach the truth. Along with this being a
violation of the principle of the gospel‐worker being worthy of his hire (cf. Paul’s defence of this
principle in 1 Cor 9:1‐15); this meant Paul was not considered an authentic apostle by some in
Corinth (see his defence of his apostleship in 1 Cor 9). In addition, the refusal of gifts in Greco‐
Roman culture was considered insulting and shaming because of the principle of general reciprocity
i.e. ‘the giving and receiving of benefactions was an extremely important component of the social
structure.’23 One of the means of expressing power for the wealthy was patronage and the basis of
benefaction was the principle of friendship. Hence, to refuse patronage was an act of enmity! So one
can see why Paul was at odds with sections of the Corinthian church. His refusal was seen by some
as a rejection of friendship and/or refusing them the option of being involved in the ministry of the
gospel. In addition by choosing to work for his own support, he was demeaning both himself and the
Corinthians.

This notion of patronage also underlay the development of the church as churches were primarily
based in houses under the patronage of the wealthy cf. ‘the church that meets in their/her house’
(cf. Priscilla and Aquila [Rom 16:5]; Nympha [Col 4:15]; Philemon [Phm 1]). Hence, the problems in
Corinth (esp. 1 Cor 1:10‐11) and perhaps Rome (Rom 14‐15) may have related to house churches
under the patronage of wealthy members of the congregation. Interestingly, in some contexts Paul
was happy to be reliant on patronage, accepting the hospitality and friendship of Aquila and Priscilla
(Rom 16:2 cf. Acts 18), Gaius (Rom 16:23), Philemon (Phm 2, 22) and the Philippians (Phil 4:14‐19).
This may be due to these Christians not using patronage as a means of power i.e. being concerned to
influence Paul and violate his freedom and/or allowing him the freedom to earn his own living if he
so chose.

Patronage was not confined to men, but there is record of Roman women acting as patrons in
society; of women being ‘the mother of the synagogue’ in Jewish circles including leadership and in

21
The meals in Luke‐Acts and in Rev (cf. “in the presence of the Lord”) may have this background.
22
I.H. Marshall, “Lord’s Supper”, in Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Dictionary of
Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 573.
23
J.M. Everts, “Financial Support” in Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid.
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 294

58


the Christian church e.g. Nympha, Phoebe (Rom 16:1‐2), supporters of Jesus (cf. Lk 8:1‐3). 24
Patronage was also central to family life; the paterfamilias being the patron (patronus) of the family;
the family dependent on their patronage. This probably backgrounds Paul’s use of familial language,
God the patron for the church which functioned as God’s family.

Another feature of patronage was that it was very public; a feature of rank being that it must be
seen to be meaningful. 25 Hence, as we will see below under rank, privilege carried clothing which
demonstrated one’s status. The whole society was based on ‘friendship’ (amicitia) or mutual support
between upper‐class men of relative (though competitive) equality. Patronage worked on the basis
of publicly acknowledged inequality between patron (patronus) and client (cliens). Clients acted as
the kind of clan to the patron; supporting him in political and military ventures and legal contexts.
The patron defended his clients in these same contexts. Loyalty was expected of the clients (fides)
and a prized virtue. Patronage passed through generations; the heir of the patron continuing the
relationship with the client family.

There were two main types of patronage.

Public Patronage: As noted above, public patronage involved a wealthy patron became the
protector and benefactor of a group (e.g. craftsman’s guild; a religious association; a city). It involved
great gives of money for infrastructure, public buildings, entertainment; it could involve protection
and advocacy. Such patronage was expected to lead to public acknowledgement from client groups
with statues and inscriptions (e.g. Erastus above). It was expected that the recipients would support
the patron politically and protect their honour.

Personal Patronage: Where a patron helped an individual in the lower classes through money, gifts,
hospitality, legal assistance, advice, protection; such a relationship could span the generations. This
often occurred in the case of freedmen. Such patronage was expected to lead to public displays of
deference such as the morning greeting (salutation: clients flocked to the house of their wealthy
patron wearing togas and clustering in the atrium, vestibule and the streets waiting to be summoned
individually to greet the patron at his tabilum) and accompanying the patron to the Forum for a
court meeting etc. As in the case of public patronage, the client was expected to support the patron
politically.

Hence, public display and personal honour and prestige were essential to the system. ‘Patronage
was the grease that kept the wheels of the Roman economy, society, and politics turning’
(MacManus).
This system led to a rich legacy of Roman literature; wealthy patrons supporting authors in their
writing and expected commemoration in their literature (e.g. Maecenas an equestrian was patron to
Horace and Vergil; perhaps Theophilus was Luke’s patron).

While as with all aspects of Roman society, this was a male‐dominated concept; women participated
in the patronage system as well to achieve great honour.

This client system held together the Roman Empire giving it stability based on the loyalty of clients
who kept patrons and their families in power over the centuries. It almost functioned as a means of
social welfare. It extended to protection, help in poverty, loans, dowry, funerary costs.

24
L.M. White, “Christianity” in Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday,
1996, c1992, 932‐933.
25
Barbara F. McManus from http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/socialclass.html. The information in this
section comes from this website.
It is interesting that the Italian word padrino linked to the Mafia (Godfather) is derived from
patronus and there are great similarities between the Mafia and the client system of Greco‐Roman
society. 26

Sexual Immorality
One of the distinctions between Judaism and the Greco‐Roman world was the attitude to sexual
immorality. Whereas Judaism at the time of Christ in an ideal sense repudiated homosexuality,
adultery, incest, prostitution and affirmed monogamous heterosexual marriage, the Roman world
was lax in terms of its sexual ethic. Marriage was ideally ‘a life‐long partnership, and a sharing of civil
and religious rights’ (Modestinus Digesta 23.2.1). However, it could be terminated by either party
with a simple oral or written notification from husband or wife. Adultery was defined as a married
women engaging in sexual intercourse with a married man was a serious crime punished with
banishment or death. 27

However, prostitution, homosexuality and pedastry were common related to temple worship and
the Greco‐Roman symposia. Old Corinth was particularly infamous for its loose sexual mores with a
prostitute colloquially termed ‘a Corinthian girl’ and to engage in illicit sexual activity as ‘to
Corinthianize.’

As Christianity spread into the Greco‐Roman world, there was a refusal to compromise in terms of
sexual license, it emphatically sided with the Jewish ethic as the gospel spread, repudiating
prostitution, homosexuality and affirming a monogamous heterosexual sexual ethic based on love.

Life after Death
Another feature of the Greco‐Roman world is that, unlike the Jewish belief in a bodily resurrection
and a new heaven and earth, there is a complete lack of acceptance of the notion of bodily
resurrection in the here‐after. A couple of examples will demonstrate this:
‘Once a man has died, and the dust has soaked up his blood, there is no resurrection’
(Aeschylus. Eumenides, 647f).
‘I am Zosime who was formerly a slave only with my body; now I have found freedom for my
body as well’ (Inscription, late empire).
Death was seen as a disembodied existence. Take this quote from Achilles in Homer:
‘Ah then, it is true that something of us does survive even in the Halls of Hades, but with no
intellect at all, only the ghost and semblance of a man’ (Homer, Illiad. 23.99‐107).
It was seen as a blessed release from the cage of the inferior body:
‘Yes they are,’ he replied, ‘and freed from their chains, from that prison‐house – the body;
for what you call life is in fact death.’ Cicero, De Republica, 6.13.
When the Christian world hit the Greco‐Roman world, there was a complete refusal to modify the
gospel toward this disembodied spiritual resurrection.

26
http://www.roman‐empire.net/society/society.html.
27
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 594.
60


Chapter Four
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
Contents
The Synoptic Gospels and Their Relationship ....................................................................................... 61
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 62
Markan priority (The ‘Two‐Source or Four‐Source Hypothesis’) .......................................................... 62
The Griesbach Hypothesis (The ‘Two‐Gospel Matthean Priority Argument’) ...................................... 63
Three Synoptic Gospel Source Theories ............................................................................................... 63
Farrar Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................. 64
Peter Carroll Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................... 64
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 65
Keown’s View of Formation of the Synoptic Gospels ........................................................................... 66
Questions for your consideration ......................................................................................................... 66

61

The Synoptic Gospels and Their Relationship
Introduction
The first three Gospels in the NT are called the ‘Synoptic Gospels’ because they can be viewed side
by side (‘syn‐optically’) and compared easily by means of a synopsis. This is due to the large amount
of common material in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

So similar are they that the essence of 606 verses out of the 661 verses in Mark1 are found in
Matthew whilst 380 are found in Luke. Put another way around, out of 1,068 verses in Matthew,
about 500 contain the essence of 606 verses in Mark. And out of 1,149 verses in Luke, 380 are
paralleled in Mark. Only 31 verses in Mark have no parallel in Matthew or Luke.2

Aside from this common material, Matthew and Luke have 250 verses that have common material,3
with varying levels of verbal similarity, which is are not paralleled in Mark.4 This common material
has led scholars to believe there is another source from which Matthew and Luke drew to write their
Gospels.

Some argue that there was actually another written Gospel which they have called Q, from Quelle,
the Latin for ‘source’. Other scholars do not believe that this material existed as a gospel but rather
existed as oral sayings of Jesus which were collected by Matthew and Luke and added to Mark.
Another possibility is some combination of oral and written tradition.5

At the same time, Matthew (about 300 verses) and Luke (about 520 verses) have material to their
Gospels without no parallel in the other Gospels. This unique material in Matthew is called ‘M’ and
the material unique to Luke is called ‘L’.6

All this has led to trying to work out how all this material relates to each other. This process of
analysis is called the ‘synoptic problem’ i.e. seeking to understand the relationship of the Synoptic
Gospels to one another. We will not go into detail concerning this problem except to summarise the
main ideas.

Markan priority (The ‘Two‐Source or Four‐Source Hypothesis’)
The majority of NT scholars have argued for sometime for the view that Mark was the first written
Gospel. It is argued that Matthew and Luke then wrote their Gospels with Mark in front of them
drawing on Q (whether written or oral source) and independent material M and L.7 Some versions
of this do not include additional material M and L and believe there are two sources and so call it the
‘Two‐Source Hypothesis’. Most today would include unique M and L material, and call it the ‘Four‐
Source Hypothesis’ (see diagram below).

1
There are actually 678 verses in Mark. However, 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9‐20 are disputed and
probably not original to the text of Mark.
2
3
That is, the essence of the material is found in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark.
4
NBD, 428.
5
To get a feel for the idea of Q read the succinct summary by Kiwi scholar G. Stanton, ‘Q’, in DJG, 644‐650.
6
NBD, 428.
7
There are alternatives to this including that Matthew drew on Mark and Luke drew on Mark and Matthew.

The Griesbach Hypothesis (The ‘Two‐Gospel Matthean Priority
Argument’)
Early church tradition has it that Matthew was the first Gospel written. In line with this belief, some
argue that Matthew came first and so Mark is a summarised version of Matthew (so Augustine).
Luke then, is a combination of Matthew and his own unique material, L. This view has been revived
in more recent times by Johann‐Jakob Griesbach and others who have argued that Mark was written
by means of a systematic combination of parallel accounts taken from Matthew and Luke. The other
alternative is that Luke came first; however, few hold to this view.

Three Synoptic Gospel Source Theories 8

8
Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps & Charts : Old and New
Testaments., "Completely Revised and Updated Comfort Print Edition"; Includes Indexes., Rev. and
updated ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1996).
63

Farrar Hypothesis
The Farrar hypothesis is named after Austin Farrar who wrote On Dispensing with Q in 1955. This is
part of a movement seeking to try and rid NT scholarship of the notion. Contemporary scholars
Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre have followed this line which is commonly called the Farrar‐
Goulder hypothesis. The theory suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the
Gospel of Matthew and then by the Gospel of Luke. Matthew used Mark plus his own material. Luke
then used both Matthew and Mark closely following Mark and using Matthew to varying degrees (at
points the similarity is strong, at others similar but with more difference). In some ways, it is the
simplest solution to the Synoptic problem. The problem with the idea is that the way that Luke has
used the material common to Matthew. Sometimes Luke’s account demonstrates close verbal
similarity to Matthew and other times he does not. Similarly, some would dispute this because they
hold that Luke is written sometime around the end point of Acts (c. AD 61‐63) and before Matthew.

Farrer Hypothesis
Mark
c. AD 60‐65
Matthew
Luke

Peter Carroll Hypothesis 9
Kiwi scholar Peter Carroll also seeks a solution without Q and seeks to resolve the dilemma noted
above; namely, that sometimes Matthew and Luke are very similar while at other times they are not.
He argues that Matthew used Mark along with M material (unique Matthew material) alone (not Q).
Luke then subsequently wrote the first version of his Gospel with access to Mark and unique L
material alone. In this version of Luke which Carroll calls proto‐Luke (an earlier version of Luke), he
did not use any of Matthew’s material. He argues that after writing this version, Luke discovered
Matthew’s Gospel and added to proto‐Luke additional material which conforms much more closely
to Matthew. This explains why sometimes Luke is very similar to Luke and at other times is not. He
argues that the material in Luke and Matthew that is really similar come from this final stage of
writing. The other ‘common material’ in Luke with substantial differences to Matthew are from an
independent source (L). So Luke did not use Q but Mark, L and M. So there are four stages in

9
Based on a paper given at the 2006 ANZAB’s conference.

production: 1) Mark writes his gospel; 2) Matthew uses Mark and his additional material (M) to write
his Gospel; 3) Luke writes proto‐Luke using Mark and his unique material (L); 4) Luke edits proto‐
Luke adding in material from Matthew. The problem here is that proto‐Luke is not proven to exist.

Carroll’s View of Formation of
the Synoptic Gospels
Mark’s
Gospel
Matthew’s Luke’s
Source (M) Source (L)
Matthew’s Proto Luke
Gospel
Luke’s Gospel

Conclusion
The way in which we resolve this issue is actually very important. A full understanding of a gospel
depends on the decisions we make concerning how we deal with the sources. For example, if we
think Matthew is first and that Mark and Luke edited Matthew, then our interpretation is affected in
several ways: 1) Matthew is interpreted ‘on its own’ without considering how the writer has utilised
Mark and/or Luke; 2) Mark and Matthew are interpreted against the backdrop of Matthew asking
how Mark shaped Matthew’s material. If we take the counter view and accept the ‘four‐source
hypothesis’ as most do it has the converse effect: 1) Mark is interpreted ‘on its own’ without
considering how the writer has utilised other Gospel material; 2) Where Matthew and Luke have
used Mark, we have to ask how they have done so; how have they shaped the material? So it is very
important in working with the Synoptic Gospels to come to a decision on this as interpretation will
be affect.

It is also important from the perspective of history and apologetics. The way in which the Christian
story was passed on is vital for establishing the sequence of events and defending the faith in the
face of a huge range of speculative historical constructs.

My own perspective is that the ‘Four‐Source Hypothesis’ deals with the evidence best, although not
perfectly. That is: 1) Mark wrote his Gospel first around the late 50’s and early 60’s based primarily
on Peter’s recollection; 2) Luke wrote second around the early to mid 60’s using Mark and other
written and oral material some of which is also found in Q and some which is unique (L). I believe Q
must include some written material because Luke makes reference to more than one other writing
in Lk 1:1 (‘many); but may include oral tradition. I also would argue lots of what many call Q is in fact
65

unique L material because it differs substantially between Matthew and Luke. 10 The unique L
material may well include lost written material as well. Luke was probably in Rome when Mark at
the same time or near when Mark produced so had almost immediate access to Mark; 11 3) Matthew
wrote his Gospel using Mark, Q and unique material (M) sometime in the late 60’s‐70’s with a Jewish
slant.

Keown’s View of Formation of the Synoptic Gospels

Peter
and some other eye
witness recollection
Eye‐witness recollections Luke’s Eye‐
Matthew’s personal both written and oral (Q) Witness Sources
recollection (M) Mark’s Gospel (L)
and eye C. AD 60‐64
witness sources
Matthew Luke
C. AD late 60’s‐80 C. AD 60‐64
• What questions does this raise for you?
• Which of these approaches to the Synoptic Problem best explains for you the common
material between the first three Gospels? Why?
• Can you think of a way the Gospels could have been formed without the concept of Q?
• What do you think Q is if it exists at all?
• If Matthew wrote the first Gospel as tradition tells us, why would an apostle Matthew use
Mark’s material as the basis for his own gospel?
• Read Lk 1:1‐4: what evidence does this text provide for earlier written Gospels?

10
Two good examples would be the Beatitudes (Mt 5/Lk 6) and the Woes against the Jewish leadership (Mt
23/Lk 11). Such things would have been preached regularly (multiple tellings) across Judea and Galilee by Jesus
and would have been passed down in different forms.
11
Check out Acts 27‐28 where Luke uses ‘we’ 33 x (TNIV version) and you will see that they are ‘we‐passages’
indicating that Luke was with Paul on his journey to Rome.
Chapter Five
UNDERSTANDING MARK’S GOSPEL
Contents
Critical Issues, Historical and Social Setting .......................................................................................... 68
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 68
Evidence for Markan Authorship (that John Mark was the Author) ................................................ 68
The Testimony of Papias ............................................................................................................... 68
Other arguments ........................................................................................................................... 69
John Mark of Acts and the Epistles, the Mark of the Gospel ............................................................ 70
The alternative: An unknown writer living outside Israel ................................................................. 70
Problems with Markan Authorship ............................................................................................... 70
Alternative Authors ....................................................................................................................... 71
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 71
The Question of the Date of Mark’s Gospel ......................................................................................... 71
Three Main Ideas on Date ................................................................................................................. 71
The Forties .................................................................................................................................... 72
The Fifties ...................................................................................................................................... 72
The Sixties ..................................................................................................................................... 72
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 72
Provenance ........................................................................................................................................... 73
The Setting For Mark ............................................................................................................................ 73
Audience ............................................................................................................................................... 74
Sources .................................................................................................................................................. 74
Textual Issues, especially the Longer or Short Ending of Mark ............................................................ 74
The ‘original’ ending (16:6‐8) ............................................................................................................ 74
The shorter ending ............................................................................................................................ 75
The longer ending (Mark 16:9‐20) .................................................................................................... 75
The correct reading? ......................................................................................................................... 75
The Context for Mark’s Gospel ............................................................................................................. 77
The Life of Jesus ................................................................................................................................ 77
Galilean Ministry ............................................................................................................................... 78
The Land of the Gospels .................................................................................................................... 79
The Structure of Mark ........................................................................................................................... 80
The Question of Chronology ............................................................................................................. 80
The Arrangement of Mark’s Gospel .................................................................................................. 81
Key points to note are: .................................................................................................................. 83
Features of Mark’s Gospel .................................................................................................................... 84
Jesus .................................................................................................................................................. 84
Jesus’ Identity.................................................................................................................................... 84
Jesus’ ministry ................................................................................................................................... 86
Fulfilment of Expectation .................................................................................................................. 87
John the Baptist ................................................................................................................................ 87
The Action Orientation of Mark’s Gospel ......................................................................................... 87
Understanding Mark's Gospel
The Kingdom of God ......................................................................................................................... 88
Discipleship ....................................................................................................................................... 88
Ongoing Mission ............................................................................................................................... 89
Jesus’ Death ...................................................................................................................................... 90
The Resurrection of Jesus ................................................................................................................. 91
The Return of Jesus ........................................................................................................................... 91
Questions for you to consider ............................................................................................................... 91

Critical Issues, Historical and Social Setting
Introduction
You may be surprised in light of the universal entitling of the second Gospel as Mark to hear that scholars,
including some evangelicals, are not completely certain who wrote Mark’s gospel. After all, Mark does not sign
the document and the ascriptions are not part of the original text but were added in sometime in the second
century. It is interesting to see how well based this view is.

Evidence for Markan Authorship (that John Mark was the Author)
The Testimony of Papias
The earliest reference to the authorship of Mark is found in a quote by the fourth century church historian
Eusebius. He quotes an early church leader Papias (ca. AD 60–130; ‘a hearer of John and a companion of
Polycarp’ [so Iraneaus] and ‘bishop of the community in Hierapolis’, in Asia Minor) who wrote:

And the Elder said this also:
‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of the things
said and done by the Lord, but not however in order.’ For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him, but
afterwards, as I said, Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were
drawing up a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake in thus recording some
things just as he remembered them. For he took forethought for one thing, not to omit any of the things that he
had heard not to state them falsely.1

Hence Papias records that Mark had been Peter’s ‘interpreter’ and had written down ‘accurately all that he
remembered’ although ‘not in order’ i.e. not chronologically (below). In acting as Peter’s interpreter
(hērmēneutes), he probably interpreted and composed Peter’s words into the form of a written gospel. The
‘elder’ (Gk: presbyter) is commonly believed to be John, probably John the Apostle himself. 2 Later Christian
writers certainly agreed that Mark was the writer. 3

If this is correct then, sometime at the end point of Peter’s life, before he was (according to tradition) crucified
upside down during the reign of Nero (c. AD 64), 4 Mark wrote down in Greek the essence of the Gospel Peter
shared. If so then Mark was not written down by an eye‐witness, but one who obtained his information
directly from an eye‐witness, Peter. R. Bauckham in his book Jesus and the Eye‐Witnesses argues strongly that
Peter is the primary eye‐witness relied on by the author from a number of angles including that he is named
first and last in the Gospel.5

1
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15.
2
Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 92.
3
So Irenaeus, Adv.Haer. 3.1.2. (AD 180); Tertullian, Adv.Marc. 4.5 (c. 200); Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes
(c. 200), according to Eusebius (H.E. 6.14.5‐7); Origen, Comm. On Matt (early third century), according to
Eusebius (H.E. 6.15.5) and probably the Muratorian Canon (c. 190). Justin Martyr the mid‐1st century apologist
also mentions the ‘reminiscences of Peter’ in conjunction with a quotation from Mark’s gospel (Dial. 106).
4
If this tradition is correct cf. R.F. Stoops, Jnr, “Peter and Paul, Passion of”” in ABD 5: 263.
5
R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eye‐Witnesses, 155‐181.
68

Other arguments
Other arguments which support Markan authorship can also be added.

1. Early Church Agreement to Markan Authorship: The early church is unanimous that the second
Gospel is from the pen of Mark and the mind of Peter. Some disputed Papias’ testimony because of
his reference to early Hebrew Matthean texts which supposedly does not account for Matthew.
However, this could point to proto‐gospels and collections of sayings in Aramaic or Hebrew before
they were formed into a Gospel. Significantly, there is not one dissenting voice in the early church
suggesting another author. 6
2. The Ascription ‘According to Mark’: 7 Martin Hengel argues that the title may have been a quite early
addition at the point at which the Gospel was distributed beyond its founding community. 8 At the
least it indicates that ‘by AD 125 or so an important segment of the early church thought that a
person named Mark wrote the second gospel’. 9 While the evidence has some degree of doubt and
supposition, the alternative is a very weakly unsupported historical construct.
3. 1 Peter 5:13: On the basis of 1 Peter 5:13, it is clear that Mark and Peter were together in Rome and
that their relationship was close. Peter writes: ‘Your sister church in Babylon (Rome), chosen together
with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.’ The attribution ‘son’ suggests and intimate
father‐son relationship not unlike Paul and Timothy. Furthermore in Col 4:10, we have further
corroborating evidence that Mark was in Rome at that time.
4. The Priority Given to Mark by the Gospel Writers: A fourth factor is that the other Synoptic writers
Matthew and Luke based their Gospels on Mark i.e. Markan priority. This indicates that they
(including an apostle Matthew) attributed authority to Mark. One logical reason for this is that
Matthew and Luke were aware that Peter was behind the production of Mark and so valued it highly
as a source.
5. Peter’s Prominence in Mark: Peter figures prominently in Mark, and some of the references are best
explained as coming from Peter (e.g. 11:21; 14:72, where Peter ‘remembered’). He is named first and
last of the apostles (1:16; 16:7) indicating that he is probably the primary source.10 Furthermore the
pattern of Mark’s gospel follows reasonably closely the pattern used by Peter in his preaching in Acts
(called the Kerygma). 11
6. Latinisms in the Text: Another factor which has been cited in favour of Mark is his use of ‘Latinisms’ in
the text, suggesting a Roman context. These are Greek words taken over from Latin e.g. ‘centurion’
(15:39), ‘legion’ (5:9, 15), ‘denarius’ (6:37; 12:15; 14:5). In addition, his Greek style is ‘simple and
straightforward and full of the kind of Semitisms that one might expect of a Jerusalem‐bred
Christian’. 12 Martin Hengel writes: ‘I do not know any other work in Greek which has so many
Aramaic or Hebrew words and formulae in so narrow a space as does the second gospel.’ 13
7. Naked Man?: Some have suggested that there is a cryptic self‐reference to the author himself in the
reference to the young lad who fled naked during Jesus arrest (14:51–52: ‘A young man, wearing
nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his
garment behind’). If so, then he was perhaps even an eye‐witness; at least to the end of Jesus life.14

8. If Papias is accurate in his recollection as is most likely, the Gospel was written by Mark in Rome,
somewhere near the end of Peter’s life. This is still the view of a number of contemporary scholars. 15

6
7
Greek: KATA MARKON.
8
Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 74‐81.
9
10
Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 165‐172.
11
See C.H. Dodd, ‘The Framework of the Gospel Narrative’, ExpTim 43 (1932): 396‐400.
12
13
M. Hengel, ‘Literary, theological and historical problems’, 46.
14
15
So for example Garland, 26‐28.
Personally, I accept the traditional view as the starting point for interpretation. However I do so
acknowledging that the evidence is not conclusive, it being the better solution rather than a certain
solution. I also do not think it matters greatly for interpretation.

John Mark of Acts and the Epistles, the Mark of the Gospel
If Mark is the author, who is this Mark? There are eight references to a Mark in the NT found in Acts,
Colossians, Philemon and 1 Peter; almost certainly the same person (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37, 39; Col 4:10; 2 Tim
4:11; Phm 24; 1 Pet 5:13). 16 From these references we can discern a number of things about him. We know
that he was also called John (cf. Acts 13:5); hence, John Mark. His cousinwas Barnabas (Col 4:10). 17 His
mother was Mary, possibly one of Barnabas’ parents sister or sister‐in‐law, whose home in Jerusalem was a
place of prayer for the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:12). When Barnabas and Saul brought a collection for the
poor to Jerusalem during the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:27‐30), they probably stayed with Mary. They were
possibly there during James’ beheading and Peter’s imprisonment. When they left to return to Antioch, they
took John Mark with them as part of the team (Acts 12:25).

He thus became a missionary in the early church, travelling with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary
journey (Acts 15:37‐38). However, he became the subject of controversy when Paul and Barnabas fell out over
him. Mark, for reasons unknown, had abruptly left the first missionary journey in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13;
15:38) and had returned to Jerusalem. When time came for the second missionary journey, Barnabas wanted
to take Mark with them again. However, Paul did not want to because of his desertion. Barnabas was of the
other mind, and so they had ‘a sharp disagreement’ and split up. Barnabas and Mark then went to Cyprus,
while Paul went with Silas to visit the churches he and Barnabas had planted. In Col 4:10 (c. AD 60‐61) he turns
up again with Paul in Rome and possibly also a prisoner in Roman prison. This suggests reconciliation between
Mark and Paul and perhaps that Mark was a prisoner for his bravery for the gospel. In 1 Pet 5:13 Peter
mentions Mark too, again from a Roman context, in glowing terms as his ‘son’. It is probable then that he
wrote his Gospel while in Rome during this time. The positive way Peter refers to Mark as his ‘son’ who is with
him in Rome makes it possible that after his falling out with Paul and working with Barnabas, Peter took him
under his wing.

The alternative: An unknown writer living outside Israel
Problems with Markan Authorship
Markan authorship is disputed for a number of reasons:
1. The Questionable Reliability of Papias: As noted above, Papias’ reliability is questioned on the basis
of his saying ‘Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as
best he could.’ It is argued that there is no evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was ever written in
Hebrew, Aramaic or any other language. Hence, if Papias is wrong on this count, can he be trusted on
Mark? Some believe however, that Papias here was referring to a source for Matthew, Q.
2. The Gospel is Anonymous: It is noted by some that the second Gospel is anonymous believing that
Peter is unlikely to be behind it as one would expect such an important figure to be named. HoIf it not
Mark, then it is wide open as to who wrote it down. However, the absence of reference to an author
of any of the Gospels may be explained by the desire of their authors to give God the glory, rather
than themselves. 18
3. Questions about identifying the author with John Mark: The identification of the author ‘Mark’ with
the John Mark of the NT has fallen out of favour. Some question Mark’s involvement at all, rejecting

16
Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 93 describe the link to this Mark as ‘almost certain’.
17
According to Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek‐English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based
on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:118
he is anepsios to Barnabas meaning that his mother or father was brother or sister to Barnabas’ mum or dad.

18
So David E. Garland, Mark. NAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 26.
70

the early church belief. ‘Mark’ was also ‘one of the most popular names in the Hellenistic age’, 19
leading some to believe that if it was a Mark, it could have been anyone.
4. The weakness of other arguments: Some of the other evidence is also questioned. The ‘Latinisms’
argument (above) is weakened in that such ‘loan words’ were actually quite common over the whole
Roman Empire at the time. The connection between the naked runner in the arrest account does not
necessarily relate to the author and could be another young man at the time.

Alternative Authors
These combine to lead some scholars to look for alternative authors. Many believe that before Mark’s gospel
was written down, there was a period of time in which the material existed in oral form in Greek and
circulated among Christian communities. Hence it is believed that bits and pieces of Mark existed perhaps
even in collections, before the writer of Mark put them all together.

Such scholars agree that the writer is unknown but have come to a sort of consensus on the basis of clues from
the text itself. It is argued that this unknown writer comes from outside Palestine writing to an audience
outside Palestine for several reasons. First, due to the fluency of his Greek and loose knowledge of
geography. 20 Second, it is noted that the author translates all Aramaic words and phrases in Mark into Greek
(talitha cumi in 5:41; ephphatha in 7:34; eloi, eloi lama sabachthani in 15:34). This suggests that his readers are
outside Palestine, the author assisting them through these translations (of course this also supports Mark
writing in Rome). Furthermore, the Jewish customs to which Mark refers are carefully explained (e.g. 7:2–4)
(again this supports Mark writing in Rome). Different suggestions include Rome (traditional), Alexandria (based
on comments by Clement of Alexandria) or Antioch; where the gospel was first proclaimed to non‐Jews (Acts
11:20‐21).

Conclusion
In light of the early church attestation and especially Papias’, I see no strong reason to indicate that we should
reject accepting that John Mark, missionary and co‐worker at different points of Barnabas, Paul and Peter, is
the author of the second Gospel. I also think there are sound reasons to accept that in many ways, this is
Peter’s Gospel written through Mark’s pen; probably from Rome. It is probably the first written extant Gospel
and as such, is critical for understanding the historical Jesus and forming our theology.

The Question of the Date of Mark’s Gospel
Those who accept that Mark wrote the Gospel usually date it around the mid 60’s before Peter’s martyrdom in
Rome which probably occurred during the persecution of Nero (c. AD 64). Those who accept that Matthew
was the first written, followed by Luke and Mark (such as William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem; proponents
of the Griesbach hypothesis [above]) date it after Matthew and Luke i.e. later, cf. 70‐80’s. Those who accept
Markan priority date it earlier than Matthew or Luke. Most today accept this Markan priority position.

In determining the boundaries for possibilities clearly AD33 is one extreme. The other is the mid‐2nd century
where Mark is quoted in references outside the NT. Scholars, in the main, range from the early 40’s to the mid
60’s.

Three Main Ideas on Date
There are three main ideas concerning the date of Mark. The first two are not popular, the third is most likely.

19
Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4,542.
20
In Mk 7:31 he states that Sidon is south of Tyre and that the Sea of Galilee is in the midst of the Decapolis.

The Forties
This early date is held by a small number of scholars. C.C. Torrey suggests the ‘abomination that causes
desolation’ (13:14) is a reference to the attempt in AD 40 of Caligula to set his image up in the Jerusalem
temple. 21 He also assumes an early Aramaic version of Mark existed. J.W. Wenham postulates Peter left
Jerusalem after being released from prison and went to Rome in AD42 to establish the church and Mark’s
gospel was written then.22 Neither of these views is commonly accepted.

The Fifties
Some believe Mark was written in the fifties. There is some evidence Peter may have been in Rome in the later
50’s; possibly being in Corinth before AD55 (1 Cor 1:12; 2:22) and in Rome in about AD63, if we take 1 Peter as
authentic to the pen of Peter. Eusebius in the fourth century records that Peter was in Rome during the reign
of Claudius who died in AD55. However the absence of reference to Peter being in Rome at the time of
Romans (c.AD57) argues that he may not have been there. Mind you, he may have been there on either side,
or Paul may not have been aware of his presence, or Paul may simply not have mentioned Peter.

Stronger support for a 50’s date comes from the end of Acts. It ends abruptly with Paul in a Roman prison
about AD62. If Luke ended his account at this juncture to send it to Theophilus, and if Mark was used as the
basis for the first volume Luke as most scholars suspect, then some scholars argue that Mark must have been
written sometime before AD60. However, this is not conclusive, as Luke was also in Rome and may have had
access to Mark just after it was written reducing the need for a large time gap between Mark and Luke. I am
sympathetic to a late 50’s date, although it is not conclusive.

The Sixties
This is the majority position for two main reasons. First, early tradition favours Mark being written after Peter’s
death (i.e. after the mid 60’s). Secondly, the internal evidence favours a context of persecution in Rome. This is
especially seen in the disciples ‘taking up their cross’ to follow Jesus. Hence this view argues that it probably
written during or after Nero’s persecution of AD65.

Another factor leading some in this direction is the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. Some find explicit references to
the fall in Matthew (Mt 22:7) and Luke (Lk 19:43) suggesting they wrote after the event. On the other hand
Mark 13 does have reference to the fall of Jerusalem but with a strong future orientation and with indistinct
details (e.g. 13:2; cf. 14:58; 15:29). If so, this supports a date before 70 and accords with the traditional dating
of about 64AD.

Conclusion
The argument concerning the fall of Jerusalem does suggest that Mark was written before its fall. Apart from
these arguments it is a close call between an early 60’s and late 50’s date. I am quite attracted to the idea that
it was written in the late 50’s or early 60’s in that it seems most likely to me that Acts was finished about the
time of AD62 when Paul was in prison. 23 The argument that there is evidence of a concern for persecution and
Nero in particular is not strong, as persecution was a part of the world of the time and the comments are
general. The ‘taking up of ones cross’ perspective, if original to Jesus as I suggest it is, means that this is a
metaphor which relates to Jesus’ death itself more than a Roman situation. If this is all correct, a date in the
late 50’s or early 60’s just before the production of Luke‐Acts which fits the early 60’s before Peter, Paul and
James’ deaths seems right.

21
C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels (New York: Harper, 1947), 261‐262.
22
J.W. Wenham, ‘Did Peter go to Rome in A.D. 42?’, TynB 23 (1972): 97‐102.
23
It seems most unusual to me that Luke would write in the 70’s or 80’s and miss out the deaths of James
(AD62), Paul and Peter (c. AD 64‐66) and the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70).
72

Provenance
Up until this point I have suggested Rome as the point of writing. This is supported from early church tradition.
For example, the anti‐Marcionite prologue to Mark (late second century?), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and
Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.6‐7) all suggest Mark was written ‘in the regions of Italy’. It is
generally felt it was written in Rome due to the Latinisms (see above), the mention of Simon of Cyrene’s sons
Alexander and Rufus who may have been known to Mark in Rome (16:13); the apparently Gentile audience;
the allusions to suffering; 1 Pet 5:13 which puts Mark and Peter in Rome and the connection to Rome
explaining its quick acceptance.24

However, while I find this all pretty convincing, some do not find them totally conclusive and argue for other
options. Egypt has some support in Chrysostom (Hom. In Matt. 1.3 [c. ad 400]) and possibly in a supposed
letter of Clement which says Mark, after writing his gospel in Rome with Peter, came to Alexandria, where he
composed a ‘deeper’ Gnostic‐orientated gospel. Some suggest Antioch noting Peter’s connection with Antioch
(see Gal 2:11) or somewhere in the east due to John (the elder) coming from the east. Recently, Galilee and
Syria have been suggested as an option, due to the prominence of Galilee in the narrative. However, the
looseness in speaking about Galilean geography makes this unlikely.25 All things considered, Rome seems the
best option. As such, we will assume in these course notes that John Mark wrote the Gospel based on Peter’s
kerygma from Rome sometime in the late 50’s to early 60’s.
The Setting For Mark
If Mark was written in Rome in the late 50’s ‐ mid 60’s as is probable, it was a time of tremendous turmoil.
According to Tacitus in the mid 60’s, Nero, to scotch the rumour that he had burnt down Rome, sought to
blame Christians for the fire. Many were arrested, convicted ‘for hatred of the human race’ and sentenced to
death. They suffered greatly: ‘they were wrapped in the skins of wild beasts and dismembered by dogs, others
were nailed to crosses; others when daylight failed, were set afire to serve as lamps by night’ in Nero’s garden
in a circus exhibition. According to Tacitus, this led to public pity as they were being killed to ‘satisfy the cruelty
of a single man!’26 Some believe that one of the reasons for Mark’s Gospel may have been to encourage the
Christians in the face of such horrendous suffering. 27 If it is written just previous to this, it is still a factor. It
was a time of Nero’s rule leading to the terrible period of state‐enforced persecution in which Peter and Paul
lost their lives. It makes sense that at this time when the lives of the great founding leaders of the church were
under threat that the church sought to conserve and stabilise the traditions about Jesus.

If this Roman setting is correct our interpretation of Mark should take into account the Empire and Emperor.
The story is told of a new Messiah who is killed at the hands of the Jewish people working with Rome, yet who
rises from the dead and is King. Mark inverts the expectations of a king in that generation. Jesus is not a
military or political Caesar type figure who seeks glory, fame and honour with tyranny. Rather, he is a servant
who reigns with love, sacrifice and through dying and rising. He is killed by the king of the world, but is king of
the world. He comes suffering, to end suffering. He is a miracle worker healing and feeding people, the
ultimate benefactor who serves his people and the owrld; not just a despot who must reign through fear.

It must be remembered too that there were 40,000‐60,000 Jews in Rome and so we must not read Mark in an
imbalanced way as if it only concerned for a Roman setting. We know from inscriptions and records that there
were considerable tensions among Jews in Rome in the years leading up to Mark’s Gospel. Seutonius records
that during the reign of Claudius (AD41‐54) ‘he expelled the Jews from Rome because they were constantly
causing disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus’ (Claudius, 25.4). Most take this to mean clashes over Christ
(Chrestus) and occurred about AD49 (cf. Acts 18:2). The letter of Romans indicates that there were both Jew
and Gentile in Rome, the letter concerned for relationships between Jew and Gentile (see Rom 9‐11; 14‐15;
the names in Rom 16). So, Mark is written by a Jew for the Christians both Jew and Gentile. Hence, it must be
read with the OT and writings of Second Temple Judaism in hand; and with the whole of the mindset of the
Roman world in mind.

24
See Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 95‐96.
25
See M.G. Reddish, An Introduction to the Gospels (Nashville: Abingdon,1997),75.
26
Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.
27
See further Garland, Mark, 28‐31.
Audience
Despite the presence of many Jews in Rome, most references in the early church (extra‐biblical sources)
suggest Mark was written to a Gentile Christian audience probably in Rome. The translation of Aramaic
expressions and explanation of Jewish customs also point to this conclusion. This means we must consider
Jesus against the backdrop of the Roman view of the emperor and see belief in Jesus as Lord as a threat to the
Emperor and Empire. It is no surprise that ultimately the two clashed.
Sources
Another fascination of biblical scholarship is the question, ‘where did Mark (or the author) get his/her material
from?’ If it is right that Peter is behind the Gospel, then clearly his primary source is Peter. As such I would
argue, that another factor to have in our minds as we read Mark, is this perspective.

Some argue from the perspective of the Griesbach hypothesis that Matthew is Mark’s source, Mark
summarising Matthew’s material.

Some argue against both views and are not certain where Mark got his material. Some suggest he used some
form of proto‐gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew. However, if so, Peter may be the source for this. Some argue for a
pre‐Markan passion narrative (account of the cross). Some maintain the whole Gospel existed in oral form and
Mark brought together oral traditions of Jesus. If so, Peter may remain the main source of these oral
traditions.

It is possible that there were Aramaic gospels or writings from earlier which were translated into Greek when
the apostle’s lives were ending and for the growing Gentile mission. This is particularly possible in a culture
where historians such as Josephus, Tacitus and many other writers existed. In fact, I would argue that it is
hardly likely that nothing was written down for 30 years!

For me the connection to Peter means that the issue of sources is resolved. Mark recorded a summary of the
kerygma (message) of Peter either just before or after his death.

Textual Issues, especially the Longer or Short Ending of Mark
If you look closely at your English bible you will note that there are a number of footnotes indicating that some
verses are not considered original to the better manuscripts of Mark (these happen throughout the NT). For
example, Mark 7:15 jumps over 7:16 and includes it in a footnote noting ‘some earlier manuscripts. ‘unclean.’
If anyone has ears, let him hear.’ This indicates that this verse is not found in the better Greek manuscripts of
the text. Somehow, it got added into the text. These are the texts disputed in Mark: 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26;
15:28; 16:9‐20. The most important one is this: ‘what was the original ending of Mark?’ This is a big issue,
because there are no resurrection appearances in Mark or Great Commission in Mark except in this ending.
Indeed, if we believe that the original Gospel ended in Mark 16:8, it changes the way we read it quite
substantially. It also begs the question, how and why is it there? There are in fact a variety of endings of Mark,
one shorter, and several longer ones:
The ‘original’ ending (16:6‐8)
The ending most ends dramatically in verse 8 with the angel reporting the resurrection to the women at the
tomb, instructing them to tell Peter and the disciples to go to Galilee and the women’s subsequent
incomprehension and fear:

‘“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See
the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see
him, just as he told you.’’ Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to
anyone, because they were afraid.’
74

The shorter ending
Some ancient manuscripts have shorter ending which includes them going to Peter with the news and then
Jesus sending them out to preach the gospel throughout the world. This is found in some older uncial Greek
manuscripts from the 7th, 8th, 9th centuries and some old Latin and other versions. It is certainly not original to
Mark.

And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out
through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
The longer ending (Mark 16:9‐20)
The traditional ending which is found in the KJB (AV) is from Textus Receptus, the majority text, and found in a
lot of texts, in Irenaeus, the Diaterssaron, Jerome. There are several versions of this. 28 Most of the bibles we
have aside from the KJV and NKJV which accept them as original, include these words:
Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and
reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he
rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He
said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be
saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name
they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink
deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.’ After the Lord
Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out
and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
The correct reading?
So which is the correct reading? It is highly likely that the shorter ending above is not authentic, the evidence is
scant and it dates from the fourth century.

The arguments against the long reading being original are also very strong, which is a great disappointment to
those who find it helpful for their evangelistic theology. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Manuscript Evidence: The longer ending is missing from the two most important uncial manuscripts,
the uncials ‫ﬡ‬ (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus). 29
2. Jerome and Eusebius evidence: Both early church writers record that the best manuscripts do not
contain the longer ending.
3. The variety of endings: Two other endings exist; one with 16 lines of text with Jesus chastising his
disciples. The first of these is the shorter ending (see L, Ψ. 099, 0112 and others) and longer ending
combined with an interpolation. This suggests uncertainty.
4. The Non‐Markan Material in the Longer Ending: The longer ending contains several expressions and
words unusual in Mark and more in line with reflections from Luke’s account and some from John.30

28
One Greek manuscript Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: ‘And they excused
themselves, saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and
power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean
spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now” — thus they
spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other
terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to
the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness
that is in heaven”’ (from Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New
Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 103.
29
Uncials: As a classification of NT manuscripts, ‘uncials’ is not used to refer to all NT manuscripts written in
uncial characters (about 650), but only to continuous‐text manuscripts so written on parchment (about 270).
30
For example: Mary being delivered from 7 demons cf. Lk 8:2; the road to Emmaus account (24:23‐35); the
commissioning (24:46‐28 [but note the flavour is entirely different here]; speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1‐4); Paul
surviving a snake bite (Acts 28:1‐6 cf. Lk 10:19); laying on of hands (Acts 3:1‐10 etc); the ascension (Lk 24:50‐
5. The Lack of Flow: The longer ending does not flow naturally from 16:8. Hence it is likely to be an
interpolation added by someone familiar with Luke’s account in Luke‐Acts to fill out the sense of
incompleteness in the story.

So it is probable that Mark ended his Gospel in 16:8. However, the long shorter reading is not without its
problems as it lacks any reference to appearances and ends in such a note of ambiguity. In addition it is
strange that Mark records no Galilean appearances in light of the promises of Jesus’ appearance there in 16:7.
Some therefore argue that the longer ending is in fact, original.

If the long ending is to be rejected, scholars discuss possibilities for the ‘real’ ending of Mark. Some believe
that Mark intended to write more but was stopped, perhaps due to imprisonment or death. A scenario around
Nero’s persecution fits here. Others believe that Mark may have written a longer ending which has been lost.
A large number of scholars believe however, that Mark 16:8 represents the real end of Mark. The abruptness
of such an ending in a sense fits Mark’s style and the confusion of the disciples and the unravelling identity of
Christ is a theme which is found running through Mark (see later).

All things considered, it is probable that the correct reading is Mk 16:8 which is an unusual but best reading of
the evidence. As such, Mark intentionally finished his Gospel with the disciples completely disheartened at the
death of Christ and with the women who visited the tomb utterly bewildered and terrified. They had all
thought Jesus was Messiah, but once they had recognised this, he had acted in a totally‐non‐Messiah manner;
talking about death and suffering, eventually killed on a cross refusing to aid his own deliverance and all
seemed lost. The angel’s testimony is left hanging as the women wonder what this is all about. It is a brilliant
ending to the drama.

Clearly this ending did not satisfy many in the church because the additional endings found in the manuscripts
of the early church indicate that there was a perceived need to complete the story with summaries of the
appearances and mission. This is not surprising, but it does rob the story of the brilliance of its open ending.

That being said, does this mean that there is no value in Mk 16:9‐20? Some would say so and discard it. On the
contrary, the details correlate nicely and give additional witness to the appearance accounts of Luke and John.
The longer ending then should be seen as another witness to these events albeit conceding that it was perhaps
added after the initial completion of Mark. Evidence suggested it was added early and so is still an important
testimony to the belief in the early church that Jesus rose from the dead.

53; Acts 1:11). The reference to Mary Magdalene blends John with Luke’s references to Mary Magdalene (Lk
8:2; Jn 20:11‐18).
76

The Context for Mark’s Gospel

The Life of Jesus 31

31
Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps & Charts : Old and New Testaments.,
"Completely Revised and Updated Comfort Print Edition"; Includes Indexes., Rev. and updated ed. (Nashville,
Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1996).
Galilean Ministry 32

32
78

The Land of the Gospels 33

33
The Structure of Mark
The Question of Chronology
The comment by Papias concerning Mark recorded Peter’s gospel ‘not in order’ (pros tas chreias). This perhaps
suggests that Mark’s layout of the life of Jesus is not to be taken as chronologically definitive. Some scholars,
based on the Greek chreia suggest Mark is written in a ‘chreia form’ which means it is not written in order. If
so, it is probable that Mark has presented the material from Jesus life in a manner that suited his purposes in
so doing. Some would interpret this as a ‘lack of historical interest’ (ABC, 4, 255). Certainly, from a modern
histographical point of view, there is some truth in this. However, the organisation of the life of Jesus in terms
other than straight chronology does not necessarily imply a disinterest in history or mean that the events are
not historical. Rather, it shows that that the material has been arranged to suit Mark’s purposes.

There are several points in the narrative which support this idea. One example is the consecutive repetition of
two sea voyages crossing from ‘west to east’ with no intervening return, either by boat or on foot (see 4:35
and 5:1 for the first voyage; 5:21 for the second). Clearly Mark has missed something out here i.e. a return trip.

Another example of ‘loose chronology’ is in 6:45 where he directs his disciples to take their boat to Bethsaida
while he dismisses the crowds. Then in 6:53, after Jesus has got into the boat, they land at Gennesaret. Jesus
may have changed the plan in the boat, but Mark’s decision not to include the detail indicates it is not of
importance to him.

Yet another example is the condensation of the events between 4:35 (evening) and 6:2 (Sabbath beginning at
sunset i.e. 6pm). Unless one uses their imagination, the events took place within a couple of hours or a 24 hour
period. Clearly, this is not the case. In fact the whole of Mark is fast paced, one of the features of his
presentation (below).

This lack of historical certainty makes it difficult to write a ‘history’ of Jesus, something that has been the
th
subject of enormous controversy since the 19 century (‘The Quest for the Historical Jesus’). Redaction
criticism is the study of the way in which the editor/redactor has utilised and ordered the material about Jesus.
80

The Arrangement of Mark’s Gospel
Diagrammatic Summary
Focus Beginnings Revelation of Jesus as Messiah Revelation of Jesus as Servant Messiah
Ref 1:1-13 1:14-8:29 8:30-16:8
Ref 1:14-8:26 8:27-39 8:30-10:46 11:1-15:27 16:1-8
Location Wilderness Galilee Caesarea Judea Jerusalem Jerusalem
Philippi
Theme John the Messiah Messiah Messiah Redefined Servant Servant
Baptist Revealed Recognised as Servant King Messiah Vindicated
Baptism, (Note: (Note: Sight Revealed Resurrection
Temptation 2 Feedings, healing) Sacrifice
Sight healing) Passion
Disciples Gathered Incomprehension Understanding Incomprehension Confusion Devastation
Incomprehension
Narrative Beginnings Revelation Climax Revelation Despair Climax
Turning (Open)
Point
Time c. AD. 29-33
When one examines the arrangement of Mark’s Gospel, it is quite brilliantly conceived. The first
climax and turning point is Mark 8:27‐30 where Jesus asks the disciples who they believe he is.
Peter, their spokesman answers, ‘the Messiah’ (8:29). This is the climax of the first half of the Gospel
and the turning point around which the narrative is arranged.

Mark opens his Gospel telling the readers it is a presentation of the ‘Gospel of Jesus Messiah’ (1:1),
the theme of Messiah will dominate his presentation. There are then the beginnings in which John
fulfils the prophetic hope and announces the coming of the Messiah (1:2‐13). He then baptises him,
he faces temptation, and then sets off into ministry, gathering disciples and ministering to the
nation. Notably the organising principle of his presentation is the Kingdom of God (1:14‐15); Jesus
being the Messiah King who is bringing in the Kingdom of God. The Gospel is the coming of the
Messiah to bring God’s Kingdom.

Jesus is careful to silence anyone whether a person or a demon who recognises who he is (see 1:25,
44; 3:12). Some interpret this as suggesting Jesus was not Messiah and did not want to be known as
such (messianic secret). However, he is more likely concealing his identity because of false
understandings of messiahship which were held by the people and who might then seek to gather
around him for war cf. Jn 6:15. He takes care to minister in a way that is not an open declaration of
his messiahship, speaking in parables and not directly (Mk 4), doing miracles and refusing to do signs
and always urging his disciples to recognise who he is. He does things that are extraordinary like cast
out demons, heal the sick, walk on water, forgive sin, raise the dead, feed great crowds with virtually
nothing. All these things challenge those who see him to consider who he is. He called people to him
and began a new movement.

Through the narrative leading up to Mk 8:29 there are different reactions to Jesus. The demons
recognise him, but he silences them. The leaders are antagonistic to him. Central is the struggle of
the disciples to understand him (more below).

The confession that Jesus is Messiah in 8:29 is the climax of the first half of Mark. This is the point
Jesus has been working toward, when his followers to whom he will grant the mission, get it. It is
critical, his followers now know who he is. Surely, he will head into Jerusalem and smite the Romans,
gather the nation, and take over the world!

However, Jesus’ reaction to their confession is totally unexpected. He behaves in a most unlikely
manner. He tells them not to tell anyone (8:30). This is because he was not going to meet the
expectations of the nation and of his disciples; namely, to win the world through military and
political conquest which would violate human volition through power. Rather, he would win it
through humility, grace, sacrifice and service; wooing humanity with grace and love. So he then
declares to them plainly that he will suffer and die in Jerusalem, and then rise from the dead (8:31‐
32). Peter’s reaction is to rebuke Jesus probably feeling that the Messiah should not speak in such a
way for it is nonsense to suggest that the agent of God’s reign would be rejected, suffer and be
killed. Messiah’s end suffering and are not killed! Jesus in turn rebukes Satan who, through Peter, is
seeking to thwart his mission. Jesus then declares that anyone who wants to follow him, the
Messiah, must take up their cross and give their own life for the gospel to be saved. This initially
incomprehensible statement is a call to walk in the path the Messiah is about to show them, the path
to greatness through servanthood. The experience of suffering, death and vindication; is the path of
discipleship.

Jesus continues his ministry and twice more repeats clear predictions of his suffering, death and
resurrection (cf. 9:31‐32; 10:33‐34). The disciples do not comprehend what he was saying and doing
and neither did the political powers. Jesus was defining what sort of Messiah he was, not a
triumphal, political and military Davidic Messiah, the popular belief among the people. Rather, he
had come as a servant Messiah. He declared that the Son of Man must be rejected by the Jewish
people, suffer and die; that he came to serve and not to serve (10:42‐45). He declared that they too
should live this way, leading through servanthood, and that the path to greatness was serving others
(cf. 10:43). He renounced the use of political and military force so common among the Gentiles.

Significantly, before entering Jerusalem, there is another sight‐healing, that of Bartimaeus. Jesus
heals him before entering the final phase after which the disciples will realise that he is the servant‐
Messiah (10:46‐52). It is strategically placed to function in a manner similar to the earlier sight
miracle before the confession (cf. 8:22‐26).

He then entered Jerusalem fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah but riding a donkey and not a war
horse (11:1‐11). Jesus here fuses three concepts in the OT together, the notion of the Son of Man
(Dan 7:13‐14), the Messiah (Is 9:1‐7; 11:1‐9; Jer 23:1‐8; Ezek 36 etc.) and the Servant (cf. Is 42:1‐6;
49:1‐6; 50:4‐10; 52:13‐53:13; Is 61:1‐2). The latter notion of servanthood, death and vindication
redefines the first two notions.

Then, rather than gathering to him the people and leaders of the nation to take on the Gentiles, he
went into debate and challenge of his own people, clearing the temple, arguing with the leaders
continually in the temple courts (11‐12). Aside from a shocking attack on the temple, he showed no
interest in doing the expected work of the Messiah. His interactions with the leadership were
provocative, his parables challenging their desire to kill him (esp. 12:1‐12). He predicted the fall of
Jerusalem and a triumphal coming of a Son of Man on the clouds of heaven at the end of the age
when the message of the Kingdom has gone global, to all nations (13:10). Thus, this first coming is
one of a king coming in humility, going to his death and then rising. Then there would be an interim
period of mission and world struggle including the destruction of Jerusalem (13:1‐25). He predicted
that the work he had begun would be continued by his people, the message of his glorious gospel
and Kingdom spread to all the world (13:10). Then there would be a glorious climax, a second
coming of the King‐Messiah, his glorious return in power and victory (13:25‐27).

82

Then he is anointed as King in the home of leper in Bethany by a woman, declaring him Messiah
(14:1‐9) again predicting that this gospel will be declared throughout the world including this
account. He then celebrates the Passover, the great inaugural celebration of the salvation of Israel
from Egypt (Exodus). He again predicts his death, this time stating that his body and blood are now
symbols of a new covenant in his blood; the covenant awaited for since Jeremiah (Mk 14:23‐25; Jer
31:31‐33). Just as God delivered Israel from bondage to Egypt, he would deliver the world with a
new Exodus from the forces of darkness and oppression; this meal would symbolise this deliverance
as the Passover feast commemorates this initial deliverance. There is betrayal, as one of his own
goes to the leaders of Israel seeking to see him destroyed, perhaps disappointed by Jesus’ failure to
behave like a true Messiah (14:10‐11). At the meal he predicts that one would betray him (14:20‐21),
and he predicts that the disciples would deny and desert him (14:27, 29‐31). The disciples have no
idea of what he is driving at and hurt and dismayed. He goes through the deepest struggle and
darkness in the Garden as he faces his impending death; he pleads with his God for deliverance from
the suffering he will endure. Yet, he completely submits to God’s will knowing that his death will
bring the salvation of the world (14:32‐42).

According to his word, he is then betrayed as he predicted; he is denied, and he goes to the cross,
rejected by his own people and killed unjustly for political ends at the hands of the Romans (Pilate).
This false Messiah is destroyed. The Jewish faith and reliance on the Mosaic covenant, Yahwism,
nomism and temple system is safe; the leaders have saved Judaism from being rent. Rome has
vanquished this pathetic nothing carpenter wannabe ‘Messiah’, the political threat has been
averted. Caesar god and patron and the gods of the Roman pantheon remain in control of the world.
This is not the behaviour of a Messiah and the hopes of the people and disciples are shattered. They
scatter, disillusioned, confused and defeated.

Mark’s Gospel ends with an even more surprising twist. The women go to the tomb and find it
empty. They hear the good news that he is risen and has gone ahead of them to Galilee, as he has
predicted (14:28; 16:7). The narrative ends with them in fear and confusion. They still don’t get it.
The men know none of this and their hopes are shattered. The women have some hope, but do not
know what to do about it. The penny has not fully dropped, but it will, and when it does, it will set in
blaze a movement which will end up in Rome itself, the heart of the Empire, and the threat of Jesus
will be much more powerful. The Messiah Man is now a Messiah Movement!

So, the whole narrative is based around the identity of Jesus as Messiah; and more particularly, the
Servant Messiah. He fulfils the hopes of Israel through the ministry predicted by Isaiah in the servant
songs which predicted a servant figure anointed by the Spirit who would be the light to the nations,
bring God’s justice, suffer, die and be vindicated. The scene is set in Rome for a new world power
and leader to take control; not through might, military force and power; but through grace, love,
servanthood, forgiveness, restoration, deliverance, faith, salvation and hope.
Key points to note are:
1. The centre point if the confession at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus is Messiah (8:29).
2. Before this point, Jesus ministers, and the disciples struggle to discern who he is. There are
two feedings to assist this process. The healing of the blind man before the confession is not
only a true miracle, but is symbolic of the disciples coming to see who Jesus is.
3. After the confession Jesus immediately redefines Messiahship in terms of the suffering
servant of Isaiah fused with the Daniel 7 Son of Man. He is en‐route to Jerusalem to die to
save the world. Again the disciples cannot grasp this not understanding the 3 direct
predictions of his death.
4. Note the two sight miracles; both though real, symbolise the spiritual revelation to the
disciples whose spiritual blindness is healed. The first immediately before the revelation
Jesus’ is Messiah (8:22‐26); the second just before the entry into Jerusalem to go to the
cross where Jesus’ is revealed as Servant Messiah (10:42‐46).
5. Note the role of the two feeding miracles, the 5000 and 4000; after the first they don’t get it.
After the second they do.
6. The climax of Mark is Jesus in Jerusalem and ultimately dying on the cross.
7. It ends without resurrection appearance narratives (these belong to the longer ending). Thus
it ends with the perplexity of the disciples who are trying to work this all out.
Features of Mark’s Gospel
Jesus
Clearly the main man in the Gospel is Jesus. The Gospel is anonymous pointing to the desire of the writer to
point away from himself to Jesus. If Peter was behind it as seems likely, then this points to his humility and
desire to ensure that Jesus and not he is in the limelight. The Gospel then is all about Jesus. He is the Messiah
of God come to establish God’s reign. Mark wants his readers to respond with repentance and faith. He is the
true Caesar, God’s Son here to save and bring God’s deliverance. The thrust of the account is about his
ministry. It lacks an infancy narrative. The focus is on Jesus’ dramatic entry into Judaism and humanity, his
miracles, his preaching in parables, the struggle of the disciples to grasp who he is, his controversial
encounters with Jewish leadership and his striking entry to Jerusalem to fulfil the OT hope. What was not
expected was that he would fulfil the expectation concerning the suffering servant of Isaiah rather than the
triumphant Messianic deliverer in this first visit to planet earth (cf. Is 53). It ends with his resurrection and
hope for all. He, though rejected by his own people and killed by the Roman Emperor’s procurator Pilate, is the
risen King over all Kings.
Jesus’ Identity
As noted above, Mark’s presentation of Jesus to me clearly revolves around the issue of who Jesus is. Focus
centres on different groups and their responses to Jesus. Clearly the writer (Mark) knows who Jesus is as he
tells the story from the perspective of the resurrection. He is the Son of God (8x), the divine representative of
God who addressed God as Abba Father (14:36) and who walked in intimate relationship with him. Caesar was
often known by this term, Jesus is the true Son of God king over all the nations. He is the Son of Man (14x) who
fulfils the hopes of Daniel and many successive prophecies in Judaism of one who would come like a Son of
Man and bring God’s kingdom (cf. Dan 7:13‐14). He is the Lord (5x) supreme over the Sabbath and who is
God’s agent to establish the Kingdom. Thus he is the presence of YHWH who is truly Lord on earth; he is the
Lord over all the world and so above all earthly claimants. He is the teacher, the one who teaches with
authority and brings God’s word to his people (1:22; 4:38; 5:35; 9:17, 38; 10:17, 20, 33; 12:14, 19, 32; 13:1;
14:14). As such, he is the wisdom of God. He is the one who forgives sin, strongly suggestive of his divinity (2:9‐
10). He is the one who provides, who heals, who raises the dead, performs amazing miracles over nature like
walking on water and calming a storm; for Mark he is the risen Lord, the Messiah, the divine Son of God;
fulfilling the hopes of the OT and for the world. As this Gospel declared, written in the heart of the Roman
world, he is the ruler of all over Rome itself. He is the defeater of Satan, here to set the world free from the
false tyranny of the ultimate antagonist of God, Satan. He defeats him in the desert, drives him out in healing
and deliverance, and thwarts him on the cross, rising to life and opening up salvation for the world. His mission
will see this extend through all nations as the Gospel goes global. He is the one in whom the OT hope of the
law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah) come together in his ministry as symbolised by the Transfiguration (9:1‐
13). In fulfilment of the servant songs of Isaiah (see below on Christology), Jesus is the suffering servant who
came as Messiah and died for the world.

The story includes differing responses to Jesus. Some get it fully like John the Baptist who from the start
prophetically recognises Jesus (1:7‐8).34 Similarly the demons reluctantly recognise him shrieking at seeing him
and unable to withstand his authority and power (1:23; 3:11; 9:20). However they continue to resist his
sovereignty.

34
Mark does not include the Q (Mt and Lk) material concerning him sending disciples to question Jesus as to
his identity (cf. Mt 11:2‐6; Lk 7:18‐23).
84


Some struggle to understand who he is like the disciples who follow him without hesitation (1:16‐20; 2:13‐17)
but, while hanging in with him fascinated and amazed by his miracles and teaching, struggle to comprehend
who Jesus is. The Greek word existēmi recurs in 2:12; 3:21; 5:42; 6:51 and suggests ‘greatly astonished’. This
incomprehension is seen at different points in the narrative especially before Peter’s confession. So for
example in the boat, the disciples are fearful crying out for help and when Jesus saves them are terrified and
incredulous (4:35‐41). Again when Jesus walks on the water the disciples are amazed, not understanding the
force of the feeding miracle (6:50‐52). They should have recognised by the sign of feeding that Jesus was the
Messiah on the basis of his feeding the people in the wilderness as did God for Israel (cf. Exod 4:21). The
second feeding serves to repeat this and ends with Jesus asking ‘do you still not understand?’ (8:21) and is
followed by the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (8:22‐26). Without wanting to deny the genuineness of
the story, the story of the healing serves to symbolise the spiritual healing of the disciples who finally get it,
and recognise who Jesus is in 8:26.

The differing responses to Jesus are outlined in the account of John the Baptist’s death. Some like Herod
consider Jesus to be John the Baptist raised from the dead (6:14; 8:28). Others consider that he is Elijah
restored to earth after his translation (6:15; 8:28 cf. 2 Kgs 2). Some considered him to merely be a prophet in
the line with the OT prophets (6:15). These perspectives prepare the ground for the confession of Jesus being
the Messiah of Peter in 8:29. The repetition in two contexts in the story of these perspectives (6:14‐15; 8:27‐
29) is significant. The disciples are like other Jews (cf. Herod) who do not recognise Jesus. After the second
feeding and Jesus’ prompting they finally get it.

Ultimately the turning point comes in Peter’s confession at which he recognises Jesus is the Messiah (8:29); the
critical moment in the Gospel. However, immediately they are plunged into confusion as their false
expectations of the Messiah are exposed by Jesus’ first prediction of his death and their own suffering (8:31‐
37). They do not get it until the resurrection. Constantly throughout the narrative Mark records situations in
which the disciples do not get it.

The story of Peter dominates as he is the first and last mentioned (1:16; 16:7); who responds to his call (1:16‐
20; 3:16); is one of the inner circle with John and James (5:37; 13:3; 14:33); who recognises Jesus as Messiah
(8:26); who then is rebuked as being Satan’s emissary when he fails to understand the passion prediction
(8:32‐33); who responds to the coming together of the law and prophets with Jesus on the mount of
Transfiguration with the bizarre thought of building a tent (9:5); who is the mouthpiece for the disciples (8:26;
10:28; 11:21); who boldly declares that he will never deny Jesus but then does so and is humiliated (14:29, 31,
54, 66‐72); who stays with Jesus in the garden but then falls asleep after being told to pray (14:37). His story
encapsulates the problem for the disciples, they don’t quite get it. They are however, role models of
discipleship; they not quite getting it but hanging in there and growing in their understanding as Jesus
progressively and patiently reveals himself to them. This centrality of Peter supports the view that Peter lies
behind Mark’s account.

From 1:16 to 8:26 the disciples grow in their realisation until they confess his Messiahship. However, they then
do not get it and even thought 3 times Jesus indicates he will suffer, die and rise, they do not understand
because of their presuppositions; the Messiah will establish God’s reign now through spiritual and military
power. This incredulity is left unresolved at the end of the Gospel but anticipates resolution in Galilee when
Jesus will appear to Peter and the others (16:7‐8). It is probable that the shorter ending was intentional to
leave the incomprehension of the disciples (including the women) hanging as even to that point they simply
did not get it, full of fear and bewilderment.

Some reject Jesus completely. The demons recognise him but continue to work to destroy God’s people and
world. There is the tragic story of Judas who accepts the call to follow him but rejects Jesus. Those in his
hometown also fail to understand who Jesus is, being unable to correlate that this son of Joseph can be a
miracle performing prophetic healer. As a result Mark records that he can do no miracles except heal a few
people (6:1‐6). Throughout Mark there is this growing opposition to Jesus from Jewish leaders beginning as
early as 2:6 when he forgives the paralytic and seen in ongoing debate (2:16; 7:1‐23; 9:14; 11:27; 12:14, 19, 28)
and accusation of demonic forces at work in his ministry (3:22) and wish to kill him (8:31; 10:33; 11:18; 14:1,
43, 53; 15:1, 31). In many ways this clash is the crux of the story; the whole of the Gospel building to the
crescendo of his death and then the confusion of the empty tomb and angel’s report of his resurrection.

Then there are the crowds, the hoi polloi (‘the many’ i.e. the masses). They too do not grasp who Jesus is fully.
He clearly amazes them through his authoritative teaching (1:22, 27) healing and deliverance ministry (1:32‐
33; 5:20, 42) which draws great crowds. Some of his other miracles have a similar effect especially the feeding
and walking on the water episodes. Ultimately he cannot enter towns as a result of these crowds and he
remained in wilderness situations (1:45). There were various understandings of who he is and it is clear by the
time of his arrival in Jerusalem (11:1‐11) messianic expectations were at fever pitch as he came in on a donkey
fulfilling OT hopes of the King arriving on a colt (Zech 9:9) and the crowds singing messianic psalms (Ps 118:25‐
26). This is heightened by the clearing of the temple (11:12‐19), a public act challenging the authority of the
religious leadership and inciting thoughts of rebellion. However equally quickly, their expectations were not
met, and they turned on him, abusing him at his crucifixion. The Gospel ends with this note of rejection from
the people of Israel echoing in the air.

Another feature of Mark is the so‐called Messianic secret where Mark repeatedly notes Jesus telling demons
and people not to disclose who he is (e.g. 1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 8:30). The reason for this is missiological, he not
wanting his mission to go to the cross to be thwarted by overly heightened expectations of his missionary
purpose. This is seen where Jesus warning is disregarded and he had to adapt his mission as a result (cf. 1:45).
Jesus’ ministry
Most of Mark revolves around Jesus’ ministry. The key elements of his ministry are calling disciples and
appointing and sending apostles (1:16‐20; 2:13‐14; 3:16‐19), teaching and preaching (1:21‐28, 38‐39; 4:1f),
healing and deliverance (10 healings/deliverances/revifications and 3 summaries), praying (1:35‐37), feeding
the poor (2 accounts), miracles over nature (2 accounts) and encounters with individuals (e.g. the
Syrophoenician woman; the rich ruler) and groups (e.g. children). He is the friend of sinners, lepers, children
and other who are marginalised, defying the expectations of a Jewish Rabbi who would not deign to hang out
with such unclean people. In fact, these are the very people he came to restore to relationship with God and to
restore to the community of God’s people from which they had wrongly been shut out (2:17‐10). He ministers
to these people through servanthood and love, from below and not above, not utilising political and military
revolution as was the norm in this world.

Interestingly however, apart from the rich ruler account (10:17‐31) and the generous widow (12:41‐44), there
is little development of the matter of the poor, so prominent in Luke’s Gospel. However, the concern over
materialism, a renunciation of greed and the Kingdom call for radical generosity is anticipated in these and
other hints.

His ministry is continually one of challenge to Jewish understandings (without the developed view of Matthew
5‐7), the pouring of new wine into old wineskins (2:19‐21). In particular he calls into question their view of the
Sabbath (2:23‐3:6) and clean and unclean food (7:1‐23). The Jerusalem clearing of the temple and the cursing
of the fig tree are also symbolic challenges to the Jewish leadership (see 11:12‐25). That latter action pointing
to the barrenness of Israel as the old covenant period ends and the Kingdom is inaugurated through Jesus. One
of the strong notes of Mark is the manner in which his ministry clashes with the powers of darkness. This is
seen in a small mention of his defeat of Satan at his temptation (1:12‐13), his deliverance ministry and in the
Beelzebul controversy where he declares that the Kingdom has come to plunder Satan’s realm (3:20‐30). The
sub‐text of Mark is that he has come to deliver the world from the grip of Satan, setting all people free. The
whole time in Jerusalem (ch 11‐12) is a confrontation between Jesus and these rulers as they seek to trap him
to justify killing him.

His proclamation in Mark to the crowds is in parables (4:1‐20). Jesus relates this to the Isaianic expectation
that the word of God will result in the hardening of hearts rather than lead to repentance (4:11‐12 cf. Is 6:9,
10); indicating that this approach was related to the purposes of God for the people of Israel at that time.

There is far less ‘teaching material’ in Mark than in Matthew and Luke cf. Mt 5‐7; Lk 6 etc). However there are
sayings that encourage bringing ones witness forward (4:21‐23); God’s blessing (4:24‐25), the Kingdom,
humility (9:33‐35), welcoming children (9:36‐37) and childlikeness (10:13‐16), renunciation of sin (9:47‐50),
divorce (10:1‐12), wealth (10:17‐31), present and future blessing (10:29‐31), servant leadership (10:35‐45).
During his theological engagement with the leading Jewish thinkers in the temple on arrival in Jerusalem Jesus
86

also taught that Christians should pay tax (12:13‐17), of the absence of marriage at the resurrection (12:18‐27),
the greatest commandments (12:28‐34), the Lordship of the Messiah (cf. Ps 110:1), radical generosity (12:41‐
44) and the destruction of the temple, his own return and the need for steadfastness (13).

Hence Mark, when compared to Matthew and Luke, is not as strongly interested in ethics or Christian living
aside from radical discipleship commitment.

Fulfilment of Expectation
Mark’s Gospel begins with a blended quote (Mal 3:1; Is 40:3 [Mk 1:2‐3]) stating from the beginning that this
gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God is a fulfilment of long‐held hopes. The role of John the Baptist is
forerunner to Jesus and his ministry fulfils the commonly held Jewish expectation that one like Elijah (cf. 9:11;
Mal 4:5) would come before the Messiah to prepare the way for him. John’s ministry bridges the gap from the
OT to NT. It was commonly believed that prophecy ceased at Malachi and the emergence of John the Baptist
announced a new era had dawned. He was a prophet not unlike Elijah, living in the wilderness, surviving on
honey, dressed as a wild man. He baptised people, calling them to repentance and fidelity to the covenant,
preparing them to meet their Messiah. The huge response (‘the whole Judean countryside and all the people
of Jerusalem went out to him’) indicated that people recognised in him that times were stirring; as C.S. Lewis
might put it, Aslan is on the move. His role is to point the reader away from himself to the main character who
would not merely baptise in water, but who would ‘baptise in the Holy Spirit and fire’, Jesus. His baptism of
Jesus sees the dramatic sign of heaven torn open indicating that the eschaton had arrived and the Fall was
being reversed. The coming of the dove harkens back to creation where the Spirit hovered like a dove i.e. God
was coming to restore creation.

John the Baptist
As we have noted, John the Baptist is an important forerunner to Jesus. He prepares the way and bridges the
eons. He is the fulfilment of the Old and points to the new. He is the last of the prophets and the first witness
to the Messiah, the first proclaimer of the good news that God has moved in Jesus. John’s death is thoroughly
related (6:14‐29) due to the false understanding held by Herod that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the
dead (6:14). He is the Elijah who was to come as a forerunner to the Messiah (9:13). His death is symbolic of
the culmination of the era of Judaism and the inauguration of the new. His death means that the work of the
prophets is now complete; the long hoped‐for Messiah is not here. Thus, he is the greatest of all who have
lived, but he is least in the Kingdom of God (Mt 11:11). His influence remains strong as even in Acts we read of
believers like Apollos and twelve in Ephesus who know only his baptism (Acts 18:25; 19:3).

The Action Orientation of Mark’s Gospel
One of the features of Mark is its ‘action orientation’. As noted above, Mark works loosely with chronology. His
account shifts scenes rapidly. He often uses the term ‘immediately’ (euthus) (42x) 35 giving a suggestion of
Jesus being ‘constantly on the move, healing, exorcising demons, confronting opponents, and instructing the
disciples.’ 36 There are other dramatic features such as ‘heaven being torn open’. Some of the elements found
in Matthew and Luke are presented in shortened form including the temptation which is condensed to two
verses (1:12‐13 cf. Mt 4:1‐11; Lk 4:1‐13) and his teaching which unlike the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, is only
one verse (Mk 2:13 cf. Mt 5‐7; Lk 6). The calling of the disciples is punchy and immediate when compared
especially with Luke and John (see Lk 5; Jn 1 cf. Mk 1:16‐20). Jesus is on a mission, always looking to move to
the next place to continue to preach the word and heal the sick (1:38‐40). He won’t be tied down and allow
the people to harness him to their Messianic expectations.

35
Especially in the account of Jesus’ ministry (12x in Ch1; 2x in Ch2; 1x in Ch3; 4x in Ch4; 4x in Ch5; 5x in Ch6;
1x in Ch7; 1x in Ch8’ 3x in Ch 9).
36
The Kingdom of God
The overwhelming rubric which defines Jesus coming and who Jesus is in relation to God is the Kingdom of
God. We will look at this concept in more fullness as the course develops. Suffice to say at this point that the
Kingdom is the coming of the Messiah king (Jesus) to restore God’s intention for humanity and his world. It is
the antidote to the Fall, the putting right of every dimension of human existence and creation itself. It is the
restoration of right relationship between God and his people i.e. salvation. It is the bringing of wholeness
(shalom) to the world beginning in Israel and going global!

Throughout Mark it is the primary feature describing Jesus ministry; it is the subject of his message. The
Kingdom has arrived in Jesus therefore people must respond and turn from sin and believe the good news
(1:14‐15). Jesus is the inaugurator of this new kingdom. Herod is no king; Caesar is no king; the kings of past
are no longer King; all hopes of a Davidic Messiah have been fulfilled; Satan’s false realm is now being
plundered; the Kingdom is here because the King is here. The parables of Mark are orientated around the
Kingdom, explaining through pithy comparisons that the kingdom comes in a secret hidden unstoppable
invasion rather than in glorious apocalyptic power (4:26‐34). The miracles are signs of the kingdom,
demonstrating the restorative nature of God’s kingdom and anticipating the complete wholeness of the
kingdom culminated. Jesus is the King, the Messiah, the Son of Man who has come among them. Note too,
that the allusion from Zech 13:9 of the shepherd scattered calls to mind the hope of a Davidic shepherd king
(cf. Ezek 36).

The passion narrative is dripping with bitter irony in terms of the kingdom of God with Jesus condemned for
admitting before the high priest that he is the Messiah, the Son of God (‘blessed one’) and then stating that he
will be the Son of Man seated at God’s right hand coming in glory (14:61‐62; Dan 7:13‐14). This direct
declaration of his kingship causes their violent response. Pilate’s question too revolves around kingship, asking
Jesus if he is the ‘King of the Jews’ i.e. the Messiah (15:2). Jesus again answers affirmatively. He is the Messiah,
but not as they expected him. In killing him, they were in fact bringing in the Kingdom of God. The release of
Barabbas is ironical, he being a political threat in a military sense (15:7), yet he is released for Jesus who is no
direct threat. Note that Pilate says, ‘what shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?’ (15:12)
The answer is ‘crucify him’ (15:13). The mockery of the soldiers involves crowning Jesus with thorns, dressing
him in royal purple and mocking him ‘hail, king of the Jews’ while falling on their knees before him (15:17‐20).
The charge on the cross drives this home reading, ‘The King of the Jews’ (15:26). The mockery of the leaders
involves them challenging Jesus: ‘let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we
may see and believe’ (15:31‐32). They cannot see or perceive that the Kingdom had come, that Jesus is King.
The Roman soldier who calls out ‘surely, this man is the Son of God’ was probably stating his kingship, the
phrase used of Caesar (15:39). Thus we have, written from Rome, the astonishing story of the coming of the
Kingdom and King in utter reversal of power and expectation. Jesus’ is rejected by Jew and Gentile alike,
crowned with thorns, crucified among thieves, mocked; and yet in this drama, the King of the world was killed
and the movement that would change the world was born.
Discipleship
The notion of disciple (mathētēs) suggests learner; in the context of the Gospels, a student or better, an
apprentice. We see something of this in the Moses‐Joshua relationship (cf. Exod 24:13). 37 Similarly, in the
Elijah‐Elisha relationship, Elisha asks to join Elijah as his prophetic apprentice. 38 The notion of such disciples
were common in rabbinic Judaism; however the initiative lay with the apprentice to sought the teacher and
asked to follow. In the Gospels, Jesus in the main takes the initiative, although there are examples of some
seeking to follow Jesus (cf. Mt 8:19; Lk 9:57).

The disciples are key figures in Mark. There is the dramatic calling of the four fishermen at the lake. These four
respond correctly, leaving everything including community, kin and livelihood to follow Jesus (‘without delay’).

37
‘Then Moses set out with Joshua his aide, and Moses went up on the mountain of God.’ The Hebrew Sharath
has the notion of service or minister.
38
‘Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to
succeed you as prophet. ‘

88

Then similarly, the tax collector Levi (cf. Matthew) responds dramatically, leaving his job and life of sin behind
to follow Jesus (2:13‐16). As such these disciples exemplify to the reader the right response to the call of Jesus
and the Kingdom; the giving up of all we are and have at its service. The call recalls the calls of the prophets in
the OT and is not unlike the response of Isaiah and suggests continuity with the call of the prophets of Israel in
the call of the Apostles (Is 6:1‐14).

Jesus redefines family in Mark. When he is visited by his family his response is culturally shocking, the priority
of family and community challenged by his redefinition of family as those who ‘do God’s will’. Throughout the
narrative, Jesus challenges first allegiance and declares repeatedly that authentic discipleship places the
people of God above commitment to blood relationships (cf. 3:31‐34 cf. 1:16‐20; 2:13‐17; 10:19, 29‐31).

Wrong responses also illustrate discipleship in a negative sense including Judas, his hometown, demons and
the Jewish leadership (cf. above on Jesus identity) and the rich ruler who fails to respond positively to Jesus
appeal to renounce his possessions for the sake of the kingdom (10:17‐27).

Another dimension of discipleship in Mark is suffering. Jesus anticipates suffering on behalf of those who
follow him (cf. 8:34‐36).

Critical to Mark’s account is the need for faith on the part of the disciple. This is seen in the expected response
to the good news of the Kingdom, ‘repent and believe’ (1:15). Jesus’ response is often conditional on the faith
of those who approach him whether those bringing the sick (2:5), or the sick themselves who made whole
(sōzō = saved) because of their faith (5:34; 10:52). The disciples are rebuked for their lack of faith (4:40) and
the general populace is encouraged to have faith in Jesus as healer (5:36). On the other hand, the lack of faith
leads to Jesus’ not healing in his home town suggesting the need for faith to receive God’s healing in Mark
(6:6). With faith one can achieve the impossible (9:23) which leads to one of the great prayers in Scripture on
behalf of an enquirer: ‘I do believe; help me to overcome my unbelief!’ (9:24). Even children can believe and
must be encouraged positively in the faith (9:42). Jesus encourages all to have faith and have a radical
confidence in Christ to answer prayer (11:22‐24). On the other hand they are not to believe accounts of false
messiahs (13:21). False faith is seen from those at the foot of the cross who demand that he come down that
they may believe (15:32). The question at the end of Mark’s account is, would they now believe now that he is
risen? Faith features strongly in the long ending concerning belief and lack of belief in the resurrection
appearances of Jesus (16:11‐17). It is clear that faith is important to Mark’s narrative. The issue here is faith in
Jesus’ i.e. faith that he is God’s salvation, Messiah, the King come to restore. It is faith that he can intervene
and restore. Jesus in the garden shows that faith while faith is critical, our faith is conditioned by God’s will. He
believed God could deliver him from the cross, but he placed the outcome in the hands of God and his
purposes: ‘yet not my will but yours be done’. That is, we ask in faith, we trust for the outcome.

While Mark does not say as much as Luke about women, there are positive perspectives on women. One is the
woman who gives all she has to the temple treasury, an example of the all‐or‐nothing discipleship called for by
Jesus (12:41‐44). In the Passion narrative it is the women who are the exemplars of ideal discipleship
remaining with him through his suffering, going to the tomb and being the first to witness its emptiness
(15:40‐16:8). Yet, they too are in doubt and fear after the resurrection.
Ongoing Mission
Mark records the missions of John and Jesus and then moves to that of the disciples. He records Jesus’
commissioning his apostles to go with his authority to preach, heal and deliver people from the power of evil
(3:14). That is, to continue the work of Christ to save and restore. Just as he was sent, they are sent. There is
no strong doctrine of the Spirit empowering the disciples as in Luke (cf. Acts 1:8), but notion of the Spirit’s
empowering presence for mission is not absent (cf. Mk 1:8; 13:11).
The mission of the disciples is not developed as fully as in Matthew (cf. Mt 10) and Luke (Lk 9:1‐6; 10:1‐24)
who add other dynamics (e.g. the Great Commission, the mission of the 72).

The initial expectation in Mark is to go in mission with total dependence (6:8‐11). There is a small summary of
the initial missionary encounter (6:12‐13). The healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (7:24‐30 cf.
7:31‐37) anticipates the gospel being preached to all nations (13:10). Jesus’ expectation of witness is seen at
different points such as the parable of the lamp (4:21‐23) and 8:38. The impact of the mission is seen in the
Mustard Seed parable where the seed becomes a tree filling the whole earth and into which the birds (nations)
come (4:30‐32).

If the longer ending is non‐authentic as noted above, the commission to go into mission to all the world is not
directly stated in Mark as in Matthew, Luke and even John (20:21). However, it is implied at several points.
First, Jesus states in his eschatological sermon on the Mount of Olives that ‘the gospel must first be preached
to all nations’ before the end will come (13:10). Secondly, he notes that the story of the women anointing
Jesus’ head will be declared ‘wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world’ (14:9). Thirdly, at the
culmination angels will gather the elect of God from ‘the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of
the heavens’ i.e. all of the world (13:27).

The absence of the commission in detail in Mark means we do not have a complete picture of the ongoing
mission he envisages. It certainly includes proclamation of the Gospel, which in Mark, is the narrative of the
Gospel itself centred on the Kingdom and Jesus as crucified and raised King. It most likely includes the
continuity of the ministry of Christ including healing, teaching and restoration.
Jesus’ Death
Toward the end of the nineteenth century Martin Kähler described Mark’s Gospel as a passion narrative with
an extended introduction. That is, it has this impending sense of movement to a climax and the zenith is Jesus’
death. Even the resurrection is not fully explained. The impending sense is seen throughout with threats to
Jesus flowing through the text. It all begins well with all loving his ministry (cf.1:22, 28, 45). However things
begin to unravel and threats grow after he takes on the divine prerogative of forgiving a paralytic and the
teachers of the law question his authority (2:6); Pharisees and teachers of the law question his eating with
sinners and defying purity laws (2:16); he takes food from grainfields and heals on the Sabbath (2:23; 3:6). The
latter situation is highly ironical; Jesus heals on the basis that one should bring life on the Sabbath, the
Pharisees then seek to kill him! The Pharisees also baulk at his deliverance ministry, believing him to be
demonised (3:22). They are disturbed by his refusal to follow Jewish ritual purity concerning eating (7:1‐16)
and they clash over divorce (10:1‐12). In Jerusalem things really heat up and the desire to kill him is restated
after the clearing of the temple (11:18). After this there is continuous testing, and public debate (below; 11:27‐
12:34). Central to this is the Parable of the tenants which parabolically tells the story of the Jewish leaders’
rejection of the prophets (and so God), and predicts that they will kill him, after which they sought to arrest
him in secret fearing a riot (12:12).

Jesus was clearly aware of his impending death, predicting explicitly on three occasions that he will be tortured
and killed at the instigation of the Jewish leadership and would rise (8:31‐32; 9:31; 10:33‐34: cf. 9:9). There are
also other points at which we see this including the killing of the son in the parable of the tenants, a clear
foretelling of his own death at the hands of the Jewish leadership (12:6‐8). Especially significant is the Last
Supper where Jesus speaks of his body broken and his blood as the blood of a new covenant poured out for
the many (Mk 14:24). In 14:27 he quotes Zech 13:9 of the shepherd being struck, another allusion. The thrust
of the prayer in the garden is that God will release Jesus from his fate; Jesus clearly in great pain knowing what
is about to happen (14:34, 46).

In these texts referring to suffering and death, Jesus is very much picking up the notion of the suffering servant
of Isaiah 53 and applying it to himself (cf. Ps 22).

The whole Jerusalem ministry period involves public debate in the temple courts (11:27‐12:39) no doubt
greatly provoked by Jesus prophetic action in clearing the temple and declaring it to be a den of thieves rather
than a house of prayer (cf. Jer 7:11; Is 56:7). Throughout these theological debates and challenges Jesus is
presented as superior in his understanding of God’s purposes and defeats them thrilling the crowds and stilling
their challenges. Some of his proclamation was highly inflammatory especially the parable of the tenants
which is directed at their rejection of the Son of God (12:1‐12 see esp. v.12). However, this inflames them and
leads inevitably to the passion.

The Passion itself fills two chapters and is a substantial portion of the narrative. It is a tragic story of treachery
(14:1), of great grief and love (14:1‐9), of betrayal and deceit (14:10‐11, 19, 43‐45), of farewells and meals
(14:12‐26), of denial (14:27‐31, 66‐72), of personal struggle and pain in the garden (14:32‐42), of violence
90

(14:43, 47, 65; 15:16‐20), of refusal to take up arms (14:48‐50), tragic humour (14:51‐52), of legal injustice
(14:53‐59), political intrigue (14:60‐64; 15:1‐15), of uninvited involvement (15:21), crucifixion and painful
death (15:22‐37). The involvement of the Jewish (Sanhedrin) and Roman leadership (Pilate) is carefully
balanced with both involved, but with the Jews as the prime instigators. There is the bitter irony of the two
coming together in their refusal to release Jesus who had shown no indication of political military or
revolutionary threat preferring to release Barabbas who was a genuine threat as an insurrectionist involved in
an uprising is released! (15:1‐15).

The whole narrative is highly charged with OT imagery, taking place at the Passover, with Jesus as the Passover
lamb after eating the traditional Passover meal and so inaugurating a new covenant based on his sacrifice
(14:12‐26). It is highly symbolic, prophetic and parabolic, the bread and wine representing Jesus’ broken body
(14:22‐25). The tearing of the temple curtain at Jesus’ death another symbolic action pointing to a new era
dawning (15:38); Mark giving throughout the narrative the impression that the era of Israel had ended at this
point and now the future of God’s relationship with humanity lay with Jesus who inaugurates the new Israel in
continuity with and discontinuity with the old. Now participation in God’s people is based on faith in Christ and
entry into the kingdom and transcended ethnicity, including Jews and open to Gentiles. This latter notion is
supported by the timely mention of the Roman soldier who confesses Jesus divine sonship at his death (15:39).

The narrative places the blame squarely at the feet of the Jews with Pilate and the Romans acting out of
political expediency against their better wishes (15:1‐15).

The Resurrection of Jesus
Some argue on the basis of the short ending of Mark that there is no resurrection in Mark. However, this is not
so. First, the three predictions of his death all explicitly state that he will be raised (cf. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). In
addition, in 14:27‐28 through the lens of Zech 13:9 Jesus predicts that he (the shepherd) will be struck, the
disciples (sheep) scattered and that he will rise and then go ahead of them to Galilee; another specific allusion
to this resurrection. Secondly, his statement that ‘some who are standing here will not taste death before they
see the kingdom of God come with power’ points not to an imminent return as some argue, but to the
transfiguration (which follows in 9:1‐13) and in the resurrection itself as anticipated in the predictions of Jesus
death. Thirdly, the empty tomb in Mark clearly points back to the predictions of the resurrection (16:1‐4).
Fourthly, the angel’s declaration of his resurrection declares the resurrection (16:6‐8). What is lacking in Mark
are any specific appearances. The longer ending was probably added very early from a later source to resolve
the dilemma of the strange ending. As we have noted above, this is probably due to the emphasis on disciple
incomprehension throughout Mark which is never fully resolved.
The Return of Jesus
Some see an imminent Parousia in Mark in which Jesus is expected to return very soon. Hence, Mark has little
development of the intervening period between crucifixion and return as compared to Matthew and especially
Luke (esp. in Acts). However, as we have noted, 9:1 probably points to the resurrection not the return of
Christ. Furthermore, in 13:10 Jesus states that the gospel must be preached to all nations indicating an
understanding of an unspecified period between resurrection and return.

Chapter 13 known as the Olivet Discourse or the ‘little apocalypse’ is given in response to the disciples’ query
about the temple (13:1). It is disputed whether it refers to the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70).
It is probable that there is a double edge to the prophetic oracle referring to both the fall of Jerusalem (see
esp. 13:2‐4, 30) and the return of Christ at the culmination of age when the gospel has been preached to every
nation (cf. 13:10, 13, 24‐27). It is unclear whether the signs relate to one or other (13:5‐8, 12‐23) so great care
must be taken not to form too tight a schema concerning end‐events. The believer is encouraged to continue
to serve (13:34) watch the signs and be prepared (13:28‐30, 35‐37), not knowing when these events will occur
(13:32‐34).

Questions for you to consider
• Which date makes the most sense for you considering your knowledge of Mark’s Gospel?
• Why might this be important?
• If Mark wrote the Gospel from Rome, what sort of influences would be on the text from
Rome in the 50’s‐60’s which might affect its meaning?
• What influence might being in the heart of the Roman Empire and Emperor have on
understanding Christ for Mark’s readers?
• Let’s just say that the long ending is the authentic ending? Does this affect our
understanding of the resurrection? Why? Why not?
• Which ending of the Gospel seems the most likely to be original to you and why?
• Why does it end this way do you think?
• If you agree that the shorter ending is original, what is the value of the longer ending?
Should we take it seriously, why, why not?
• How chronological do you think Mark’s Gospel is?
• Who do you think Jesus is? Write a description? Now rewrite it in language that is popular in
your culture today?
• Write a summary of Jesus’ ministry from Mark only?Now think how Matthew, Luke and John
adjust this?
• Why did God send John the Baptist Ahead of Jesus?
• Why did Mark write his Gospel in this action manner?
• Are you a disciple of Jesus? Why? Why not?

92


Chapter Six
THE DISTINCTIVE EMPHASES AND FEATURES OF
MATTHEW’S GOSPEL
Contents
Critical Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 94
Authorship ........................................................................................................................................ 94
Date ................................................................................................................................................... 95
Provenance ....................................................................................................................................... 97
Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 98
Geographic Structure ........................................................................................................................ 98
5‐Discourse Structure ....................................................................................................................... 98
Christological Structure ..................................................................................................................... 99
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 99
Purpose of Matthew ........................................................................................................................... 100
Similarities and differences to Mark ................................................................................................... 100
Similarities and differences in Content ........................................................................................... 100
Deeper Differences ......................................................................................................................... 101
A distinct Jewishness ................................................................................................................... 101
Ethics ........................................................................................................................................... 102
The Church .................................................................................................................................. 105
Discipleship ................................................................................................................................. 105
Mission ........................................................................................................................................ 106
Kingdom of Heaven rather than Kingdom of God ...................................................................... 106
Christology i.e. who is Jesus ........................................................................................................ 106
Questions to think about .................................................................................................................... 109

93

The Distinctive Emphases and features of Matthew's Gospel
Critical Issues
Authorship
The traditional view is that Matthew, the tax‐collector from the Twelve, is the author of Matthew.
The case for Matthew rests on these arguments:

1. The prescript: The prescript ‘according to Matthew’ (KATA MATTHAION) states that
Matthew is behind the Gospel. This probably indicates that it was believed in the early
church by the beginning of the 2nd century that Matthew wrote it.
2. Papias: As noted above, Papias wrote this of Matthew: ‘Matthew arranged the sayings in the
Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best he could’ (H.E. 3.39.14‐16). This leads
to the view that Papias felt he wrote the Gospel first in Hebrew or Aramaic. Some early
church writers such as Irenaeus, 1 Eusebius, 2 Origen, 3 Cyril of Jerusalem, 4 Epiphanius 5 and
Jerome. 6
a. Some scholars (e.g. D. Guthrie) take this seriously and believe that this original
Aramaic Gospel by Matthew was later translated into Greek by an unknown
Christian or Matthew.
b. Some (e.g. Martin) believe this refers to an original Aramaic collection of the sayings
of Jesus (Q?) which was translated and added to Markan traditions, c. AD70.
c. More recently, a number of scholars argue that Papias in saying the ‘Hēbraida
dialektō is not referring to the Hebrew language, but to a Hebrew rhetorical style. It
is not a translated Gospel but sows that Papias is referring to Matthew’s ‘orderly’ or
‘Hebrew style’ which is different from Mark’s non‐chronological ‘chreia form’
(above). Papias’ comment that Matthew ‘interpreted’ ((hērmēneusen) them refers
to the style. So Matthew is a more Jewish orderly styled Gospel whereas Mark is a
chreia unordered Gospel. 7
3. Matthew in the text: At several points Matthew is mentioned which could point toward
Matthean authorship:
4. The shift from Levi to Matthew as the name of the called tax‐collector (Mt 9:9‐13 cf. Mk
2:13‐14).
5. ‘The tag ‘Matthew the tax collector’ (10:3), which is missing from the other Gospels.

1
Irenaeus notes that that it was composed in a semitic language while Peter and Paul were founding the
church in Rome (Haer. 3.1.1; from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.8.2).
2
Eusebius cites a legend about a certain Pantaenus who supposedly discovered a Semitic Matthew which was
purportedly brought to India (or Arabia) by Bartholomew (Hist. Eccl. 5.10.3). He states that the occasion for the
First Gospel was Matthew’s departure from Palestine (Hist. Eccl. 3.24.6).
3
Origen agrees, stating that the First Gospel was written for Jewish believers (Hist. Eccl. 6.25.4). In addition to
passing on these traditions, Eusebius himself states that the occasion for the First Gospel was Matthew’s
departure from Palestine (Hist. Eccl. 3.24.6).
4
See Cyril, Cat. 14.
5
See Epiphanius, Haer. 30.3.
6
See Jerome, Prol. in Matt.; Praef. in Quat. Ev.; Vir. 3).
7
See S. McKnight, ‘Matthew’ in DJG, 527‐528.

6. References to Financial Transactions: Some note in Matthew references to financial
transactions which may indicate that the author is interested in financial issues as one might
expect of a tax collector (17:24‐27; 18:23‐25; 20:1‐16; 26:15; 27:3‐10; 28:11‐15).
Others argue that Matthew the apostle is not the author for these main reasons:
1. Papias is not reliable: Some note that our only reference to Papias is quoted in a 4th century
historian Eusebius, and as such is unreliable. In response, it is important to note that the
claims of Papias concerning Mark and Matthew are held across the Early Church, so they are
not isolated but corroborated.
2. The Gospel appears to have originally been in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew: A
number of scholars argue that there is not a lot of evidence of translated Hebrew and
Aramaic in Matthew. and that the book was not penned by Matthew and was composed in
Greek (e.g. Beare, Kümmel). It has Greek word plays (e.g. 6:16) and refers to the LXX (1:23;
11:10 etc). However, other scholars counter that Matthew as a tax‐collector would have
been linguistically versatile including Greek.
3. Matthew as an apostle would not borrow a non‐apostolic writing (Mark): why would an
apostle and eye‐witness writing a Gospel use Mark’s version of events? He even did so in the
account of his own call (compare Mt 9:9‐13 with Mk 2:13‐17). However, this can be
countered if Peter was behind Mark as argued above; i.e. Mark carries apostolic authority
from Peter who was highly honoured.
4. Some think its theology suggests a Gentile writer: Some note different aspects such as its
concern for universal Gentile mission (e.g. 28:19) and the torture of 18:34 which is more
Roman than Jewish. They suggest that these indicate a Gentile writer. However, neither is
definitive; the former is common to all Gospels and the NT; the latter may indicate Jesus
utilizing Roman practices in his parable.
5. It is too late to be written by Matthew: It is argued by some that assuming Matthew uses
Mark (mid 60’s), it must date from ten years after Mark (c. 75‐80 [e.g. Davies]).8 However,
this is beset with problems. First, a strong argument can be made for an earlier Mark
(above). Second, the ten year gap is pure speculation; Matthew may have been aware of
Mark much earlier. Third, there is no evidence that Matthew died before AD70 and may
have lived until the mid 80’s.
All things considered, it seems reasonable to accept Matthean authorship of the Gospel. However,
this perspective is not without its problems. The date is difficult to discern. Clearly, if we trust that
Matthew uses Mark, it is after Mark which means at the earliest the mid‐late 60’s. It may date as
late as the mid‐80’s.
Date
The quotations of Ignatius (early 2nd century) mean it was completed at the latest by the turn of the
first century. There are two main views on the date of Matthew:

Perhaps the majority of NT scholars date it AD80‐100. This is based on:
1. Matthew borrowed Mark: Assuming Markan priority and that Mark was probably written
AD55‐70, Matthew must be much later i.e. 80’s (this presumes a 10 year kind of logic as
noted above).

8
The logic here is that Mark needed time to circulate and become authoritative.
95

2. Indications in the Text of a Later Date: The references to the destruction of Jerusalem (after
the event [esp. Mt 22:7 9 ])) and the church (Mt 16:18; 10 18:17‐18 11 ) point to a later date to
those who do not accept prophecy. Similarly the twice repeated phrase ‘to this very day’
suggests to some a long time since the events suggesting a later date (Mt 27:8; 12 28:15 13 ).
Others argue that the higher Christology (e.g. additions of ‘Son of God’ language; compare
Mk 8:26 with Mt 16:16) and Trinitarian formula (28:19) indicate a later date.
3. The negative view of Jews in the gospel: Some believe there is an anti‐semitism in the
Gospel that accords supposedly with a post‐85 date after the council of Jamnia (c. AD. 85)
which includes the decree expelling Christians from the synagogue.
However these arguments can be countered and so some argue for an earlier date perhaps even
before AD70 including:
1. The Dating of Mark and Time Lag is Speculative: As noted above, Mark may have been
written earlier and Matthew may have got wind of Mark far quicker than the 10 year time
lag. 14 This is all speculative. If Mark was in the late 50’s or early 60’s then Matthew could
easily be pre‐AD70.
2. The so‐called indications from the text are overplayed: The supposed post‐70 reference in
Mt 22:7 can still be pre‐70, it is a pretty general statement. It also resonates with Is 5:24‐25
and it could be that Jesus or Matthew draws it from there (Gundry). The references to the
church are only two and are hardly proof of a late date; after all the church had been around
since AD33 at Pentecost! The ‘to this very day’ argument is weak; if Matthew is dated even
in the 40’s, it is still a significant enough time since Christ (AD33) for this to work. The
supposedly ‘higher christology’ and Trinitarian formula are found in Paul which predate
Matthew (e.g. 2 Cor 13:13), and this renders this argument invalid (especially if Matthew
comes from the area of Syrian Antioch where Paul and Matthew may have been in contact).
3. The so‐called negative view of Jews in the gospel continues the theme of Mark in which the
Jewish leadership are not pictured positively. Tensions between Christians in the Jewish
context are apparent from the earliest days including the Sanhedrin’s attempts to hinder the
spread of the message, the martyrdom of Stephen, the persecution of Saul (see Acts 4‐5, 7‐
8). The evidence that Jamnia was kind of a key turning point is not actually that strong. 15
In addition, one can note:
1. If Matthew the disciple was the author then an early date is more likely.

9
‘The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.’
10
‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will
not prevail against it.
11
‘If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen
even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.’
12
‘For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.’
13
‘So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews
to this day.’
14
Similarly, see Donald A. Hagner, vol. 33A, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1‐13, Word
Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), lxxiii who rightly notes only 1‐2 years is
needed.
15
See Hagner, Matthew 1‐13, lxxiii.

2. Early church fathers unanimously ascribed an early date to Matthew. In fact, they argued
that Matthew was the first of the Gospels. If we take this seriously, then the Greisbach
hypothesis of Matthean priority should be considered more seriously and a very early date
ascribed to it. Then Matthew becomes the Apostle on which the Synoptic Gospels are
founded, and not Peter; an interesting idea.
3. Some sayings indicate that the temple was standing when Matthew wrote (Mt 5:23‐24; 16
12:5‐7; 17 23:16‐2). 18
As such, it is reasonable to take an earlier date. However, we cannot be completely sure and with
the uncertainty over the traditional date of the death of Matthew, it is probably to be dated anytime
from the mid 60’s to the 80’s.
Provenance
We have little evidence in this regard.

A popular suggestion is somewhere in Palestine like based on:
1. The inclusion of untranslated Aramaic (5:22; 6:24; 27:6).
2. Papias’ perspective that Matthew was originally an Aramaic gospel.
3. The assumption of Jewish customs.
4. The bilingual character of the OT texts cited.
5. The adoption of Semitic literary forms.
However, this could equally be explained by Diaspora Judaism.

Some suggest Caesarea Maritima or the Phoenician cities of Tyre of Sidon.
Some suggest that it is from the Transjordan area of Pella based on the phrase ‘across the Jordan’
(4:15; 19:1).

Others prefer Syrian Antioch based on:
1. A date after the destruction of Jerusalem (AD70).
2. The argument that Antioch in Syria would be a good context for it for these reasons:
a. A large Jewish population (cf. Acts 11, 13) against which Jews would have to defend
their perspective.
b. Was a centre for outreach (cf. Acts 13:1f).
c. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch early in the 2nd Century (Eph 19:1‐3/Mt 2; Smyr 1:1/Mt
3:15; Polyc 2:2/Mt 10:16) is the first to demonstrate a knowledge of Matthew.
d. There are links between Matthew and the Didache, which is purportedly related to
Syria.
e. However, this is only a ‘good guess’. He agrees with Balch who writes, ‘[it] was
situated in an urban environment, perhaps in Galilee or perhaps more toward the
north of Syria, but, in any case, not necessarily Antioch.’ 19

16 ‘
Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister
has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to
that person; then come and offer your gift.’
17
‘Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the
Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.’
18
‘Woe to you, blind guides, who say, “Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but
whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.”’

19
Hagner, Matthew 1‐13, lxxiii.
97

Structure
There are three essential views on its structure.
Geographic Structure
The oldest and perhaps simplest way of understanding Matthew is based around his ministry in
Galilee and then Jerusalem (e.g. Allen).

Mt 1:1‐4:11: Prologue and Jesus preparation for ministry.
Mt 4:12‐15:20: Jesus’ ministry in Galilee.
Mt 15:21‐18:35: Ministry to the north of Galilee.
Mt 19:1‐20:34: En‐route to Jerusalem.
Mt 21:1‐25:46: Confrontation in Jerusalem.
Mt 26:1‐28:20: Passion and resurrection.

A number of scholars believe this is not the best way to understand Matthew’s structure. It really
relates to the 19th century quest to write a life of Jesus and reads it more akin to Luke e.g. the ‘travel
narrative’.
5‐Discourse Structure
The most common view which originated with B.W. Bacon (1918, 1930) and held by some
contemporary scholars (e.g. Carson, Moo and Morris) is a literary approach arguing that Matthew is
based around a five‐discourse structure. The key to this is the recurring saying ‘and it happened,
when Jesus had finished saying these things, that…’ (Mt 7:28‐29; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1) giving a 5
discourse structure. Some see an attempt to mirror the five books of Moses, Jesus presented by
Matthew in a Jewish framework as the new Moses (cf. Bacon). There are various titles given the five
sections. Here is one structure.

1. Mt 3‐7: Concerning Discipleship’ 20
a. Mt 3‐4: Narrative
b. Mt 5‐7: Discourse

2. Mt 8‐11:1: Concerning Apostleship’ 21
b. Mt 10: Discourse

3. Mt 11:2‐13:53: Concerning the Hiding of the revelation 22
b. Mt 13: Discourse

4. Mt 13:54‐19:1a: Concerning Church administration 23
b. Mt 18: Discourse

20
Carson, et al., ‘The gospel of the kingdom’ (3:1‐7:29).
21
Carson et al., ‘The kingdom extended under Jesus’ authority’ (8:1‐11:1).
22
Carson et al., ‘Teaching and preaching the gospel of the kingdom: rising opposition’ (11:2‐13:53).
23
Carson et al., ‘The glory and the shadow: progressive polarisation’ (13:54‐19:2).

5. Mt 19:2‐26:2: Concerning the Judgement 24
b. Mt 23‐25: Discourse

They are framed by: Prologue: Mt 1‐2
Epilogue: Mt 26‐28

While the delineation of narrative and discourse is a little forced, the general structure appears to
work i.e. a seven part book. However, it does relegate the passion and resurrection to merely an
epilogue, which is not likely. Chapter 13 is seen as the turning point of the Gospel whichever
structure is adopted. 25
Christological Structure
Another proposal adopted more recently (e.g. Kingsbury) and gaining favour sees the key to
understanding Matthew as the formula apo tote (‘from that time on’) found in 4:17 and 16:21.

Mt 1:1‐4:16: The person of Jesus Messiah
Mt 4:17‐16:20: The proclamation of Jesus Messiah
Mt 16:21‐28:20: The suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Messiah

Conclusion
Which structure we decide on depends on whether we arrange Matthew around the recurring
formula apo tete (4:17; 16:21) or narratives and discourses. Against the former view, the formula is
repeated in Mt 16:21 and builds on Mk 8:31 and so it might not really indicate a structure for the
Gospel. As such, it might be better to adopt the five discourse structure as do Carson, Moo and
Morris (above). Blomberg adopts a blended approach accepting three main sections: 26

1. 1:1‐4:16: Introduction (events prior to Jesus’ ministry)
a. Infancy Narrative (1‐2)
b. Preparation for Ministry (3:1‐4:16)

2. 4:17‐16:20: Development (Galilean Ministry; Jesus’ Identity; Peter’s Confession)
a. Discourse: Sermon on the Mount (5‐7)
b. Narrative: Jesus’ miracles and authority (8:1‐9:35)
c. Discourse: Mission (10)
d. Narrative: Rising opposition (11‐12)
e. Discourse: Parables
f. Narrative: Growing polarization

3. 16:21‐28:20: Climax (The road to the Cross, the resurrection)
a. Discourse: Passion predictions (16:21‐17:27),

24
Carson et al. ‘Opposition and eschatology: the triumph of grace’ (19:3‐26:5).
25
See Blomberg, The Gospel, 128.
26
Blomberg, Matthew, 22.
99

b. Discourse: Community humility (18)
c. Narrative: On road to Jerusalem (19:1‐22:46)
d. Discourse: Judgement (23‐25).
e. Narrative: Climax (26‐28)
i. Passion and Death (26‐27)
ii. Resurrection (28)
Purpose of Matthew27
The content of Matthew reveals a series of purposes in his writings. He writes to convince his
readers that:
1. Jesus is the Promised Messiah: Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of
God, the Son of Man, Emmanuel, the one to whom the OT points.
2. Jewish Rejection: Many Jews, especially Jewish leaders, sinfully failed to recognise Jesus
during his ministry (and, by implication, are in great danger if they continue in that stance
after the resurrection).
3. The Promised Kingdom has Come: The promised eschatological kingdom has already
dawned, inaugurated by the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus.
4. The Mission of the Kingdom is to go to all Nations: This messianic reign is continuing in the
world, as believers, both Jews and Gentiles, submit to Jesus’ authority, overcome
temptation, endure persecution, wholeheartedly embrace Jesus’ teaching, and thus
demonstrate that they constitute the true locus of the people of God and the true witness to
the world of the ‘gospel of the kingdom.
5. The Kingdom Awaits its Ultimate Consummation: This messianic reign is not only the
fulfilment of the OT hopes but the foretaste of the consummated kingdom that will dawn
when Jesus the Messiah personally returns.

Jesus and the Kingdom are presented in this way to encourage:
• Worship of Jesus.
• Full‐on Discipleship.
• Evangelism (and especially Jewish evangelism).
• Christians to know how to live in light of this new Kingdom (To teach).
Similarities and differences to Mark
Similarities and differences in Content
Matthew has a number of obvious differences to Mark. As we have discussed earlier in the course,
scholars have identified two bodies of material in Matthew that are not in Mark. One group of
material is common to Luke as well (Q) and the other is distinct to Matthew (M).
1. Almost all the material in Mark is in Matthew: 28 As noted above, 606/661 verses from
Mark are in Matthew in some form (92%). Those elements excluded include ‘the deliverance
at Capernaum’ (Mk 1:21‐28); the healing of the blind man in Bethsaida (Mk 8:22‐26); the
widow’s offering (Mk 12:31‐34).

27
These are dependent on Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, p81.
28
NBD, 428.

2. A great amount of material is added in and amplified: There is a great deal of additional
material including teaching, parables and details. On the whole Matthew expands on the
Markan account e.g. he adds the guard at the tomb (26:62‐66). Some examples of this
include the genealogy (1:1‐18), the birth narrative (1:19‐2:23), ‘the sermon on the mount’
(5‐7); ‘the sending of the twelve into mission’ in detail (10); some healings such as the
centurion’s servant (8:5‐13); a whole block including dealing with church conflict and
forgiveness (18:10‐35). He adds in a number of parables including parable of the unforgiving
servant (Mt 18:23‐35); the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1‐16); the parable
of the two sons in the vineyard (Mt 21:28‐32); the parable of the wedding banquet (Mt 22:1‐
14); the parable of the faithful or unfaithful servant (Mt 24:45‐51); the parable of the ten
bridesmaids (Mt 25:1‐13); the parable of the talents (Mt 25:14‐30); the parable of the sheep
and the goats (Mt 25:31‐46). They tend to be in the latter end of the Gospel, particularly
building on the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24 cf. Mk 13) and strengthening the futuristic
eschatology of the Gospel when compared to Mark.
3. Fulfillment Motifs: There are a lot of ‘fulfillment’ motifs with the formula ‘this was to fulfil
what was spoken through the prophet…’ These point to the importance of the notion of
prophetic fulfillment to the purpose of the Gospel.
4. The Order of the Early Part of Mark is Retained: While most of the early material is
included, the order of the early part of Mark (Mk 1‐8:24) is substantially reworked.
5. The Order of Mt 14:1‐24:44 is in agreement with Mark: There is a substantial agreement in
the flow and detail from Mt 14:1 to 24:44.
6. There is substantial Material in the Eschatological Section: As noted above, there is a
substantial addition of material after the discussion of the end of the age (Mt 24:42‐25:46).
This suggests a much more heightened sense of a future return of Christ (eschatology) in
Matthew. Note he reworks the material in ch13 (Olivet Discourse) to be more future than
present orientated.
7. The Passion Narrative is in Agreement with Mark with some differences: The passion
narrative is substantially the same except for the significant difference over the guarding of
the tomb.
8. The Resurrection Account Has Substantial Additional Material: The resurrection narrative
aside from the disputed longer ending adds detail. Note also the question over the stealing
of the body is dealt with in Matthew and not in Luke.
Deeper Differences
A distinct Jewishness
When compared with Mark there is a strong Jewishness to the Gospel. This includes:
1. Many more OT quotes and fulfillment sayings: These are usually from the Hebrew OT and
not the Greek OT but not exclusively. e.g. 29 Mt 1:21‐22: ‘She will give birth to a son, and you

29
The genealogy (Mt 1:1‐17); Mt 1:21 cf. Is 7:14; Mt 2:6 cf. Mic 5:2; Mt 2:15 cf. Hos 11:1; Mt 2:18 cf.
Jer 31:15; Mt 2:23; Mt 3:3 cf. Is 40:3; Mt 4:4 cf. Deut 8:3; Mt 4:7 cf. Deut 6:16; Mt 4:10 cf. Deut 6:13;
Mt 4:15‐16 cf. Deut 9:1‐2; Mt 8:17 cf. Is 53:4; Mt 10:35 cf. Mic 7:6; Mt 11:3 cf. 3:1; Mt 12:7; Hos 6:6;
Mt 12:18‐21 cf. Is 42:1‐4; Mt 13:13‐15 cf. Is 6:9‐10; Mt 13:35 cf. Ps 78:2; Mt 15:8‐9 cf. Is 29:13; Mt
101

are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’ All this took
place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will conceive and give
birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’ (which means ‘God with us’).
2. A positive view of the law and Jesus as fulfilment of it: Matthew has a positive view of the
law in terms of fulfillment and not its abolition. The best example is Mt 5:17‐20.
More References to OT stories and accounts in the narrative: Matthew recalls Jesus’ use of
OT accounts to a greater degree than Mark or Luke e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:15;
11:23‐24); creation (Mt 19:4‐5); Jonah (12:40‐41).
Ethics
A strong development in Matthew is the collection of teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
The content of the sermon appeals for a radical ethic from the disciple of Christ. The Sermon gives
the ethics of the Kingdom for the disciple. It is also addressed to the crowds so is and invitation to all
humanity to participate in the Kingdom and its lifestyle.

There are different ways of understanding the Sermon. See McArthur and Carson for lists of
approaches. 30 Here I give thirteen (adaption of McArthur):
1. Absolutist View: all people should obey them literally. In history, Francis of Assisi, Dietrich
Bonhoeffer held this. Early Anabaptists and Mennonites are close to this. This can lead to
pacifism and an ethic separateness from the world. However, it fails to see that the ethic is
to be lived out in the world (cf. 5:13‐16). This sounds good in theory but breaks down into
cultic separatism and an unreal ethic in a fallen world. It does suggest to me that we should
go as far as we can before every compromising these values.
2. Modify the Text of the sermon view: older thinkers altered the text to make it more
palatable e.g. 5:22 read ‘whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger
of the judgement’. ‘Love your enemies’ was changed to ‘pray for your enemies’ (pOxy 1224
6:1a; Did, 1:3 etc. Most Christian thinkers modify its literality to some extent. At first glance
this sounds outrageous to evangelicals. However, most of us do this, moderating the text as
we consider the sweep of Scripture and to make sense of it. We must not do this to the
point of stripping the power out of the text.
3. Hyperbole View: It is not ‘real’ but exaggerated to make the point. So, to apply it, it must be
‘toned down’. Most agree that there is some hyperbole but question whether this is the
best hermeneutical approach. e.g. 5:29.
4. General Principles View: This is often linked to the hyperbole idea and holds Jesus was not
giving specific instructions but general principles on how to behave. The examples in the
Sermons illustrate these. There is truth in this view. We should enquire of the principles and
ideals and seek to live them.
5. The Double Standard View: This originates in Augustine and again in Aquinas is the official
position of the Roman Catholic Church. It holds some of the teachings are general and

19:4‐5 cf. Gen 1:27; 2:24; Mt 21:5, 9 cf. Zech 9:9; Ps 118:26; Mt 21:13 cf. Is 56:7; Jer 7:11; Mt 21:16
cf. Ps 8:2; Mt 21:42 cf. Ps 118:22‐23; Mt 22:32 cf. Ex 3:6; Mt 22:37‐39 cf. Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18; Mt
22:24 cf. Ps 110:1; Mt 24:29 cf. Is 13:10; 34:4; Mt 26:31 cf. Zech 13:7; Mt 27:46 cf. Ps 22:1.
30
See D. Carson, ‘Matthew’ in The Expositors Bible Commentary’, 126‐127; H.K. McArthur, Understanding the
Sermon on the Mount (New York: Harper, 1960, 105‐148.

essential for salvation; others are specific counsels necessary for perfection. The ‘general’
Christian should focus on the general teachings. Clergy and monks focus on the specific
counsels as well (cf. Didache 6:2: ‘For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you
will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able’). This is an appalling
view. There is no such duality of status and spirituality in authentic faith. It is either for all or
none.
6. The Lutheran Two Realms View: Martin Luther had a different two‐level approach. He
suggested that the Sermon applies to the spiritual realm and not the secular. Believers can
compromise when living in the secular world. For example, they can go to war despite the
sermons appeal. This is too dualistic and the salt and light metaphor do not support this
idea. In practice however, in a fallen world, this turns out to be the case as Kingdoms clash.

7. The Analogy of Scripture View: One can moderate the Sermon to other parts of the New
Testament. So, while Jesus rejects the use of oaths on all occasions, Paul took them and so
we have a moderated view. There is some truth in this. Biblical theology requires reading the
whole story and synthesizing our theology encompassing the whole story as it develops.
8. The Attitude View: Some like Wilhelm Herrmann argues that the Sermon is not about
behavior but attitude. It is the spirit that matters not the letter. There is some truth in this
and we need to seek the spirit of the sermon. In a sense it is not ‘law’ but ideal.
9. The Social Gospel View: Jesus is giving a road map to social progress. This was part of classic
liberalism which thought the world would get better and better as the gospel spread and
people lived the ethic of the Sermon. The wars of the 1900’s ended this vain hope. Matthew
itself in Mt 24‐25 anticipates many rejecting Jesus and his ethic and many separated from
God eternally. This is based also on a flawed view of this age as the millennium on the
progress to the Kingdom being realized in history.
10. The Interim Ethic View: Albert Schweitzer argued that Jesus thought the world was going to
end soon and so the Sermon is not relevant or must be severely toned down to be relevant.
This view is flawed, based on Schweitzer’s complete distortion of Jesus’ as a failed Messiah.
11. The Attempt‐Fail View: Martin Dibelius argued that the ethics are absolute and to be lived
but that in a fallen world failure is certain. Inevitable. Ultimately in the consummated
Kingdom, it will be lived. There is some truth in this; the Sermon has at its centre a prayer
including a prayer for forgiveness anticipating failure.
12. The Repentance View: Some including Lutherans argue that Jesus gave the Sermon knowing
they were unattainable, and that failure would lead to repentance and faith for salvation.
This is a Pauline perspective (cf. Rom 3‐4; Gal 3). So the righteousness is imputed
righteousness. This is a misreading of Matthew through Paul’s eyes.
13. The Dispensational View: In their division of history into ages, Dispensationalists argue we
live in the period of grace where it is impossible to live its ethic. However in the Millennium
it will be possible and we will have to live up to them for salvation. It is thus a law for the
millennial age. This does not work, and reads Matthew through the eyes of Rev 20; there is
no evidence Matthew conceived of a millennium. The Great Commission calls for believers
to make disciples of all nations and teach them to obey all of Jesus’ teaching.
14. The Matthean Community View: In this view, the precepts are to be lived by Matthew’s
community and not all others. However, this does not work on the basis of the Great
Commission, the ethic is for all nations.
103

15. Jews Only View: Some see this as for the Jews only and that, after the resurrection, the ethic
is not relevant. Rather, we should look to the writings of Paul and others for Christian ethics.
They hold to a progressive revelation type approach. This falls over as Matthew was written
after Paul and most of the Epistles and the Matthean Great Commission.
My own view believes that the ethic is to be taken seriously. He is presenting the Ethic of the
Kingdom of God which will not be fully seen in this world, but in the world to come. We are to study
the Sermon and work out the ideals which Jesus is calling for, looking at the literal and interpret it.
We are not to water it down. We are to think deeply about the situation we encounter, and ask how
the ideal will work out in any given situation. We are to work in our Christian communities to
establish Christian communities which reflect the ideas of the sermon as best we can. We will never
fully achieve them in this age, but we should seek the ideal. The ethic will be seen in the
consummated Kingdom in its fullness. The ethic is for all the world in the sense that God’s will is to
restore humanity to his ideal. We are to work in all areas of society as salt and light demonstrating
the ethic and as we do, we will bring God’s reign to the world, and others may accept the invitation
of the Kingdom. It is part of the subversive power of the Kingdom, as we work within society by such
ethics and from the bottom up, bring down the empire and forces of darkness through love. Grace
abounds where failure occurs, the Sermon’s prayer anticipating failure and giving space for
repentance and forgiveness. As the world is fallen, those who operate in the ‘secular’ world, at
times, may have to do things that appear in tension with the Sermon, but these are an utter last
resort and designed to be ultimately redemptive.

The Sermon emphasises:
1. The blessedness of the Kingdom (Beatitudes [5:3‐12]): these are misunderstood by many.
They do not speak of the qualities expected of a Christian; otherwise, it would be good to
mourn, be meek or be poor in spirit. Rather, they speak of the eschatological hope of
blessing that the kingdom brings for those who suffer, who seek righteousness, who show
the attitudes of the Kingdom and who are persecuted. So those who are poor in spirit can
rejoice, for the coming of the Kingdom will bring them blessing; some already, all not yet.
We must not over‐realise this in a fallen world. They will be rich in blessing for theirs is the
Kingdom. The Kingdom reverses the state of God’s ones (eschatological reversal).
2. Ethics and Society (Salt and Light [5:13‐16]): the two metaphors speak of the relationship
between the kingdom and society at the point particularly of ethics. The ethics of the
Kingdom which are outlined in the sermon are not just for the church or the people of the
kingdom in isolation (monastic separatism); they are to be lived out in society so that society
will be transformed and others will be attracted into the kingdom. This means that there can
be no dualism in which a Christian lives one way in the church and another way in the world.
Rather, they are to live consistently and without dualism. This raises serious questions for
Christians involved in the State, police, military etc especially where non‐violence is
concerned. However, in a fallen world, sometimes as a last resort the ethic of the Sermon
will be compromised for the greatest good of love and human preservation. But, it is as we
live out the ethics of the Kingdom that society is transformed, preserved, flavoured,
enlightened and restored to God’s intention. The ethic of the Sermon is for all humanity but
they must enter the Kingdom to live it out. We of the Kingdom must demonstrate the way.
3. Ethics and the Law (5:17‐20): the ethic of the Kingdom is not a replacement of abolition of
the law, but its fulfilment. The law is fulfilled in Christ perfectly, and we are to attain to his
righteousness and live out the ethic of the Kingdom, and by doing so we fulfil the original
intent of the Law and the Law is fulfilled in us. This is then outlined in a series of 6 antitheses
signalled by ‘you have heard that it was said’ which is followed by, ‘but I say to you’ whereby
Jesus interprets the law with the ethics of the Kingdom including: 1) No murder, anger and
violence but reconciliation; 2) No adultery but sexual purity; 3) No divorce but marital

faithfulness; 4) No oaths to confirm one’s word, but honesty and integrity with one’s word;
5) No retaliation against oppressors but action on their behalf; 6) No hatred of enemies but
love of and prayer for enemies. If we live this out, what will the implications be for the way
we relate to society?
4. Giving to the needy (6:1‐4): radical generosity to the needy and done not for public
recognition but in privacy for eternal reward.
5. Prayer (6:5‐15): prayer in private for God’s notice and not for public recognition; a model of
prayer (the Lord’s Prayer) involving prayers of and for praise, petition based on providence,
provision, protection and the need to forgive others.
6. Fasting (6:16‐18): fasting as a spiritual discipline in private and not for public recognition.
7. Renunciation of the love of money (6:19‐34): the renunciation of the love of and desire for
money; living righteously and not for material gain; radical trust in God’s provision; no
anxiety but the promise of God’s provision.
8. Non‐Judgementalism (7:1‐6): Self‐examination and not judgementalism of the ethics of
others.
9. Prayer Again (7:7‐11): Bringing ones needs to God for him to answer knowing that if we
come to him in prayer, he will answer. Placing God first when we need something.
10. The Golden Rule (7:12): Doing to others as you would have them do to you and in so‐doing
we fulfil the law and the prophets i.e. this is the heart of the Law.
11. Two Ways (7:13‐14): Seek the challenging (narrow) way of God not the easy way (broad) of
the world for ultimately the way of God leads to eternal life and the easy path of the world
leads to eternal destruction.
12. Two Trees (7:15‐23): Watch out for false prophets who are like trees which produce bad
fruit whereas true prophets produce good fruit (ethics). Those who are false prophets even
though they may move in signs and wonders, will be rejected by Jesus and face
eschatological destruction. So, what matters to God, is the ethical fruit we produce.
13. Two builders (7:24‐29): Build one’s life on the ethics of Jesus and the Kingdom and so have a
sure foundation for life; hence, when the struggles of life which are inevitable come, we can
come through it strong. Otherwise, we will crumble when the struggles and sufferings of life
come.

The Church
Mark does not mention the church at all. Neither do Luke or John, although Luke does mention the
church in Acts frequently. Matthew is the only Gospel writer to mention the Church. This leads some
to see these as interpolations. However, there is no need to do so. Matthew mentions the church
twice (cf. Mt 18:20):

1. Mt 16:18… ‘upon this rock I will build my church…’
2. Mt 18:17… discipline within the church.
The whole of ch18 is really about church life and particularly the need for discipline and forgiveness
in the church. These references are the only references to ekklesia in the Gospels and are important
in that they place the notion of church on the mouth of Jesus before it is formed at Pentecost.

Discipleship
Matthew adds into the Markan material references to Jesus’ appeal for wholehearted discipleship
such as Mt 6:33; 8:18‐22. Both of these sections emphasise the radical nature of discipleship seen in
common accounts such as the call of the first disciples (Mt 4:18‐22 cf. Mk 1:16‐20), Levi (Mt 9:9‐13
cf. Mk 2:13‐17) and the rich ruler account (Mt 19:16‐30 cf. Mk 10:17‐31). Mt 6:33 speaks of the
priority of the Kingdom of God and his righteousness for the believer. Mt 8:18‐22 speak of potential
105

homelessness and placing Kingdom allegiance above family and culture even where it cuts deep
(when a loved one dies). The Sermon on the Mount too speaks of a radical ethic of living righteously
for the disciple. So, discipleship is all or nothing; giving our all in service of God and his Kingdom.

Mission
As noted above Mark certainly has a sense of mission seen in the sending of the twelve, references
indicating the gospel will go to all nations, and especially that the end is linked to the completion of
this task. These are all included in Matthew (10; 13:31‐32; 24:14; 26:6‐13). However, this is
weakened when compared to Matthew and Luke if we accept that the longer ending is not original.

In Matthew’s case, a good argument can be made that the Great Commission of Mt 28:18‐20
represents the climax and overall theme of the Gospel. Some features of Matthew’s mission concern
include:
1. Hints through the narrative of a concern for universal mission e.g. the Magi from the east to
worship the King (2:1‐12), the Syro‐Phonecian Woman healed (15:21‐28 [note, Jesus here is
ministering among the Gentiles at Tyre and Sidon]); the Roman Centurion’s faith (8:5‐13);
the soldier at the cross
2. The statement that believers are the salt and light of the world; bringing God’s values to his
world for people’s salvation and its transformation (5:13‐16).
3. Love your enemies; in context, Romans and others. Note too, that God is given as a model
here, blessing the good and evil alike; so should we (5:43).
4. A long development of the initial mission of the 12 including witness before Jewish and
Gentile authorities (10 [note v. 18]).
5. People aside from Israel would bear fruit for the Kingdom (21:43).
6. The whole of the world including all nations to be judged before Jesus (25:31‐46).
7. An initial limitation of mission to Jews alone (10:5‐6, 23 15:24) i.e. an initial particularism.
8. An extension of the mission to the whole world post‐ascension (28:18‐20) i.e. an ultimate
universalism.

Clearly the statements limiting Jesus’ mission concern to the Jews only is with the intention of
establishing the Gospel in Israel before it extended into the world. Hence, when Jesus gave the
command to preach the gospel to all nations, one nation was fulfilled. It was the responsibility of the
disciples and the remainder of the church to fulfil this to all nations (24:14). That this was the
ultimate purpose of God is seen in hints throughout including the Magi (2:1‐12), other people who
would bear fruit for the kingdom (21:43), world‐wide judgement (25:31‐46).

Kingdom of Heaven rather than Kingdom of God
Matthew in the main replaces the ‘kingdom of God’ with ‘the Kingdom of heaven’, although he does
retain some examples (see 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). Most scholars believe these are interchangeable
terms. Matthew may have avoided ‘God’ here because of the Jewish preference for avoiding the
name of God (cf. Yahweh). The use of ‘heaven’ does emphasise eschatology. That is, the realm of
heaven has broken into the present in the person and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Christology i.e. who is Jesus
Mark has a high view of Jesus speaking of him as the Messiah or Christ (see esp. 1:1; 8:29; 9:41;
14:61), Daniel’s Son of Man ([14x] e.g. 2:10), the Son of God (3:1; possibly 1:1), Lord in a sovereign
sense (6x e.g. 1:3; 2:28; 12:36‐37); 5:19 the servant (10:43‐45).


However, Matthew goes even further emphasising a higher Christology that Mark and emphasising a
number of themes concerning the person and identity of Jesus. This is due to his desire to convince
his readers of Jesus’ messianic identity and that he is more than a human, he is God the Son.

Some of the main Christological dimensions include:

1. Teacher and ‘New Moses’: Jesus is presented as a teacher and as a new Moses bringing a
fresh revelation which stands in continuity with the old (5:17‐20). He is the teacher in the
synagogues (4:23; 9:35). He states in his woes to the Pharisees: ‘Nor are you to be called
“teacher,” for you have one Teacher, the Messiah' (23:10). The Sermon on the Plain is a
sustained piece of teaching on a mountain reminiscent of Moses. He reinterprets Moses in
this sermon, interacting with the Law. He teaches with authority, unlike the lawyers (7:29 cf.
22:33) and is even addressed as teacher by a Jewish teacher who promises to follow him
(8:19). He defeats them continually in the temple debate narrative (21:23‐22:46). Some
examples of this dimension of Matthew’s Jesus’ as Moses are:
a. Miracles around his infancy (Mt 1‐2) cf. Moses birth (Exod 2).
b. Causes turmoil among political leaders (Herod, Magi [2:1‐11]; cf. Pharaoh [Exod 5‐
12])
c. Survives a massacre of children (The slaughter at Bethlehem [2:16‐18]; cf. Passover
[Exod 11‐12]).
d. Retraces the Exodus journey to Egypt and out (2:13‐15) cf. Exodus [Gen 46‐47; Exod
12‐14].
e. Remains in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights (temptation: 4:1‐11 cf. Moses at
the mount (Exod 24:18; 34:28).
f. Reveals the ‘new law’ (5‐7) cf. The Mosaic Law (Exod 20‐23).
g. Both appear at the Transfiguration mountain (17).

2. Son of David, King, Messiah:Matthew continues and heightens Mark’s concern for Jesus as
the Messiah or Christ. He refers to Jesus being Christ or Messiah 11x (e.g. 11:2: ‘When John
heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent his disciples’). Jesus is also called ‘Son
of David’ 9x, 8 unparalleled in any other Gospel (4x in Lk; 3x in Mk). This fits the ‘Jewish
orientation’ of Matthew and his desire to demonstrate from his Jewish heritage that Jesus is
Messiah.

3. A heightened Son of God: Matthew presents Jesus with a higher Christology than Mark
especially in terms of Jesus’ divine sonship. He uses the term ‘Son of God’ more than Mark.
This is seen at various points:
a. Mt 1:18‐22: Jesus is conceived by the Spirit (1:18); she will give birth to a son who
will be called Immanuel i.e. ‘God with us!’ (1:22). In other words, he is the divine Son
of God.
b. Mt 2:15: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’.
c. Mt 26:63‐64: ‘The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God:
Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.
“But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right
hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”’
d. Mt 4:3, 6: The devil assumes Jesus is the son of God.
e. Mt 14:33: The disciples confess him as the Son of God when he walks on the water.
f. Mt 16:16: Peter’s confession in Matthew includes this term whereas Mark does not.
107

Hence what is mentioned in Mark’s Gospel is made explicit in Matthew; Jesus is God the
Son.

4. Wisdom Incarnate: In some texts Jesus’ wisdom is emphasised. This resounds with the
notion of God’s wisdom personified in the intertestamental book of ‘wisdom literature’
attributed to Jesus, son of Sirach. Some see Jesus as God’s wisdom incarnate cf. Prov 8‐9.
Some examples include:
a. 12:42 (‘The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and
condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom,
and now one greater than Solomon is here’).
b. 13:54 (‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?’ they
asked’).
c. 11:19: He and John the Baptist vindicate God’s wisdom.
d. 11:25‐30: Jesus calls the lowly to himself and promises them rest, a motif similar to
wisdom.
5. Lord: Matthew does not use the notion of Lord as much of Jesus. Sometimes it is God who is
he is kurios rather than Jesus (e.g. 1:20; 4:7; 11:25; 21:9; 22:37). Often he uses it as an
address of people coming to enquire of him especially for healing or deliverance of some
sort (14x e.g. ‘Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus
was going by, they shouted, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!’). However it is used of
Jesus in a cosmic sense as well on several occasions (9:38; 24:42; 25:37, 44 e.g. 7:21: ‘not
everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only those who
do the will of my Father who is in heaven.’ Lord can also carry the sense of Messiah on
occasions especially on the lips of Peter (16:22; 17:4; 18:21 cf. 20:30; 21:3).

6. Jesus as the Object of Worship: On several occasions, Jesus is the object of worship. In the
Infancy Narrative, the Magi come to worship Jesus (2:2, 8, 11). After the calming of the
storm the disciples worship him as the Son of God (14:33). Some of the disciples worship
him on the mountain as he declares to them the Great Commission (28:17).

7. Conflict with Jewish Authorities: Jesus in Matthew has strong conflict with Pharisees,
scribes and Sadducees. This is especially strong in the ‘Woes’ of Ch23 and in 27:25 where the
crowd cries out ‘let his blood be on us and our children’. The Olivet Discourse of Mt 24
predicts the demolition of Jerusalem (24:2). Matthew also mentions Sadducees in 7
passages, all negatively. He also refers to Jewish houses of worship as ‘their’ synagogues as if
these men were not also Jewish (4:23; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54). However, we can overstate this
when we remember that all his disciples were Jews; he mentions positively prophets, kings
and John the Baptist; and he prioritized mission to Israel (15:6). Some see in this issue the
clash between Judaism and Christianity after the Fall of Jerusalem culminating in the
expulsion of Christians from the Synagogue.

8. Stronger Note of Eschatological Judgement and Hope: Luke and Matthew in particular takes
the future dimensions of Mark’s account (Mk 4:29; 10:30, 37‐40; 12:18‐27; 13:1‐36; 14:62)
and gives them a sharper and more detailed eschatological edge. This is seen in references
to eschatological judgement as a consequence of wrong action. Sometimes the metaphor of
fire is utlised powerfully to speak of unspeakable misery as in a fire for those who

experience eschatological rejection by God. This is seen in the ministry of John the Baptist
(cf. 3:9‐12); in the threat of judgement for those who do not live the ethic of the Sermon on
the Mount (cf. 5:20, 22, 29‐30; 7:13, 21‐23; 8:10‐12; 10:15; 11:21‐24; 12:31‐32, 35‐37;
13:29‐20, 40‐43, 49; 18:7‐9, 30‐35; 19:24; 21:31‐32; 22:11‐14; 23:13; 24:51; 25:10, 41‐46;
26:40). There are also strong notes of eschatological reward for the faithful in living out the
Kingdom ethic (cf. 6:4, 6, 18; 7:14; 12:35‐37; 20:1‐16; 25:19‐23, 34‐40). Often this is couched
in the language of contrast such as two paths, one to life and one to destruction (7:12‐13),
or the sheep and the goats (25:34‐46). Matthew highlights that there are two ways of living
and the outcome is either eternal life or eternal destruction.

The return of Christ also features more prominently and is more obviously the context for the Olivet
Discourse (Mt 24) with Matthew adding to the Markan material (Mk 13) grouping with it a series of
parables which speak of the importance of readiness for the coming of Jesus; such as the parable of
the ten bridesmaids (25:1‐13). The parables of the talents and account of judgement (sheep and
goats) are also to be understood as how to live to be ready for the return of Christ in Matthew’s
narrative.

Questions to think about
• What is the special value of Matthew’s Gospel for you?
109


Chapter Seven
THE DISTINCTIVE EMPHASES AND FEATURES OF LUKE’S
GOSPEL
Contents
THE DISTINCTIVE EMPHASES AND FEATURES OF LUKE’S GOSPEL ...................................................................... 111
Critical Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 112
Authorship ...................................................................................................................................... 112
Arguments in Favour of Luke ...................................................................................................... 112
Objections to Lukan Authorship ................................................................................................. 112
Who was Luke? ............................................................................................................................... 113
Provenance ......................................................................................................................................... 114
Date ..................................................................................................................................................... 114
An early date: The mid‐60’s ............................................................................................................ 114
A Later Date: 70’s‐80’s .................................................................................................................... 114
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 115
Recipients ............................................................................................................................................ 115
The composition of Luke ..................................................................................................................... 116
Tracking the Key Points of Difference in Luke’s Arrangement ........................................................... 116
Summary of Detail .......................................................................................................................... 117
Additional Notes on Composition ................................................................................................... 118
The Structure of Luke .......................................................................................................................... 118
The Geographical Structure of Luke‐Acts ....................................................................................... 118
Other Key Structural Clues .............................................................................................................. 119
The Texts of Luke ................................................................................................................................ 120
Key Emphases in Luke’s Account ........................................................................................................ 120
A Trinitarian emphasis: God’s Plan, Jesus Messiah, Spirit power. .................................................. 120
God the Father and His Plan ....................................................................................................... 120
Jesus the Messiah, Lord and His Salvation .................................................................................. 121
The Spirit’s Power ....................................................................................................................... 122
Jesus in history ................................................................................................................................ 123
Salvation .......................................................................................................................................... 123
Mission ............................................................................................................................................ 124
The Marginalised and Oppressed ................................................................................................... 125
Prayer .............................................................................................................................................. 126
Radical Discipleship ......................................................................................................................... 126
Israel’s rejection of Jesus: ............................................................................................................... 127
Hospitality, Table Fellowship Encounters ....................................................................................... 127
Worship ........................................................................................................................................... 128
Questions to consider ......................................................................................................................... 128

111

Luke’s Gospel is the third of the Synoptic Gospels. It is generally agreed that Luke is the first part of
the two‐part work with Acts. A number of scholars (e.g. Witherington) believe that Luke‐Acts was
one work but because of the size of the document it was cut into two to fit onto two scrolls. This
agreement concerning a common authorship is primarily because of the similar prologues to the two
works in which they are addressed to Theophilus (Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1). In Acts the writer refers to ‘my
former book’ (πρῶτον λόγον = ‘first message/book/word’) and addresses it to Theophilus. Other
reasons include the similarity in style, vocabulary and theology.

Critical Issues
Authorship
Arguments in Favour of Luke
As in the case of Mark and Matthew there is no explicit internal evidence that Luke is the author of
the third Gospel. The reasons that people consider Luke to be the author are these:

1. The external ascription: The ascription reads ‘according to Luke’ (kata loukan = ΚΑΤΑ
ΛΟΥΚΑNA). This suggests that in the second century it was believed that someone called
Luke wrote it.
2. The unanimous agreement of early church writers: There is very strong evidence in the
early church that Luke was the writer; these include: Marcion, Justin (c. 160, Dialogues 103.9
= ‘a memoir of Jesus’), the anti‐Marcionite Prologue (c. 175), the Muratorian Cannon (c. 170‐
180); Irenaeus (c. 175‐195; Haer. 3.1.1; 13:1‐3; 15:30‐35), Tertullian (Marc. 4.2.2; 4.5.3) and
Eusebius (early 4th century; Hist. Eccl. 3.4.2). The oldest MS of Luke, Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
cited in p75 (A.D. 175‐225) ascribes the work to Luke. There are also allusions in 1 Clement
(13:2; 48:4) from the early 90’s and in 2 Clement 13.4 (c. 150). No other name was ever
attached to the work.
3. The four ‘we passages’ in Acts: There are four points in Acts where Luke writes in the 3rd
person plural (‘we’) after writing in the second person plural (‘they’) (see Acts 16:10‐17;
20:5‐16; 21:1‐18; 27:1‐28:16). The most obvious interpretation of this is that the writer of
Acts was with Paul and his team at these points. The last of these places the writer in Rome
with Paul in his imprisonment. The person then is probably one who was not mentioned in
Acts and was with Paul. These people include Titus, Demas, Crescans, Jesus Justus, Epaphras,
Epaphroditus and Luke. No good reason has come to ascribe the authorship to the others, so
Luke is the most likely.
4. Acts 20:13 in the Western Text: The Western text (see below) of Acts 20:13 reads: ‘But I
Luke, and those who were with me, went on board’ suggesting Luke was with Paul and the
writer. F.F. Bruce dates the western text at AD120 giving strong early evidence for Lukan
authorship of Acts; and so, Luke.
Objections to Lukan Authorship
1. The ‘we passages’ can be read in other ways: Some believe that the ‘we passages’ do not
indicate the author was with Paul but indicate snippets of a Pauline diary written in the first
person inserted into the Acts account. Or, Luke has not edited his sources. However, the
straightforward explanation that ‘we’ includes the author is much more likely.
112

2. Discrepancies between Paul in Acts and Epistles: Some also find too many discrepancies
between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the letters which suggests to them that the writer
of Acts was not a travelling companion of Paul. On examination these so‐called discrepancies
are not great and can in the main, be reconciled. Certainly the congruency between Acts and
Paul far outweigh any discrepancies.

All things considered, there is strong internal evidence that Luke is the author of the 3rd Gospel. That
being probable, who was Luke?

Who was Luke?
There are three explicit mentions of Luke which help us know who he is:
1. A companion and co‐worker with Paul: He was a beloved (Col 4:11) co‐worker of Paul (Phm
24). This indicates that was greatly loved and valued by Paul and that he was a missionary
and preacher of the gospel. The works of Luke‐Acts then should be seen as a part of his
ministry. That Luke was a traveling companion is supported across the early church witness
(e.g. Justin, Dialogues 103.19; the Muratorian Canon [c. 175]; Eusebius (early fourth century;
Hist. Eccl. 3.4.2]).
2. A doctor: Col 4:14 tells us he was a physician (ὁ ijatro~ = iatros). Thus, he was a bright
educated man, trained in the Greco‐Roman art of healing.
3. A Loyal Man: Paul refers to Luke 3x in his prison captivity letters indicating that he was in
Rome with Paul at the end of his life (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24). At the time of Paul’s
impending death, Luke is the only co‐worker who has remained with him (2 Tim 4:11).
Hence, we can conclude he was an astonishingly loyal man.
From the ‘we passages’ (Acts 16:10‐17; 20:5‐16; 21:1‐18; 27:1‐28:16) in which Luke was with Paul we
can glean a little more:
1. Travelled Extensively with Paul: Luke joined Paul in Troas and travelled with him into
Macedonia to Philippi (Acts 16:10‐17). He remained behind in Philippi (Acts 17:1: shifts from
‘we’ to ‘they’). He rejoined Paul and his team when they returned through Philippi after
ministry in Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Ephesus (Acts 20:5) and remained with him as
he travelled to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17). If he was with Paul in Jerusalem as it would seem
then it is probable that he gathered his Gospel material in this time. Luke travelled with Paul
to Rome (Acts 27:1‐28:16) and was with him in Rome. This accords with the evidence from
the explicit references to Luke. This would put him in contact with Peter, Mark and his
Gospel, the writer of Hebrews and so in a great position to put together Acts.

In addition we can deduct from the evidence that:
2. Probably a Gentile Christian Convert: While a few argue that Luke was a Hellenistic‐Jewish
Christian (e.g. Ellis) or a Jew (Fitzmyer), most believe he was a Gentile Christian because Paul
mentions his only Jewish co‐workers (Col 4:11) and later mentions Luke indicating he was
probably not a Jew. He was not an eye‐witness to the events of the Gospel, relying on eye‐
witnesses and servants of the word for his material (Lk 1:1‐4).
3. Possibly from Antioch: He may also have been from Antioch as is indicated in the anti‐
Marcionite prologue (c. 175). The prologue says he lived to 84, was a doctor, never married,
and wrote in Achaia, and died in Boeotia (Greece). Eusebius also suggests so (Hist. Eccl.
3.4.2).
113

4. A Good Greek Writer: His Greek was good and very versatile moving from a classical style
(Lk 1:1‐4), to a Hebraic style in the remainder of chapters 1 and 2 (like the LXX) and then to
tidying up Mark’s more rustic Greek in the passages from Mark that he edited.
5. Perhaps a Client of Theophilus: It is possible that Theophilus was his patron (1:4) who
supported the project financially.

Provenance
The Anti‐Marcionite Prologue (c. 175) says that Luke came from Antioch, and wrote his gospel to the
‘regions of Achaea’ (which is southern Greece where Corinth is found). This would work well if Luke
was with Paul in Roman prison and then went to Greece and wrote his gospel. Eusebius in the fourth
century also says that Luke was ‘by race an Antiochian’ (Hist. Eccl. 3.4.6).

Date
There are essentially two schools of thought: those who date the Gospel in the early 60’s and those
who date it between AD75‐85:

An early date: The mid‐60’s
A number of scholars including a lot of evangelicals argue that Luke (and Acts) fits best around the
time that the events of Acts conclude. The assumption is that Luke was probably penned before
Acts, or at the same time. Some of the arguments used include:
1. The Abrupt End of Acts: The end of Acts stops abruptly when Paul is in Roman prison (Acts
28:31) i.e. about AD60‐62. It is argued that this indicates the point of writing.
2. The Absence of Reference to Key Events from the 60’s: This argument builds on the
previous. If Luke wrote much later, why is there a total absence of reference to the fall of
Jerusalem (AD70 esp. in light of the prediction of Lk 21:20), the Neronian persecution (mid
60’s), the deaths of James (AD62) and later, Paul and Peter (AD64‐65)? It is felt that it is
rather strange that such important events around Jerusalem and these key figures critical to
Luke’s narratives are not included if Luke‐Acts is to be dated later.
3. The Friendly Picture of Rome: Some scholars also argue that the friendly picture of Rome in
Luke‐Acts fits better if the Neronian persecution and the fall of Jerusalem have not
yet occurred.

A Later Date: 70’s‐80’s
Some would argue that things are not as they seem and that the above point of view is not
conclusive. Some argue that the Gospel fits later for these reasons:
1. The Details Concerning the Fall of Jerusalem in Luke: The details concerning the fall of
Jerusalem are too explicit and indicate that it had already happened (see Lk 19:43; 1 21:20,

1
‘The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and
encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children
within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time
of God’s coming to you.’
114

24) 2 . Carson, Moo and Morris suggest however that the details are general and that it is
inconsistent to consider some of the prophecies in Lk 21 to be after the event and others
before the event. 3
2. The Date of Mark: Markan priority and Luke’s use of Mark suggest a post‐mid‐60’s date on
the assumption that Mark was completed in the early‐mid 60’s. It is assumed that Mark
needed to have gained authority before Luke used it, pushing the date into the mid 70’s.
However, there are a number of scholars who believe that Mark was completed in the late
40’s or mid 50’s. Even if Mark is dated in the 60’s, if it was written from Rome and Luke was
in Rome with Paul as Acts suggests, then Luke may have used Mark very early on its life. This
problem is overstated.
3. Common Use of Q: Some consider the common use of Q by Matthew and Luke suggests a
similar date to Matthew i.e. later. However, we have discussed the possibility of an earlier
Matthew and there common material does not necessarily mean a near date
4. The ‘Many’ Writings of Lk 1:1: In Lk 1:1 Luke mentions ‘many’ who written on Jesus before
suggesting a later date. However this could refer to many in the 30 years since Christ, some
of whom are now incorporated into current Gospels, or are lost.
5. The Rhetorical Structure of Acts: It is argued that Luke finishes his account in Acts not
because that is the point of writing, but because his rhetorical purpose implied in Acts 1:8 is
complete. That is, the witness empowered by the Spirit has gone to Rome and so will now go
from the heart of the Empire to the ‘ends of the earth’. Hence, its abrupt ending is rhetorical
and not temporal.

Conclusion
I prefer and earlier date on the basis of the ending of Luke‐Acts which is abrupt. However, it is not
hugely significant either way.

Recipients
Who is it written to? Luke is the only Gospel with clear clues making the recipients explicit in Lk 1:3
i.e. ‘most excellent Theophilus.’ On the face of it, this refers to an individual Theophilus. While most
do read it this way, there are two possible ways of reading this:
1. A person called Theophilus: The most obvious way to understand it is that Luke was writing
to a real person. He may have been Luke’s patron which meant he probably paid the costs of
the publication of the work. ‘Most excellent’ (kratistos) would then indicate that he was a
man of rank as it is used of high ranking Roman officials in Acts (of Felix [Acts 24:3]; of Festus
[Acts 26:25]).
2. To all ‘most excellent lovers of God’: The term ‘Theophilus’ means ‘lover (phileō) of God
(theos) and could be symbolic and general for all who are lover’s of God. If so kratistos
would apply to all believers as a statement of their status in Christ. However, this is less
likely in that Acts 1:1 Luke reminds the recipient Theophilus of his earlier book clearly
referring to the third Gospel. If that Gospel had been sent to a general set of recipients it is

2
“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it, and those
out in the country must not enter it… they will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as
captives among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the
Gentiles are fulfilled.
3
115

unlikely that Luke would have been confident that they had read it. If an individual was in
mind, it would make better sense.
If we take it in the first way which seems most likely, then it does not necessarily imply it was written
only for one person Theophilus. It is probable that he represents the group for which it was written.
This wider group would include members of the Greco‐Roman world. The content of Luke points in
this direction. It has great concern for status and wealth issues.

There are indicators which suggest Gentile Christians are in view:
1. Theophilus: Theophilus is a Greek name and so Luke is probably directing this to those in
this sphere.
2. Gentile Concern: Luke has a great concern for Gentiles and universal salvation through Luke
and strongly in Acts (Lk 2:32; Lk 7:1‐10; Acts 1:8; 10‐11; 28:28‐31).
3. Style: The Greco‐Roman classical style in the preface (Lk 1:1‐4).
4. Absence of Aramaic: The lack of Aramaic compared to Mark e.g. ‘Rabbi’ (Mk 9:5); ‘Abba’
(Mk 14:36).
This all means that we should read Luke with the Greco‐Roman world in mind (as opposed to
Matthew). Thus issues like the Empire, wealth‐status, honour‐shame, patronage, polytheism,
patriarchy and other Greco‐Roman social issues help us in interpretation.

The composition of Luke
It is clear that Luke uses Mark to put together his Gospel. One analysis argues that 88.4% of material
from Mark is paralleled in Luke (cf. 97.2% in Matthew). 4 Another analysis suggests that 380 out of
661 of the verses in Mark appear in Luke. 5 However, Luke uses Mark differently to Matthew.
Whereas Matthew uses Mark without too much adaption and changes very little, Luke is far more
creative. As noted above, Luke also uses other material which is common to Matthew (Q) and
unique material he gathers (L). This material accessed his own material through meeting eye‐
witnesses when travelling with Paul (1:2), in particular in Jerusalem (Acts 22) and in Rome (Acts 28).
Tracking the Key Points of Difference in Luke’s Arrangement
An analysis of the Luke reveals a number of similarities and differences with the other Gospels:
1. The Infancy Narrative is in the Main Unique (Ch1‐2): These are made of unique material
which differs in detail if not substance from Matthew.
2. The Ministry Preparation Phase (Ch 3‐4): The pre‐ministry preparation including John the
Baptist, baptism and temptation is, in the main, the same as Mark and Mark except for
Luke’s Unique Genealogy (3:23‐28 cf. Mt 1:1‐18) and The Nazareth Synagogue Encounter
(4:14‐30 cf. Mk 6:1‐6).
3. Jesus’ Ministry in Galilee (3:1‐9:50 and esp. 4:14‐9:50) in the main follows Mark’s Galilean
ministry outline with some additional material in Ch. 6, 7 including The Sermon on the Plain
(6:17‐49 cf. Mt 5‐7) and a series of encounters. 6

4
See DJG, 787.
5
NBD, 428.
6
Lk 7 includes Lucan unique material inserted into the Markan: The Resurrection of the Widow’s Son
(7:11‐17); The Anointing by the Woman (7:56‐50); and Q Material: The Healing of the Roman
Centurion (7:1‐10 cf. Mt 8:5‐13); John the Baptist (7:18‐35 cf. Mt 11:2‐19).
116

4. The Travel Narrative (9:51‐18:14) contains primarily teachings from Jesus’ itinerant ministry
and is mainly non‐Markan Q and L material. 7
5. The Conclusion to the Travel Narrative, Passion and Resurrection (Luke 18:15‐24:52) follows
Mark’s outline with more insertions of distinctly Lucan or Q texts than in 3:1‐9:50. 8

Summary of Detail
As we look at Luke’s arrangement we can see that there is a large amount of common material
from Mark and especially Matthew (Q). We have a unique genealogy difficult to reconcile with
Mt 1 (later).
Interspersed through Luke and especially in the travel narrative chapter 7 and 9:51-18:27 is a
large amount of unique L material including Parables, encounters, teachings and healings: 1) His
Rejection at Nazareth (4:12-30); 2) The Resurrection of the Widow’s Son (7:11-17); 3)
Samaritan Rejection of Jesus (9:51-56); 4) The Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:25-37); 5)
Mary and Martha (10:38-42); 6) The Rich Fool (12:1-21); 7) The Parable of the Vineyard (13:10-
17); 8) The Healing a Woman in the Synagogue on the Sabbath (13:10-17); 9) Further Teaching
on the Cost of Discipleship (14:26-33); 10) The Parable of the Lost Coin (15:8-10); 11) The
Parable of the Prodigal Son (15:11-32); 12) The Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31); 13) The Healing
of the 10 Lepers (17:11-19); 14) The Parable of the Persistent Widow (18:1-8); 15) The Parable
of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector (18:9-14); 16) The encounter with Zacchaeus (19:1-10).
Luke also misses out a whole block of miracles from Mark 6:45-8:26 including the walking on
water (Mk 6:45-51; Mt 14:22-32; Jn 6:15-21); the ritual purity clash (Mk 7:1-23; Mt 15:1-20);
the healing of the Gentile woman (7:31-37 cf. Mt 15:29-31), the healing of the deaf and mute
man (Mk 7:31-37; Mt 15:29-31); the feeding of the 4000 and dialogue (8:1-21; Mt 15:32-16:12)
and the healing of the blind man (8:22-26). This is labelled ‘the Great Omission.’ It is unclear
why he has omitted the walking on water and healings. However, he might have avoided the 4000
feeding miracle (cf. the 5000; 9:10-17), the blind healing (cf. 18:35-43) and the deaf (11:14) to
avoid repetition. The issue of issue of ritual vs. inner purity is dealt with in a way that does not
involve the Law in 6:43-45. He may have left out the healing of the Syro-Phonoecian woman
because of the cryptic and controversial use of ‘dogs’. One can imagine this being potentially
being offensive to Gentiles.
Some of the material from the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) and the sending of the 12 (Mt
10) is dispersed throughout Luke at different points. The material is also slightly differently
expressed (e.g. compare the Lord’s Prayer [Lk 11:1-3; Mt 6:9-13]).

7
The whole section is L and Q. The only Markan material in these nine chapters is: The Beelzebub
Controversy (11:14‐26 cf. Mk 3:23‐27); Be Ready for Service (12:35‐48 cf. Mk 13:33‐37); Parables
Mustard Seed/Yeast (13:18‐21 cf. Mk 4:30‐32); The Salt Parable (14:34‐35 cf. Mk 9:49‐50); The Faith
of a Mustard Seed (17:5‐6 cf. Mk 11:22‐24).
8
The unique material includes: The Zacchaeus’ Encounter (19:1‐10); The Sword Encounter (22:35‐
38); Jesus before Herod (23:8‐12); Jesus Journey to the Cross and the Thieves Narrative (23:26‐43);
Unique Resurrection Material Including: the Emmaus Rd (24:13‐32); Appearance to Simon (23:34);
The Ascension (24:50‐53).

117

Unlike Mark and Matthew which record only the sending of the 12 (Mk 6:6-13; Mt 10:5-15), Luke
includes two sending narratives, one for the 12 (9:1-6) and one for the 72 (10:1-24). Luke has
only one feeding account (the 5000) i.e. he omits the 4000.
The account of the entry is very much the same but Luke omits the cursing of the fig tree. The
debates in the temple are almost directly in line with Mark and Matthew. The signs of the end
of time coheres with Mk 13; 24 in outline but differs in detail. The passion account is very
similar except in Luke Jesus is taken before Herod (23:8-12). The crucifixion is similar except
one of the thieves does not mock Jesus but asks him to save him. The burial is the same except
there is no guard as in Matthew. The resurrection account is the most complete and includes
some of the shorter longer ending of Mark. He includes an ascension narrative.

Additional Notes on Composition
There are two other aspects of the composition of Luke that should be mentioned at this point.
These include that: 1) Luke alters Mark and probably Q and improves their style and language. For
example he abbreviates the Parable of the Sower from 151 words (Mark) to 90 words. 2) Luke often
removes references to Jesus’ feelings e.g. (7:13). His focus is on what Jesus did and said.

All in all then, Luke takes Mark’s account, tidies it, edits it rearranging its order slightly, places before
it a unique infancy narrative, and inserts into it a lot of Q material and unique L material especially in
ch.7 and in the travel narrative. However, interspersed throughout Mark is Q and L material and
additional material related to Mark’s overall account.

The Structure of Luke
The Geographical Structure of Luke‐Acts
When we come to Luke’s structure we need to remember that Luke is effectively part one of a two‐
part work, Luke‐Acts. As such, we must not look at Luke in isolation but consider them as a structural
unity.

Beginning with Acts, it is quite easy to discern a geographical structure based around Acts 1:8: ‘But
you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in
Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’

Thus, Luke’s account in Acts tracks the empowering work of the Spirit in the first believers leading to
the spread of the Gospel geographically, it radiating out from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
This is seen in three clear phases:
1. Jerusalem (Acts 1:1‐7).
2. All Judea and Samaria (Acts 8‐12).
3. To the ends of the earth (Acts 13‐28).
Craig Blomberg notes that the reverse can be discerned in Luke:
1. The birth of Jesus in the context of Galilee of the Gentiles, world history and Roman rule (1:5;
2:1; 3:1). Jesus then ministers in Galilee of the Gentiles (3:1‐9:50).
2. Jesus in Samaria and Judea (9:52; 17:11; 18:35; 19:1, 11, 28).
3. Jesus in Jerusalem (Lk 24/Acts 1).
118

Blomberg presents it diagrammatically like this (p143).

Other Key Structural Clues
There are several other key things to note to understand Luke.
1. The Nazareth Encounter: Here, in Lk 4:14‐30 Jesus returns from defeating Satan in the
wilderness, and declares the basis of his ministry, a ministry which will deliver the world
from the power of Satan. 9 He declares he is God’s anointed (Messiah) come in fulfillment to
the prophets (Is 61:1‐2) bringing Jubilee to set the world free spiritually and materially. The
narrative of Luke is the playing out of this programmatic statement. This mission statement
launches his public ministry. Later in 19:10 he will give another mission statement at the end
of his public ministry. The two function as bookends for his ministry (inclusio). This
anticipates Luke’s holistic approach; salvation is spiritual and material, especially the release
of the poor from oppression.
2. The Sermon on the Plain: In Lk 6:20‐49 Jesus teaches the disciples after calling them, giving
them the ethical basis for the ministry of the Kingdom. Luke’s narrative illustrates these as
with the Nazareth manifesto (above).
3. The Turning Point (9:51): In 9:51 Jesus turns his face toward Jerusalem. The section until the
entry in Lk 19 is Jesus ‘on the way’ to the cross to die to release the world. This fits the move
toward Jerusalem in the narrative. Acts moves the other way, out from Jerusalem.

9
Note that the order of the temptations differs in Luke from Matthew. Luke places the temptation for the
whole world ahead of the Jerusalem temptation. In other words, Jesus will begin the deliverance of the whole
world from the dominion of Satan beginning in Jerusalem (see Lk 4:5‐13).
119

4. The Travel Narrative (9:51‐19:28): From the turning point to Jerusalem we have the Travel
Narrative where Jesus is en‐route to face his death. He is the servant king showing ‘the way’
of Christian life. Note, in Acts, the faith is called ‘the way.’
5. The Mission Commission, Spirit Promise, Ascension (24:44‐53): This passage hinges Luke to
Acts. Acts sees the Spirit come as promised, the commission being fulfilled and Jesus’
reigning as ascended King.

The Texts of Luke
There are two essential forms of Luke‐Acts in the early church, the one we use now and the so‐called
‘Western Text’. This is found in old Latin manuscripts and Codex Bezae (D). In the Western Text we
find some differences. For example it says of the stone over Jesus’ tomb that it was one ‘which
twenty men could scarcely roll’ (Lk 23:53). It adds clauses to the Lord’s Prayer so that it reads more
like Matthew (Lk 11:2‐4). It omits some sentences including the words of Martha: ‘you are worried
and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed’ (Lk 10:41‐42). It adds that Paul
ministered in the lecture hall in Tyrannus in Ephesus from 11am‐4pm i.e. during the siesta (Acts
19:10).

Most scholars believe that, in the main, the standard text is superior. However, every reading has to
be assessed according to its merit. In some cases, scholars refer to or adopt the western text
believing that it may be authentic e.g. Acts 19:10 above.

Key Emphases in Luke’s Account
Luke has the same essential emphases as do Mark and Matthew including the centrality of the
Kingdom of God, Jesus as miracle worker, preacher and teacher, Jesus’ ethics, Jesus the crucified
Messiah to save the world (the passion) and Jesus the resurrected Lord. Luke adds the dimension of
the ascension of Christ (cf. Lk 24:51; Acts 1:11); this is important for his theology of Jesus as reigning
King in Acts.

However, there are a number of distinctive features of his approach which emphasise different
dimensions of Jesus’ and the impact of his coming.

A Trinitarian emphasis: God’s Plan, Jesus Messiah, Spirit power.
Undergirding Luke’s account is a Trinitarian construct centred on God’s plan, providence and
purpose working itself out in human history through his Son the Messiah and through the power of
the Spirit sent from on high.

God the Father and His Plan
The whole of Luke is based around God’s plan of salvation. The story of Jesus’ birth (infancy
narrative) is written intentionally in line with the Greek OT (LXX). This places the God of Israel at the
centre of the story from the beginning. God is the dominant figure in Luke, the human events
including the work of Jesus, being the fulfilment of his providential plan. 10 This is seen in the
fulfilment of angelic predictions (1:11‐21, 26‐38, 45, 56‐66; 2:1‐7). Jesus life is set in the context of

10
L.T. Johnson, “Luke, Gospel of,” 502.
120

promise and fulfilment, God’s work in the people of Israel in the OT. 11 Just one example is John the
Baptist as the expected forerunner to the Messiah (3:4‐6 cf. Is 40:3‐5; 7:27 cf. Mal 3:1‐2). Similarly,
the resurrection and his whole life and ministry are foretold in the Scriptures (20:37‐38; 24:25‐27,
32, 44‐45).

Throughout Luke, God is in control. For example in 1:32 it is predicted that ‘the Lord God will give
him the throne of his father David.’ Mary’s song too celebrates the providence of God in history and
in particular Israel (1:50‐55). John and Jesus proclaim the ‘Word of God’ (3:2; 5:1; 8:11, 21). Jesus is
sent from God (10:16) and his ministry is reveals tremendous power and the authority of God in
forgiveness (5:21; 7:48; 22:34), correct interpretation of the law (6:1‐3; 13:10‐17) the power in
miracle and an exclusive role in revealing the father (10:22). Jesus is subservient to God the Father
e.g. ‘my Father’s House’ (2:41‐49); ‘Son of God’ (4:3, 9; 22:70).
The repeated used in Luke‐Acts of the Greek dei (meaning ‘it is necessary’) often carries the sense of
a ‘divine imperative’ (40x of 101 in the NT) and points to the fulfilment of God’s plan e.g. 4:43;
13:16.

This concept of God in control and his plan continues in Acts (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:27‐28; 13:32‐39; 24:14‐
1; 26:22‐23). 12 In Luke, ‘today’ (semeron) is the time of fulfilment. Yet there is more to come, the
fulfilment is not complete.

Jesus the Messiah, Lord and His Salvation
If God is the prime character behind the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is the primary character in the
foreground of part one of Luke’s work, the Gospel. Hence, Christology is central to Luke’s purpose.
He uses a number of kingly notions from Israel’s heritage, stressing his kingship. Remembering the
Greco‐Roman slant of the Gospel, these indicate Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, and Lord of the
world. Thus, he is Lord over all (cf. Ps 110:1) who reigns over all including Caesar. He is YHWH’s son
who is divine who has come to take back his world from all spiritual and political powers.

For example, Luke takes over the notion of Son of Man from Mark (cf. Dan 7:13‐14; e.g. 9:22), Q
(6:22) and L (19:10) (27x). The Gospel is about Jesus as God’s agent for bringing his salvation. All key
points of his life illustrate his identity as Messiah, the anointed King Israel and the world have
yearned for. He is born of a virgin in the midst of an amazing array of spiritual events which involve
world powers (especially Rome [2:1; 3:1]), angels (e.g. 2:9, 13‐14) and Israel’s faith. 13 He is the Son of
God cf. (1:32, 35; 3:22; 4:3, 9, 41; 8:28; 9:35; 22:69). He is a prophet in a similar sense to Moses (cf.
Ps 2; Is 42; see also 11:29‐32 where he is compared to Jonah) but his prophetic identity is fused with
his messianic role and should probably be seen as subordinate to and a component of his messianic
status.

His ministry begins with an extraordinary testing but triumphant clash with Satan in the wilderness
(4:1‐13) which continues through his whole ministry, as he plunders Satan’s realm through
proclamation, love, touch and mercy (11:14‐27). Using Is 61:1‐2 in the synagogue he declared
himself to be God’s anointed King who would usher in a new age of God’s work among the needy
and in so doing alienated his own people (4:16‐30). He was a teacher (4:31‐32), exorcist (4:33‐37;
7:26‐39; 9:37‐42), healer (4:38‐40; 7:40‐56; 13:10‐17; 17:11‐17), raised the dead (7:11‐17, 40‐56),
fed the poor (9:10‐17), performed miracles defying nature (7:22‐25), preached the Kingdom of God

11
L.T. Johnson, “Luke, Gospel of,” 502. He notes Luke’s use of the suffering Son of man texts which are unique
to him e.g. (9:22, 44; 17:25 [L}; 18:31‐33 [L]; 22:22 [L]; 24:7 [L]).
12
L.T. Johnson, “Luke, Gospel of”, 502.
13
See the references to Zechariah’s priesthood, his presence in the temple, Simeon, Anna, circumcision,
dedication, prophecy and fulfillment.
121

(4:43) teaching in pithy memorable subtle discriminating stories (e.g. 8:1‐15; 10:25‐37; 12:13‐21;
13:18‐20; 15; 16:1‐12, 19‐31). These activities remained at the centre of his ministry until his death.
In‐so‐doing he was doing the work of the ultimate Patron, this one born in utter humility among
shepherds who would be killed at the hands of Jew and Roman alike, the shepherd king of the world
over Israel, Rome and all the nations.

He established community around a mission team. He called others to join him, the Twelve (5:11,
27‐32) and sent them as apostles (‘sent ones’) (6:12‐16). He called more, 70 (72) and sent them
similarly to heal and preach, to continue the restorative and salvific work of the Kingdom. He
encouraged women to be his disciples against the expectations of the day (10:38‐42). He called
people to radical discipleship (7:21; 9:57‐62; 14:15‐35; 19:11‐27).
Luke’s Jesus defied the expectations of Israel and the status structures of the Greco‐Roman world,
and hung out with sinners (5:30) and the marginalised (see below). He clashed with the religious
leaders of Israel over this involvement with sinners (e.g. 7:36‐50), claims and the excitement his
ministry caused.

In contrast to the greed of the leaders of Israel and the Greco‐Roman world of status and rank, he
taught a radical ethic of material generosity and renunciation of wealth (6:20‐26; 12:13‐34; 15:12‐
15; 18:18‐30; 20:45‐21:4). He taught a practical merciful love for all including enemies, refusing using
military might and power (6:27‐36; 10:25‐37; 14:12‐14; 15:19‐31). He taught self‐judgement and
acceptance of others (6:37‐42), humility (9:46‐48; 18:9‐14), prayer (11:1‐13; 18:1‐8), fear of God
(12:4‐6), servanthood (12:35‐48), no divorce (15:18), salvation (10:25‐33; 13:22‐30; 18:18‐30),
forgiveness (17:2‐3) and faith (17:5‐6). He encouraged lives focused not on the law, but on his own
teaching, claiming an authority which was unacceptable to the Jewish religious authorities (6:43‐49).
He taught of a God who loved humanity with an inestimable concern (12:7).
He defied the expectations of those around him of restoring the nation of Israel (Lk 24:21; Acts 1:7)
and rather accepted the path of suffering to the cross, knowing he had to die to save the world
(9:21‐26; 18:31‐33). He was frustrated at his rejection especially by the people of Jerusalem (9:31‐
35).

He called his followers to mission (below). He spoke of the culmination of the Kingdom based around
his own return (17:20‐37), predicting a range of signs with a double application to the fall of
Jerusalem and the future return (21).
The culmination of his ministry came as he determined to go to Jerusalem (9:51) to face debate with
the leaders of Israel and death. One of his own Judas betrayed him to the Jewish authorities (22:1‐5)
and he went to the cross. He rose from the dead appearing on a number of occasions and
commissioned the disciple to testify to all the world (24:1‐49). Finally Luke records his ascension
(24:50‐53).

The Spirit’s Power
The final piece of the Trinitarian structure of Luke is the role of the Spirit (pneuma) in Luke’s
narrative. In this regard Luke places more emphasis on the Spirit than the other two Synoptic
writers. This is strongest in Acts but is not without mention in the Gospel. 14 He stresses the Spirit’s
role in mission, first in Jesus and then in the life of the believers in Acts (Acts 1:8). The Spirit is God’s
empowering presence in the life and ministry of Christ in Luke.

14
There are several examples of pneuma being used of the human spirit i.e. the inner being (cf. 1:17, 47, 80). A
number of other references to pneuma are to evil spirits. The spirit and power of Elijah is also understandable
in terms of the Holy Spirit who empowered his ministry (1:17).
122

This is seen in the infancy narrative where Jesus’ coming sparks amazing spiritual activity. For
example the Spirit is on John the Baptist ‘even from birth’ (1:15) and he was conceived by the Spirit
(1:35). His parents were filled with the Spirit (1:41, 67), Zechariah prophesying under the Spirit’s
power concerning the ministry of his son.

Jesus’ ministry is a ministry of the Spirit in different ways. Jesus is described by John as one who
would baptise in the Spirit and fire (3:16) anticipating Pentecost and the five comings of the Spirit on
the infant church, groups and individuals in Acts (2:1‐4; cf. 8:17; 9:17; 10:44‐48; 19:6). At his baptism
he was filled with the Spirit who descended upon him from heaven (3:22) empowering him for
ministry. The first work of the Spirit was surprisingly to lead him into fasting for forty days and
confrontation with Satan where he triumphed over his temptations (4:1). The purpose of God for
Jesus was to defeat Satan through the power of the Spirit. Under the direction of the Spirit he
returned to Galilee empowered (4:14) and he began to teach and minister in the synagogues (4:15‐
16). It is implied in this account that this same Spirit empowered his whole ministry; although Luke
only mentions the role of the Spirit in a direct way sparingly. These include his application of Is 61:1‐
2 to his ministry; ‘the Spirit of the Lord is upon me…’ (4:18). The anointing of the Spirit brings forth
his ministry as Messiah King of preaching to the poor, the prisoners, the blind and the freedom of
jubilee.

Luke records Jesus was ‘full of joy through the Holy Spirit’ (10:21) at the return of the 72 from their
mission and their account of their ministry. He taught the Spirit would give the disciples all they
would need (12:12); that God would give the Spirit to those who ask him (11:13); that the disciples
would ‘be clothed with power from on high’ (24:49).

This emphasis on the Spirit flows over into Acts where the Spirit is the power‐source for the
apostolic community growing out of the Pentecost event.

Jesus in history
Luke writes as a historian in the Greco‐Roman tradition. He writes a particular type of history which
blends this style with the OT historical narrative style based on his theological perception of Jesus as
Lord. This is clear in the Prologue in which, like other contemporary historians, he recalls previous
attempts from ‘the first eye‐witnesses and servants of the word’ to write an account of Christ.’ He
speaks of his own ‘careful investigation’ of ‘everything from the beginning’ and of writing an ‘orderly
account’ to give certainty to his readers. Hence his purpose is historical and theological. Luke wants
his readers to place Jesus in the sweep of history including that of Israel but more importantly, the
political events of the whole world and in particular the Greco‐Roman world.

Salvation
Luke is described by many (esp. Conzelmann) as the theologian of Heilsgeschichte (salvation history)
i.e. ‘the linkage of salvation with historical events.’ 15 He places Jesus and salvation in world history
and not just in terms of Israel’s history. The core theme for Marshall, Bock and most scholars is
salvation for all people. This emphasis is seen in the narrative preceding his ministry from the
mouths of Zechariah, Simeon, Mary, angels and Isaiah (see Lk 1:47, 69, 71, 77; 2:10, 30; 3:6). It is
seen in his teaching (Lk 8:12; 9:24; 13:23; 18:26) and in his encounter with Zacchaeus (19:9, 10). This
salvation is universal and not limited to Israel. So for example, Luke includes ‘and all humankind shall
see God’s salvation’ (3:6) in his account of Isaiah 40:3f. His genealogy ends at Adam, not Abraham
indicating that it is for all of humanity (cf.3:38 cf. Mt 1:2). He has a great interest in Samaritans (9:51‐

15
Carson, Moo and Morris, 128.
123

55; 10:30‐37; 17:16 cf. Acts 8) and others outside of Israel (4:25‐27). And of course, the story of Acts
is the story of the spread of this salvation through Samaria and to ‘the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8).
Another point of interest is the way in which Jesus’ public ministry in Luke is flanked by two mission
statements; Lk 4:18‐20 and Lk 19:10 (the ‘Son of Man came to seek and save the lost’). Luke wants
his readers to recognise that Jesus is the only means of salvation for all people and wants them to
turn to him.

Mission
The concepts of salvation and the Spirit are connected intimately to mission. Luke’s account in both
Luke and Acts is the story of the God mission to save humanity through his Son and Spirit. In the
Gospel Jesus is the primary figure, empowered by the Spirit to save humanity. Acts continues this
account with the Spirit as the central figure empowering key individuals to lead the mission to fulfil
the task that Jesus began. Only Matthew rivals Luke in this regard, but in a different way. 16 The
elevation of mission is seen in a number of ways:

1. The analysis above concerning salvation points to the importance of the salvation of
humanity in the Luke‐Acts account. In particular the mission statements which pepper the
Gospel especially Lk 4:18‐19 (see below); 5:30‐32; 19:10 and the review of Acts 10:38. 17

2. Tthroughout Luke, Jesus defines his purpose in missiological terms. At Nazareth (4:18‐19) he
defined his ministry in terms of Is 61:1‐2: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has
anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the
prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year
of the Lord’s favour.’ Only Luke records this dimension of the Jesus’ account. It highlights a
number of aspects of Jesus mission:
a. The Fulfilment of the OT hope God’s deliverance (cf. 1s 61:1‐2 cf. 4:21: ‘today this
scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’).
b. The role of the Spirit in empowering (‘is on me’… ‘anointed me’) this mission.
c. The Christocentric nature of the mission (‘anointed me’).
d. The proclamatory verbal oracular nature of the mission (note the 3‐fold use of verbs
of proclamation: euangelizomai, kērrusō (2x).
e. The wider nature of the mission including salvation (‘freedom for the prisoners’)
including healing (‘recovery of sight’); social, material, physical and spiritual
deliverance (release the oppressed).
f. The object of mission including the marginalized and oppressed of society.
g. The eschatological dimension of mission; the ‘year of the Lord’s favour’ bring a
fulfilment of the OT hope, especially the ‘year of Jubilee’.

In this regard the unique account of Zacchaeus’ transformation climaxes, ‘the Son of Man came to
seek and save the lost’, a summary statement of Jesus’ intent in coming (19:10). As noted above,
these two mission statements flank the central narrative of Luke’s Gospel

16
Through the Great Commission which climaxes the Gospel and points the Jewish readers to the wider
meaning of Jesus’ mission; to make disciples of all nations. This has been anticipated at various points (cf. Mt
5:13, 16; 9:36‐10; 24:14).
17
L.T. Johnson, “Luke, the Gospel of”, 502.
124

The Marginalised and Oppressed
As noted above, Jesus’ ministry of release involved spiritual salvation through faith and salvation in
whole terms. He came tor release the marginalised and oppressed and bring their jubilee. He came
to restore people to relationship with God, to restore their human relationships and society itself.
The vision is of a new world with God and all humanity united in love. Luke promotes an
eschatological reversal and radical egalitarianism which clashes with the Greco‐Roman world of
status and rank. Specific groups feature in the narrative in this regard:

1. Samaritans and Gentiles: Only Luke records the Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:25‐37)
and the story of the ten healed lepers with the one grateful Samaritan (17:11‐19). He refuses
to smite the Samaritan town despite their utter rejection and shaming of him. They will be
saved later through the ministry of Philip (Lk 9:51‐55; Acts 8:5‐17). He also foreshadows
Gentile mission in the healing of the commended Roman centurion and the details of the
Parable of the Banquet which includes people from all contexts (14:23). In Luke‐Acts
Samaritan and Gentile mission are dominant themes esp. in Acts 9, 10‐11 and the mission of
Paul.

2. Women: Rabbinical teaching forbade the teaching of women yet Luke has Jesus teaching
women and encourage them to learn at his feet (10:38‐42). Luke mentions those who
travelled with him and supported him (8:2‐3 cf. Mk 15:41). There are also other women
including the Widow of Nain (7:11‐12), the disabled woman in the synagogue (13:11 cf. 14:1‐
6 where Jesus heals a disabled man), the ‘sinner’ who anointed Jesus’ feet (7:35‐50). The
women in the birth narrative Elizabeth, Mary, Anna are affirmed as positive role models (1‐
2). The paired parables of the mustard seed/leaven (13:18‐21) and lost sheep/lost coin
(15:3‐10) neatly balance the traditional roles of men and women. Incredibly, the some of
these women are ‘sinners’ in the eyes of the people, yet Jesus accepts them, forgives them,
heals them and delivers them (cf. 7:36‐50; 8:2; 13:10‐17).

3. Children: Luke continues Mark’s emphasis but adds to it. This is seen in his references to ‘the
only son’ or ‘the only daughter’ in some stories (7:12; 8:42; 9:38). He also ‘took a little child’
to rebuke his disciples (9:47) and encouraged that they be ‘welcomed’. He also spoke of
children at play (10:21; 17:2; 18:16).

4. The poor: Luke’s interest in the poor is seen throughout and is one of the dominant features
of the Gospel. It is seen in Jesus’ own childhood when Joseph and Mary opt for the ‘poor’
sacrifice at the temple (2:24 cf. Lev 12:8) indicating his family was poor. This immediately
encourages us seeing Jesus as identifying with the poor. His ministry is from the bottom up,
he worked among the powerlessness. In Luke Jesus preaches that he is ‘good news to the
poor’ (4:18 cf. 7:22) indicating that the era of God’s shalom for the poor had come. In Luke’s
account, there is definitely a greater concern for the poor. Conversely there is a great deal of
warning against riches. The rich too are oppressed and must be set free from bondage to
greed and mammon to generosity for the poor and needy. He includes a strong woe to the
poor (6:24); has unique parables (L) warning the wealthy including the rich fool (12:16‐21),
the rich man and Lazarus (16:19‐35); has accounts of good and bad examples in this regard
including Zaccheus (19:1‐10), the poor widow (21:1‐4), the rich ruler (18:18‐27). In Luke,
125

Jesus balances examples of good role models in regard to wealth (e.g. Zaccheus, the widow,
the disciples), and the not so good (e.g. the rich ruler). There is thus, an economic
eschatological reversal. Great reward is promised to those who heed the call of the
Kingdom.
5. The disreputable: This interest is seen in the shepherds who are the recipients of the
message (2:8‐10); the tax‐collectors and ‘sinners’ whom Jesus ate with (5:30 cf. 7:34); the
sinful women who anointed Jesus’ feet (7:37‐50); the parable of the Pharisee and the tax‐
collector (18:9‐14) and the conversion of Zaccheus (19:1‐10). There are also mentions in his
parables of the unrighteous such as the prodigal son.
Luke wants his readers to turn from the love of wealth, rank and status and give radically to the
needs of others, be inclusive of others leaving aside any notions of status and rank. The marginalised
are to be an equally important part of the community.

Prayer
Luke emphasises prayer more than the other Synoptic Writers. He includes a shorter version of the
Lord’s Prayer but also teaching on prayer at different points. This is seen in different ways. First,
there are examples of prayer warriors among the OT saints who anticipate the coming of Christ such
as Zechariah and Anna. Secondly, 7x Luke adds into a Markan account that Jesus was praying at the
time (3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28‐29; 11:1; 22:32, 42‐46). He has Jesus praying 9x overall. Thirdly, there
is direct teaching on prayer in response to requests to that effect (11:2f); there are several parables
about prayer (11:6‐13; 18:1‐8, 10‐13); positive and negative examples of prayer (18:10‐13). Luke
wants to emphasise the importance of prayer for effective Christian living and mission. In acts, the
community are prayerful and praying is directly linked to the power of the Spirit seen in their
mission (cf. 1:14; 2:1‐4; 4:29‐5:16; 10:3‐23).

Radical Discipleship
Luke seems to present a very radical view of discipleship. Matthew we noted above also has a
heightened sense of discipleship with the inclusion of ‘follow me’ accounts (Mt 8:18‐22). Luke
includes this section adding a third encounter (Lk 9:57‐62). One of the themes of the Parable of the
Banquet is not making excuses to accept the invitation to the eschatological feast (14:18‐20). This is
followed by a discourse appealing for wholehearted commitment in 14:25‐33. Here Jesus makes
some strong statements including:

1. ‘Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers
and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple’ (v26) (clearly hyperbole to make
the point).
2. ‘So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions’
(v33).

When one considers also Luke’s emphasis on the marginalized and warnings against the rich, one
gets the sense of a strong call to discipleship in Luke’s understanding of Jesus.

126

Israel’s rejection of Jesus:
Throughout Luke’s narrative Luke makes evident the rejection of Jesus by Israel. Some level the
accusation of anti‐Semitism at Luke for this. However, this cannot be sustained, as throughout Luke
and carrying over into Acts, the key figures of the faith are in the main, Jews. The object of his
concern is not Jews per se, but those who reject Christ. There are shades of the sense of Rom 9‐11
where the rejection of the gospel by the Jews leads positively to the spread of the gospel,
particularly in Acts.

In Luke for example, the declaration of 4:16‐20 leads to rejection at Nazareth, in particular due to
Jesus’ referring positively to Gentiles from the OT tradition whilst criticising Israel’s rejection of the
prophets (4:20‐30). The Markan Sabbath controversy is retained (Lk 6:1‐11 cf. Mk 2:23‐3:6) as are
other controversy accounts (e.g. 11:14‐23). Luke records a number of meal encounters in which
Jesus challenges the exclusivism of the Jewish authorities whether it be related to the rejection of
sinners (Lk 7:36‐50; 14:1‐24). Parables such as the Prodigal also point to Israel’s rejection in the
person of the older son (15:11‐32) as does the Rich Man and Lazarus in the rejection of a resurrected
messenger and their failure to understand the Scriptures (16:22‐31). The destruction of Jerusalem is
more directly accounted for (21:24), and in the Passion the prime movers are Jews, the Romans
merely involved for political expediency. In Acts this rejection continues as the church spreads (Acts
4‐5; 7:1‐8:4 etc).

Hospitality, Table Fellowship Encounters
One of the features of Luke is the emphasis on table fellowship in the stories Jesus told. These
emphasise community and the welcome of God and Jesus to all including the marginalised. Luke
features Jesus’ eating with sinners on a number of occasions. In terms of Jewish Pharisaic protocol,
this was an absolute no‐no; it being strictly forbidden for a holy man to participate in table
fellowship with sinners. In Lk 5:29 Jesus is eating with tax‐collectors and ‘sinners’. This leads to
strong condemnation from the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (5:30). In 7:33‐35 Jesus is
scornful of their inconsistency in criticising John the Baptist for fasting and refusing alcohol and Jesus
for enjoying food and wine. For Jesus this demonstrates their hypocrisy and he appeals to his and
John’s fruit as evidence of their godliness: ‘but wisdom is proved right by all her children.’

Jesus’ repudiation of the Pharisaic refusal to enjoy fellowship with sinners is brought home when he
is prepared to violate Pharisaic regulations and allow a sinful woman (probably a prostitute [not
Mary Magdalene]) to anoint him with perfume and tears. This leads to the condemnation of the
Pharisees (7:39‐50). Jesus dares to forgive her. The whole scene is scandalous.
Equally scandalous is Jesus behaviour at the home of a Pharisee in Lk 14 where he challenges the
host’s concern for status and urges the invitation of the marginalised and Gentile. The Parable of the
rich man and Lazarus also revolves around the failure of the wealthy rich man to accept the beggar
Lazarus into table fellowship (16:19‐33).
Table fellowship then is the sign of the hospitality and welcome of God to the feast of salvation to
all. It symbolises celebration, Jubilee and unity. It speaks of the acceptance of the marginalised into
the eschatological community. God’s table is to be open to all. The Pharisaic rejection of the
marginalised and any notion of status in table seating is anathema to the principles of the Kingdom.

127

Worship
Another critical theme in Luke‐Acts is worship. Worship of course is full response to God including
the horizontal and vertical. As noted above, Luke has strongly emphasised the communal
dimensions of worship, Jesus calling his followers to serve each other (cf. 12:35‐48) and all people
even enemies and the utterly marginalised. Luke certainly concurs that true worship must be whole
worship.

Luke also emphasises worship in the vertical sense i.e. worship and adoration of God. This theme
begins in the Infancy Narrative with the righteous Jews faithful to the worship of Israel. This includes
the priest Zechariah who faithfully fulfils his call as a priest of the line of Abijah (1:5, 8‐10, 23) and
Elizabeth, also a descendent of Aaron (1:5); who are both upright in the sight of God (1:6). It is in the
context of worship that the angel appears to Zechariah (1:10). There are references to glorious
praise in the songs of Mary, of Zechariah and Simeon. These all give glory to God for his work in
history and bringing Jesus to save his people. There is praise at John the Baptist’s birth (1:58, 64, 66).
There is praise at Jesus birth from angels and shepherds who sing their song (2:14, 20). There is
praise from Simeon and Anna (2:25‐27, 38).

It is seen throughout Jesus’ ministry. He appeals for a worship that embraces mercy to others in
need (see especially 6:17‐36; 10:30‐37; 11:41). He participates in Jewish worship (4:14, 16, 31, 44;
13:10). He is passionate about prayer (6:12; 9:18; see above) teaching more in Luke than in other
Gospels (11:1f; 18:1f). He records that the clearing of the temple is a violation of prayer and worship
(19:45 cf. Is 56:7). Jesus is the object of worship by Peter (5:8), and the prostitute anointing is a
radical act of emotional expensive worship which Jesus accepts (7:36‐38, 44‐48).

His ministry also regularly leads to praise of the Father, Yahweh, rather than Jesus himself. So after
forgiving and healing the paralytic, the healed man went home praising God (5:25 cf. 6:16; 5:26;
9:43; 18:43.

The entry to Jerusalem is a time of praise as the disciples herald Jesus as King, throwing their cloaks
on the donkey and road, joyfully praising God in loud voices and singing from Ps 118:26 (19:28‐39).
Jesus’ response to the criticism of this praise is that even the rocks will cry out praise if the disciples
do not (19:40). The Parable of the Minas exemplifies this appeal, the believer putting all that one
has to work for the Kingdom (19:11‐27). The disciples are to set aside competitiveness and desire for
greatness for servanthood, adopting a servant‐leadership mode rather than the elitism of the
Gentiles (22:24‐30). Luke pictures worship extending to the whole world (see Samaritans and
Gentiles above). While many in Israel will be rejected because their worship was false (‘away from
me you evil doers’) people from the whole world will come to the feast (13:22‐30 cf. 14:12‐24;
17:11‐17). The Passion‐Resurrection narrative has the worship of the Roman centurion (23:47)
anticipating mission to Rome. The Gospel ends in worship full of joy (24:52) as, ‘they stayed
continually at the temple, praising God’ (24:53). The emphasis on worship flows into Acts. Luke
mentions joy more than any other NT book with people expressing joy (1:14, 44, 47; 2:20; 7:16;
10:21; 13:13; see also 6:21; 19:6; 15:6‐7, 9‐10; 15:23, 32). Worship is the correct response to God
both in a vertical and horizontal sense; both of which are indispensable and inextricably linked.

Questions to consider
• A question: What do you consider to be the main value of Luke’s Gospel?

128

Chapter Eight

JOHN’S GOSPEL
Contents
Authorship .......................................................................................................................................... 130
The case for John as author of the Gospel of John ......................................................................... 130
The superscription ...................................................................................................................... 130
External evidence ........................................................................................................................ 130
Internal evidence ........................................................................................................................ 130
The disciple who wrote it down (‘The beloved disciple’) ........................................................... 131
The editing of John .......................................................................................................................... 131
Problems leading to many who deny John the Apostle as author ................................................. 132
Conclusion to authorship ................................................................................................................ 133
Provenance ......................................................................................................................................... 133
Date ..................................................................................................................................................... 133
Recipients ............................................................................................................................................ 134
Text ..................................................................................................................................................... 134
The so‐called Johannine community and sources for John ................................................................ 134
The Relationship to the Synoptics ...................................................................................................... 136
Obviously Unique Material ............................................................................................................. 136
Less Obvious Unique Material and Emphases ................................................................................ 137
How Do We Reconcile these Differences? ...................................................................................... 137
John Wrote to Supplement and Interpret the Synoptic Gospels. ............................................... 137
John Wrote Independently of the Synoptic Gospels. ................................................................. 138
The Historicity of John ........................................................................................................................ 138
The Purpose of John ............................................................................................................................ 138
Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 139
Key dimensions of John’s gospel......................................................................................................... 139
The ‘I am sayings’ of Jesus .............................................................................................................. 140
The signs of John ............................................................................................................................. 140
The identity of Jesus ....................................................................................................................... 143
Jesus clashes with ‘the Jews’.......................................................................................................... 145
Jesus intercessor ............................................................................................................................. 146
The role of the Spirit (paraklētos = paraklete). ............................................................................... 147
An extended Last Supper dialogue ................................................................................................. 147
The importance and exclusivity of faith in Christ for salvation ...................................................... 148
The priority of love in John ............................................................................................................. 149
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 149

129

John's Gospel
Authorship
There are three general ideas as to who wrote John: John, the Son of Zebedee; another John; an
unidentified writer.
The case for John as author of the Gospel of John
The superscription
The superscription ‘according to John’ (ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ) which was added sometime in the early to
mid second century. It was clearly felt in the early church at th time that a John wrote it.

External evidence
A number of writers in the early church felt John the apostle wrote the Gospel. For example,
Theophilus of Antioch (c. AD 181) unambiguously ascribes the work to John.

The strongest argument from external sources is the testimony of Irenaeus who knew Polycarp of
Smyrna who died at 86 in AD 156 and who knew the apostle John well (H.E. 5.20.5‐6) along with
Andrew and Philip who entrusted the oversight of the Smyrna church to him (H.E. 3.36). Irenaeus
writes of the gospel on the basis of Polycarp’s testimony: ‘John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned
back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was a resident at Ephesus in Asia’ (Adv. Haer.
2.1.2).

The Anti‐Marcionite Prologue to John (c. AD 160) suggests that John wrote the Gospel perhaps
through dictation to Papias, one of John’s disciples. Clement of Alexandria in the second century also
affirms that John wrote the Gospel: ‘but that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had
been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit,
composed a spiritual Gospel’ (H.E. 6.14.7).

The Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170‐180) records that John wrote the Gospel after it was revealed to
Andrew in a dream or prophecy that he should do so. Clement of Alexandria wrote, ‘But that John,
last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his
disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel’ (H.E. 6.14.7).

Tatian’s Diatessaron was written in the late 2nd century and used John as the framework for a
harmony of the four Gospels, indicating the apostolic origin of John was assumed. Consequently,
external sources tell us that by the end of the second century that, aside from the Gaius who was
possibly of the Alogoi, 1 there was almost total agreement that the Apostle John was responsible for
the Gospel. Eusebius in the historian argues that the Gospel is unquestionably the work of the
apostle John.
Internal evidence
Jn 21:24 reads: ‘this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know
that his testimony is true.’ This tells us: 1) A disciple wrote down the Gospel and testifies to its truth;

1
Gaius, in his response to Montanism, challenged the apostolic authority of John’s Gospel and attributed
Revelation to Cerinthus. Irenaeus responded to him. So believe he was responding to the Alogoi or Alogi and
that Gaius was a part of this group. They are supposedly a small second century splinter group from Rome
reacting against Montanism. Their name Alogoi means ‘those who refuse the Logos’. The name Alogoi comes
from Epiphanius (AD 374‐376). Many contemporary scholars reject that this group existed completely; see R.
Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 122.
2) ‘We’ indicates some degree of editing or a signing of an authorisation from a group, probably in
Ephesus.

Who is this disciple? Who edited it and what was their role?
The disciple who wrote it down (‘The beloved disciple’)
To the first question: ‘Who was the Disciple?’ Lazarus is described as ‘the one you love’ (11:3, 5)
which could mean he was the author. However, it is not likely that a Gospel by someone of his
‘standing’ in the Johannine community 2 or who would have had his work accepted. He was also not
an apostle and in the right places at the right time to be the ‘beloved disciple.’ Neither is it likely that
the author is Mary or Martha who are described as being loved by Christ (11:5).

Working backwards we come to v.20 and a reference to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. If so, then
the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ is behind the book of John. Throughout John there are references to
this person (13:23; 19:26; 20:2, 7; 21:20)? He may be the ‘another disciple’ in 18:5 and the disciple
whose testimony is true concerning Jesus’ pierced side in 19:32‐35. He is one of the Twelve who
gathered at the Lord’s Supper (13:23) and not one of those named from this context including Judas
(13:2), Peter (13:6), Thomas (14:5) and Philip (14:9). He was with the women at the cross (19:26). He
went to the tomb with Peter (20:2, 7). He was one of the Seven who meet Jesus by the sea and so
not Peter, Thomas or Nathaneal (21:2). The others mentioned obscurely are ‘the sons of Zebedee
and two other disciples.’ Thus, it is one of these four. He can’t be James, who was martyred near the
end of the reign of Herod Agrippa I (AD 41‐44 cf. Acts 12:1‐2). He is thus one of the sons of Zebedee
James and John or the two unnamed disciples there which could be Bartholomew, Matthew, James
son of Alphaeus, Thaddeus or Simon the Zealot. There is no suggestion anywhere for the time that
any of these others are author of this Gospel. Significantly, James and John are not mentioned in the
Gospel which is ‘exceedingly strange’.3 This person is also named alongside Peter regularly and is
noted favourably. As such, along with the external evidence, this leaves us with no real reason to
dispute that probability that John is the author.

The editing of John
The additional statement ‘we know that his testimony is true’ along with 19:35 4 and the issues
noted below leads some to argue that John is not the author. Others believe that the Gospel is
John’s, but that it has been authenticated or edited by others in the Johannine churches or
communities. 5 This community appears to certify the claims of the Gospel. Others write off the ‘we’
as a kind of royal ‘we’ meaning John himself. 6 Some like R. Culpepper, R. Brown and L. Martyn see a
kind of Johannine school or community behind it and created complicated historical stages of
development for the Gospel.

2
See Borchert, John, 86. He writes off John Mark for the same reason. One who sees John Mark as the writer is
P. Parker, ‘John and John Mark,’ JBL 79 (1960): 97–110. See also J. E. Bruns, ‘The Confusion between John and
John Mark in Antiquity,’ Scripture 17 (1965): 23–26. On Lazarus see B. G. Griffin, ‘The Disciple Whom Jesus
Loved,’ ExpTim 32 [1920–21]: 379–81; F. Filson, “Who Was the Beloved Disciple?” JBL 48 (1949): 83–88. Other
suggestions for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel have included such persons as Benjamin (the elder of 1, 2
John, who is conceived of as other than John), Matthias, even Paul, and the rich young ruler. See Culpepper’s
comments in John the Son of Zebedee, 79–84.
3
4
‘The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he
testifies so that you also may believe (NIV).’
5
Borchert, John, 83, 89 writes: ‘Whereas it is John “who stands behind the Gospel tradition,” the Gospel itself
suggests that there was more than one mind and one hand at work in bringing the work to its final form.’
6
Like Carson, John, 683‐84.
131

John's Gospel

If John was edited, this raises though, the difficult question of how much is edit and how much is
John? This is not really the place to have this discussion as it is incredibly complex and requires in‐
depth discussion and scholars are deeply divided over which bits are edited and which are John.
Suffice to say, many conservative evangelicals believe that the editing is minor limited to the
comments at the end of the Gospel in 21:23‐25 and other additions and comments which appear
added to give clarity to meaning or guidance to readers. The NIV has placed a number of these (not
all) in brackets (see 2:22, 24; 4:9, 25; 6:1, 71; 7:22; 9:6; 11:16; 14:11; 18:5, 10; 19:13; 20:9, 16; 19:35,
40; 20:24; 21:20; possibly also 2:11; 4:54; 19:36). Link texts like 2:12; 2:23–25; 3:22–24; 4:43–45 may
also be examples of edits. However, many of these texts may be the work of John himself. Other
scholars (some conservatives too) are prepared to see wider editorial work; however, it is a highly
subjective exercise.
Problems leading to many who deny John the Apostle as author
There are a number of scholars including some conservatives who deny that the Apostle John is the
John who is behind the production of John. There are good reasons for this. First, the external
evidence is seen as ambiguous. For some, the testimony of the Early Church concerning John is
‘ambiguous, inadequate, wrong, legendary or polemical.’ 7 For example, Irenaeus is seen as
unreliable as his testimony is late second century and is second hand. Similarly, it may refer to
another John, John the Elder. Some argue that the evidence of Clement of Alexandria is legendary.

Of import here is Papias bishop of Hierapolis mentioned above in terms of Mark and Matthew (c. AD
130) who wrote (recorded in Eusebius): ‘And if anyone chanced to come who had actually been a
follower of the elders, I would enquire as to the discourses of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter
said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s
disciples; and things which Aristion and John the elder, disciples of the Lord, say.’ Thus there is a
reference to a second John, outside of the apostles who is an elder (H.E. 3:39.4‐5). 8 It is argued that
this is the John behind the Gospel. However, this is all hotly disputed with some responding that this
really means ‘Aristion and the aforementioned elder.’ 9

Secondly, the identity and role of the ‘beloved disciple’ is considered ambiguous. It is argued that it
could be one of the unnamed disciples or another follower who was not one of the Twelve. Others in
the Gospel are said to be loved by Jesus including Lazarus (Jn 11:3, 36), Martha or Mary (Jn 11:5).
Some have even suggested the rich ruler who Jesus looked at and loved (Mk 10:21)! Thirdly, Jn 21:24
may only refer to the passage or chapter rather than the whole gospel. As such, this disciple is only
responsible for this small part of the Gospel. Other strands of evidence include the observation that
the Gospel focuses on Judea but John was a Galilean making it unlikely he is the author. It is noted t
hat Peter and John are called ‘unschooled, ordinary men’ (Acts 4:13) precluding John from penning
such a work. John (with James) is called a ‘son of thunder’ making this incongruous with the tone of
the book. John was also vengeful of Samaritans (Lk 9:54) yet treats them kindly (Jn 4). However, all
these arguments are strongly refuted by some. 10

7
DJG, 369.
8
See Carson, Introduction, 233. This is a really complex debate and not for this course at this point: see their
discussion 233‐235 for refutation.
9
For example Carson, Introduction, 234.
10
See Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 146‐147 for full refutation.
These and other challenges to the evidence in support of John the son of Zebedee lead many to
reject him as author and to postulate other ideas including another John, John the Elder, the
unnamed disciple (1:35‐40) or an unknown Jewish follower of Jesus. 11
Conclusion to authorship
On the basis of a combination of the external evidence and the most likely identification of the
‘beloved disciple’ as the author and John the disciple and brother of James, it is most likely that John
is behind the Gospel. It is probable that John’s work was gathered by others and that there is
process of editing (Jn 21:24‐25). However, this position should be held tentatively. Except in terms of
apologetics and affirming that the Gospel was penned by an eye‐witness, it is not of great
importance in terms of interpretation.
Provenance
There are a huge range of ideas on this. According to Borchert there are three main ideas in recent
scholarship: Alexandria, Antioch, Palestine. 12 Some like Sanders argue for Alexandria in Egypt
because of similarities in thought (e.g. Logos) with Philo of Alexandria. Other links to this include the
Gnostics who used John a lot, Clement of Alexandria and the discovery of the Egerton Papyrus 2.
However, even Sanders revised his perspective on this on closer examination. A number of scholars
like Burney and Kümmel prefer Antioch because of allusions to John in the Odes of Solomon and
Ignatius the bishop of Antioch (died c. AD 115). A number of others like Martyn recently have argued
for Palestine because the writer clearly has a good understanding of the Israel and Jerusalem. Finally,
there is the traditional view of Ephesus based on the patristic evidence especially that of Irenaeus
who tells us John wrote it from Ephesus (‘while he was a resident at Ephesus in Asia’ [Adv. Haer.
2.1.2]). Ephesus would seem to be the best suggestion.
Date
In the past some have sought to date John in the second century. However, this has been effectively
ruled out by manuscript discoveries. So for example we have fragments from John 18 as early as AD
130; John 1‐14 and some of the remaining chapters in the Bodmer Papyri (p66) and Jn 1‐11 and parts
of 12‐15 (p75) from the end of the second century. Hence most now date John somewhere between
AD 55 and 95. Jn 21:23 suggests around the time of the death of John and so later rather than earlier
(late 1st century). Jn 21:19 suggests that it is after Peter’s death (c. 64‐65). Some argue for an earlier
date not long after Peter’s martyrdom noting an absence of reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple and John’s references to he temple. For example, he mentions the
destruction of the temple in 2:19 metaphorically but does not clarify this in terms of AD70. He also
uses the present tense concerning the temple e.g. Jn 5:2: ‘now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep
gate a pool.’ However John uses the present tense of the past and if it is an edited document with its
final form being produced in the later first century, then some parts of it may date from earlier.

Most go for a date 85‐95 because: 1) The tradition that it was written under the Emperor Domitan
(A.D. 81‐96). However, this is disputed; 2) The idea of the Christians being ‘put out of the synagogue’
(9:22; 12:42; 16:2) may point to a time after the Council of Jamnia when supposedly (disputed)
Christians were banned from the synagogue (after AD 85); 3) Some details point to this date e.g.
there is no mention of Sadducees whose influence declined after 70; 4) It is argued that the high
Christology fits a later date (esp. 1:1‐18; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28).

11
For more on this very complex discussion read the introductions to the major John commentaries, the article
on John’s Gospel in the ‘Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels’ and Carson, Moo and Morris.
12
See Borchert, John 1‐11, 93‐94 for details of this.
133

John's Gospel
Recipients
It is unclear to whom the writer writes. Some think it was written for the Johannine community
(below). It is probable that at the late stage of John’s life it was written with both a specific and
general audience in mind. If Ephesus is the audience, then it is probably written for those in the
Ephesus/Asian community to whom John had ministered. The letters to the Seven Churches in
Revelation could suggest that John was linked to the churches in the wider Asian area. In addition to
this specific context, it is possible that at this stage of his life, with the growth of Christianity into the
Gentile world by this time, John and those who edited it were aware of the wider implications of his
book and wrote with a general audience in mind.
Text
There are a number of points of discussion concerning the text of John. For example Jn 5:3 is
omitted from the best manuscripts. 13 For our study the main point of interest is the account of the
woman caught in adultery in Jn 7:53–8:11. It is absent from the oldest Greek mss (e.g. P66 and P75)
and in other mss is located elsewhere or missing entirely. It is also full of words not found elsewhere
in John so much so that 14/82 or 17% of the words are unique to John, 14 and there is an absence of a
number of standard Johannine ideas. Hence, it almost certainly to be seen as an interpolation.

However this does not mean that the account is unhistorical or of value as some maintain. 15 In fact,
in that it accords with Jesus’ whole approach to women and grace especially in Luke, it is most likely
to be historical and of value. Borchert notes that it is found after Lk 21:38 in some Greek
manuscripts and that it looks more like a Synoptic pericope than John. He also notes the mention of
scribes (8:3), Mount of Olives (8:1), Jesus as addressed directly as teacher (didaskale) (8:4) suggest if
fits in Jesus’ ministry in its closing days (cf. Lk 20‐21). A reference in Papias to a story of a woman
charged with many sins in the presence of Jesus may suggest this originated from the lost ‘Gospel to
the Hebrews.’ 16
The so‐called Johannine community and sources for John
One of the areas that has really complicated Johannine study is the question of sources. That is,
what was the source of John’s material? This is another massively complicated area of research. In
the hey‐day of source and form criticism the texts of John were trolled over with this question in
mind.

The reason for this interest is strange transitions (e.g. ‘come now, let us leave’ in 14:31, then the text
flows on until 17:26); a seeming conclusion in 20:30‐31, 17 yet then chapter 21 begins; seeming
repetition (e.g. matters from Ch 14 in Ch 16; 6:51‐58); geographical shifts from Galilee to Jerusalem

13
Some have part or all of: ‘waiting for the stirring of the water; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain
seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was
made well from whatever disease that person had.
14
These include ‘olive’ (elaia) (8:1), ‘daybreak’ (orthros) (8:2), ‘adultery’ (moicheia) (8:3), scribes (grammateus)
(not mentioned by Köstenberger; ‘the very act’ (autophōros) (8:4), ‘commit adultery’ (moicheuō) (8:4), ‘bend
down’ (kuptō) (8:6), ‘accuse’ (katagraphō) (8:6), ‘remain’ (epimenō) (8:7), ‘straighten up’ (anakuptō) (8:7, 10),
‘guiltless’ (anamartētos) (8:7), ‘bend down’ (katakuptō) (8:8), ‘elder’ (presbyteros) (8:9), ‘leave behind’
(kataleipō) (8:9), ‘condemn’ (katakrinō) (8:10‐11). See Köstenberger, John, 245.
15
For example Köstenberger, John, 248 says that it should be omitted from preaching in churches.
16
Borchert, John 1‐11, 370.
17
‘Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But
these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through
believing you may have life in his name.
(some think Ch 6 should be placed before Ch 5); shifts in eschatology from future (5:28‐29) to
present (5:24‐25) etc.

There a heap of theories concerning sources. It is worth taking a look at them to see what some
scholars can come up with and how, if we are not careful, biblical scholarship can lose the plot!

Some earlier scholars tried to unravel an original John which lies in the extant canonical version (a
Grundschrift). R.Bultmann developed a three‐source theory. The three sources were supposedly: 1)
A Revelation‐Discourse Source: 18 written in Aramaic, translated into Greek, poetic, similar to the
Jewish Odes of Solomon, like a Mandean Gnosticism theologically, included and earlier form of the
Prologue, written by a disciple of John the Baptist; 2) A Signs Source: includes the miracle‐type
stories from ch2‐11 and the call narrative in Jn 1; is unreliable and full of imported ideas from
Hellenistic myth; treated Jesus as a theos anēr (divine man) to prove his divinity; 3) A Passion Source:
Includes the Resurrection accounts supposedly made up in early church Easter preaching; in Greek
with Semiticisms (remnants of the original Aramaic/Heb). Bultmann thought an editor arranged the
material to suit his purposes and inserted mentions of ‘the beloved disciple’ who is an ideal model of
a disciple, along with material which had reference to the Lord’s Supper and Baptism (sacramental
material) e.g. ‘bread of life’; ‘born of water’ etc. After this, Bultmann could rearrange the material
and demythologize it and produce and original Johannine Gospel for the modern reader. All this is
highly unlikely however, the product of a brilliant misguided mind! Borchert notes, even his own
followers rejected his source theory.19

The one dimension others (esp. Fortna) picked up is the idea of a ‘Signs Source’. Fortna studied John
and gave a detailed analysis of the signs features in John seeking to isolate the source John used for
such material. 20 His analysis is highly subjective and unconvincing.

Two more recent scholars J. Martyn and R. Brown have moved the study to seeking to read the
development and history of a so‐called Johannine community from source reconstructions of John’s
Gospel. They look at the stages of the text as they see it and construct a picture of John’s situation
off it. Brown in 1966 21 developed a five‐stage approach: 1) Oral material independent of the
Synoptics; 2) The development of this material by a preacher/teacher including misunderstanding
and irony; 3) First Edition of John by the evangelist in Greek including signs and stories from Galilee
and Judea; 4) Editing by the Evangelist to deal with issues including problems with disciples of John
the Baptist; excommunication of Jewish Christians from the synagogue; 5) Editing by another person
(a redactor) who was a friend of the Evangelist including other material like 3:31‐36; 6:51‐58; Chs 11‐
12; 12:44‐50; Chs 15‐17; Ch 21. While this is brilliant, it is utterly speculative and based at best, on
sniffs of possibility. In the end we are left with a construct far less convincing than the traditional
idea that John wrote it with perhaps a degree of editing!

Brown revised his ideas in 1979 to a four‐stage process: 1) An original group of Jewish Christians
with a low Christology saw Jesus as Davidic Messiah combined with an anti‐temple group who saw
Jesus as a prophet like Moses. These two groups combined with a strong leader and spokesman and
developed a high Christology, Jesus as God. This led to their expulsion from the synagogue; 2)
Gentiles were welcomed; seen as a sign from God; the community were persecuted and left
Palestine to the Diaspora, the Gospel written with a universal scope which upset Jewish Christians

18
German: Offenbarungsreden.
19
Borchert, John 1‐11, 44.
20
These include signs themselves (2:1–11; 4:46–54; 21:1–14; 6:1–25; 11:1–45; 9:1–8; 5:2–9); John’s testimony
and the call of the disciples (Jn 1:19‐51); the sign dimensions of Jesus’ death and resurrection (2:14–19; 11:47–
53; 12:1–8, 12–15; 13:1–20; and most of chaps. 18–20).
21
R. Brown, The Gospel According to John, AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), l.xxxiv–ix.
135

John's Gospel
who broke away; 3) The writing of the Johannine Epistles condemning those who broke away; 4) The
termination of the Johannine community with those who broke away joining Gnostic groups denying
the incarnation (cf. 1 Jn 4:2‐3). Those remaining joined the ‘Great Church’ and ceased to exist
independently. Clearly this is an ingenious historical speculation!

J. Martyn in 1968/1979 22 developed a 3‐stage approach to the development of the Gospel and the
Johannine community: 1) The period from the establishment of the community to the mid‐80’s: to
convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah and disputes a split from the synagogue; 2) Split with
Judaism when debates with Jews intensified and there was the introduction of the curse of the
heretics in Judaism in the late 80’s (Birkat ha‐Minim) e.g. 5:18‐24; 9:1‐41); 3) Christians forcibly
ejected from the Synagogues; a time of identity formation; the Paraclete notion developed in terms
of relationships. Again, this is brilliant, and if we do date John in the mid‐80’s relationships between
Jews and Jewish Christians may be a factor in interpretation. However, no cognizance is given to
Gentile mission in this view. The linear development remains speculative in the extreme.

In conclusion, while these ideas are fascinating they warn us against seeking to read off the texts of
the NT too much detail concerning historical situations. There is no clear agreement either between
what is or isn’t the ‘Johannine community’. It ranges from John’s church or addressees whereas it
sometimes becomes a larger gathering of believers with a particular bent. One thing these
discussions do highlight is the probability of tensions between Jews and Christians which may be
important to the interpretation of John. However, these existed from the time of Christ and we do
not need to resort to outrageously speculative constructs to explain them. In terms of sources, if
John is the writer of the epistle, or behind its writing in its final form, then John himself must himself
remain the key source for his own work. 23 If sources do exist behind it, it is impossible to find them
with confidence and so we should deal with the text in its canonical final form rather than interpret
it against a speculative construct.
The Relationship to the Synoptics
In many ways John’s presentation of Jesus correlates with the Synoptics. John’s Jesus is a preacher,
teacher, healer and evangelist. Some of the Synoptic stories are found in John with differing details
(some aspects of John the Baptist; clearing the temple [2:12‐25]; calming the storm [6:1‐14]; walking
on water [6:16‐24]; Jesus’ anointing [12:1‐11]; entry to Jerusalem [12:12‐19]; predictions of betrayal
and denial [13:18‐38]. The outline of his death [18:1‐19:42] and his resurrection appearances [20:1‐
21:23] is intact even if the details differ in some ways.
Obviously Unique Material
At the same time there is much unique material in John. These include:
1. The Prologue focused on the logos and incarnation (1:1‐18).
2. The details of John the Baptist (also 3:23‐36) and the details concerning the call of the
disciples (1:19‐51).
3. Unique Personal encounters: Nicodemus (3:1‐21); the Samaritan woman (4:1‐42).
4. Miracles including water to wine (2:1‐11); healings (4:43‐5:15 [official’s son, healing at pool];
9:1‐41 [blind man]; 11:1‐44 [Lazarus].
5. Long discourses (5:16‐47 [life]; 6:25‐71 [Bread of life]; 7:1‐51 [Feast of tabernacles]; 8:12‐58
[light of the world]; 10:1‐42 [the Good Shepherd].
6. The details of the Last Supper including: washing the disciple’s feet (Jn 13:1‐17), the way to
the Father (14:1‐14), the promise of the Spirit (14:15‐31), the true vine (15:1‐8), the love of

22
J. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979).
23
See further the discussions in Borchert, John 1‐11, 43‐50; Carson and Moo, Introduction, 246‐254.
the father, hatred of the world (15:9‐16:4), the work of the Spirit (16:5‐16), joy and hope
(16:17‐33), Jesus’ prayer (17:1‐26).
7. The miraculous catch of fish and Peter’s restoration (21:1‐23).
Less Obvious Unique Material and Emphases
In addition to these obvious content differences there are other more subtle distinctions. Some of
these include John’s heightened Christology in ascribing to Jesus explicit divinity (e.g. 1:1, 18; 5:18;
8:58; 20:28); the ‘I am’ sayings of John (see below).

There are other differences. John leaves out a number of expressions common to the Synoptic
Gospels including ‘kingdom of God/heaven’, ‘Sadducees’, ‘scribes’, ‘forgive’, ‘demons’, ‘tax‐
collectors’ etc. In addition he includes other expressions with great frequency such as ‘life’, ‘light’,
‘darkness’, ‘truth’, ‘world’, ‘the Jews’, ‘know’, ‘Counsellor’, and ‘Son’ as a title for Jesus. The notion
of ‘Father’ is also more developed as well as a number of ‘I am’ sayings.

The style of John is different with a deceptive simplicity. It is possible that there existed an Aramaic
original from which John was translated. Certainly the Aramaisms including messias (‘Messiah’ [1:41;
4:25]) and other phrases suggest John is from a Jewish background. John also has a poetic feel with a
number of literary features indicating that the material may have been read out loud.

The flow of the Gospel is very dramatic with a sense of progress and building tension. There is
stronger characterisation and a real interplay of narrative (story account) and discourse (speech), the
discourse flowing out of and developing a story account (e.g. Jn 9). John is also rich in symbolism
including metaphorical dialogue in which Jesus is likened to another reality such as life, light, water,
bread etc, to amplify the meaning of his presence. There are also a number of dualistic contrasts
such as light/darkness, life/death, above/below whereby one either accepts the revelation of God or
rejects it. There is also great symbolism in the actions of Jesus which develop into dialogues
exploring their full meaning.

The characters of the Gospel inevitably fall into two categories, believers or opponents. Those who
are believers demonstrate varying levels of maturity. Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and the
blind man demonstrate people who have just come to faith. The royal official demonstrates
profound faith. Martha demonstrates growth in faith whilst Thomas models coming to faith from a
place of doubt.
How Do We Reconcile these Differences?
John Wrote to Supplement and Interpret the Synoptic Gospels.
Until the 20th Century the tendency was to take this viewpoint and many conservatives still hold to
this view. This was a view held as early as Clement of Alexandria (AD 150‐215): ‘conscious that the
outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels… composed a spiritual Gospel.’ In this way of
thinking, John knew at least some of the Synoptics and wrote his Gospel to add additional detail
and/or a different perspective of Jesus’ ministry. Some suggest that John is more about doctrine and
theology and less about historical exactitude. Some note that a lot of the book of John is based in
Judea rather than Galilee and so supplements nicely the works of the Synoptics. Another idea is that
John is a commentary on or an elucidation of the Synoptics. In general, this is the view I prefer. It
seems inconceivable to me that John would have written sometime in the 80’s and not been aware
of other Gospels; especially when Mark was written in the late 50’s – early 60’s. It is probable that
he retained a relationship with the other apostles and workers of the gospel who travelled the dusty
roads of the Mediterranean. Independence only works if John wrote much earlier than most think.
137

John's Gospel
That there is so many differences with the Synoptics can weaken this view; alternatively, it adds
support to it, John ensuring that he did not repeat information unnecessarily.
John Wrote Independently of the Synoptic Gospels.
The idea that John knew the Synoptics has been challenged since the beginning of the 20th century.
In particular two scholars, Gardner‐Smith and C.H. Dodd have argued that John wrote his Gospel
without knowledge of or reference to the Synoptics. Rather, he had access to a different stored
tradition. Any similarities are due to common material in the different traditions circulating in the
early church. Some believe John did know the Synoptics or some of them at least, but did not use
them as sources for his Gospel as did Matthew and Luke in the case of Mark and Q. To me, there is
too much common material and a generally similar presentation of Jesus as messiah, crucified‐raised
one, Son of God, Lord, teacher‐preacher‐evangelist and miracle worker.
The Historicity of John
This all raises the question of whether or not John can be taken seriously as history? On the one
hand it is important to acknowledge that the Gospels are not pure history; they are theological
history at best. That is, they are a recounting of historical events with a theological intent e.g. to
convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah (Matthew); to tell the story of Jesus to Roman Gentiles
(Mark); to give an historical account for educated Gentiles of Jesus and salvation for all humankind
(Luke‐Acts). Extremists recognise the theological dimension and reduce the historicity of the Gospels
to almost a redundancy. That is not necessary. All history is slanted with a purpose.

There are sound reasons to accept that John’s Gospel is ‘historical’ i.e. can be trusted as telling of
authentic events in the life of Jesus. Whether we see it as independent or in some sense a
supplement to the Synoptics, Jesus’ three year ministry would have involved a great deal more than
the Synoptics and John portray (cf. Jn 21:25). In addition, much of John is based in Judea giving the
possibility that John intentionally records additional information. The discourses in the main arise
out of dispute with Jews in Jerusalem or with disciples and could well be historical reminiscences not
contained in the Synoptics. In addition, the modus operandi of Jesus as preacher and miracle worker
continues in John. Although Jesus speaks in parables in the main in the Synoptics, there is not a
complete absence of parable in John (Jn 10:1f; 15:1f). If, as we suspect, Jesus lived according to the
customs of the day and attended the key feasts, engagement with Jews on these occasions makes
good sense. We also noted in our discussion of the Synoptics that the Synoptic portrayal was not
necessarily strictly chronological, hence confusion over chronology with John may be explained by
authorial intent. The theology of John does not contradict the theology of Jesus in the Synoptics but
develops it in different directions e.g. deity, the Spirit, servanthood. The only real historical problems
come with the placement of events in Jesus’ life such as the clearing of the temple. However, first
century historical works were not dependent on chronological precision as we might expect today. I
think the Synoptics give us a better historical feel than John; John having arranged his material with
a little more freedom to give theological meaning.
The Purpose of John
John explicitly states his purpose in Jn 20:31: ‘but these are written so that you may believe/come to
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and so that by believing, you might have life in his
name.’

Clearly the reason John wrote was to help people believe in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. His
purpose is that they through this faith, they may receive eternal life through Christ.

There is a lively debate over whether John’s purpose was evangelistic (helping people come to faith)
or pastoral (encouraging believers to continue to believe). This debate is fuelled by the textual
problem concerning ‘believe’ in this verse. ‘Believe’ can be aorist (pisteusetē) indicating ‘coming to
faith in a moment’ highlighting the evangelistic purpose. Alternatively, it can be present subjunctive
(pisteuetē) indicating ‘continuing to believe’ and so highlighting a pastoral perseverance
message. Probably both ideas are in mind. John is hoping unbelievers who read his Gospel will be
convinced that Jesus is the Christ and God the Son and place their trust in him. He hopes that they
will continue to believe and have life in his name. Note, that life is present subjunctive indicating it
starts at the point of faith, now. He wants his readers to be saved and stay saved.

All in all, his purpose is inclusive of a number of dimensions including the evangelistic (a desire to see
readers come to faith), pastoral (to encourage believers in their faith) and apologetic (to defend
Jesus against false teaching and/or Jewish refusal to accept Christ as Messiah. He clearly portrays
Jesus as both God and man. As God he guards against a view of Jesus as an angel or a great person.
As a real man he guards against heresies of Docetism and Gnosticism.
Structure
The Gospel is usually divided into two main sections flanked by a prologue and epilogue.
1. The Book of Signs (Ch 1–12): In 1‐12 Jesus performs wondrous deeds, engages in discussion
with opponents and crowds and moves freely. In these chapters Jesus ‘hour has not yet
come’ (2:4; 7:30; 8:20). Within the book of signs there are a number of miracles and
encounters which lead to faith and rising opposition peaking in ch11 when the authorities
seek Jesus life.
2. The Book of Glory (Ch 13–20): In 13‐20 Jesus restricts his discussions to his disciples alone
followed by the passion. 12:23 announces the advent of the crucial time of revelation and in
13‐20 the hour has come (13:1; 17:1).

These two sections are flanked by a hymnic prologue 1:1‐18 and chapter 21 which functions as an
epilogue. Chapter twelve is the pivot for the letter in which Jesus is anointed for burial, enters
Jerusalem and events move toward his death and resurrection.
Key dimensions of John’s gospel.
There are a number of aspects of John’s presentation which develop Synoptic notions in different
directions such as John the Baptist, 24 the calling of the disciples, 25 Jesus’ engagement with non‐Jews
(12:2‐22), Jesus as the servant (12:38 cf. Is 53:12) exemplified and demonstrated in Jesus’ washing
the feet of his disciples (13:1‐7). The Gospel like the others climaxes with Jesus crucified. 26 As noted

24
There is additional information concerning John the Baptist in John perhaps indicating his on‐going influence
in the Ephesus scene (cf. Acts 19:1‐5). His role as the forerunner and witness to Jesus as Messiah is highlighted
(1:6‐9, 19‐20, 29‐38; 3:30; 5:31‐36 cf. Is 40:3; Mal 3:6; 4:1‐2). The first disciples in John’s account also come
from John’s disciples (1:29‐35).
25
The accounts of the call of the disciples are radically different in John’s account of the calling of Andrew,
Peter, Philip and Nathaneal (1:35‐51). There are through the narrative those who fall short of the ideal of
discipleship like Nicodemus initially (3:1‐11) who ultimately appears to become a disciple (7:45; 19:27); and
the deserters of 6:60‐66) and Judas. There are others who reflect authentic response like disciples (6:68‐69),
the Samaritan woman (4:1‐42), the healed blind man (9:38), Martha (11:27), Mary (12:1‐8) and Joseph of
Arimathea (19:38‐42).
26
The Johannine Passion Narrative has some differences including: the name of the servant Malchus (18:10);
the names of the high priests (Annas and Caiaphas); details of his interrogation and before Pilate (18:19‐24,
28‐38); emphasis on Pilate’s view of Jesus’ innocence (19:6); Jesus carries his own cross (19:17); three
languages of the titilus ‘King of the Jews’ (19:20); the presence of John (‘the beloved disciple’) (19:25‐27); that
139

John's Gospel
above in the Passion discussion, while the three Synoptic passion predictions are absent (cf. Mk
8:31; 9:30; 10:33; 14:27 and pars), throughout John there are numerous allusions to Jesus ultimate
suffering and death indicating that John’s Jesus was very much aware of his fate and the need for his
death (12:20, 27‐28, 32‐33). John like Luke and Matthew, ends his Gospel with resurrection
appearances including Mary Magdalene (20:1‐18 cf. Mt 28:9), the Thomas encounter (20:24‐28) and
the Seven fishing in Galilee (21:1‐14 cf. Mk 16:7; Mt 28:16‐20).
The ‘I am sayings’ of Jesus
One of the distinctive features of the Gospel is the so‐called ‘I am’ sayings in which Jesus states
aspects of his identity through the formula ego eimi (‘I am’). There are the so‐called Seven I am
sayings which all have predicates defining Jesus metaphorically.
1. I am the bread of life [and variants] (Jn 6:35, 41, 48, 51).
2. I am the light of the world (Jn 8:12).
3. I am the resurrection and the life (Jn 11:25).
4. I am the gate (Jn 10:7).
5. I am the good shepherd (Jn 10:14).
6. I am the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6).
7. I am the true vine (Jn 15:1, 5).

There are a number of other constructs where John uses the ‘I am’ notion. These include:
‘I am (the Christ [cf. 1:25]), the one speaking to you’ (Jn 4:26).
‘I am, do not be afraid’ (Jn 6:20): to the fearful disciples in the boat as he walked toward them.
I am the one who testifies for myself (Jn 8:18)
I am! (Jn 8:24, 28, 58)

The statements with predicates (e.g. ‘the bread of life’) point to Jesus role in salvation and as giver of
life in different ways. As bread of life he is the sustenance of the world; giving the food of eternal
life. As the light of the world he enlightens humanity and lights the way to salvation in a dark fallen
world. As the resurrection and the life he gives not only life to all, but eternal life beginning in the
present and into the age to come. As the gate he is the door into the eternal life. As the good
shepherd he is the pastor of the world who cares for humanity his sheep who believe him. As the
way, the truth and the life he is the path to salvation, the only authentic claimant to spiritual reality
and the source of life physical and eternal. As the true vine he is the source of life giving sustenance
to believers (branches).

There is debate over the absolute sayings, ‘I am’ and whether they indicate a claim to divinity or are
simply identity statements. It is likely that they are more than mere identity statements (‘It is I’) and
point the reader to Jesus’ divinity against the backdrop of Exod 3:14 (LXX): ‘I am the one who is’ (egō
eimi ho ōn). That this was seen by Jews as a radical claim to divinity is seen in the response of the
Jews in Jn 8:58 (cf. 5:18; 10:33) who seek to stone him for saying, ‘before Abraham was born, I am.’
The signs of John
Jesus performs a number of astonishing miracles in John. As noted in our discussion of miracles
earlier in the course, these John calls ‘signs’ (sēmeion) rather than ‘miracles of power’ (dynameis). 27
They are thus are recorded as indicators of Jesus’ identity. In John too, rather than faith generating

his legs are not broken and his side is pierced and blood separated (19:31‐34); Nicodemus at his burial (19:38‐
42).

27
He also uses the language ‘works’ concerning miracles e.g. 5:20; 7:3, 21; 8:41; 10:25, 32, 33, 37,
38; 14:11, 12; 15:24.
miracles, miracles generate faith, albeit often a deficient faith (cf. 2:23‐3:1). John also calls them
‘works’ (ergon/erga) indicating that his miracles are the work of God, the work of restoration (5:20;
7:3, 21; 8:41; 10:25, 32, 33, 37, 38; 14:11, 12; 15:24).

It is often said that there are seven signs in John: 1) The Turning of Water into Wine (2:1‐12); 2) The
Healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46‐54); 3) Healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda (5:1‐47); 4)
Feeding the 5000 (6:1‐4); 5) Walking on Water (6:15‐21); 6) Healing the Blind Man (9:1‐41); 7)
Raising of Lazarus (11:1‐57). The eighth and greatest sign is the sign of the resurrection of Christ
himself. As signs, these function to demonstrate who Jesus is. There are other signs mentioned in
general terms through the narrative usually in reference to debates over Jesus’ identity.

There is a play of response to the signs to enhance the narrative which revolves around Jesus’
identity. Remember John’s goal here, that people will believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of
God and believe in him for eternal life (Jn 20:31). Note that the verse prior to this in 20:30 and
leading into this purpose statement refers to Jesus performing ‘many other signs in the presence of
his disciples, which are not recorded’ in John. Thus, the signs play a critical role for John in his
presentation of Jesus. He clearly believes that they indicate who Jesus is and hopes that they will be
instrumental in seeing people believe. This also indicates that John is selective in his choice of
miracles.

In the first, the turning of water to wine at Cana (2:1‐11), Jesus reveals his glory; suggesting his
identity as Messiah and God the Son. This leads to the disciples responding with faith: ‘and his
disciples believed in him’ (2:11). This is authentic faith. This is specifically noted by John to be his first
sign. This serves to demonstrate Jesus supremacy over the created order (cf. creator in 1:2‐3). It is
also a miracle of provision and deliverance, he providing his host with what was socially necessary in
the situation and ensuring that the host was not shamed.

There is a distinction between the type of sign that Jesus would perform and that which the Jews
demanded. Jesus refused to perform signs on demand or without the motivation of genuine concern
for the recipient, but stated ambiguously that the resurrection was the only sign he would show
them (2:16‐22).

Jesus performed many other signs in that initial Passover visit to Jerusalem and many believed in
him as a result (2:24). However their faith appears inadequate as Jesus refuses to ‘entrust’ himself to
them (2:25). This indicates that signs in and of themselves do not guarantee that a person will
respond if faith. They are signs that must be read. Nicodemus is one of these Jews attracted to Jesus
because of his signs but does not comprehend Jesus or perceive who he is. Unlike the disciples in
2:11, he is spiritually blind (3:1‐7).

The second ‘sign’ Jesus performed was the healing of the official’s son in Cana in Galilee (4:43‐54).
He is possibly an official of Herod Antipas or perhaps a Roman soldier, their being similarities to the
healing of the centurion’s servant in the Synoptics (Mt 8:5‐13; Lk 7:1‐10); however this is unlikely in
that there are great differences between the two stories. Again Jesus bemoans the constant appeal
for signs but responds to the genuine appeal of the official by healing him (4:48).

The third sign is the healing of the man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1‐14). The man has been severely
disabled for 38 years and unable to get into the pool for healing. Jesus heals him and him alone
rather than the whole crowd at the pool. This becomes a great issue of controversy as it occurs on
the Sabbath. These two healings demonstrate Jesus’ power to restore and heal the genuine enquirer
in need. He heals the rich and poor.

141

John's Gospel
These are ‘great works’ which should lead people to believe (5:20 cf. 7:21). They give testimony to
his identity as the Son of God working on behalf of his Father (5:36).

In Jn 6 Jesus performs two more signs which are both found in the Synoptics. The first (4th overall) is
the feeding of the 5000 (6:1‐13). The essential story is the same with some extra detail. The
response of the crowds is to describe Jesus as ‘the prophet’. This led Jesus to withdraw concerned
that they would seek to make Jesus king by force (6:14‐15). This coincides with John’s emphasis of
the impact of signs on observers of Jesus’ miracles. Their response is wrong however; not genuine
faith. Jesus’ demonstrates his refusal to be a Messiah in accordance with Jewish expectation; he will
be glorified not through military might, but through crucifixion. For John then, Jesus is Messiah, but
not that sore of Messiah. This miracle is picked up in the discourse of chapter 6 concerning the Bread
of Life. Jesus is compared to Moses who provides manna which nourishes physically; Jesus nourishes
spiritually giving eternal life. The discourse leads to a dramatic rejection of Jesus in 6:61‐70 of all but
the disciples. Thus there is a contrast between those who read the sign and understand and those
who do not. Jesus is thus provider to humanity in need, bringing God’s shalom and provision.

This miracle is followed by the 5th of John’s signs, his walking on water (6:16‐24). This demonstrates
Jesus’ supremacy over the created order as he achieves the ‘ludicrous’. John’s telling of this story
highlights his supremacy as he responds to the disciples fear with the addition of ‘I am’ before ‘do
not be afraid’ (6:20); that is, he is God the Son. John ensures the readers know that Jesus got over
the lake miraculously, recording that the crowds followed him when they realised he was gone and
had not got into a boat. This miracle adds to the effect of Jesus being the Messiah and Son of God.

Yes, in Jn 6:30‐31 after the feeding and water miracle, there is yet another request for a sign which
supersedes the giving of manna in the wilderness (Ex 16:31‐35). This demonstrates the failure of
many to perceive the ‘signs’; whereas, the disciples do. Jesus rejects their request and explains that
he is the bread of life which must be eaten to have eternal life (6:35‐40).

In Jn 7:31 the signs lie at the heart of debates among Jews in Jerusalem concerning Jesus’ identity.
They cause astonishment (7:21) and many ‘put their faith in him’ on the basis of his signs (7:31).

The whole of Jn 9 revolves around the 6th sign, the healing of a blind man. The healing challenges the
idea that personal or prior‐generational sin is the cause of disease, here the reason for the man’s
illness is not sin but so that God will be glorified through his healing (9:3). Jesus heals him using
saliva and mud and washing in a pool. The healing leads to further controversy with the Pharisees
who reject him because he has performed his signs on the Sabbath (9:16) and the people were
divided in their opinion of Jesus (9:17). There is heated debate between the Jewish leadership and
the healed man who reject his testimony on the basis that he is a sinner. There is a progression in
the development of faith in the blind man who states Jesus is a prophet (9:17), then that he ‘from
God’ (9:31‐32) and then after and encounter with Jesus, that he is the Son of Man (9:35‐38). The
climax is 9:38 where the healed man states, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him. He is thus a
paradigm of right response to Jesus, who is now spiritually able to see, whereas the Jewish leaders
are blind spiritually (9:40‐41). There is thus a play on the notion of blindness here; the man is healed
physically and now sees spiritually. The Jewish leaders fail to perceive who Jesus is despite seeing
physically. This is a sign then of the healing power of Christ, not only to heal the physical blind, but to
open the eyes of humanity spiritually so that they will be saved. Through the signs there is a
cascading increase in tension over Jesus. The miracles (‘works’) are witnesses to Jesus which are
rejected by the Jewish leaders (10:25). There is irony in Jesus’ dialogue in Jn 10; he challenging them
concerning his works and their desire to kill him, which is irrational (10:32‐38). Clearly, for John, the
miracles should lead people to acknowledge Jesus’ Lordship.

The most dynamic sign is the 7th in John 11, the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:1‐45). It is made more
impressive in that Lazarus has been dead for four days at the time. This led to more believing in him
and further opposition from the leaders. Their concern was that many would turn to Jesus if he
continued to perform his miracles.

In Jn 14 Jesus appeals for this followers to believe in him on the basis of his miracles (14:11) and that
they too will do such miracles (14:12). He pronounces judgement on his rejecters because they did
not believe in him on the basis of the signs (15:24).

Throughout then the signs and works of Jesus are pointers which lead to discussions (dialogues) in
which Jesus’ identity and claims are the subject of debate. John is inviting his readers not to be like
the ‘Jews’ (Jewish leaders) who rationalise them (e.g. From the devil, Sabbath), but to identify with
John and other believers through the narrative and follow and worship Jesus as Messiah and Son of
God.
The identity of Jesus
The ‘I am’ sayings and signs have all served to help readers recognise that Jesus is the Messiah and
Son of God. Running through John is the question, ‘who is this man?’ John highlights a number of
dimensions of Jesus in answering this question; ideas from the context, the ‘I am’ sayings and the
testimony of others. Some of these include:

1. The Logos (Jn 1:1‐17): Picking up an idea from the OT of Jesus as wisdom, Torah and dabar
(Word) and common from the Greek philosophical thinking of the day (esp. Stoicism), Jesus
is seen as the incarnate pre‐existent divine word who has come from heaven (3:13) to reveal
the nature and person of God to humanity.
2. Creator (Jn 1:3‐4): As divine logos, Jesus is the one through whom the world was formed. He
is the creator, become a part of his creation (‘flesh’), coming to redeem his creation.
3. God. Throughout John there are implicit and explicit indications of Jesus’ divinity.
a. Jn 1:1: Jesus is the logos who was with God and was God. Some point out here that
the Greek lacks the definite article (‘the’) and so John is not saying Jesus is God, but
that he has God‐like qualities. However, if so John would use theios (divine) rather
than theos (God) and the absence of the article is not important and actually
emphasises the point, ‘was God!’.28
b. Jn 1:18: Jesus is ‘the unique and beloved one, [himself] God’. 29
c. Jesus is also accused of ‘making himself equal to God’ (5:18) and ‘making himself
God’ (10:33).
d. Jn 8:58: Jesus declares, ‘before Abraham was born, I am’. This takes up the name of
Yahweh, egō eimi (cf. Is 41:4; 43:13). The response of the Jews to take up stones to
kill him clearly indicates that they take these words as blasphemous and claiming
divinity. 30
e. In John Jesus is worshiped by some including the healed blind man upon realising
who Jesus is and experiencing spiritual healing (Jn 9:38); and Thomas (20:28) who
confesses of the resurrected Jesus, ‘my lord and God’ (ho kyrios moy kai ho theos
moy), a direct confession of Jesus’ divinity. Interestingly, this phrase was applied to
Domitian the emperor (“Dominus et Deus noster”). 31

28
For detail see Carson, John, 117, 137.
29
Carson, John, 139.
30
Carson, John, 358.
31
The Roman historian Suetonius reports that Domitian claimed the title “Dominus et Deus noster”
(“Our Lord and God,” Dom. 13) cf. Borchert, John 12‐21, 316.
143

John's Gospel
f. The Jewish desire to kill Jesus in John is also directly linked to his claims to be God. At
the Feast of Dedication some seek to stone him for claiming oneness with God and
so divinity (Jn 10:33 cf. 10:30).
4. The Lamb of God (Jn 1:29, 36). He is the Servant (Is 53) and the one who fulfils the sacrifices
system of Israel and who takes away not only the sins of Israel, but the whole world (1:29).
5. The Son of God.
a. First implied as he is the one and only Son of the Father (Jn 1:14).
b. Then on the lips of John the Baptist (Jn 1:34) and Nathaneal (Jn 1:49).
c. The concept suggests the closest of identification. Jesus as son acts in dependence
and obedience to God on his behalf, He ‘can do nothing of his own accord’ (cf. 3:34;
7:28; 8:26, 42; 10:32, 37; 12:49).
d. He and the Father share reciprocal knowledge (10:15).
e. They work in unity of work in revelation and salvation (8:16; 10:25–30; 14:10–11;
17:10).
f. The actions of Jesus then are truly the actions and words of God. For John, being the
Son of God means being God just as being the Son of a human father, means being
human to us as people. He is God the Son.
6. The Son of Man. This is Jesus’ self‐designation (Jn 1:51; 3:13, 14). It is not nearly as frequent
as in the Synoptics however, indicating that the term is not as appealing to John as the
gospel goes to the Gentile world. However, when Jesus heals the blind man he asks if the
healed man believes in him and he worships him.
7. The Temple. Jesus refers to himself as ‘the temple’ in the context of clearing the temple. The
locus of God’s presence on earth is now no longer the Jewish temple, or any of the
multitude of the temples of the Greco‐Roman world, but is Jesus. This led to great confusion
as to whether Jesus intended to destroy the temple (2:19‐22) and was one of the reasons
the Jews sought to kill him (cf. Mk 14:58).
8. Jesus is Life (Eternal). In the Prologue it is written, he is ‘life’. The theme of eternal life runs
through John and is the most significant concept in terms of defining salvation (further
below). The notion of ‘Kingdom of God’ is rare, but the concept of ‘life’ and ‘eternal life’ is
spoken of in a similar way. Jesus is the author of life (1:3‐4). Through him comes life (5:16‐
30). He raises the dead (5:21). He judges all and assigns them eternal life or eternal
destruction (5:21‐22, 24‐30). The resurrection of Lazarus also points to Jesus power over life
both in terms of the literal his literal resurrection and his statement, ‘I am the resurrection
and the life’ (11:25). Knowing Jesus is eternal life (17:3).
9. The Bread of Life. Another of the ‘I am sayings’ relates is ‘I am the bread of life’ (6:35). This
statement is a response to the request for a sign that supersedes the sign of manna from
heaven (6:30‐31). Jesus refuses the sign but declares that he is the bread that must be eaten
(6:33‐40) to receive eternal life (6:44, 53‐58). Unlike manna, he gives eternal satisfaction.
This is a metaphor for believing in him for salvation which is the work of God (6:29).
10. The Light of the World (Jn 1:5‐9; 3:19‐21). Jesus is the light of the world. John focuses his
theology around a dualism of light and darkness. In John’s dualistic schema, he is the light of
God’s goodness coming to shine into the darkness of the world.
11. The Messiah, Christ (Jn 1:41 [using the transliterated Aramaic messias cf. 4:25). John does
not have a veiled Messiah as in the Synoptics, but right from the kick off, Jesus is the
Messiah. He starts with Jesus’ identity and demonstrates it.
a. Andrew introduces Peter to Jesus recognising that Jesus is the Messiah. John the
Baptist denies he is the Messiah, rather the one who points to him, Jesus (3:28).
b. Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman also raises the issue of his Messiahship.
There is a progression in the woman’s understanding of who Jesus is until on the
basis of his prophetic insight, she accepts and proclaims him as Messiah. This
includes an explicit statement from Jesus that he is indeed, the Messiah (4:25‐26).
c. In Jn 7:25f at the Feast of the Tabernacles the crowd is divided over whether Jesus is
the Messiah. This is an example of the theme of acceptance or rejection of Jesus
messiahship throughout John. Some accepted him as the Christ on the basis of his
miracles (7:31, 41). Others rejected him as such in that he was from Galilee and not
Bethlehem (7:42). At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him,
because his time had not yet come.
d. In Jn 10:24 Jesus is challenged directly as to whether he is the Christ. He affirms he is
on the basis of his miracles (10:25‐26). Some believe but most reject him and seek to
kill him.
e. The raising of Lazarus also sees one of the great confessions of the NT. Jesus states
that he is ‘the resurrection and the life’ and asks Martha whether she believes in
him. She responds, ‘I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to
come into the world’ (10:27), a magnificent confession that should be placed
alongside those of Peter!
12. The Saviour of Those Who Believe (Jn 3:15‐19, 35‐36). Significant here is the outcome of
Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritans of which it is said ‘many… believed in him’ and declare
that he is the ‘saviour of the world’.
13. The ‘Holy One of God’ (Jn 6:69). Peter confesses that Jesus is the Holy One of God, a parallel
saying to the confessions of the Synoptics.
14. The Prophet. John the Baptist is asked if he is ‘the prophet’ (1:21, 25). Jesus is similarly
considered ‘the prophet’ by some (6:14; 7:40 cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). The prophet was an
eschatological figure expected to come in the end times that fulfilled Deut 18:15: ‘The Lord
your God will raise up for you a prophet like me’. Such a person was expected among the
Samaritans (Jn 4:19) and at Qumran (4QTestim 5‐8). This acknowledges Jesus divine
commissioning and authority. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:1‐18 esp. 11, 14). Jesus describes
himself in one of the ‘I am’ sayings as ‘the good shepherd’. In contrast to Satan (10:10), he
knows his sheep and the sheep knows him. He lays down his life for his sheep. This invokes
the OT concept of God as a shepherd (e.g. Ps 23:1)
15. The Gate (Jn 10:7‐9). He is the path to salvation. This can be linked to the idea of the ‘narrow
gate’ in (Mt 7:12‐13).
16. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10). Jesus is the long awaited Davidic Shepherd king who will come
and restore the people of God when the leaders have failed (cf. Ezek 36). He is the lamb who
saves, and the shepherd who saves. He gathers to himself the people, provides for them and
protects them from Satan the false shepherd who seeks destruction.
17. The Vine (Jn 15:1, 5). He is the source of sustenance and life nurtured by his Father and in
whom is eternal life for those who abide in him.

John then portrays Jesus powerfully and brilliantly as the Messiah and God the Son working to bring
God’s salvation and mediating between God and humanity. So close is the identification of Jesus
with God that it is true that to encounter Jesus was to encounter God, to see Jesus was to see the
Father and to know and receive Jesus was to have know and received the Father.
Jesus clashes with ‘the Jews’
John’s Gospel highlights the clash between Jesus and Jews. Many believe this is a back‐reading of
later clashes between Jewish Christians and Jews at which point they were expelled from the
synagogue (cf. Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). That is, they never happened, but is a Johannine rewriting of the
initial events. 32 While hotly disputed by some, 33 it is argued by some that toward the end of the first

32
See Barrett, St. John, 361. Martyn, History and Theology, 37–62; Martyn, History and Theology, 37–62.
145

John's Gospel
century, the 12th Benediction was rewritten around the time of the Council of Jamnia to include a
curse on the Nazarenes and Heretics (Minim); the so‐called Birkath ha‐minim attributed to Rabbi
Samuel the Minor. It is said, that these benedictions were recited three times a day and the curse
was employed as a test of exclusion from the synagogue. However, this perspective is not necessary
as there is evidence of a development of condemnations. 34 It is likely that Jews were strongly
antagonistic to those who confessed Jesus as Messiah from early days (cf. Jn 9:22). The references in
John are then probably authentic but crafted to make sense to those in John’s world now that the
full ban is in place. 35

Whatever we think of this question, John has a strong interest in clashes between Jesus and ‘the
Jews’, a term he uses often of Jesus’ opponents (see 2:18, 20; 5:10, 15, 16, 18, 41; 6:41, 52; 7:1, 11,
13, 15, 35; 8:22, 48, 52, 57; 9:18, 22; 10:24, 31, 33; 11:45, 54; 18:14, 38; 19:7, 12; 20:19). The term
refers to leaders and those who oppose Jesus. All Jews are not involved however, 36 which removes
the stigma of anti‐semitism. For example in 10:19, the Jews are divided over Jesus indicating that
some of the Jewish people viewed him favourably. In chapter 11 a number of Jews comfort Mary
and Martha (11:19, 31, 33, 36) while many (and so not all) (11:45) of these Jews seek to kill him
indicating that not all Jews are seen as Jesus’ opponents. In 12:11 it is said ‘many of the Jews were
going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.’ Of course, all the disciples are Jews; thus, it is Jews
who oppose and are antagonistic to Jesus who are in mind. Essentially then, ‘the Jews’ when used of
Jesus, stands in continuity with those in the Synoptics who are hostile to Jesus including many
Pharisees, Scribes, members of the Sanhedrin and Sadducees.

The clashes with ‘the Jews’ runs through the Gospel increasing as antagonism to Jesus grows. They
clash over the Temple clearing (2:11‐24), the nature of spiritual birth (3:1‐12), Jesus’ claiming to be
the ‘bread of life’ (6:35‐70), their failure to recognise Jesus despite the Scriptures (5:39), his miracles
(7:30‐49), his claim to be the light of the world (8:12f), claims to supersede Abraham (8:31‐59), that
Jesus is possessed and a Samaritan (8:44, 48), healing on the Sabbath (5:9‐10; 7:22‐23; 9:14‐16), his
Messiahship (10:23‐33), Jesus’ popularity after the Lazarus raising (11:54‐12:9).
Jesus intercessor
John does not record the Gethsemane prayer of Jesus. However, in John 17 we have the great final
prayer of Jesus located in the context of the Last Supper. It can be broken up into three sections: 1)
Jesus prays that for himself that through him, he and the Father will be glorified through people
gaining eternal life through him (17:1); 2) Jesus prays for his disciples that the Father will
protect them (17:11‐12, 15), sanctify them by the word of truth (17:17) as they go out into mission,
sent by Christ (17:18); 3) Jesus prays for other future believers who will believe their message that
they would be one (unity) together and with the Father and Son (17:21‐22).

33
R. Kimelman, “Birkat Ha‐Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti‐Christian Jewish Prayer,” in Jewish and
Christian Self‐Definition, vol. 2, Aspects of Judaism in Greco‐Roman Period, ed. E. Sanders et al. (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1981), 226–44; 391–403.
34
See Brown, John, 1.374 who argues for a three‐stage development: nezifah (a minor ban), niddūy (a thirty‐
day banishment), and hērem, a permanent exclusion from the synagogue.
35
Gerald L. Borchert, vol. 25A, John 1‐11, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1996), 319.
36
The term is also used neutrally of ‘the Jews’ concerning the people, their customs and institutions (see 1:19;
2:6, 13; 3:1, 22; 4:9, 22; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55; 19:40, 42

The role of the Spirit (paraklētos = paraklete).
In the NT three writers in particular emphasise the Spirit: Paul, Luke and John. Paul stresses the role
of the Spirit in personal conversion, the Spirit in the church (‘the temple of the Spirit’), in Christian
life and ethics (gift and fruit). Luke stresses the role of the Spirit in mission, guidance, evangelism
and signs and wonders. John stresses the role of the Spirit in terms of reminding believers of Jesus’
teaching, revelation, as the personal presence of God in the believer and in conviction. The Spirit
features through the narrative and especially in Jn 14‐16 as the paraklētos (below).

As early as John the Baptist, Jesus is the one anointed with the Spirit (at his baptism) (1:32 cf. Mk 1:9‐
11 and pars; Lk 4:18). He is the one who will baptise believers in the Spirit (1:33‐34). Jesus’
interaction with Nicodemus highlights the importance of the Spirit in giving spiritual understanding
and enabling a person to enter the Kingdom by being born again/from above by the Spirit (3:1‐8).
The sovereign freedom of the Spirit is also emphasised (3:8). In Jn 3:34 we have John the Baptist
stating in the context of the important role of Jesus as Messiah, that the Father gives the Spirit
without limit.

In Jn 7:38 Jesus announces at the Feast of the Tabernacles that he is the source of living water
inviting people to come to him and drink (7:37). The concept of drinking, as in the case of eating in Jn
6, refers to faith i.e. believing in Jesus as the Messiah. For those that believe, he promises the Holy
Spirit which had not yet been given (7:39). This Spirit will overflow from the believers life spreading
life through the believer (‘streams of living water’).

The most developed theology of the Spirit is found scattered through the Last Supper dialogue of
John 14‐16. Jesus promises the Spirit for those who love him and obey him (14:15‐16). The Spirit is
the paraklētos meaning ‘helper, comforter, counsellor, encourager, mediator, intercessor37 i.e. one
who indwells the believer, empowers them, cares, guides, comforts, encourages and cares for them
in their Christian life of struggle and challenge.

This Spirit will indwell believers and be his personal presence with them (14:17‐20). The Spirit will
teach and remind them of Jesus’ life and teaching (14:26) and give them peace (14:27). The motif
returns in 15:26‐27 where the paraklētos testifies about Christ (15:26), to convict the world of guilt
in regards to sin, righteousness and judgment and guide the believers into truth (16:11‐13). It thus is
the key not only to Christian living, but salvation as the conviction of the Spirit leads to conversion.
There is a close intimate connection between Father‐Son‐Spirit in this connection, the Father giving
the Spirit who is Christ’s presence to the believer.
An extended Last Supper dialogue
John contains far greater detail concerning the Last Supper than the other accounts. This includes an
account of where Jesus is going i.e. to his Father’s house with many rooms. He encourages them that
they too will go there if they place their trust in Christ (14:1‐8). There is teaching on the oneness
(unity) of Father and Son and the power of prayer (14:9‐14). There is a developed concept of the
coming and role of the Spirit (see above on Spirit) [14:15‐31; 16:5‐15]. It is unclear whether Chapters
15‐17 should be included as part of the Last Supper Dialogue or whether there is a movement out of
the Last Supper context to the Kidron Valley (cf. 14:29: ‘Come now, let us leave’). If so, then Chapter

37Arndt, William, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and
Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen
Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, c1979.
147

John's Gospel
15‐17 may be enroute to the garden. However, it is most likely that 15‐17 continue the Last Supper
dialogue cf. 18:1. 38

Jesus utilises the parable of the vine to emphasise the importance of remaining close to God and the
pruning love of God (15:1‐8). There is a strong emphasis on the importance of love and obedience
(see esp. 15:9‐17). There is a warning of opposition from the world and grief along with the promise
of God’s comfort and presence (15:18‐25; 16:17‐33). Finally, we have the prayer of Jn 17 (see above
on intercessor). None of this contradicts the other accounts, but fills out the events of the night.
The importance and exclusivity of faith in Christ for salvation
Unlike the Synoptics, John is explicit and clear concerning the importance of ‘faith in Christ’ as the
means of salvation (e.g. Jn 3:15‐18).

The role of faith in the Synoptics is different to that of John. While ‘believe’ as right response that
saves is not absent from the Synoptics (Mt 18:6; Mk 1:15; 2:5; 9:42), in the Synoptics faith generates
healing and answered prayer (Mt 8:10, 13; 9:2, 22, 28‐29; 15:28; 21:21‐22; 5:36; 9:23‐24; 11:22‐24;
16:16‐17; Lk 7:50; 8:12‐13). Conversely, Jesus was not able to perform a great number of miracles in
his home town because of a lack of faith on behalf of those who knew him (Mt 13:58; Mk 6:1‐6 cf.
Mt 14:31; 16:8; 17:20; Mk 4:40). The characteristic concepts for responding to Jesus and God were
‘repentance’ and ‘follow’.

In John however, the characteristic term for responding correctly to Jesus is ‘faith’ (pistis) or ‘to
believe’ (pisteuō) as these verses indicate! (Jn 1:7,12, 50; 2:22‐23; 3:12‐18, 35; 4:39‐42; 5:24, 38‐47;
6:29‐30, 35‐40, 47, 64, 69; 7:5, 31, 38‐39; 8:24, 30, 31, 45‐46; 9:35‐38; 10:25‐26, 37‐38; 11:15; 25‐26,
40, 42, 45; 12:11, 42‐46; 13:19; 14:10‐12, 29; 16:9, 27‐31; 17:8, 20‐21; 19:35; 20:8, 25‐31). So, in
John, the work of God is ‘to believe in the one that he sent’ (Jn 6:29). In addition, rather than
generate miracles, as in the Synoptics, faith is generated by miracles in John (1:50; 2:11, 23; 4:53;
10:38, 42). However, this is not uniform, the miracles work parabolically as signs on those observing,
some believing, and others (‘the Jews’) rejecting (12:37).

Salvation is a more dominant theme in John than in the Synoptics. While the notion is not
completely absent, in the Synoptics there are fewer references to salvation or ‘being saved’ (Mt
10:22; 19:25; 24:13; Mk 9:35; 16:16; Lk 8:12; 13:23; 19:9‐10).39 Salvation is more often reckoned as
‘entry into the Kingdom of God/heaven’ in the Synoptics (Mt 5:20; 7:13, 21; 18:3; 19:23‐24; 21:31;
23:13 [or ‘enter life’ {Mt 18:8‐9; 19:17}]).

However in John, ‘salvation’ and ‘being saved’ are vital concepts (Jn 3:17; 5:34; 10:9; 12:47). The
realm of eternal life, also so important in John, is the realm of salvation. The purpose of Jesus’
incarnation is to save rather than condemn i.e. to give eternal life to those who believe. John’s
Gospel is written to that end (20:31).

38
Borchert, John 12‐21, 136 notes a number of proposals including putting chapter 14 after 13‐17 (Bultmann);
however there is no textual evidence for this; suggesting that 13‐14 are Last Supper and 15‐17 are from
another context (Brown); that the words were spoken on the way (traditional solution); that they were slow to
exit and so Jesus continued to teach (Morris); a pause in the discussion (Hoskyns and Davey); some avoid the
issue. Beasley‐Murray, John, 223 notes that while 14:29 states they are to leave, 18:1 suggests that it was at
this point that they did leave. Thus, Morris’ is probably correct.
39
Also of physical salvation (Mt 8:25; 14:30; 27:40, 49; Mk 3:4)
The priority of love in John
Only Paul can rival John as the Apostle of love (cf. Rom 5:8; 13:8‐10; 1 Cor 13; Gal 5:14‐25). This is
further intensified if one accepts Johannine authorship of the Johannine letters where love is highly
prominent (esp. 1 Jn 3‐4). Again love is mentioned in the Synoptics both in terms of love of God and
love of one another (cf. Mk 12:29‐31; Lk 10:25‐31). However, John goes further and speaks of the
love of God for humanity as the driving force for the revelation of Jesus and salvation.

Humanity is to love God. And most prominently for John, the overriding ethical response of believers
in Jesus is love. This is seen particularly in Jn 3:16 where love is the motivating force that caused God
to send his son Jesus. It is seen in imperatives to the disciples to love others as evidence of their faith
and God’s presence among them (esp. Jn 13:34‐35). This love is derivative of the love the Father has
for the Son (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23‐24, 26). This love is reciprocated by Christ (14:31) and
seen in his complete adherence to the command of his father (5:19‐20). The enemies of Jesus in the
Gospel are those who do not have this love within them (5:42; 8:42). Jesus’ attitude is portrayed as
one of love for his disciples (11:5, 36; 13:1‐2, 23; 15:9; 17:23). The disciple’s love is to emulate the
love demonstrated to them by Christ (cf. 13:1‐2, 15, 34‐35 [‘just as I have loved you so you must
love…’]; 15:9, 11‐12, 17).

Such love leads to obedience if the love is genuine (14:15, 21, 23‐24; 15:9‐10); John sees an integral
link between espoused love and action i.e. love without characteristic action is not true love (cf. 1 Jn
3:16‐17). If the believer has a love for God that is demonstrated in obedience to Christ, then the
believer is guaranteed the love of the Father and of Christ (14:21, 23‐24; 15:27; 17:23). True love
involves self‐renunciation and the giving of one’s life for others as supremely demonstrated in the
self‐sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation of the world (15:13 cf. 3:16). The three‐fold questioning of
Peter ‘do you love me’ illustrates that true love for Christ will lead to service and suffering and forms
the basis of all ministry (cf. Jn 21:16‐19). This love for God and each other is contrasted with love for
the world and being loved by the world (12:25; 15:19).

Hence we see the chain of love in John:
1. God loves the Son and the world. He sends his Son as an expression of his love. he Son loves
the father and this seen in obedience to the Father even to the point of death to save God’s
humanity.
2. The Son loves humanity and dies for them.
3. Humanity is called to believe in the Son and love the Father and Son and demonstrate this
with obedience to his commands and particularly the love of others. In so‐doing they are
guaranteed God’s love and salvation.
Conclusion
The Gospel of John is an indispensable, wonderful and powerful presentation of Christ. It
complements and supplements the Synoptics deepening our theology and understanding of Christ.
Its deep spirituality and enriched Christology draw us deeper into understanding the identity of Jesus
and challenges us to reflect deeply on his person and character and our response. How can one not
bow in worship?
• What do you like about John’s Gospel?
• How do you account for the differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels
• What stands out to you as the dominant features of John’s Gospel?

149

John's Gospel

Chapter Nine
The Kingdom of God

Contents
The Kingdom of God ........................................................................................................................... 151
Terminology ........................................................................................................................................ 152
Old Testament Antecedents. .............................................................................................................. 152
The Kingdom of God in Judaism.......................................................................................................... 154
Four Main Factors ........................................................................................................................... 154
Two General Tendencies ................................................................................................................. 154
Varying Details ................................................................................................................................ 155
The Kingdom in the Varying Strands of Judaism ............................................................................. 156
Jesus and the Kingdom of God. ........................................................................................................... 156
Continuity and Discontinuity .......................................................................................................... 157
Definitions of the Kingdom ............................................................................................................. 157
The Kingdom as Both Present and Future. ..................................................................................... 158
The Kingdom as here now and purely personal and ethical. ...................................................... 158
The Kingdom as apocalyptic and future. .................................................................................... 158
The Kingdom of God as Inaugurated; present and future .......................................................... 159
Toward a Synthesis ..................................................................................................................... 159
The Kingdom in the Redemptive Story ............................................................................................... 160
The Centrality of Christ to the Kingdom of God ................................................................................. 161
The Nature of the Kingdom’s Coming ................................................................................................. 162
The Centrality of the Kingdom in Jesus’ Ministry ............................................................................... 162
Dimensions of the Kingdom ................................................................................................................ 163
Salvation and the Kingdom ............................................................................................................. 163
The priority of the Kingdom ............................................................................................................ 163
The provision of the Kingdom ......................................................................................................... 164
The veiled nature of the Kingdom .................................................................................................. 164
The complete penetration of the Kingdom .................................................................................... 164
The inevitable growth of the Kingdom ........................................................................................... 164
The inestimable value of the Kingdom ........................................................................................... 165
The present and future reward and punishment of the Kingdom ................................................. 165
Reward ........................................................................................................................................ 165
Punishment ................................................................................................................................. 166
The Community of the Kingdom ......................................................................................................... 167
Entry into the community of the Kingdom ..................................................................................... 167
The subjects of the Kingdom: the Kingdom Community ................................................................ 168
Greatness in the Kingdom Community ........................................................................................... 169
Suffering in the Kingdom Community ............................................................................................. 169
Human authority and the Kingdom ................................................................................................ 169
The grace and forgiveness of the Kingdom ..................................................................................... 170
The work of the Kingdom ................................................................................................................ 170
The Ethics of the Kingdom .............................................................................................................. 170
151

The Kingdom of God
The mission of the Kingdom ........................................................................................................... 171
The Church and the Kingdom ............................................................................................................. 171

Terminology
There are three essentially parallel terms used of the Kingdom: 1) ‘The Kingdom of God’ (hē basileia
tou theou); 2) ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’ (hē basileia tōn ouranōn); 3) The Kingdom (hē basileia). The
phrase ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ is taken from the Hebrew malkuth shamayim which is found across the
literature.1 The primary meaning of the Hebrew malkuth, Aramaic malku and Greek basileia is
‘sovereignty’ or ‘royal rule’. Most Jews avoided the term ‘God’ (YHWH) out of reverence and so
‘heaven’ (shamayim) replaces ‘God’.

Old Testament Antecedents.
It is clear in the way that the Gospels introduce the topic without explanation that it is a well‐known
concept.2 Yet surprisingly in the OT there is a total absence of the phrase ‘kingdom of God’.3
However the notion is strongly suggested in a number of ways.

First, as noted above the notion of malkuth shamayim is found across the literature.

Secondly, the whole context and history is saturated with the notion of human kingdoms and reign,
and kingship. We see this in the OT (e.g. Gen 10:10; Num 32:33; Deut 3:4; Josh 13:12; 1 Sam 10:18; 1
Kgs 4:24; Esther 9:30).4 Similarly, Israel’s whole existence was enmeshed in a world of kings and
kingdoms from the time of Abraham (e.g. Gen 14:1‐3) including the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the
Persians and Medes, the Greeks and the Romans (Caesar and the Roman Empire). Hence the
concept of kings and kingdoms was well known in that world. Within that context the King such as
Caesar had all authority over his kingdom and subjects and hence was both a positive and negative
concept depending on the relationship of the nation or subject to the King and his kingdom.

Thirdly, the concept of God as king is seen in a variety of ways:
1. God is presented as king: For example in Ps 10:16 the Psalmist declares, ‘The Lord is king
forever and ever; the nations shall perish from his land’]. Similarly Ps 24:7‐10 sings: ‘Lift up
your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors!5
2. God’s Kingdom: For example 2 Chron 13:8: ‘The kingdom of the Lord’.6 Specifically, the
Kingdom is Israel and/or the land granted by God to Abraham. The prophets too saw the
whole world as God’s kingdom.
3. God is ascribed a royal throne: See for example Ps 45:6: ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever
and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.’7

1
E.g. 2 Apoc. Bar. 73; 3 Apoc. Bar. 11:2; As. Mos. 10; Pss. Sol. 17:4; 1QSb 3.5; m. Ber. 2.2, 5; y. Ber. 4a; 7b.
2
C.D. Marshall, Kingdom Come: the Kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus (Auckland: Impetus, 1993), 22.
3
Marshall, Kingdom Come, 22 esp. nt1.
4
In terms of Kings: X the king of Y e.g. Og the King of Bashan. In terms of Kingdom: the kingdom of Y e.g. The
Kingdom of Persia.
5
See also Deut 9:26 [LXX]; 1 Sam 12:12; Ps 5:2; 29:10; 44:4; 47:2‐9; 68:24; 74:12; 84:12; 95:3; 98:6; 145:1;
149:2; Is 6:5; 8:21; 33:22; 41:21; 43:15; 44:6; Jer 7:10; 10:7, 10; Zeph 3:15; Zech 14:9, 16‐17; Mal 1:14.
6
See also 1 Chron 29:11; Ps 45:6; 103:9 (definitely); 145:11‐13; Dan 2:44; 4:3, 34; 7:14, 18, 27; Ob 21.
7
See also Ps 9:4; 47:8; Is 6:1; 66:1; Ezek 1:26; Sir 1:8).

4. Occasionally his reign is affirmed (Ps 10:16; 146:10; Is 24:23; Wis 3:8).

Fourthly, the concept has roots in the covenantal relationship of God and Israel. The covenant
forged at Sinai is in the form of a Suzerain ‐ Vassal treaty in which God the king over all the earth,
having delivered Israel from the oppression of the king of Egypt (Pharaoh), agrees to reign over the
people of Israel if they agree to uphold the terms of the covenant (see Exod 20:1f).8

Fifthly, a closer look at Israel’s history reveals certain points that are critical to understand the
notion of the Kingdom of God in Jesus’ ministry. God’s kingship is indicated in the initial settlement
of the land where Israel functioned without a king and was led by Judges. The desire of Israel for a
king (1 Sam 8:4–5) was in effect a rejection of Yahweh’s rule (1 Sam 8:6–8). Over time the King came
to be seen as God’s representative and under his rule. Hence, the importance of the prophets within
the royal court (cf. Nathan, Gad, Elijah).

Another significant point in the OT understanding of kingship was the promise to David of an eternal
kingdom (2 Sam 7:12‐16):

The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your
days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you,
who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will
build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be
his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of
men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I
took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will
endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.

Due to this promise followed by the rejection of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:1‐13), the division of the
Kingdom (1 Kgs 12), hope began to grow for a future Messianic king who would rule over David’s
kingdom in righteousness and prosperity. This built on earlier glimpses particularly Gen 3:16 (‘you
will strike his heel’) and Gen 49:10 (‘the scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from
between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.’)

This hope was intensified as Israel fell further into idolatry and sin and the hope of a Davidic Messiah
became acute (Is 9:7; 16:5; Jer 23:5‐6; 33:15; Ezek 34:23‐24; 37:24; Amos 9:11). This is strongest in
Daniel. However, the conception of the kingdom of God by Daniel is transformed under the impact
of the new situation. The divine sovereignty is set vis á vis human kingdoms.

Putting it all together I agree with Chris Marshall who suggests these can be summarized into two
essential OT strands.
1. God as reigning king: That is, God now reigns over Israel and all of humanity. This is the
realised notion of the Kingdom being here now. It is illustrated in texts that speak of God as
present king over Israel and all humanity e.g. Is 33:22.9
2. God as coming king: That is, while God reigns as king now, much of his creation is not
yielded to his reign. Thus there is the notion of God coming to restore complete submission
to his kingship in some way, whether directly, or through a Messiah. This notion is illustrated

8
Note also Exod 19:6: ‘you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

99
Marshall, Kingdom Come, 23‐25.
153

The Kingdom of God
in texts which look to God coming in the future to establish his kingdom in a yet unfulfilled
manner e.g. Is 40:9f.10

There is a tension between these two ideas we see in the already‐not yet tension. Christ is king and
God reigns over all. Yet there is rebellion and resistance to this reign across humanity and creation.
The mission of the Kingdom is to see all of creation recognise this kingship and bow in volition. The
mission of the ‘coming King’ is to see the ‘reigning king’ reign fully.
This kingdom has three essential features.

1. The universality of God’s reign: that is, God will reign over all the earth.11
2. The righteousness of the kingdom: reflected in a new covenant whereby humanity would be
righteous and injustice and oppression removed (cf. Jer 31:31‐33).
3. The peace of the kingdom: involving the hope for shalom in the OT being fulfilled in the
coming Kingdom (Is 11:6‐9).12

The Kingdom of God in Judaism.
The notion of the reign of God developed in Judaism in a number of ways.

Four Main Factors
There are four main factors related to the notion of the Kingdom of God in early Judaism:13
1. God the judge: The idea that God will appear in judgement to punish the wicked (Israel’s
enemies) and reward the just (Israel) coup.
2. Messiah: God would reign through his chosen messianic king who would be a descendant of
David and who would bring in a time of bliss for Israel.
3. Salvation: The idea of the Kingdom and its agent as a heavenly reality and from which God
would deliver his people.
4. Gentile Rule: The centuries‐long oppression of Israel and the longing for liberation, national
identity and bliss.

While the term was not common, the idea was common usually related to the kingdom of the
messiah or in the descriptions of the messianic age. These concepts were blended together in
different ways.

Two General Tendencies
There were two general tendencies in kingdom thinking:
1. A political kingdom (this worldly dimension): Usually earlier, there tended to be the hope of
a political, this‐worldly temporary Davidic kingdom centred on Jerusalem and the Jews.
Often this was followed by judgement and then a new reign involving a new world and great
bliss.
2. An apocalyptic kingdom (future transcendent dimension): Usually later, this involved a
heavenly and everlasting kingdom that encompassed the whole world. This involved direct

10
11
G.R. Beasley‐Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 20. See also Marshall,
Kingdom Come, 26.
12
On Shalom as ‘wholeness’ rather than merely the absence of war see Marshall, Kingdom Come, 27.
13
For a breakdown of the Kingdom of God in the various streams of Judaism see Marshall, Kingdom Come, 30‐
38.

intervention of God and a heavenly and everlasting kingdom under a heavenly pre‐existent
Messiah called the Son of Man (see Daniel; 1 Enoch 37‐71; 2 Ezra). The Messiah takes part in
the judgement and the kingdom that follows is the eternal Kingdom of God.

Varying Details
1. Alongside the general factors and tendencies above these are some varying details
concerning the Kingdom, the Messiah in Judaism:
2. A time of tribulation and upheaval on earth and in heaven: A number of works speak of a
time of tribulation and upheaval in heaven and earth preceding the Messiah.14 These were
called the birth pangs of the Messiah in rabbinic literature.15
3. Elijah: Sometimes, the Messiah’s appearance is preceded by the coming of Elijah,16 or a
prophet‐like‐Moses.17
a. The Messiah himself who conceived variously.
b. Often he is a full human Davidic Messiah18 who conquers the wicked.19
4. Sometimes he is a pre‐existent, supernatural being who has power over all God’s enemies
and vindicates the righteous.20
a. The Messianic Kingdom, which involves a wide range of notions:
b. The gathering of the scattered Israelites from the exile.21
c. The restoration of Jerusalem.22
d. The reign of God over his people.23
e. The kingdom is centred in Jerusalem, ‘the jewel of the world’ (Sib. Or. 3:423).
f. In Jubilees (mid‐second century B.C.) there is the first reference to a temporary
messianic kingdom of 1,000 years brought about by human development and in
which evil is restrained (cf. Rev 20:1‐6).24
g. In the Testament of Moses (1st C AD), the kingdom is earthly and covers all creation,
lacks a Messiah (T. Mos 10:1) and is brought about by repentance (T.Mos 1:18; 9:6‐
7) and seeks glory for Israel and punishment for the Gentiles (T.Mos 10:7‐10).
h. In the Second Apocalypse of Baruch (pre‐70 A.D.) there is a revelation of the
Messiah bringing peace and prosperity (27–30). The Messiah annihilates his enemy

14
See Sib. Or. 3:796–808; 2 Apoc. Bar. 70:2–8; 4 Ezra 6:24; 9:1–12; 13:29–31; 1QM 12:9; 19:1–2; cf. Mt 24:7–
12 par.
15
See b. Sanh. 98b; Str‐B I.950.
16
See Mal 3:23–24; Sir 48:10–11; cf. Mt 17:10 par; Justin Dial. Tryph. 8.
17
See Deut 18:15; 1QS 9:11; 4QTestim 5–8; Jn 1:21.
18
See Pss. Sol. 17:5, 23; Sib. Or. 3:49.
19
See Sib. Or. 3:652–56; Pss. Sol. 17:23–32. In
20
See 1 Enoch 46:1–6; 48:2–6; 62:5–7; 4 Ezra 12:32 cf. Dan 7:13‐14. In 1 Enoch 90:16–38 he appears after
judgement. In most others he conquers and judges his enemies (Sib. Or. 3:652–6; Pss. Sol. 17:14–41; 1 Enoch
46:4–6; 62:3–12; 69:27–9; 4 Ezra 13:32–8; cf. Mt 25:31–46). Some have a final attack by the ungodly on the
Messiah to stop the Messianic kingdom (Sib. Or. 3:663–68; 1 Enoch 90:16; 1QM 15–19; 4 Ezra 13:33–34 cf. Ps
2:1‐3). Sometimes the powers are destroyed by God (T. Mos. 10:2–7; 1 Enoch 90:18–19), or the Messiah (4
Ezra 12:32–33; 13:27–28, 37–39; 2 Apoc. Bar. 39:7–40:2).Sometimes the Messiah is presented as a warrior (Tg.
Isa. 10:27; Gen 49:11), others in judicial terms (1 Enoch 46:4–6; 45:3; 52:4–9; 55:4; 61:8–10; cf. Mt 25:31–46).
21
See Bar 4:36–37; 5:5–9; Philo Praem. Poen. 28; 4 Ezra 13:39–47.
22
See Pss. Sol. 17:25, 33; 1 Enoch 53:6; 90:28–29; 4 Ezra 7:26.
23
See Sib. Or. 3:704–6, 756–59; Pss. Sol. 17:1–4; 1QM 19:1.
24
See Jub. 1:29; 23:26–30. It will be a time of peace, fruitfulness, prosperity affecting even
animals (Sib. Or. 3.702, 744, 788-795).
155

The Kingdom of God
the fourth empire (cf. Dan 7) (36–40) and reigns until corruption is ended (53–74). 1
Enoch and 4 Ezra are influenced by Daniel associating the Kingdom with the Son of
Man.
i. The Messiah is the judge and universal ruler.25
j. 4 Ezra sees the Messiah as transcendent and earthly and who dies after reigning for
400 years [or 1000/30yrs] (4 Ezra 7:28–29).
k. At Qumran malkuth occurs 12x but usually of Israel and only once of God’s kingdom
(1QM 12:7). The idea is in their belief that that the Essene separatists were the true
people of God fighting a battle against God’s enemies.

The Kingdom in the Varying Strands of Judaism
Summarising all this we can see that different strands of Judaism had varying views of the Kingdom
of God.26 We can break these down further into the different groups:
• Jewish Apocalypticism: There is no single concept. In broad terms apocalyptic literature
conceived of a cosmological dualism which sees the world as a battleground between good
and evil, God and Satan. This age is characterised by suffering and struggle and ultimately
God will intervene and overthrow evil and establish his reign.
• Qumran/Essenes: At Qumran the separatist group saw themselves as participating in the
eschatological era. They also looked to a future in which God would intervene and destroy
the Gentiles and give triumph to the people of light.
• Pharisaic Judaism: The Pharisees focussed on the Law through which God was present in
the world. They also looked to a future consummation of God’s reign. This would be
achieved by God alone.
• Targums: The Targums (Aramaic paraphrases) understood the Kingdom as God revealing
himself dynamically and personally in the present and future. There is great interest in Mt
Zion and the Davidic Messiah.
• Zealots: The Zealots believed that the Kingdom could be ushered in through violence against
the Gentile invaders of Israel. This conflict it was hoped would ignite a Messianic war.
• Sadducees: The Sadducees were more cooperative and concerned for the status quo. They
believed the age of God’s promise had begun with the Maccabees and was sustained under
their leadership. They rejected a future intervention of a Messiah, seeing the Kingdom as a
process not a future event.

Jesus and the Kingdom of God.
As noted above, the general notion of kings and kingship were as familiar to those at the time of
Jesus as to the OT. We see the human concept in Jesus’ parables such as the wedding banquet (Mt
22:1‐14) referring to kings and monarchies.27 It is also seen in various other instances (Mt 4:8; 24:7;
Mk 6:23; 13:8; Lk 4:5; 21:10). The notion of a supreme King is also seen in the Roman world of the
Caesar and Israel’s relationship to it. However, if one dynamic defined the ideal of kingship at the
time it was an idealisation of the Davidic reign.

25
See 1 Enoch 46:4–6; 62:3–12; 63:4; 69:27–29) who ushers in the messianic age (71:15–17, cf. 62:12–16).
26
See Marshall, Kingdom Come, 30‐39.
27
E.g. Mt 22:1f; Sheep and goats; Lk 14:31; 19:12f; the divided kingdom (Mt 12:28‐29)

Continuity and Discontinuity
Jesus’ view is continuous with many of the threads of Judaism and the OT but is distinct in a number
of ways.
1. A dynamic and not geographic concept whereby the Kingdom is a reign across and within all
the world and not geographically localised in Israel.28
2. A concept intimately linked to a person, Jesus the Christ and Son of Man.
3. Entrance into the Kingdom through relationship to Jesus (follow, believe, obey) rather than
based on the covenant, law or Jewishness.
4. The Kingdom is imminent and not merely a future hope. That is, the Kingdom has come in
the middle of history not at the end of history as many thought. However, there is both a
present and future dynamic is there in the Kingdom passages.
5. The Kingdom appeared in a quiet, gentle manner not through dramatic upheaval. Ultimately
however it will come in the power Israel expected.

Definitions of the Kingdom
Marshall defines the Kingdom of God as the ‘governing activity of God as ruler; the time and sphere
in which God’s kingly power [sic] will hold sway’.29 This definition suggests that the kingdom is
primarily what God does and secondarily the sphere in which God’s reign is experienced and
accepted.

A.M. Hunter describes the Kingdom as ‘a power breaking into this world from the beyond, through
the direct action of the living God. It is God invading history for us men (and women) and for our
salvation’.30

C.H. Dodd suggests on the basis of its OT and Judaistic background, the Kingdom of God ‘is the idea
of God, and the term ‘kingdom’ indicates that specific aspect, attribute or activity of God, in which
He is revealed as King or Sovereign Lord of His people, or of the universe he created’.31

G.E. Ladd describes the Kingdom as God’s ‘kingship, His rule, His authority’.32

For me the Kingdom of God is the ‘reign of God over all creation and specifically where people
respond to that Kingship with allegiance to the King’. As such, I believe there are two ways of looking
at the Kingdom. God is King over all whether creation accepts it or not. However, the concept is used
in terms of humanity and their voluntary acceptance or rejection of God’s kingship.

28
See also Marshall, Kingdom Come, 23, 43. A scholar associated with this is Dalman
(1898) who argued for the dynamic character of the Kingdom of God in Judaism and the NT
i.e. that the Kingdom has no territorial or geographical reference but is dynamic in the sense
that it is the kingly rule of God.
29
Marshall, Kingdom Come, 44.
30
A.M. Hunter, Christ and the Kingdom (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1980), 2.
31
C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (Glasgow: Collins, 1961 [orig. 1935]), 29.
32
A.M. Hunter, The Gospel of the Kingdom. Popular expositions on the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1959), 21.
157

The Kingdom of God
The Kingdom as Both Present and Future.
Over the recent history of interpretation there have been different ways of understanding when and
how the kingdom would come. As we have seen above, the Jewish idea was that the Kingdom would
be established by God most often through the Messiah at the climax of human history. Thus it was a
future hope. Scholars have differed in their understanding of when and how the Kingdom comes.

The Kingdom as here now and purely personal and ethical.
A. B. Ritschl (1822–89) rejected anything supernatural, apocalyptic such eternal life, the devil,
demons, miracles and resurrection. He understood the Kingdom in purely ethical terms with
redeemed humanity who acted in accordance with love. His view gave birth to a tradition of people
who thought in this way from the perspective of Protestant liberalism which saw the Kingdom in
primarily ethical, personal and spiritual terms i.e. a matter of the heart. Christianity was based on
‘the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of all people’ (e.g. A. von Harnack, 1886). Another
extension of this idea is the ‘Social Gospel’ view of the Kingdom which is associated with liberalism in
the early twentieth century with an emphasis on present social and political order based on love and
human relationships. Christianity then became purely social and political, limited to this world,
working for the end to oppression and poverty (e.g. C. Blumhardt, c. 1900; W. Rauschenbusch,
1912).

After the reaction of a futuristic kingdom view (see below), some scholars returned to over‐
emphasising the present dimension of the KOG (e.g. T. W. Manson [1931] and especially C. H. Dodd).
Dodd in particular in The Parables of the Kingdom (1935) argued that the kingdom of God was
already a present reality during Jesus’ ministry which occurred in his coming. Hence the healings and
exorcisms were proof of this reality. To do this he had to downplay the futuristic statements
concerning the Kingdom. Contemporary theologies that have resonances with this are amillenial
views or post‐millienialism. These views see the Kingdom as present and expanding within this world
spiritually, socially and politically. Some modern examples of this tendency would be N.T. Wright and
to a lesser extent, Chris Marshall (Kingdom Come). These scholars do not deny a futuristic element,
but primarily interpret the Kingdom in a present way and downplay the future intrusion of God. They
speak of a restored and a renewed heaven and earth rather than a new creation of a heaven and
earth i.e. continuity rather than discontinuity.

The Kingdom as apocalyptic and future.
J. Weiss who was Ritschl’s son‐in‐law (1892) countered Ritschl and saw the Kingdom as God
primarily as a future eschatological and apocalyptic concept which would see a sudden in‐breaking
of God who would overthrow the forces of Satan and evil (called Konsequente Eschatologie =
‘consistent’, ‘futuristic’ or ‘thoroughgoing eschatology’). A. Schweitzer writing from 1901‐1910 took
Jesus’ whole ministry apocalyptically as did Weiss. He believed Jesus expected the end to come
through the work of the Twelve (Mk 6:7–13 par) and when it didn’t, he gave his life in an attempt to
force God to set up his kingdom.

Extremes of this point of view are found in Dispensationalism and pre‐millenial views which see the
coming of the Kingdom primarily occurring at the return of Christ. They see no real hope of restoring
the world but await an abrupt intrusion of God into human affairs to destroy this present order and
replace it with a new order (new heaven and earth).

The Kingdom of God as Inaugurated; present and future
Since Dodd there have been a number of mediating positions between the futuristic and present
interpretations of the KOG cf. V. Kümmel; Beasley‐Murray; R. Schnackenburg, N. Perrin; J. Jeremias.
G. Florovsky and A. M. Hunter speak of the notion of an inaugurated eschatology. G. E. Ladd argues
for both a fulfilment of the Kingdom of God in history in Jesus’ ministry as well as a full
consummation to come. Thus, the Kingdom came in Christ and is growing within this world. Yet it
awaits its climax at the return of Christ.

Toward a Synthesis
There are elements of truth in all the above views. There is clearly a sense in which the Kingdom has
come in Christ. There is also a future hope of the full consummation of the Kingdom. There is a
strong ethical and social dimension to the Kingdom. There is a spiritual and apocalyptic spiritual
dimension to the Kingdom and a present earthly dynamic. How can we put this together?

1. The Kingdom has come in Christ: A close analysis gives evidence that Dodd is correct to say
that the Kingdom of God has come in the person and ministry of Christ continued through
the work of the Spirit.33 This is seen in Mt 12:28 where Jesus says, ‘But if I drive out demons
by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come (ephthasen) upon you.’34

Similarly in Lk 17:21 Jesus states that ‘the kingdom of God is among (or within [Gk: en]) you’
[in the sense of ‘within your purview’].35 This present dimension is also indicated in the
statement of Jesus that ‘from the days of John the Baptist until now [that is the point of
Jesus’ speaking], the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing’ (Mt 11:11‐14). This
states that the Kingdom is growing from the time of John’s ministry, a point strongly
reinforced by the mustard seed parable (Mk 4:30‐32 and pars). It also points to the pivotal
role of John the Baptist in the appearing of the Kingdom and the coming of the Kingdom in
Christ. The human dynamic in the advancement of the Kingdom seen in the current age of
the Spirit and church is seen in the second part of this statement: ‘and forceful men lay hold
of it.’ The transition from John the Baptist’s ministry to Jesus’ ministry points to a new order
of the things i.e. the end of the pre‐Kingdom phase (‘the law and the prophets) and the
beginning of the decisive Kingdom phase of history marked by the arrival of the King (Mt
11:11‐14; Lk 16:16).

That is, the eschaton (the end), is active on earth in the person and ministry of Jesus. Thus
the Kingdom is realised, present, active and fulfilled in Christ. Thus the miracles of Jesus
were ‘the kingdom of God in action’. This does not imply that the Kingdom of God is
completed; rather, it is inaugurated in the life and ministry of Christ. I would agree with
Beasley‐Murray who considers that the present dimension of the Kingdom is
‘unambiguously plain’ and we should not look for ways to reinterpret it.36 Hence an
inaugurated eschatology is the best way of understanding the Kingdom.

33
Similarly Marshall, Kingdom Come, 46‐48.
34
This is in the aorist tense implying that it has come in the person of Christ. C. C. Caragouni in the Dictionary
of Jesus and the Gospels disputes that the aorist implies this. Rather he argues that it is an aorist that points to
a future event. While this is possible it is more likely that the aorist carries the usual past, punctiliar sense. See
Marshall, Kingdom Come, 47.
35
So Green, Luke, 630 n.54; Marshall, Kingdom Come, 47. Caragouni disputes that this should be taken in this
way. Rather it points to the Kingdom being ‘within you’ in the sense of a personal spiritual presence within the
person. This is unlikely as Jesus is addressing the Pharisees and as Green points out, is totally without parallel
in Luke‐Acts.
36
G. R. Beasley‐Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 75‐76.
159

The Kingdom of God

2. The Kingdom is extended by Christ through the work of the Spirit in his people: If we take
the whole NT into mind, Christ remains present through the work of the Spirit of Christ (Rom
8:9) and Christ through his Spirit extends the Kingdom. The primary means of this extension
is through the people of God who believe and are filled and led by the Spirit who continues
the ministry of Christ. Thus the body of Christ continues the earthly ministry of the person of
Jesus. This notion is seen in John’s theology of the paraclete (Jn 14‐16) in Luke’s theology of
the Spirit in Jesus and through the early church in Acts (see Acts 1:8; 2) and in Paul’s
theology of Spiritual gifts working in the body of Christ (e.g. Rom 12; 1 Cor 12‐14; Eph 4). The
appeals for mission which climax each Gospel and launch Acts strongly indicate this
dimension of mission (Mt 28:18‐20; Mk 16:15‐20 [cf. 13:10]; Lk 24:26‐29; Jn 20:22; Acts 1:8).
The parables of growth such as the mustard seed parable, the Parable of the Sower, the
parable of the seed all point to this same thing.

3. The Kingdom will be consummated at some future point at Christ’s return: Jesus taught of
a point in history where he (the King) will return and we will see the ultimate overthrow of
evil and the establishment of the Kingdom in its fullness free of evil (see especially Mt 24‐25
cf. Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 22:16‐18). Some have interpreted Jesus’ as believing that the
Kingdom of God would come in all its fullness in the lifetime of the disciples. This is
particularly so in Mt 16:28 and pars: ‘I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will
not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom’ (Mt 16:28; Mk 9:1;
Lk 9:27). However while this is a possible interpretation of this cryptic statement, it may well
point to the transfiguration which follows and the event that this points forward to, the
coming resurrection at which the disciples realise who Jesus is, the King! Particularly so,
when the death and resurrection are strong in the context (cf. Mt 16:23‐27; 17:1‐13).

The subjects of the King are to be constantly ready for his return, watching for the signs and
seeking to be constantly vigilant (Mt 24‐25).

One possible dimension of the prayer ‘your Kingdom come’ (Mt 6:10; Lk 11:2) is a prayer for
the full coming of the Kingdom. It is probable this also has realised dimensions in that the
prayer is asking God for the extension of the Kingdom in the present i.e. the Kingdom come
and grow.

In effect the establishment of the Kingdom is thus both an event and a process. As an event
the King comes and has a beginning point. As a process it begins with the ministry of Christ
in the interim period, continues through the work of the Spirit in his people, and culminates
with the return of Christ and the events which surround it. D.C. Allison suggests this
correlates with Jewish thought which ‘could envision the final events—the judgment of evil
and the arrival of the kingdom of God—as extending over a time and as a process or series
of events that could involve the present. When Jesus announced that the kingdom of God
has come and is coming, this means that the last act has begun but has not yet reached its
climax; the last things have come and will come’.37

The Kingdom in the Redemptive Story
To many thinkers, the Kingdom is one of the key ways of understanding the whole bible story. The
Creation account is the account of the establishment of a world completely submitted to the reign of

37
D. C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 105‐106.

God. However, at the Fall, the authority of God was usurped by Satan and evil and sin entered. Thus
humanity opted for another King and while God remained King, his world was violated and a new
ruler emerged within that Kingdom. The story of Israel is the story of God as king calling to himself a
people, and walking with them. The Treaty at Sinai with God was a treaty whereby God saved Israel
and was established as her king, the Law giving the terms of the agreement.

The story of Israel is a tragic story of Israel falling in and out of this relationship; a cycle of obedience
and disobedience. The monarchy was in many ways a rejection of God as king which accelerated the
idolatry of the nation as it opted for other gods and rejected God. The call of the prophets was a call
to honour God as king as he truly is and foretold of his coming to establish his reign and restore his
world.

The coming of Christ was the decisive moment, where in fulfilment Jesus came as Messiah to
establish the reign of God. He came to call a people to himself, to save them through his death and
resurrection and then to work in and through them for the restoration of God’s world as his
kingdom.

The mission of the Kingdom then is a great mission. At its heart will be the restoration of the apex of
creation, humanity, to its relationship with the King. So evangelism, personal conversion and
transformation lie at the centre of the Kingdom. Yet the mission is greater than this whereby the
transformed go into every part of God’s world whether it be politics, education, economics, sport,
art, science, business, medicine and more, to see it reflect God’s ideals.

Thus the coming of Christ is the central act of God in the redemptive story of his Kingdom. His goal is
the restoration of all of creation as he originally intended; as some put it, God’s great project.

The Centrality of Christ to the Kingdom of God
It is evident that the notion of the Kingdom of God is tied up very much in the person of Christ. Just
as in Daniel, the Son of Man is the agent of the kingdom, so in the Gospels (Dan 7). Indeed the
coming of the Christ is coterminous with the coming of the kingdom.

In OT/Judaistic terms then, Jesus is the long awaited Messiah through whom God establishes his
Kingdom. Jesus is both the proclaimer and the proclaimed of the Kingdom.38 The present and future
dimensions of the Kingdom also centre on the person of Christ, the kingdom inaugurated in his first
coming as a child, the kingdom consummated at his second coming as triumphant king.

The surprising dimension in his initial coming is not as the all‐conquering Davidic cosmic Son of Man
type figure, but as a baby and then as a suffering servant. Hence his coming aligns with the OT
concept of the servant found in the servant songs of Isaiah (Is 42:1‐7; 49:1‐6; 50:4‐9; 52:13‐53:12;
61:1‐3) rather than the dominant motif of the triumphant Davidic figure.

Finally, it is important to recognise the significance of the cross, resurrection and Pentecost events
to the kingdom. This nexus of events signifies the focal point at which the Kingdom was fully
revealed in suffering and death and its extension set in place by the release of God’s power and
person to the people of God for the purpose of drawing all humanity into its orb.

38
161

The Kingdom of God
The Nature of the Kingdom’s Coming
As noted above, the manner of the arrival of the Kingdom is very much a surprise.

It is a surprise in the time of its coming. As noted above, Jews expected the Messiah and Kingdom to
arrive at the climax of history, the end of the age. Instead, it arrived in the middle of time and in
humility and not power.

It is a surprise in the manner of its launch. The Gospels paint a picture of a King who comes as a baby
and not as a triumphant military and political ruler. Remember that the womb of a woman in the
ancient world was a place of extraordinary danger.

It is a surprise in the manner of its expansion. Jesus renounced the use of political force or violence.
Rather, he opted to identify himself with the Servant of Isaiah (Is 42:1‐4; 49:1‐6; 50:4‐11; 52:13‐
53:12) ministering as a servant (cf. Mk 10:42‐45).

It is a surprise in the manner of the death and resurrection of the King. The vicarious death of the
Messiah was not anticipated in Judaism. We tend to read passages like Is 53 and find it
incomprehensible that Jews did not see this and understand Jesus. However, political and militaristic
notions of a victorious Messiah who ended suffering dominated. Jesus came suffering and dying at
the hands of the Gentiles who he should have smote. The manner of his death by crucifixion was
also a great surprise, Jews considering anyone hung on a tree (or cross) cursed (cf. Deut 21:22; Gal
3:13). While there was a hope of resurrection, the idea of a Messiah dying and rising was too much
for many Jews.

The locus of its activity is another surprise. It is expected in Israel that the Messiah would focus his
ministry of saving Israel and overcoming the Gentiles who were seen as unclean and the enemy of
God. The Messiah would establish Israel as supreme. However, Jesus came with an adapted agenda.
He certainly sought to restore Israel spiritually and not politically through destruction of the
Gentiles. He called all people to repentance and faith in him. He called for a breaking down of the
barriers that divided humanity and a bringing together of all the world into relationship with God
and peace. The basis of this was not the Law in the Jewish sense, but love and unity around his
person.

The mission of the Kingdom is also a surprise. It was expected that God would subdue the enemies
of God through power and they would flock to Israel to Jerusalem to hear the law and bring the
wealth of the nations. Rather, than vanquish the world through military might and attraction, it is a
centrifugal mission of service, proclamation and sacrifice in the midst of the world.

All in all, we can see that the Kingdom’s coming was a reversal of many of the expectations of Israel.
It is a veiled Kingdom, a subversive Kingdom, an upside‐down Kingdom, a Kingdom of love, service,
humility and sacrifice retaining the element of human volition as the Kingdom is proclaimed.

The Centrality of the Kingdom in Jesus’ Ministry
In the Synoptics, the Kingdom constitutes the essential content of Jesus preaching. Both John and
Jesus’ ministry in Mark and Luke begin with the declaration, ‘repent, for the kingdom of heaven is
near’ (Mt 3:2: John the Baptist; 4:17 [Jesus]). This probably indicates that he was saying that the
Kingdom of God was near in the sense that Jesus the king was among them and hence the
eschatological reign of God was here.

It is said of Jesus that he went around preaching the good news of the Kingdom (Mt 4:23; 9:35; Mk
1:15 [Jesus]; Lk 4:43). His parables were ‘the message of the Kingdom’ (Mt 13:19). Similarly in Lk 9:11
Jesus ‘spoke … about the Kingdom of God’. Jesus also exhorted his disciples to go and preach the
same message (Lk 8:1; Mt 10:7; Lk 9:2, 60; 10:9‐11).

Hence it is clear that ‘the kingdom of God is near’ is a summary of the essential proclamation of
Jesus and his disciples.

Dimensions of the Kingdom
Salvation and the Kingdom
Salvation is the making whole of people. It has a central spiritual dimension, restoring people to
relationship with God. It also has material and social dimensions, people restored to wholeness and
to relationship with God’s new creation and people.

The concept of salvation aligns very directly to the Kingdom. The coming of the Kingdom was the
invasion of God’s reign into a world dominated by evil; the progressive defeat of evil and release of
God’s humanity from the thraldom of evil. At the heart of Jesus ministry was the salvation of those
under the powers of darkness. He launches his ministry with the temptation in which he defeats
Satan and after which he goes out to set people free from his tyranny spiritually and materially (see
Lk 4). His ministry is summarised in Lk 4:18‐20 where he sets people free from spiritual and material
poverty, blindness and oppression; he bringing Jubilee to the world (cf. Lev 25). This deliverance is
seen in the exorcisms and healings where the making whole of people saw their release from the
powers of darkness, sickness and social marginalisation (cf. Lk 7:50 [‘you faith has saved/healed
you’]. The purpose of Jesus’ preaching ministry was to achieve the salvation of people (cf. Lk 8:12).
One of the best summary statements of Jesus’ ministry is seen at the culmination of the Zacchaeus
incident: ‘the son of Man came to seek and save the lost’ (Lk 19:10 cf. Jn 3:17). This illustrates that
Jesus sees the people of the world as lost and in need of salvation.

Salvation is gained through the self‐sacrifice of one’s life to the Kingdom and the gospel (Mt 16:25;
Mk 8:35; Lk 13:23). Salvation is a problem for the rich who must renounce their love of money and
the acquisition of wealth to gain salvation (Mt 19:25; Mk 10:26; Lk 18:26). The needs of the
Kingdom, the restoration of God’s ideal for his world and human suffering must be put ahead of the
accumulation of personal wealth.

Salvation is achieved by those who hold firm, persevering to the end despite great suffering for the
Kingdom (Mt 24:13; Mk 13:13). The commission to the disciples to go and preach the gospel
throughout the world in the longer ending of Mark is with the specific purpose of salvation (Mk
16:16).

In John the concept of salvation is integral to the ministry of Christ, the true purpose of his ministry
to achieve the salvation of the lost (Jn 3:17; 12:47). Salvation is achieved through a response of faith
in Christ (Jn 10:9).

The priority of the Kingdom
The appeal to the Kingdom is not a soft one, it is a call for complete submission. Jesus sought from
the subjects of the Kingdom total allegiance first and foremost. The notion is inherent in a first
century understanding of Kings and Kingdom, the King being all‐powerful and demanding full
163

The Kingdom of God
allegiance. It is also explicit and direct in the appeal of Mt 6:33: ‘but seek first his Kingdom and his
righteousness’ (Mt 6:33; Lk 12:31). In this appeal Jesus places allegiance to the Kingdom above
meeting personal material need (food, clothing [6:19‐32]). The subject of the Kingdom is to radically
trust the King for his provision in the present and in the future.

This priority too is indicated in the parables of the treasure and pearl in which people give up all they
have to gain the Kingdom (Mt 13:44‐46). It is also seen in that some choose to renounce marriage in
service of the Kingdom (Mt 19:12). Jesus’ teaching on the radical cost of discipleship also points to
the priority of the Kingdom. In Lk 9 Jesus speaks of following Jesus and being homeless, placing
allegiance to the Kingdom above family and refusing to turn back once setting out in the ministry of
the Kingdom (Lk 9:57‐62 cf. Lk 14:26‐33).

The provision of the Kingdom
The above points to the provision of God for those who pursue the Kingdom first and foremost. So
he assures his disciples of the reality of his provision for them in that they have given up their hopes,
dreams, livelihood and lives for him (Mt 19:23‐24; Mk 10:23‐25; Lk 18:24‐25). This does not mean
that all disciples of the Kingdom will never face poverty; but God will miraculously provide.
Ultimately, all will be materially blessed in the coming Kingdom.

The veiled nature of the Kingdom
As noted above, the coming of the Kingdom is not as per the expectation of many at the time.
Rather than the triumphant arrival of the Messiah to establish the Kingdom of God militarily, the
Kingdom arrives in quiet. This is seen in parables comparing the arrival of the Kingdom to the
planting of a seed which grows imperceptibly among the weeds until it is the largest of all garden
plants (Mt 13:24, 31; Mk 4:26, 30; Lk 13:18). It is also seen in the use of parables in general which
are secretive stories of double meaning requiring discernment and openness on the part of the
hearer (Mt 13:11‐13; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10). This is fulfilled in the coming of Christ as a baby, then his life
of suffering and rejection and ultimately, his death.

The complete penetration of the Kingdom
Similarly in feminine terms (culturally speaking) it is likened to a tiny portion of yeast which is mixed
into the dough of a loaf of bread and permeates every dimension of the dough (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:20).
The Kingdom thus begins in insignificant quietness but will permeate every dimension of society. The
metaphor of ‘salt’ points in the similar direction as the Kingdom works into every part of the world
through the efforts of the subjects of the Kingdom (Mt 5:13). These dimensions show that, while
evangelism and personal conversion and salvation are central to the Kingdom, the Kingdom cannot
be limited to this. It is the transformation of all God’s world over which God is king. It is seeing all of
creation, society and humanity reflecting God’s dream for his world.

The inevitable growth of the Kingdom
From its quiet ‘insignificant’ beginnings, Jesus taught that the Kingdom would grow imperceptibly
and inevitably, in a manner like a seed in a field (Mt 13:24; Mk 4:26). Its growth would be
remarkable and unstoppable, the kingdom growing from the smallest of beginnings to be a huge and
influential kingdom in earthly terms (Mt 13:31; Mk 4:30; Lk 13:18).

The inestimable value of the Kingdom
Two parables point to the fathomless value of the Kingdom. The first, the ‘treasure parable’ suggests
that it is of such value that it is worth giving up everything one has to pursue (Mt 13:44). In the
second a pearl merchant finds it and sells everything he has including every pearl in his possession to
gain it (Mt 13:45‐46). These indicate that the Kingdom is of such worth, that it is worth sacrificing
everything in its pursuit.

The Kingdom and the present (partial) and future (ultimate) defeat of evil
Jesus clearly taught that his arrival indicated a clash of spiritual forces. This is seen first in the initial
temptation of Christ in which Jesus resists Satan who apparently has control over the nations of the
world (Mt 4:1‐11 esp. 4:9). This is seen in the Parable of the Sower in which the devil seeks to snatch
away the meaning of the message of the Kingdom (Mt 13:38‐39).

The miracle ministry points to the progressive defeat of Satan, evil and its consequences (see esp.
Mt 12:25‐28; Mk 3:24; Lk 11:17‐20). This is directly seen in the temptation and exorcisms which
point to Jesus’ complete authority over Satan and his demon forces. In terms of the consequence of
evil, the healings point to the healing of all creation, the overthrow of sickness and the ultimate
physical wholeness of the Kingdom of God. Evil has worked through every part of God’s creation and
its structures, corrupting it and warping it. The Kingdom is to work through all of creation and the
structures of the world, restoring it and healing it through the work of the Spirit in subjects of the
King. They are his healing and restorative agents. This will never be fully achieved in this age and
Jesus will ultimately return and restore and recreate it. However, in the meantime the Kingdom’s
work is restoration of a world corrupted by evil.

The miracles demonstrate his power over natural forces point to the righting of the corruption of
nature. The feeding miracles point to the righting of economic oppression and the full provision of
God in the age to come. The resurrections point to the defeat of the ultimate consequence of evil,
death, and so points to eternal life. The miracles over nature indicate the power of God to restore all
of creation which groans awaiting its redemption.

The present and future reward and punishment of the Kingdom
Reward
Jesus promised reward to the subjects of the Kingdom. There is reward for the subjects of the
Kingdom who adhere to the radical principle of placing the needs of others above oneself. This is
seen powerfully in Lk 12:32‐34 where Jesus appeals for fearless, radical giving along with the
promise of treasure in heaven:
Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your
possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in
heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where
your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Lk 12:32‐34).

The notion of treasure in heaven recurs through Matt 6 for those who pray, fast and refuse to be led
astray by the idolatry of wealth. Similarly, Jesus assures the disciples and others who give their life to
the service of the gospel of eternal life (Mk 10:28‐30 and pars).

This dimension of reward/punishment is strong in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats in which
the righteous and unrighteous are separated before God the judge on the basis of their deeds in
regards to the needy ‘brothers’ i.e. believers within the Christian community in need. The righteous
165

The Kingdom of God
who care for the poor and needy (Christ himself) are rewarded with eternal life in the kingdom
prepared for the righteous from the creation of the world (Mt 25:34, 46).

Jesus also spoke of conferring on the disciples a kingdom in which they will eat and drink with Christ
and will judge the tribes of Israel. (Lk 22:29‐30). The granting of the prayer of the thief on the cross,
Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom’ also points to the future reward of the
kingdom (Lk 23:42‐43).

At issue here is what the reward is and when it is received. The reward can be understood purely
spiritually, the presence of relationship with God and his glory being reward enough. However, there
is a clearly material element to blessing as seen in Mt 6:33 (‘and all these things will be added to
you…’) and in Mk 10:30 (‘receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters,
mothers and children, and fields’). Whether this transfers into the age to come is disputable.

There are clear indications that there is both reward in the present and in the future. Both the texts
mentioned in the verse previous indicate that there is blessing in the present for believers both in
terms of the Spirit and relationship with God, and in terms of material gain. In Lk 6:38 there is a
reciprocity involved for the generous: ‘give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed
down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the
measure you get back.’ However, here no indication is given as to when this will occur. There is an
already‐not yet tension associated with this. Interestingly, Jesus noted too that persecutions would
be experienced by those who give to the Kingdom (Mk 10:30).

If there is present day material blessing in mind, it does not lead us to a prosperity doctrine. First,
there is no absolute equation ‘give generously and receive generously in this present age’. The
experience of Christ, Paul and others in the NT indicated that at times there was present day
blessing but often there was struggle, suffering and even poverty (e.g. Phil 4:11‐12; 2 Cor 11:27).
Secondly, there is no sense that believers should be motivated by the promise so that we give to
receive more, a carrot often used by contemporary preachers. The promise is there for sure, but
authentic motivation for giving is not to receive, but to bless others as we have been blessed by God.
That is, a motivation for the gain of others and the Kingdom and not ourselves. Of importance here
is 1 Cor 13:3 where Paul makes it clear that there is no reward for those who give without love i.e.
selfishly or with wrong motive. Finally, it is clear in the Gospels that any material blessing is not for
us and our gain or accumulation (cf. Lk 12:13‐21) but that we can live according to our needs simply,
and to give generously. Excess wealth is to be reinvested for the Kingdom and there are terrible
warnings for those who do not do so (cf. Lk 16:19‐31). We are stewards and not owners of what we
have.

Another point of contention is whether believers will receive varying rewards in heaven based on
their works i.e. not salvation by works, but degrees of blessing by works. 1 Cor 3:12‐15 can be read
in this light along with passages urging effort for ‘treasure in heaven’ and Lk 6:38 above. However, it
is possible that this is an over‐reading of this text and that in eternity, all receive the same reward as
suggested by the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1‐16).39

Punishment
Jesus says of those who are from Israel but reject his teaching that they will be thrown outside the
future Kingdom and will suffer greatly (‘into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing

39
This may be over‐reading the parable. It may point to the general principle that the Gentiles will receive the
same reward of eternal life as the Jews.

of teeth’ [Mt 8:11‐12]). Similarly in the parable of the seed/weeds the King (Jesus) leaves the good
plants (his subjects) among the weeds (those who reject his kingship) until the ultimate end of the
age at which time there is a harvest at which those who are outside the Kingdom will experience
great suffering (‘they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and
gnashing of teeth) whilst the righteous will ‘shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father’ (cf. Dan
12:1‐3).

This separation is seen in the parable of the net in which a net is cast until it is full (pointing to the
fullness of people coming into the Kingdom) which has good and bad fish within it. At a set point the
‘bad fish’ experience great suffering (‘… throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth’ [Mt 13:47‐50]). It is also reflected in a number of other contexts (Mt
18:24; Lk 19:27). In the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (above), the unrighteous are thrown into
the ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt 25:41, 46). There is warning to so‐called
believers too that some who claim to be Christians will not experience eternal life in such texts as Mt
7:21‐23. Here, those who even minister powerfully in the name of Christ yet who do not live in
relationship and obedience to Christ will experience eternal separation (cf. Mt 25:46).

The terrible extent of the suffering is found in the warning to avoid sin at all costs because of the
terrible nature of hell (Mk 9:47‐48).

As such, it is clear that the coming of the Kingdom will divide humanity. Some will volitionally accept
the reign of Christ and submit to him in humility and experience eternal life and blessing. Those who
do not will be separated from God eternally.

The Community of the Kingdom
The Kingdom Jesus preached about was a Kingdom based around a community, the people of God
on earth. The Kingdom is much bigger than this, the whole earth is the Lord’s. However, the locus of
the Kingdom is the people of God gathered around the King. This people stands in continuity with
historical Israel and includes firstly those in Israel such as the disciples who responded to the
message of Christ. This people will span all nations as the gospel is preached there and people bow
to Jesus the King. Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom broached many dimensions of this community:

Entry into the community of the Kingdom
In Jesus’ preaching in the Synoptics the key responses required to enter the Kingdom are to ‘follow’
and ‘to repent and believe the gospel’ (Mk 1:15; Mt 4:17). In Matthew Jesus tells his hearers that
entry into the Kingdom of heaven depends on surpassing the righteousness of the Pharisees and the
teachers of the law (Mt 5:19‐20). In the context of the Sermon on the Mount this is explicated in
Jesus interpretation of the law which indicates a life of radical trust, ethical integrity, material
generosity, humility and the intention of seeking to please God thoroughly by living in accordance
with Christ’s teaching. This probably should be read primarily in terms of love, kingdom people going
beyond the Pharisees’ legalism which forebade such things as healing on the Sabbath, to a radical
love expressed in self‐sacrifice for others.

Jesus also surprises his hearers in the Sermon on the Mount by telling them that not everyone who
professes allegiance to the Kingdom (‘who says to me, “Lord, Lord”’) or who does the work of the
Kingdom (‘prophesy in your name’; ‘perform many miracles’) will enter into the Kingdom. Rather
entry is afforded those who follow up their profession of his Lordship with obedience to the will of
the Father and who are in relationship with Christ (Mt 7:21‐23).

167

The Kingdom of God
Jesus also surprised his Jewish hearers by telling them that many will come from areas beyond Israel
(‘from the east and the west’) and will dine at the eschatological feast of the Kingdom of Heaven (Is
55:1‐5) with the Patriarchs of Israel (‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ whilst those who are subjects of the
Kingdom by their Jewish heritage (‘the subjects of the kingdom’) will not enter. Thus many Gentiles
will enter this Kingdom and many Jews will not.

Jesus similarly surprises his hearers by telling them that they had to emulate a child to enter the
Kingdom of God ((Mt 18:1‐4; Mk 10:14‐15; Lk 18:16‐17). While Jesus does not specify what
attributes of a child are required apart from humility one can postulate innocence, trust, honesty,
joy and dependence.

Jesus similarly shocks his hearers telling them Jesus said to them that ‘the tax collectors and the
prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you (Mt 21:31).’ These were considered
sinners and enemies of God and religious purity and so such a saying was inconceivable and
provocative.

Jesus points to great difficulty (if not impossibility) on the part of the rich in entering the Kingdom of
God. The path to their entry appears to be a radical renunciation of the love of money demonstrated
by radical giving of their possessions to the poor (Mt 19:23‐24; Mk 10:23‐25; Lk 18:24‐25; 19:1‐10).

Jesus likens the Kingdom to a wedding banquet and points out that many who have been invited
(Jews [Mt 22:2‐3]) have refused to come. Rather, Gentiles (‘from east and west and north and
south’) will accept and enter the Kingdom (Lk 13:28‐30).

Jesus also directly tells those Jewish leaders who reject him and his message that they will not enter
the kingdom and that their ministry effectively shuts others out (Mt 23:13). That they can enter
however is seen in Jesus interaction with Nicodemus (Jn 3:3‐5), in his encouragement to the teacher
of the law concerning his nearness to the Kingdom (Mk 12:34), Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:23; Lk
23:51) and Jesus’ statement of the richness of the knowledge of a teacher of the law who finds the
Kingdom (Mt 13:52). In the terms of John, anyone who wishes to see or enter the Kingdom, whether
Jew or Gentile, must be born from above/again (anōthen) i.e. born of the Spirit (Jn 3:3,5).

The subjects of the Kingdom: the Kingdom Community
All kingdoms have subjects. Jesus made a number of statements indicating who the true subjects of
the Kingdom are. These include the poor in spirit (Mt 5:3), the literal poor (Lk 6:20), children (Mt
19:14), tax collectors, prostitutes, Gentiles (Lk 13:28‐30) and those who are persecuted because of
righteousness (Mt 5:10). This points to the way in which such people will open‐handedly accept this
Kingdom and how the Kingdom brings eschatological reversal whereby the poor are cared for and
blessed whilst the rich are marginalised, the very opposite of contemporary views of wealth and
poverty.

On the other hand, those who are rich find it very difficult indeed to enter the Kingdom (Mt 19:23‐
24; Mk 10:23‐25; Lk 18:24‐25). Entry requires a radical heart change that causes them to turn from
their greed to generosity; such a change is only possible with God. Similarly it is difficult for the
Pharisees and other Jewish leaders to enter the Kingdom. They need a complete reorientation of
their understanding of God and Christ to enter the Kingdom (cf. Mt 5:20; 23:13; Jn 3:3‐8).

This points to the Kingdom of God being at its core, a human concept i.e. the gathering of a new
humanity under the authority and kingship of God and his agent, Jesus. This human dynamic is
implied in the whole thrust of Jesus’ ministry to people in salvation (Lk 19:10), healing, deliverance,

resurrection and teaching on human response and behaviour. It also points to a complete reversal of
worldly understanding of status and blessing; those who appear to the world to be of the highest
honour and rank are in fact nothing in the Kingdom.

Greatness in the Kingdom Community
Jesus spoke often of attaining to greatness within the Kingdom. In a sense all who enter the Kingdom
of God are of a new order to those who lived before Christ. This is seen in the statement of Jesus
that the ‘least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than’ John the Baptist (cf. Lk 7:28). One criterion
which diminishes ones standing within the kingdom is the breaking of the law of God and the
teaching of others to do the same (Mt 5:19). Another way of expressing greatness in the Kingdom is
found when Jesus is directly asked ‘who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ His response is to
take a child and call for the humility of a child for greatness in the Kingdom (Mt 18:1‐4; Mk 10:14‐
15). The supreme mode of the great one in the kingdom is servanthood, not earthly honour and
status due to material prosperity, oratory or political power (cf. Mt 20:26; Mk 10:43). The role model
for this is the servant‐king who has come not to be served but to serve through his sacrifice on the
cross (cf. Mk 10:42‐45). The path of life for the subject of the King is service and self‐sacrifice for the
sake of the Kingdom and the needs of others (cf. Mk 8:34‐38).

Suffering in the Kingdom Community
Even though there is blessing for those in the Kingdom, Jesus at no stage paints a picture of the
Kingdom in this age as a context of utopian bliss. Rather he is honest that life in the kingdom will
involve not only the reality of general human suffering (Mt 6:34; Jn 16:33) but suffering for Christ in
his service (Mt 5:10‐12, 44; 10:23; 13:21; 20:21‐23; 24:9; Mk 10:30; Lk 11:49; 21:12). The ongoing
mission is one set in the context of a hostile world where Satan seeks to continue to usurp the true
king God and his son Christ. He will resist through the corruption of sin and evil. In addition, as Paul
tells us, sin and death still hold sway in the present age (cf. Rom 8:19‐23; 1 Cor 15:55‐57). The work
of the Kingdom within this fallen world will bring conflict and Christian suffering. This reflects the
reality of Christ’s experience as the suffering Messiah who experienced suffering throughout his
ministry and in particular the cross.

Human authority and the Kingdom
All authority abides with God through Christ. However, within the Kingdom there is the notion of
delegated authority. This correlates with the concept of Kingship in the time of Christ whereby Kings
appointed leaders over regions, cities and spheres. This begins with Jesus being commissioned and
authorised by God as his Messiah‐King and Jesus willingly submitting fully and unconditionally to his
Father’s will. Jesus extends this to his delegated leaders. This is found in contexts where Jesus calls
and grants authority to his disciples and empowering them (Mt 10:1; 28:18; Mk 3:15; 6:7; Lk 9:1;
10:19). The same notion is found in the conferring of authority on Jesus disciples. For example his
words to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:19 cf. Jn
20:23). However this authority is not to be utilised in an autocratic domineering manner, but in
servanthood and humility out of love and grace (Mk 10:39‐45). Jesus’ himself is the primary example
of this, as he refused to use his power to coerce and manipulate others politically. Indeed, he
preferred to go to the cross rather than do this. Thus Christian leadership is servanthood, from
below and not above, not through coercion but by love and grace‐persuasion. The function of
leadership is the equipping of others and the making of disciples who will then grow in their
ministry.
169

The Kingdom of God
The grace and forgiveness of the Kingdom
A cursory reading of Jesus can easily take one into a theology of works. Certainly, it is true, that Jesus
stressed the importance of obedience and of works as a demonstration of true life in the Kingdom.
However, on closer examination, grace is found in much of Jesus’ teaching and in his parables.

One good example is the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector whereby rather than the
righteous and highly religious Pharisee as one might expect, it was the sinful tax collector who was
justified on the basis of his appeal ‘have mercy on me a sinner!’ (Lk 18:13). The granting of paradise
to the humble thief on the cross also points to the grace of God, he being a terrible sinner
condemned to death who was granted eternal life at the very last minute (Lk 23:42‐43). The parable
of the workers in the vineyard also points to grace, the last being granted the same reward as the
first. Similarly in the ‘Parable of the Unforgiving Servant’ the failure of the forgiven servant to forgive
others their debt after being forgiven by the master king points to the grace of the King in forgiving
human sin and also to the co‐joined imperative that the subjects of the Kingdom forgive others (Mt
18:23‐35). The parable of the Prodigal Son too, speaks of a God who yearns to receive back the
penitent sinner, even to the extent of breaking cultural protocol and shaming himself to receive back
his son (Lk 15:11‐32) Luke 15:7, 10 has the recurring theme of a party when a sinner repents and
turns to God indicating God’s desire to impart grace.

This dimension of grace is seen in the Lord’s Prayer: ‘forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those
who trespass against us’ (Mt 6:12 cf. 6:14‐15). This is important as it lies in the centre of the Sermon
on the Mount in which the ethics of the Kingdom are preached by Christ. That the prayer of the
Sermon includes a prayer for forgiveness removes any thought that perfectionism is being preached
by Christ. Rather, he knows people will fail to live the ideals of the Kingdom, and grace is there for
them if they do as they earnestly seek to live up to the ideals of the Kingdom.

The work of the Kingdom
Jesus’ teaching clearly assumes that those who enter the Kingdom will work for the King as their first
priority. This is seen in his calling of disciples; his appeals for selfless living on behalf of the gospel
and Christ, his parables involving work (cf. yeast, net, seed parables, vineyard parable). The call of
discipleship is the call to put one’s hand to the plough without looking back (Lk 9:62). The parables
of the minas (Lk 19:11‐13) and talents (Mt 25:14‐28) certainly indicate the investment of what God
has entrusted to his subjects on his behalf. It also carries a direct threat for those who refuse to do
so.

The work of the Kingdom is to extend it in obedience to the King. This will involve each living out the
calling they receive from their King. Traditionally, this has been limited to ‘spiritual’ work like
ministry within the church and or evangelism. However, on reflection the work of the Kingdom
involves the transformed going out into all parts of God’s world and Kingdom and working for the
purposes of God. Just as work was granted Adam in the garden, so it is that we are God’s agents to
work in all parts of his world bringing his reconciliation and restoration as called and led by the
Spirit.

The Ethics of the Kingdom
The ethics of the Kingdom are the attitudes and the resultant actions that the King expects from the
subjects of the Kingdom. They include a wide range of attitudes and action including radical

generosity to the poor and needy, sexual purity, marital fidelity, renunciation of a love of wealth,
honesty, the fruit of the Spirit, renunciation of violence and hatred, humility, forgiveness, prayer and
radical trust in God. These are summarized in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Mt 5–7; Lk 6:17–49).
These commands stand in continuity to the OT but Jesus radically defines the spirit of the law rather
than the letter. The ethics of the Kingdom can be summarized in the two greatest commandments.
First, to love God with everything one has and secondly to love one’s neighbour as one would like to
be loved (Mk 12:29‐31 cf. Mt 7:12) (see further lecture on ‘the ethics of Jesus’). The latter is
revolutionary in the teaching of Jesus, the love of ones neighbour extending to ones enemies. The
ultimate basis for this ethic is to emulate Jesus himself, the focal point of the Kingdom.

The mission of the Kingdom
Finally, it is important not to neglect the imperative to extend the Kingdom which lies at the heart of
the mission. That the Kingdom is an extensive concept is seen in parables involving growth,
infiltration and extension. The manner of the Kingdoms extension is seen first in the mission of Jesus
to preach, heal, deliver and provide for the needy. The appeal is comprehensive including spiritual
conversion and transformation along with the establishment of a new community of inclusiveness
and the restoration of the whole person and community. This commission is then extended to the 12
(Mt 10; Mk 3:13; Lk 9:1‐6) and the 70 (or 72) in Luke’s narrative (Lk 10:11‐12). Each of the Synoptics
records some form of commission to continue this mission after the ascension and exaltation of
Christ (the Great Commission [Mt 28:18‐20; Mk 16:15‐18; Lk 24:46‐49; Acts 1:8 cf. Jn 20:21). The
commission is variously described as ‘making disciples’, ‘preaching and performing signs’ and
witnessing. The making of disciples is marked by baptism into the people of God. Matthew
emphasizes teaching based on the person and message of Christ. It is utterly significant that each of
the Gospels ends with a significant mention of this commission in some form or another i.e. Jesus’
last words are recalled in terms of mission.

In Acts the essential point of empowerment is the experience of Pentecost where the primary mark
of the Spirit is not tongues which occurs in most but not all contexts,40 but also the empowerment
for mission (Acts 1:8). All point to the whole world (‘all nations’; ‘all creation’; ‘the ends of the earth)
as the extent of mission. The subsequent story of Acts and the letters of Paul point to the
continuation of the mission beginning in Jerusalem and extending to the ‘ends of the earth’. The
consummation of the Kingdom appears intimately linked to the fulfilment of this mission, the end
coming when the gospel has been preached to all nations (Mk 13:10; Mt 24:14). Through the mission
Christ extends the Kingdom through the agency of his Spirit working through disciples (Acts 1:8).
Through the acceptance of the message of salvation, people become subjects of the Kingdom.

The Church and the Kingdom
It is easy to equate the church and the Kingdom i.e. the Kingdom is the church. However, the
Kingdom of God extends beyond the Church. If the Church is gathered people of God, then it forms
the centre of the Kingdom on earth. The Church then is the gathering point of the Kingdom, where
the people of God’s new creation come together. However, there is more to the Kingdom than the
church. The whole of creation is God’s. This means that every nation, human institution, the natural
order, all parts of society are in fact part of God’s kingdom. Just as Eden was the Kingdom of God in
total submission to him, the whole world remains his kingdom.

40
Tongues occur at Pentecost (Acts 2:3), Cornelius (Acts 10:46) and Ephesus (Acts 19:6). They are not
mentioned in Samaria in Acts 8 or in Paul’s conversion in Acts 9, 21, 26. See f urther below on Acts and the
Spirit’s role in the Jerusalem church.
171

The Kingdom of God
God through Christ is in the business of restoring his reign. This means all dimensions of human
society and creation itself are to be restored. The full picture of God’s salvation hope is shalom
across all creation. The church clearly has a primary role in this, the people of God will be God’s
agents to transform his world. However, the Kingdom is bigger than the church. It is where God’s
reign is accepted, it is where God’s subjects work for its restoration.

However, the church is vital to this. It is to be a community which reflects the Kingdom and shows
the world what it looks like, a community of love and unity where God is honoured and his life
reflected. As such, each church should seek to live according to the ethics of the kingdom so that
people who come into it experience the life of the Kingdom, the ideas of the new creation.

It is from the base of church that God’s people will go out and do the work of the Kingdom
throughout creation seeking to see all people come to realise God is king and submit to him, and to
see his world transformed into his ideal. The mission of the Kingdom is a big mission, involving the
transformation of the world. At its heart is personal conversion and integration of the new converts
into the community of the Kingdom. These people are to be loved and to be transformed so that
they too can be effective agents of the Kingdom in those spheres of life into which God has called
them.

• How do you define the Kingdom of God?
• In what sense if the Kingdom among us already?
• What is the relationship between the Spirit and the Kingdom?
• How is the Kingdom extended?
• How would you define the relationship between the Kingdom and Church?
• In a nation which has lost connection with notions of monarchies, kings and queens; should
we continue to use the language of the Kingdom? Should we return to making the notion
central as did Jesus?

Chapter Ten
THE POWER OF THE KINGDOM
Contents
What is a Miracle? .............................................................................................................................. 174
Miracles in the various Gospels .......................................................................................................... 174
Mark ................................................................................................................................................ 174
Matthew .......................................................................................................................................... 175
Luke ................................................................................................................................................. 175
John ................................................................................................................................................. 176
Categories of miracle .......................................................................................................................... 177
Breakdown of miracles in the Gospels ................................................................................................ 177
Miracles of healing, deliverance and reanimation ............................................................................. 178
The full notion of healing ................................................................................................................ 178
The context ..................................................................................................................................... 178
Features of Jesus healing miracles. ................................................................................................. 179
The issue of faith ............................................................................................................................. 181
False theology challenged through healing .................................................................................... 182
The link between healing and evangelism ...................................................................................... 183
Healing after Jesus in the life of believers ...................................................................................... 183
Indications that not all would be healed ........................................................................................ 184
The significance of the miracles .......................................................................................................... 185
The miracles as fiction .................................................................................................................... 185
The miracles as evidences of Jesus’ messiahship and divinity ....................................................... 187
Miracles as acts of compassion Christians are to continue ............................................................ 188
Miracles as indicators of the power of God to heal today ............................................................. 188
The miracles from three points of reference: past, present and future ........................................ 188
The miracles as fulfilment ............................................................................................................... 189
God the miracle worker .............................................................................................................. 189
The conquest, judges, prophets and miracles ............................................................................ 189
Eschatological expectation of healing (Messianic Age) .............................................................. 190
The kingdom and God’s power is present now in the messiah king ........................................... 190
The nature of the future consummation of the kingdom ........................................................... 191
Healing miracles as signs of the cosmic healing of the kingdom ................................................ 191
Deliverance miracles ................................................................................................................... 192
Miracles of provision ................................................................................................................... 192
Miracles over nature ................................................................................................................... 193
Miracles over death .................................................................................................................... 193
Miracles as visual parables ............................................................................................................. 194
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 195
Miracles are integral to Christian life and ministry ......................................................................... 195
Healing is integrally linked to preaching and feeding the poor ...................................................... 195
Faith is important in the matter of healing ..................................................................................... 195
The key point of reference to understanding the miracles is the Kingdom of God. ...................... 195
The big picture and healing ............................................................................................................. 195
173

The Power of the Kingdom
What is a Miracle?
The term ‘miracle’ comes from the Latin mirari, ‘to wonder at’. The technical term for ‘miracle
worker’ is ‘Thaumaturge’ which derives from the Greek thauma which means ‘to wonder’, ‘to
marvel’.
In the NT there are a number of terms which are connected to the concept. These include:
1. Dunamis and the plural dunameis (‘mighty work’, ‘miracle’, ‘wonder’) e.g. Mk 6:5; Mt 7:22;
Acts 2:22).
2. Teras: (‘wonder’, ‘portent’) [e.g., Acts 2:22; 2 Cor 12:12]).
3. Sēmeion: (‘sign’ e.g., 2:11, 23; 20:30).
4. Paradoxon: (‘strange thing’ Lk 5:26).
5. Sometimes they occur in combination e.g.
6. Sēmeia and dunameis (Acts 8:13).Sēmeia and terata (Mark 13:22 = Mt 24:24; John 4:48; Acts
2:43; Heb 2:4; cf. Deut 13:1, 2; 34:11; Ps 135:9).
7. Dunamis (‐meis), sēmeia, and terata (Acts 2:22; Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12).

In the Synoptic Gospel’s Jesus miracles are predominately called ‘deeds of power’ (dynameis)
whereas in John they are called ‘signs’ (sēmeia). Luke in Acts speaks of Jesus performing ‘signs and
wonders’ suggesting that the distinction may be overplayed in some people’s minds (e.g. Acts 2:22,
43).

In biblical scholarship a miracle normally denotes a supernatural event; i.e. an event that ‘so
transcends ordinary happenings that it is viewed as a direct result of supernatural power.’1 The
agency for these events is God whether directly, through Christ, through the Spirit or through human
agency. Thus miracles are ‘supernatural events in the space‐time world.’ 2 Writers differ as to
whether predictive prophecy falls under this definition. For me they clearly do in that they fit the
definition i.e. they indicate Jesus’ ability to know across time and space (see below).

What is a miracle story? A miracle story is a self‐contained account or narrative which focuses on a
miracle event. Apart from angelophanies (angelic appearances), Jesus is the subject of all such
Gospel stories. However there is reference to the disciples doing miracles ‘in Christ’s name’ on
occasions.

Miracles in the various Gospels
Mark
Miracles feature in all the Gospels. Mark in particular, presents Jesus as a miracle worker with the
highest percentage of miracle material. Jesus performs 18 miracles and is the object of 3 (baptism,
transfiguration, resurrection). There are also a number of summaries (1:32–34, 39; 3:10–12; 6:5, 54–
56). Another feature of Mark is the link between Jesus’ miracles and his identity. 4 are found in the
first half of Mark leading to the confession in which after performing the miracle Jesus commands
silence (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26). Mark records that Jesus acted in compassion, indicating Jesus’
compassion and love in his miracle work (see Mk 1:41; 6:34; 8:2). It is almost certain that this is
strategic, Jesus not wanting people to identify him as a political military Messiah and so seek to
them prevailing upon him to attack the Romans. Rather, he came as a servant Messiah. The secrecy

1
B. Blackburn, ‘Miracles and Miracle Stories,’ in DJG, 549.
2
B. Blackburn, ‘Miracles and Miracle Stories,’ in DJG, 549.
enabled him to move freely. Mark also emphasises faith where the miracles are concerned (see esp.
Mk 2:5; 5:34; 6:6; 10:52). Miracles then in Mark serve mainly to reveal that Jesus is Messiah.
Matthew
Matthew includes almost all the Markan miracle stories except three; 3 some he abbreviates. He
includes all the Markan notes and others mentioning Jesus’ compassion emphasising his mercy and
grace (Mt 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:32). He also includes a range of other miracles from Q and L. Of
particular note is the cluster of angelophanies in the infancy narrative and events surrounding the
passion‐resurrection. 4 Matthew emphasises faith using the phrase ‘according to your faith be it
done to you’ (Mt 8:13; 9:29; 15:28). He notes the dramatic instant healing with the phrase, ‘X was
healed from that hour’ (Mt 8:13; 9:22; 15:28; 17:18). Matthew also has doublets of healing e.g. Mt
9:32–34/12:22–24; 9:27–31/20:29–34; 12:38–39/16:1–4.

Miracles are associated with Jesus’ divine nature with Jesus often addressed as ‘Lord’ in the healings
(kyrie: Mt 8:2, 6, 8, 25; 9:28; 15:22, 25; 17:4; 20:31, 33); worshiped after healings (proskyneō: Mt 8:2;
9:18; 14:33; 15:25). Matthew also emphasises the complete power of Jesus to heal ‘all’ (Mt 4:23–24;
8:16; 12:15; 14:35; 15:37).

He also emphasises the notion of fulfilment, Jesus is thus the long‐awaited Messiah who will
perform miracles (11:5 cf. Is 29:18; 35:5; 42:7. For example, he sees the virginal conception as a
fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14 (Mt 1:22–23) i.e. he is Immanuel. Similarly, Jesus’ exorcisms and healings
fulfilled Isaiah 53:4 (Mt 8:17) i.e. he is the Servant Messiah who heals (12:18‐21 cf. Is 42:1‐4). Jesus’
miracles described in Matthew 11:5 correspond to Isaianic prophecies i.e. he is the Messiah.
Matthew then, builds on Mark’s presentation of Jesus as Messiah to demonstrate that indeed he is,
that he in imbued with the power of the divine, and emphasises fulfilment in his apologetic for Jesus
to Jews.
Luke
Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ miracles aligns reasonably with Mark and Matthew but there are
differences such as the angelophanies in the infancy narrative. 5 While Luke includes most of Mark’s
stories, he does exclude miracles from the ‘Great Omission’ (Mk 6:46‐8:26) including Jesus’ walking
on water; the healings of the Syrophonoecian woman, a deaf‐mute man and a blind man; the
feeding of the 4000. 6 He also excludes the cursing of the fig tree (Mk 12:14‐25) perhaps because it
doubles with 13:6‐9). He includes the Q healings of the centurion (7:2‐20 cf. Mt 8:5‐13) and a blind
and deaf demoniac (Mt 12:22). He has seven unique miracles. 7

3
The first deliverance at Capernaum (Mk 1:23‐28), The healing of the deaf man (Mk 7:31‐37), the healing of
the blind man at Bethsaida (Mk 8:22‐26).
4
These include: The angelophanies, star and virgin conception of the birth narrative (see Mt 1:18, 20; 2:2, 12,
13, 19, 22); Mt 8:5–13: The Centurion’s servant (also Lk 7:1‐10); Mt 12:22: The blind and mute demoniac (also
Lk 11:14 i.e. Q); Mt 9:32–33: The mute man healed (unique i.e. M); Mt 9:27–31: The healing of two blind men.
Mt 14:28–33: Peter walking on the water; Mt 17:24–27: Coin in the fish’s mouth; Passion/resurrection miracles
including: an earthquake and resurrected saints (Mt 27:51–53); the angelic rolling of the stone (Mt 28:2); a
final christophany (Mt 28:16).
5
See Mt 1:18, 20; 2:2, 12, 13, 19, 22.
6
As noted above on the composition of Luke, this is probably due to a desire to avoid repetition and the use of
‘dog’ for Gentiles which would not have gone down well with a primarily Gentile audience.
7
See: 1) Lk 5:1‐11: The Miraculous catch of fish at the call of the first disciples; 2) Lk 7:11‐17: The resurrection
of the widow of Nain’s son; 3) Lk 8:2: The exorcism of seven demons from Mary Magdalene, which is
mentioned in passing; 4) Lk 13:10‐17: The healing of the disabled woman in the synagogue; 5) Lk 14:1‐6: The
healing of a man with dropsy on the Sabbath in the home of a Pharisee; 6) Lk 17:11‐19: The cleansing of 10
lepers, when only the Samaritan returns to express gratitude; 7) The report of the healing of the ear of the
175


Luke removes all not of Jesus’ compassion from the Markan and Q accounts. Rather, he stresses that
the miracles are a result of the dynamis, ‘power’ (Lk 4:36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:46) which he shares with his
disciples (Lk 9:1), and which overcomes the enemies (Lk 10:19). For example, in 4:36 we read ‘And
the Lord’s healing power was strongly with Jesus.’ He links power and miracle to the Spirit (cf. 4:14f;
Acts 1:8; 3:1‐6; 5:12‐16; 19:11‐12). Prayer is quite often associated with miracle and power in Luke.
This is seen on three occasions where Jesus prayed shortly before he moved in power (Lk 5:16–17;
6:12–19; 9:29). This suggests a link between prayer and the release of God’s miraculous power
through the Spirit (cf. Acts 4:29‐31 and what follows esp. 5:12‐16). Thus, Luke emphasises that Jesus
is Messiah empowered by the Spirit who is bringing restoration and shalom. He is able to do what no
Caesar can, bring miracle power to save and transform the cosmos.
John
Miracle also plays a key role in John. Rather than the virgin birth, it begins with a great miracle, the
miracle of incarnation (Jn 1:14). John includes seven miracles (the seven signs of John). These include
two which have parallels in the Synoptics: 1) Feeding of the five thousand (Jn 6:1–15 cf. Mt 14:13‐21;
Mk 6:32‐44; Lk 9:10‐17); 2) Walking on the sea (Jn 6:16–21 cf. Mt 14:22‐33; Mk 6:47‐51); and five
which are unique: 3) The healing of the nobleman’s son (Jn 4:46–54); 8 4) Changing water to wine (Jn
2:1‐12); 5) The healing of the paralytic at the pool (Jn 5:1‐15); 6) The healing of the blind man (Jn 9:1‐
7); 7) The raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:1–44).

There are some real distinctive aspects to John’s miracles as compared to the Synoptic Gospels.
1. The language: In John they are called ‘signs’ (sēmeia) rather than ‘mighty deeds’ (dynameis).
This illustrates their parabolic and sign character, they pointing the way to Jesus’ identity.
The response to the sign, is faith. Faith in miracle is not sufficient in John however, faith
must go further (cf. Jn 2:23‐25; 6:6:60‐65).
2. The Relationship of the Signs to Faith: whereas in the Synoptics the miracles are correlated
with the Kingdom of God, in John the signs are not the result of faith but serve to evoke faith
in Jesus the Christ, the Son of God (Jn 20:30–31). Hence, this reinforces the notion that they
are signs pointing to the identity of Christ. Jesus does miracles and they lead to faith (e.g. Jn
4:53) and even takes the initiative (Jn 5:1f).
3. The Absence of Deliverance Miracles: Interestingly, there are no exorcisms in John. It seems
in John that the lifting up of Christ is the point of Satan’s demise (see Jn 12:31‐32; 13:2, 27;
14:30).
4. Signs Generating Discourse: John uses ‘signs’ theologically leading to dialogue encounters
concerning the identity and place of John (e.g. Jn 9; 11).

high priest’s servant (Lk 22:51). At the resurrection he includes: the appearance of the two men wearing
dazzling clothes (Lk 24:4) and Christophanies (appearances of Christ) including one on the road to two (Lk
24:13–35) and to Peter (Lk 24:34) and an evening appearance before the eleven and others (Lk 24:36–49).

8
While there are similarities to the Roman Centurion’s Servant healing, there differences are too great for it to
be the same event.
Categories of miracle
We can discern five types of miracle in Jesus’ ministry, all of which point to his messianic status and
divine nature, and which overcome enemies of humanity caused by the fall and are the work of evil.
They all point to the nature of the Kingdom in terms of God’s intention for humanity and the future
existence in the untainted eternal Kingdom.
1. Miracles of healing (physical healing and/or deliverance).
2. Miracles of provision (feeding miracles).
3. Miracles over nature (miracles which defy the ‘laws’ of nature) (some call these rescue
miracles).
4. Miracles over death (miracles of reanimation/revification/ resuscitation/resurrection 9 ).
5. Miracles of divine knowledge (predictive prophecy).

Breakdown of miracles in the Gospels
Aside from predictive prophecy, miracles in which Jesus is the object of the miraculous 10 and
angelophanies, 11 there are by my measure 34 specific miracles performed by Jesus. There are also 15
that are summary statements speaking of an unspecified number of Jesus’ miracles including healing
and deliverance encounters. There are also references to disciples’ miracles. 12

The Miracles of Jesus
Markan Miracles Mark Matthew Luke John
Possessed Man in Synagogue 1:23–26 4:33–35
Peter’s Mother‐in‐Law 1:30–31 8:14–15 4:38–39
Man with Leprosy 1:40–42 8:2–4 5:12–13
Paralyzed Man 2:3–12 9:2–7 5:18–25
Man with Shriveled Hand 3:1–5 12:10–13 6:6–10
Calming the Storm 4:37–41 8:23–27 8:22–25
Gerasene Demoniac(s) 5:1–15 8:28–34 8:27–35
Raising Jairus’s Daughter 5:22–24, 38– 9:18–19, 23– 8:41–42, 49–
42 25 56
Hemorrhaging Woman 5:25–29 9:20–22 8:43–48
Feeding of Five Thousand 6:35–44 14:15–21 9:12–17 6:5–13
Walking on Water 6:48–51 14:25 6:19–21
Canaanite Woman’s Daughter 7:24–30 15:21–28
Deaf Mute 7:31–37
Feeding of Four Thousand 8:1–9 15:32–38
Blind Man at Bethsaida 8:22–26

9
Some argue resurrection should strictly be used for ‘the resurrection’ of the dead to eternal life. Those
reanimated in the NT aside from Christ and the believer at the final day die again. As such, I will use
reanimation.
10
Where God is the agent: e.g. the virginal conception, his baptism, the Transfiguration, the resurrection and
the ascension, resurrection appearances.
11
Appearances of Angels e.g. Mt 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; 4:11; 28:2, 5; Lk 1:11‐19, 26‐38; 2:9‐10, 13‐15;
22:43; 24:23; Jn 20:12; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:4, 7, 22; 11:13; 12:7‐11; 12:23; 27:23; Rev 1:1; 22:1, 6, 8.
12
See Mk 6:13 (deliverance and healing); Lk 9:6 (healing); Lk 10:17 (deliverance implied [the 72]). See also Mk
9:38‐41 and pars. where some ‘non‐disciples’ do miracles of deliverance in Jesus’ name.
177

Demon‐Possessed Boy 9:17–19 17:14–18 9:38–43

Two Blind Men 10:46–52 20:29–34 19:35–43
Fig Tree Withered 11:12–14, 20– 21:18–22
25
Miracles Found Only in Matthew
and Luke (Q)
Roman Centurion’s Servant 8:5–13 7:1–10
Blind, Mute and Possessed Man 12:22 11:14
Miracles found only in Matthew
(M)
Two Blind Men 9:27–31
Mute and Possessed Man 9:32–33
Coin in Fish’s Mouth 17:24–27
Miracles Found Only in Luke (L)
Raising Widow’s Son at Nain 7:11–15
Crippled Woman 13:11–13
Man with Dropsy 14:1–4
Ten Men with Leprosy 17:11–19
High Priest’s Servant 22:50–51
Miracles Found Only in John
First Catch of Fish 2:1–11
Official’s Son at Capernaum 4:46–54
Sick man at Pool of Bethesda 5:1–9
Raising Lazarus 11:1–44
Second Catch of Fish 21:1–11

Miracles of healing, deliverance and reanimation
The full notion of healing
As we go into this discussion, we need to keep in mind the fullness of what is meant by healing.
God’s project of the Kingdom is in one sense, to heal the world, restore it to what it was intended to
be. All of creation groans in pain awaiting this in full (Rom 8:19‐23). His plan of healing extends to all
of creation including all of nature, to every dimension of society, to families, to marriages, to
humans in all that they are. Healing will be ultimately experienced in eternity, and is experienced
spiritually in this present day. Forgiveness and finding freedom from guilt, shame and psychological
torment are essential to healing, being made whole. Miracles of healing are always happening. The
ultimate expression of healing is the restoration of the relationship of God and person in salvation.
Physical healing miracle in the Gospels and NT is one dimension of this holistic view.

The context
We must also keep in mind that this is a world before the advent of modern medicine and social
welfare. While medicine was widely practiced among the Greek and Roman aristocratic classes, the
vast majority of people were poor and did not have access to medical assistance. Life expectancy
was short, 30‐45. 13 Medical knowledge was limited, with a blend of the spiritual and material. Sin
and illness were often linked, it being believed that ongoing sickness was a demonstration of a
spiritual problem (cf. Jn 9:1‐2).

Interestingly, in Sirach 38 it is urged that the reader hold doctors in honour as a God‐ordained
profession; refers to healing herbs, anaesthetics and drugs. It affirms the use of prayer in such
medical healing and attributes sickness to sin (Sir 38:15). Kee notes that this shows Greek influence,
the Greeks since the 5th century (Hippocrates) with a strong medical influence (especially the Stoics),
holding that a physician can draw on natural law in healing finding the healing power of natural
objects. The Essenes too sought healing through the natural world (Jos. Jew War. 2.136).

In addition, a number of illnesses in the Jewish world created a purity issue and saw the person
marginalised from religious and general life e.g. lepers cf. Lev 13‐14. As such, ongoing sickness
marginalised a person from religious and social life. It also meant a person often lost their capacity
to provide for themselves.

Not only was sickness associated with sin, but it was also linked to the demonic at times. In Tobit, he
was blinded by sparrow droppings and healing was prescribed with fish guts, which also purportedly
expels demons (see Tob 2:10; 6:7; 8:1‐3; 11:8). In 1 Enoch 6‐11 fallen angels cause human illness. In
the Jubilees cures are found in medical herbs and angels (Jub 10:7‐8). Josephus presents a wise man
as one who knows the natural world and incantations and formulas in order to stave off demons
(Jos. Ant. 8:44‐46). In the Qumran community, the demonic and illness are directly linked (1 QapGen
20:12‐29).14
Features of Jesus healing miracles.

By my reckoning there are 42 healing accounts in the Gospels and 24 healing encounters. In addition
there are 15 healing summaries e.g. Mt 4:23‐24; 9:35; Mt 14:35‐36. 15 This indicates that Jesus
performed a huge number of healing miracles; unsurpassed in human history. These summaries
indicate that: 1) People were brought the sick to Jesus in droves; 2) There was a wide range of
diseases; 3) Jesus healed them all (note however that he did not always heal all as in his hometown
through lack of faith cf. Mk 6:1‐4).

Jesus also healed a wide variety of diseases including exorcisms, paralysis, reanimations, leprosy, the
mute, deaf and blind, fever, bleeding, shrivelled hand, dropsy. All have in common that they were
extreme conditions that marginalised a person economically, socially and religiously.

13
R.N. Jones, “Paleopathology” in ABD, 5:67 notes that “while there are always some long‐lived
individuals in every society, life expectancy in the ancient biblical world was short by modern
standards, averaging in the range of 30 to 45 years depending upon the place and time. The
advances of Greek society alone are credited by some with the extension of average longevity about
five years to roughly 40–45 years of age, and it appears that at turn‐of‐the‐era Jericho, one‐fourth of
the population survived beyond age 50.”
14
David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 4:661.
15
Mt 4:23‐24: ‘healing every disease and sickness among the people … those ill with various
diseases; severe pain, demon possessed, seizures, paralyzed, he healed them;’ Mt 9:35: ‘Healing
through all the towns and villages, teaching in the synagogues, preaching the good news … healing
every disease and sickness;’ Mt 14:35‐36: ‘People brought all their sick to him and begged him to let
their sick touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.’

179

Breaking down the demography of the people; of the healings recorded, most are men (20) and 4 are
women. Most were Jews (21), with 1 Samaritan and 2 Gentiles. 21 were adults while 3 were
children. 22 were unknown to Jesus, while one was his friend’s mother in law (Peter) and one a
friend. Most, if not all, appeared poor.

The context of the healings indicates that almost all the healings were ‘chance encounters’ 16 as Jesus
travelled. 3 were performed in synagogues and some in homes e.g. Pharisees, Peters, synagogue
ruler. Almost all were initiated by others who came for healing rather than Jesus. These people
would come themselves (7x) and approach Jesus, call out, or sometimes come on behalf of others
(12x). Jesus appears to have initiated on occasion (5x).

The mode of healing indicates that Jesus usually healed through a simple word of healing (12x) and
sometimes with touch as well (word and touch [7x]). On some occasions he used saliva for healing
(3x). On one occasion a woman reached out to touch Jesus. It appears his main modus operandi was
a statement of healing and the laying on of his hands.

His miracles were usually instant (23x) The only time it took two healings was in Mk 8:22‐26 with the
two saliva healings of the blind man. However, that appears to have been intentional to mirror the
two feeding miracles and so correlated with the spiritual healing of the disciples (see the confession
that follows). Note, that there was almost always total success with those brought for healing.
However, Jesus did not perform many miracles apart from a few healings in his home town due to
their lack of faith.

Jesus appeared to have a ‘never refuse’ policy, never turning away anyone who came for healing.
This demonstrates the complete welcome of the Kingdom and King, all are invited to find healing
and wholeness in the Kingdom. This could lead us to suppose that we should expect a 100% hit‐rate
today. However, Jesus did not do so as we see in his hometown. Healing is found in the present for
anyone in a spiritual eternal sense i.e. eternal salvation. However, there seems to be situations in
this era of the Spirit in which Jesus chooses to withhold physical healing for his purposes. Paul
experienced this (cf. 2 Cor 12:7‐9) and Jesus himself was not delivered from his desire to not
experience the cross (Mk 14:32‐42).
On quite a number of occasions in Matthew and Mark we are told that Jesus expressed compassion
for the crowds that came to him for healing. These indicate that Jesus was motivated by love, mercy
and grace in his healing ministry. For example Mt 9:36: ‘Jesus went through all the towns and
villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every
disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were
harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd’ cf. Mk 6:34. Other examples include Mt 14:14;
Mk 8:2; Mt 15:32; Mt 20:32; Mk 1:41. Interestingly all are in Matthew and Mark; Luke removing
emotional notes from his record.

The Greek for ‘compassion’ (splagchnizomai = ‘to be moved in ones bowels’) suggests being moved
deeply in his internal being for the plight of those who are suffering. His compassion was not mere
sentiment, it moved him to act on their behalf to relieve their suffering. We as his people are to
respond to the needs of humanity in the same way; moved not only in our inner beings, but to act.
This is the basis of all ministry and work on behalf of others (e.g. nursing, medicine). Later, we will
note that this led some older liberal Protestant scholars to see miracles as acts of compassion. They
were not completely wrong; but failed to see the other nuances of the meaning of Jesus’ miracles.

16
Of course those of us who accept the providence of God do not see them as ‘chance’; however, they are not
systematically arranged in many instances. Rather, Jesus meets people on the journey and encounters them at
their point of need.
The issue of faith

Faith is mentioned 11x in the miracle accounts. Sometimes it refers to the patient’s faith (4x), at
other times the enquirer’s faith (3x). Jesus made summary statements on the power of faith (2x) and
rebuked people for their lack of faith once. There are also a number of global statements of faith.
The clearest is Mk 9:23: ‘Everything is possible for the one who believes!’

On at least one occasion Jesus’ power to heal was stifled by lack of faith. In Mk 6:5 Mark notes this:
‘He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hand on a few sick people and heal them. And he
was amazed at their lack of faith.’ This is softened in Mt 13:58 where ‘he did not’ do many miracles
removing the possibility of misinterpreting it to mean Jesus could not do them.

There are also 13 contexts in which there is no mention of faith. This poses an interesting question,
is faith always required? One can argue that these 13 rule this out; that is, there are 13 texts that
have no mention of faith, hence, faith is not always required.

On the other hand, it could be that we can read the expectation of faith into these 13 on the basis of
the other situations where faith is clearly implied. Despite the problems that this view generates, I
prefer the second on the basis of the occasions where Jesus says ‘your faith has healed/saved you’.

Does this mean that the hyper‐faith proponents are right? They argue that with sufficient faith, all
situations will be resolved by God. However, I think this is off the mark completely. In the first place,
every healed person in Scripture subsequently died! Thus, while they were healed in the moment,
they died of their body failing.

The key for my understanding of the role of faith in prayer is Jesus’ experience in the Garden of
Gethsemane. As he prayed in the garden, he knew he was about to go to the cross. In his
humanness, understandably he did not want to go through the physical agony that awaited him. He
pleaded with God for release from the path of suffering three times (‘if possible the hour might pass
from him’; ‘take this cup from me’ cf. 14:35, 36, 39, 41). He did so on the basis of faith in God not for
the specific answer to the specific request, but on the basis that he knew God could do so if he
willed. That is, he had faith in God not to do what Jesus himself wanted, but that he would do what
is best for Jesus, for the world and for His purposes. Faith then, allows God to be God; it is trust!17 It
gives God freedom, honours his sovereignty, yet expressing trust in him. Jesus expresses this in
these clauses:

1. Abba, Father: this attribution states that as a child trusts their earthly father, Jesus had total
confidence in his Father to do what is best for him! He is the obedient child cf. Exod 20:12;
Deut 5:16; Eph 6:2).
2. ‘Everything is possible for you’: An expression of total confidence in God’s ability to do all
things.
3. ‘Yet not what I will, but what you will’: The ultimate expression of trust; ‘I want one thing,
but I submit to your will because I know what is best.’

This trust is also expressed in his acceptance of his fate and then the living out of God’s will for his
life, even though God’s will was terrible torment. Why? Because, the path to the world’s salvation
was Jesus’ suffering. In a Fallen world with freedom this is inevitable. Jesus demonstrates here living

17
It is faith in Jesus’ as King. It is faith in his absolute authority and will. It is trust in his sovereignty that he is
divine and he knows best. It is trust that in a fallen world sometimes God’s purposes require God allowing
suffering and non‐healing in this age to achieve his great goal of seeing as many people as possible come to
Christ. Of course, ultimate healing will come in the eschaton.
181

according to the tenets of the Lord’s prayer: ‘Our Father, who is in heaven… Your will be done on
earth as it is in heaven.’

True faith is not then naming an outcome and demanding it by faith (e.g. ‘heal me from this cancer’);
then naively clinging to it as if we know what is best for us, for God and for his purposes. Rather, it is
placing our lives in his hands in total trust and asking for what we want, allowing God to determine
the outcome, and trusting that whatever the outcome, it is for the best.

So faith in the sense of trust is critical. These people who came to Jesus with utter trust in him and
his power to heal, and so he healed them.

False theology challenged through healing

Jesus’ healings were the context of clashes with Jewish leaders on the basis of their understanding of
God, the law and healing:
1. Misunderstanding of the Sabbath: Jesus’ healed on Sabbath, provoking strong reaction from
the Pharisees and Scribes (cf. Mt 12:1‐12; Mk 3:2‐4; Lk 6:1‐9; 13:10‐16; 14:3‐5; Jn 5:9‐18;
7:22‐24; 9:1‐34). Their reaction to Jesus was that healing was ‘work’ and unlawful on the
Sabbath (esp. Mt 12:2; Mk 2:24; Lk 6:2; 13:10; Jn 5:10). In the encounters Jesus strongly
rebukes their failure to understand the law correctly. Jesus notes that Israel’s own tradition
sees their leaders ‘break’ the Sabbath through priestly duty (Mt 12:5) and circumcision (Jn
7:22‐23). If a boy can be circumcised (a physical operation) on the Sabbath, Jesus declares
that person can be healed! (Jn 7:23). Jesus declares his lordship over the Sabbath (Mt 12:8).
He quotes the OT law demonstrating that a sensible Jew will save a dying animal on the
Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15; 14:5). He uses this as a logical basis for what he does with a
‘lesser to greater argument’ i.e. humans are more valuable than animals, so healing on the
Sabbath is justified (Mt 12:12; Lk 13:16). In Luke, he declares the leaders hypocrites for their
inconsistency in this regard (Lk 13:15). He states to them that the purpose of the Sabbath is
the good of people not that the Sabbath should rule people in legal terms to the extent that
they should not heal or help another (Mk 2:27). He boldly declares that he, the Son of Man,
is Lord over the Sabbath, a controversial and bold expression of his sovereignty to
monotheistic Jews (Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5). He demonstrates that what is lawful on the Sabbath is
not adherence to oral or written law, but doing good and saving life; including healing
physical and spiritual (Mk 3:4). By implication, to fail to do so, is to do evil and to destroy (Lk
6:9). The Sabbath is about freedom and release from the tyranny of the Fall and Satan, so to
withhold healing on any day is a disgrace (Lk 13:16). Jesus demonstrated that there is a far
greater law that is at work where the Sabbath is at work; that is, ‘love your neighbour’! Love
heals! The Pharisees misunderstood the nature of the law and its centre, love for God and
love for our fellow person.

2. Personal or Familial Sin Causes Sickness: Jesus rejected the Jewish notion of the link
between sin and sickness i.e. sickness indicates sin. In John 9:1‐12 Jesus pointed out that not
all sickness is caused by the sin of the person involved or their family in direct response to an
enquiry in this regard. In the healing of the paralytic this is the key to unlocking its meaning.
Jesus forgives the sick man and this offends the Jewish leaders who no doubt rejected Jesus’
statement because the man remained paralysed. He then demonstrates that the man is
forgiven by healing him with what is harder, demonstrating visually the man’s forgiveness
and healing. That Jesus overthrew this notion is highly significant pointing us away from the
prevalent view of the time which linked all sickness to personal sin and demanding
repentance. Jesus points out that there are deeper things at work in sickness than personal
sin. This is important for today’s context where some link the two. Certainly, it may be
possible in a situation that a person’s problem is linked to personal sin, and this might be
explored in prayer and counseling. However, we cannot assume this!

3. Demonic Causation of Sickness: Throughout Jesus’ healings, at times there is no doubt a
demonic cause of illness (e.g. Mt 9:32; 12:22; 15:22; Lk 9:17; 11:14; 13:11). However, in
most healings demons are not mentioned. the Gospel writers clearly distinguish between
the demon possessed and the sick (e.g. Mt 8:16; 10:1‐2; Lk 7:21; 8:2; 9:1). This indicates that
there is no certain link between demon possession/oppression and sickness. In ministry, this
should be explored as a possibility but not assumed.
The link between healing and evangelism

Jesus’ ministry of healing attracted huge crowds. The accounts suggest that people came largely to
experience healing. In the accounts, Jesus preaches and heals, healing intimately connected to
preaching. For example in Mt 4:23‐24: ‘‘Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various
diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon‐possessed, those having seizures, and the
paralyzed, and he healed them’ (Mt 4:23‐24; Mt 9:35). This indicates that evangelism and healing are
intimately entwined in Jesus approach to mission. This link is found through the remainder of the NT
including Acts (5:12‐16; 19:11‐12) and Paul (Rom 15:19). This demonstrates that authentic Christian
ministry is not merely proclamation, but concerned for wholeness; the Shalom of the Kingdom.
suggests to me that healing and deliverance ministry should be a natural part of Christian ministry
today. It also suggests that evangelism and teaching should also be accompanied by the offer of
prayer for healing and meeting the needs of those we meet.
Healing after Jesus in the life of believers

Without doubt Jesus envisaged his followers continuing his ministry of healing and deliverance
through the power and authority he bestowed upon them by his Spirit. The mission of the Apostles
and 72 included healing, deliverance and even raising the dead (Mk 3:5; Mt 10:1, 9; Lk 9:6 cf. Mk
16:18). We see this in the remainder of the NT where healings, some quite dramatic, are scattered
through Acts (Acts 3:1‐10 [paralytic man]; 8:5‐7 [paralytics and crippled]; 9:36 [reanimation], 38
[paralytic]; 14:8 [lame man]; 16:16‐18 [exorcism]; 20:9 [reanimation]). There are prayers for God to
do signs and wonders which have dramatic results (Acts 4:30; 5:12‐16). 18 There are summaries of
extraordinary healing revivals (Acts 5:12‐16; 19:11). 19

Paul notes several times in his letters that miracles were a natural part of his ministry (Romans
15:19; 2 Cor 12:2). He speaks of the spiritual gift of healings (1 Cor 12:9, 30). The latter text is
couched as a question expecting the answer ‘no’ and suggests that some and not all believers have a
special gift from the Spirit to heal (‘Not all have the gift of healing do they?’). James 5:14‐16 refers to
elders who pray and the sick requesting the laying on of hands when they are ill.

It is conclusive then that Jesus called for his people to continue the healing ministry he had begun
and we will see people healed. Thus, the opportunity for prayer for healing should be a natural part
of church life today. It should be seen along evangelistic proclamation ministry. Part of the role of
elders is prayer for healing. Those with the gift of healing should be released to function in this.

18
This is a particularly interesting account where the believers pray for boldness to preach and for
God to do signs and wonders among them. The result in Acts 5:12‐16 is astonishing with the apostles
doing many miracles so that people brought their sick into the streets for healing from Peter’s
shadow!
19
Healing through cloths, possibly some sweat bands used in Paul’s tentmaking.
183

Indications that not all would be healed

While it could be argued from some proof texts that all will be healed with prayer and faith, in fact
there are a couple of very important of examples of teaching from Jesus which could be 20 read to
anticipate situations where Christians will care for the sick rather than heal them.

1. Mt 25:39: In the Sheep and Goats Jesus says to those who have pleased him and will receive
eternal life: ‘I was sick and you came to visit me’ (Mt 25:39). He does not say ‘you healed me’
which suggests that we will visit the sick without necessarily healing them. In fact the Greek
episkeptomai can even connote the stronger notion of not just ‘visit’ but ‘care for’ or ‘look
after.’ 21 In other words, Jesus here is granting eternal life because their faith is
demonstrated through caring for the sick. This anticipates some not being healed and
Christians providing medical care for those suffering through a fallen world.

2. The Samaritan: In the Good Samaritan parable the Samaritan is commended not for healing
the injured man on the road but for caring for his medical needs (‘he went to him and
bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine’) (Lk 10:34). In addition, he provides
materially for the injured man’s ongoing care.

3. Invite the Sick: In the Great Banquet parable Jesus called for the disciples to bring people to
the great banquet he told them to invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind.
There is no reference to healing in the parable. This implies inclusion of all the disabled and
sick despite their illnesses which would have seen them excluded from the people of God
under the false theology of Judaism (Lk 14: 13, 21).

4. Jesus does not heal everyone: On occasion, Jesus did not heal everyone who was sick. In
John 5:3‐9 he healed only one person of many sitting beside the pool.

5. Healing Limitations: On one occasion it took two goes to heal a person (Mk 8:22‐26).
However, this may have been intentional on Jesus’ part to parallel the two feedings.
However, more significantly according to Mark, he was unable to heal due to lack of faith in
his home town (Mk 6:1‐6). However, in Mt 13:54‐58 this is softened to ‘did not’ suggesting
Jesus could have but chose not to. In addition, on one occasion the disciples could not heal
the boy who came for deliverance (Mt 17:14‐21). This leads to the conclusion that on
occasion we will be unable to heal.

6. God says no: While it is not directly related to healing, Jesus did not have his prayer for
deliverance from the cross answered positively despite 3 times pleading with God (Mk
14:32‐42). Interestingly, in 2 Corinthians 12:7 Paul writes of the thorn in his side which was
not healed after 3 prayers. This may indicate an illness which God declined to heal in order
to keep him humble and dependent.

7. Death and decay go on: Passages such as the temptation narrative and Eph 6:10‐17 indicate
that Christians are engaged in a real spiritual battle where sickness and suffering are a part
of the ‘not yet’ of life on earth. They are caused by the Fall ultimately if not personal sin in
most cases. Although Christ has come and the victory is on one sense won, the whole of

20
‘Could be’ because none are direct and explicit and some are found in parables. However, the weight of
these verses supports the idea.
21
BDAG, 378.
creation groans under sin and death (Rom 8:19‐23). Death is the final enemy to be defeated;
until then, sickness, decay and death permeate the world and it is inevitable (1 Cor 15:26).
As such, it is theologically naïve in the extreme to argue that all will be healed. God
intervenes on occasion to do miracle and can do heal any situation; however, he does so for
his purposes in a world in which death has not yet been defeated. Ultimately every illness
will be healed totally (Rev 21:1‐4) but in this present age sometimes a person will not be
healed physically. In this age our bodies remain corruptible, perishable, and we await our
transformation to indestructibility and imperishability (cf. 1 Cor 15:50‐54; Phil 3:21).
However, our spiritual healing goes on in Christ, we are reconciled to Christ through the
cross. 22

8. The Eschatological Function of miracles: the discussion which is to come suggests that the
miracles of Christ do not function primarily to tell us that if we pray God will fix everything,
but as signs of the Kingdom. That is, they point the recipients and viewers to recognise the
nature of the Kingdom and especially that they point to the complete ultimate physical
restoration of all people and the world.
The significance of the miracles
There are a number of ways Jesus’ miracles can be understood. Here we will look at some of the
dominant perspectives at different points.
The miracles as fiction

There are many over the centuries who have denied the miracles. The recent Da Vinci Code argues
that the miracles are creations to validate the divinity of Christ. Since David Hume (mid 18th century),
many philosophers have rejected the possibility of miracles on the basis of limiting reality to the
natural which can be rationally assessed and experienced. The reject any claim to miracle on the
basis that ‘miracles cannot happen’. 23 Some liberal thinkers have sought to seek alternative
explanations for the miracles. So for example, Jesus did not walk on water, he walked ‘beside’ the
water i.e. at the water’s edge or on a sand bar, rocks 24 or ice! 25 Others argue that the miracles are
not part of the earliest tradition about Jesus and are the creation of the Early Church to make Jesus
seem more divine or messianic. In this line ‘form‐critics’ believe that the Early Church took stories
about virgin birth, baptism, transfiguration and resurrection which were part of the culture of the
Greco‐Roman world and attached them to Jesus so that Jesus looked more like a ‘divine man’ (theios
anēr) and the Gospels like an aretology. 26 In this sense the Gospels are religious propaganda telling
the story of a divine man who has miraculous powers. 27

22
In one sense it is already complete; in another, we are being renewed progressively.
23
D. Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited with an introduction by Charles W. Hendel,
122 writes: ‘A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has
established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any
argument from experience can possibly be imagined.’
24
See M. Borg, www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Strauss/strauss.html (cited 1/11/2008). See
also J.R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark. Pillar Bible Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001),
196 who notes Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus (1906) has a number of examples of people who
argue that it was an optical illusion and Jesus walked on a sandbar.
25
The idea Jesus walked on ice has been popularised recently. See
http://www.physorg.com/news63367761.html or http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12152740/ (both cited
1/11/2008).
26
The recitation of the aretai (Gk “virtues,” “mighty deeds”) of a god, hero, or charismatic figure.
27
For example, Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana from the second century presented a synthesized
portrait of the wonder‐working Pythagorean philosopher.
185

Some suggest that Jesus used magic to heal and that he was essentially a magician. Some such as
Rudolph Bultmann (1884‐1976) believe that the miracles are to be rejected as unhistorical along
with all remnants of an ancient world view. This process called demythologisation, involves the
removal of all aspects of the supernatural including the devil, the demonic, angels, heaven, hell, a
three‐storied universe, miracles, resurrection and even the concept of God.

What can we say to all this? On the one hand, we can say that it is impossible to successfully and
completely prove the authenticity of the miracle accounts. There are no criteria by which we can
completely and confidently assess their validity. However we can make some comments lending
support to the idea that these are authentic accounts.

1. Miracle Stories in the Surrounding World does not prove Borrowing: The existence or other
of accounts of healings from the time does not prove correspondence. Such stories of
healing divine or other are common to many cultures and it proves little.

2. Magic or Psychosomatic Explanations are Unsatisfactory: Secondly, it is unlikely that magic
or psychosomatic suggestion is an adequate explanation for Jesus’ ministry. Jesus does not
use any aids, incantations or tricks to heal. His healings are in the main simple and
straightforward through word and touch. H.C. Kee has helpfully delineated the differences in
ancient thought concerning medicine (building on the foundation of natural order), miracle
(based on belief in divine intervention), and magic (manipulating mysterious forces for
personal benefit). Kee demonstrates that Jesus’ healings normally belong to the second of
these three categories.’28 Jesus did not heal with incantations, charms or magic ritual; he
healed with word and touch. The only indication of using anything other than word or touch
is people touching the hem of his robe and the use of saliva (and on one occasion, mixed
with mud). The hem of his robe is not magic as if the healing is active; rather it is passive the
healing indicating that healing power radiated from his very presence. Thus, it is the
extension of touch. Similarly, the use of saliva is the extension of touch; his very body
infused with God’s power by the Holy Spirit.

3. Alternative Explanations are Supposition: The process of rationalization of Jesus’ miracles
through finding alternative explanations is pure supposition. The texts clearly explain things
as they were seen.

4. The Claims of the Gospels to Authenticity: As we have discussed in regards to the Gospels,
they are probably the product of eye‐witnesses (Matthew, John) or those closely connected
to initial eye‐witnesses (Mark/Peter; Luke/Paul) and as such, have a reasonable claim on
authenticity on this count alone.

5. The Absence of Evidence for ‘Demythologization’: The process of so‐called
demythologisation is also fraught with difficulties. It assumes naivety on the part of those
living at the time. It also evacuates the whole Gospel account and the Christian message of
anything but the nice ethical teaching of Christ. There are sound historical reasons for
accepting the authenticity of the resurrection (see later) in terms of the remarkable
development of Christianity, which is in effect, the greatest miracle of all. So called ‘myth’ is
so fused into the story, there is little left when we demythologise it.

28
See B.L.Blackburn, ‘Divine Man/Theois Anēr’ in DJG, 189.
6. The ‘Divine Man’ Hypothesis is Unlikely: The concept of theios anēr is highly disputed by NT
scholars. There is no evidence that Jewish thinkers couched their message in these terms for
missiological interest. 29

7. The a priori Rejection of Miracles is a Weak Argument: The philosophical rejection of
miracles on the basis of science and experience is also weak. There is no a priori reason that
miracles do not happen on rational grounds. If there is a God who is all supreme and who
created nature and its ‘laws’ then miracles are possible. It becomes then a matter of faith on
both parties. One has faith in natural processes and creation by ‘chance’ or some unknown
agent. The other has faith in a supernatural God who creates and does miracles in the time‐
space continuum. However, the Christian faith is not based of foolishness. Within the
Scriptures themselves and in the history of the Christian church there are many testimonies
of healings and other miracles which cannot be discounted on philosophical terms. In
addition, miracle and creation is one feasible philosophical explanation of reality. 30

8. The Form Critical Criteria of Authenticity Supports their Authenticity: Importantly, there is
now little debate among NT scholars of all persuasions concerning the healings and
exorcisms of Jesus. This is because even according to the criteria of authenticity applied by
Form Critics (e.g. Bultmann), these miracles appear authentic and from the earliest
traditions. 31 Jesus’ healing and deliverance ministry is attested in every stratum of Gospel
material (Q, Mark, M, L, John) and across literary forms (sayings, miracle stories, summaries,
controversy stories, the so‐called legends and the passion narratives [Mk 15:31 par]).

9. Jesus as a Miracle Worker is Supported In Extra‐Biblical Sources: Interestingly, Jesus was
known as a healer/exorcist outside of early Christianity in the magical papyri (PGM 4.3019–
30) and within later Jewish circles (e.g. Topsepta Hul. Hullin 2:22–23) 32 as does the Quran. 33
The evidence that Jesus raised the dead is also reasonably strong. There is a saying in Q
which states that in Jesus’ ministry ‘the dead are raised’. In addition there are resurrection
accounts in Matthew, Luke and John meaning that the resurrection is found in all traditions
and making it unlikely that the Markan stories are inauthentic.

As such, there is good reason to accept that Jesus performed miracles.
The miracles as evidences of Jesus’ messiahship and divinity

It was considered in the past that the miracles were proofs of Jesus’ divinity. That is, they prove that
he is God’s divine Son and Messiah. However, it is generally agreed now that it is going too far to say
they are proofs. First, they are unable to be authenticated absolutely in historical and scientific
terms which means that they fall short of proof in a historical or scientific sense. Secondly, even if we
accept them as authentic, they do not establish Jesus as anything more than a prophet or a
thaumaturge (‘miracle worker’). However that being said, the thing that distinguishes Jesus from
other miracles is the phenomenal extent and impact of his miracles which transcend other claimants.
They do point to his access to divine power but do not prove his divinity. They are at best highly

29
See Blackburn, ‘Theios Anēr,’ 190.
30
See for example J. Wimber, Power Evangelism, 151‐174.
31
See B.L. Blackburn, ‘Miracles and Miracle Tradition,’ in DJG, 550.
32
Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers
33
In the Quran Jesus did miracles including: 1) Speaking while in the cradle (19:30); breathing life into clay
models of birds [perhaps indicating knowledge of the Gospel of Thomas] (3:43); curing a leper and a blind man
(5:110); raising the dead (5:110) requesting a table descend from heaven with a feast due to the prayers of his
disciples (5:110‐114).
187

suggestive of it; they are evidences of the possibility. The argument for Jesus’ divinity is cumulative
being the sum total of the miracles, the claims to his divinity found in his teaching and the disciples,
his resurrection and ascension. Neither do they prove his Messiahship to the Jew who is well
accustomed in the OT with such things (e.g. Moses, Elijah, Elisha). Rather, they point parabolically to
his identity and, along with his resurrection, are evidences of his Messiahship. They beg the
question, ‘who is this man?’
Miracles as acts of compassion Christians are to continue

In the past, some scholars saw the primary significance of the miracles as acts of compassion. This
view was particularly favoured by those who saw Jesus ministry in liberal this‐worldly terms (e.g. the
social gospel). For example, the feeding of the 5000 and 4000 saw the miracle as people sharing
their food together and as such, we should continue to do so. The miracles are examples of ‘love
your neighbour’ and point us to being compassionate for the needy and working for their healing
and deliverance from suffering. This type of thinking has stimulated Christian involvement in helping
the poor, medical care (hospitals) and so on.

Now this is not all wrong. I have noted the importance of this above; Jesus’ miracles were certainly
acts of compassion. The desire of Christians to alleviate poverty and heal the sick whether
supernaturally or through medicine (not that these two notions are mutually‐exclusive) is noble,
right and part of Jesus’ call to mission. Indeed one dimension of the call of the Kingdom is
restoration and compassion should underpin all our mission efforts. However, while the miracles are
certainly acts of compassion, there is general agreement among NT scholars that there is much more
at stake in Jesus’ miracles.
Miracles as indicators of the power of God to heal today

Some contemporary Charismatics and Pentecostals see the miracles purely as indicators of what
Jesus can do in this day through us. Heaven has come to earth and we as his followers infused with
the Spirit have total authority over sickness and demons and continue the ministry of Jesus. Extreme
views such as hyper‐faith thinking believe we are capable of healing all disease dependent on
sufficient faith.

There is certainly truth in this view as we have noted, Jesus commissioned his apostles in this regard
and they did indeed continue his ministry. There is also evidence that miracles continue today, even
if some overemphasise this dimension of ministry. I am utterly persuaded that in the age of the
Spirit, the people of God are called to continue the supernatural miracle ministry of Christ. However,
this is not all miracles are about.
The miracles from three points of reference: past, present and

future
The miracles have three points of reference:
1. Fulfilment: First, they look backward to the hope and expectation of Israel for wholeness
(shalom) including healing.

2. The presence of the Kingdom: Secondly, they speak into those present at the time of Jesus
ministry and our present suggesting that the power of God and thus his Kingdom is present
in the ministry of Christ. In that the Kingdom has come, and the Spirit of God has been
released to his people, the ministry of signs and wonders will continue in the present age as
part of the mission of the church.

3. The future consummation: Thirdly, and to me most importantly, the miracles point forward
to the future consummation of the Kingdom at which time all suffering will cease. They tells
us what the Kingdom coming means for us i.e. the demonstrate the nature of the Kingdom.
The miracles as fulfilment

God the miracle worker
In the OT God is a God of miracle including being seen as the healer and miracle worker. So for
example ‘creation by a word’ (Gen 1‐2), the Exodus (Exod 13‐14), the sun standing still (Josh 10:12‐
13), victories in battle and more. In terms of healing there are specific examples. These include:

1. The God who heals (Exod 15:26): ‘after Moses had thrown a piece of wood into bitter
waters to make them drinkable, he brought a message from the Lord: “If you listen carefully
to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to
commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on
the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you!”’ Jesus is thus the new Moses, fulfilling and
transcending God’s healing in the Torah.

2. The God who Wounds and Heals (Deut 32:29; Job 5:17‐18): In Deuteronomy we read:
‘There is no other god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal.’ Similarly Job
writes, ‘For he wounds but he binds up; he smites, but his hands heal.’

Jesus then is the fulfilment and expression of God’s healing character and the general expectation of
healing. Healing thus has a holistic sense.
The conquest, judges, prophets and miracles

In the OT one of the distinctive features of the prophets was the performing of miracles. Moses was
seen as the first great prophet in the line of Deut 18:15. He was instrumental in many miracles
including judgement, deliverance, provision, revelation, guidance and transcendence. 34 The history
of Israel from Moses to the rise of the 9th century prophets included miracles usually in relation to
the conquest, the defeat of armies, judgement and momentous cosmic events. 35 In the Judges cycle,
the history of the pre‐monarchy and monarchy there are a number of deliverance miracles
interpreted by the Deuteronomic historian as God’s intervention. 36

After Moses it is 9th century prophets Elijah and Elisha performed great miracles including miracles of
provision (1 Kgs 17:7‐16; 2 Kgs 4:1‐7, 38‐44 cf. 19:5‐9), healing (2 Kgs 5:1‐14), reanimation (1 Kgs
17:17‐24; 2 Kgs 4:18‐36), judgement (2 Kgs 6:8‐23) and miracles over nature (1 Kgs 18:22‐39; 2 Kgs
2:19‐22; 6:1‐7).

Jesus’ miracles then declared him to be a prophet in the line of Moses, Elijah and Elisha. Hence, he
was seen by many as a prophet (cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28; Lk 24:19). However, he transcended these miracle

34
Judgement: the plagues of judgement on Egypt (see Exod 7:‐12:30); judgement for rebellion (Exod 32:1‐25;
Num 11:1‐3; 12:9‐11; 14:1‐45; 15:32‐36; 16:1‐50; 21:4‐9; 25:1‐9); Deliverance: the parting of the Red Sea (Exod
13:17‐14:41); ; defeat of enemy armies (Exod 17:8‐16; Num 21:1‐3, 21‐35; 31:1‐24); Provision: water and food
(see Exod 15:22‐17:7; Num 11:4‐35; 20:1‐13); Revelation: the bringing of the Law (Exod 20); Guidance:
guidance (Exod 23:20‐33; Num 10:15‐23); Transcendence: glorious glowing transcendence (34‐49‐45).
35
Some of these include: the stopping of the river Jordan for Israel’s crossing into the land (cf. Josh 3:9‐17), the
fall of Jericho (Josh 5:13‐27); the punishment on Achan (Josh 7:1‐26), the stilling of the sun for a day (Josh
10:1‐15).
36
For example: Gideon cf. Jud 6‐8; Samson cf. Jud 13‐16; David’s defeat of Goliath cf. 1 Sam 17.
189

workers in the nature, number and extent of his miracles pointing to an identity beyond merely a
prophet. Theologically, as Messiah, he fulfilled the prophetic ministries of the OT.
Eschatological expectation of healing (Messianic Age)

The hope of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God included the hope of physical wholeness (and
indeed cosmic wholeness). This is reflected in the approach by John the Baptist’s disciples in
questioning Jesus’ identity (Mt 11:4). Jesus’ response reflects this expectation: ‘Go back and report
what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured,
the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.’

These words recalls a series of passages in Isaiah such as 29:18 which reads, ‘in that day the deaf will
hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness, the eyes of the blind will see;’ and
Isaiah 35:5‐6: ‘Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then
will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy…’ And again in Is 61:1: ‘He has
anointed me to preach good news to the poor … to bind up the brokenhearted…’ 37
The prophetic hope of the servant also included the notion of healing. In Isaiah 42:7 it is said of the
Servant that he would ‘be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that
are blind.’ It is predicted of the servant in Is 53:4‐5 that:

Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him
stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. He was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was
upon him and by his wounds we are healed.’

Thus, by his vicarious sacrifice, the servant will bring healing and Shalom.

So, by performing such a huge number of miracles of healing, Jesus was declaring through his
miracles that he was God’s agent of healing, the Servant‐Messiah and that in his ministry God had
come; i.e. his kingdom was here. This note of fulfilment is explicit in the Mt 8:17 where Matthew
states that Jesus’ ministry is ‘to fulfil’ Is 53:4 (above). Note that in the Prophets this restoration is
cosmic – the whole of creation restored to God’s dream and intention. These are signs of the bigger
picture of cosmic healing.
The kingdom and God’s power is present now in the messiah king
These texts of fulfilment point to the miracles being a physical demonstration of the presence of the
power of God i.e. the reign of God expressed in miracles. His miracles are then one expression of
God’s royal power in Christ. This connection to the Kingdom is found throughout the Synoptics in
particular. His healings point to the healing power of the Kingdom to make the broken whole and
the future Kingdom free of illness and suffering. His exorcisms point to his victory over the powers of
darkness and the ultimate defeat of evil (Lk 11:20; Mt 12:28 NRSV).

The reanimations reflect God’s victory over death; there being texts in the OT which point to the
hope of resurrection in the ‘age to come’ i.e. at the culmination of the age (Is 26:19; Dan 12:1–3).

37
Interestingly, when Jesus quotes this text in Nazareth (Lk 4:18‐19), he deletes the reference to binding up
the brokenhearted.
While the OT does not say much about demons or deliverance ministry, some apocalyptic writers
expected the advent of the kingdom to spell doom for Satan and his demonic minions. 38

Furthermore the three provision miracles actualize and foreshadow the messianic feast (Is 25:6–9). 39
The characteristic of a super‐abundance of bread points to the eschatological equivalent of the
miracle of the provision of Manna in the wilderness (2 Apoc. Bar. 29:7–8; cf. Jn 6:4, 14, 30–31; Rev.
2:17). ‘The two nature or rescue miracles, Jesus’ calming of and walking on the sea, are meaningful
against the horizon of Yahweh’s assertion of his sovereignty over the sea in creation (Job 26:12–13;
Ps 74:12–15), the Exodus (Ps 77:16–20) and the eschaton (Is 27:1; cf. Rev 21:1).’ 40

The role of the disciples and early church in healing and miracle support the view that there is no
cessationism as with classic Dispensationalist thinking in the minds of the early church writers. The
Spirit’s power is present in the disciples and as they minister in the power of the same Spirit used by
God and Christ to perform miracles according to his will and good pleasure, the powers of darkness
are forced back. However, the ‘already, not yet’ eschatological tension continues in the present age
with death and decay still strongly present and dominant. Indeed, in each person’s case, these forces
win at a physical level as we all face death. However, God is present to intervene as he wills. He is
also present in and through the suffering and will bring us to healing on the other side; death is not
the final word!
The nature of the future consummation of the kingdom

The miracles also point to the character of the Kingdom. The Kingdom in its fullness is a place of
Shalom (‘peace’) and full wholeness in which there will be no illness, pain, evil, death or suffering (cf.
Rev 21:1‐4). In the miracles these enemies of God and humanity are clearly attacked and defeated.
The deliverance miracles announced the defeat of Satan and evil. The healings announce the end of
decay and physical suffering. The miracles over nature announce that the laws of nature will be
transcended in the new order. The miracles of resurrection declare that death is defeated. The
ultimate resurrection of Christ completed this declaration. The miracles then are signs of the
Kingdom; windows into the nature of the Kingdom to come. Each category should be understood
within this notion; the miracles as signs of the Kingdom.
Healing miracles as signs of the cosmic healing of the kingdom

The miracles of healing tell us that the reign of God is about complete human and cosmic physical
and spiritual restoration. They show us that humanity, the apex of God’s creation (Gen 1:26‐27) are
being restored through the work of Christ. They tell us God is deeply concerned about the body.
There is no dualism, no belief in the body as evil or inferior. Rather, the kingdom brings restoration
of the whole person including the physical. They speak of a restored creation, the effects of sin
reversed in the removal of physical suffering and pain.

Healings then are a window into the Kingdom in which there will be no physical suffering, illness,
pain and evil. The exorcisms point to the overthrow of evil and the defeat of Satan and the
deliverance of humanity from him and his effects physical, psychological and social. This was
achieved at the cross and will be completed at the eternal destruction of evil at the consummation.
At the second coming at disease, suffering, pain and evil will be ended. This helps us with the former
question as well. We do not live in the ‘already’ but the ‘not yet’. Death, decay and disease are still
our experience. We long for the end and have to live with decay, suffering, pain, illness and evil in
the meantime, like all of creation we groan for redemption (Rom 8:22). True healing comes in the

38
See for example: 1 Enoch 10:11–15; 54–55; 11QMelch; T. Levi 18:12; T. Mos. 10:1–2; cf. Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20)
39
See also 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:4; Mt 8:11; Lk 13:29; 14:15.
40
Blackburn, ‘Miracles’ in DJG, 559.
191

midst of suffering as we are inwardly restored despite the suffering of our bodies. Each miracle type
points in a different way to the nature of the Kingdom.
Deliverance miracles
The exorcisms of Jesus cannot be removed from his ministry as a remnant of some ancient world‐
view, they are etched into each source and are an inexorable part of Jesus’ ministry. They point to
the nature of the Kingdom as the plundering of the dominion of Satan and evil by the power of God.
This is indicated in the statement by Jesus at the Beelzebub controversy in Mt 12:28: ‘But if I drive
out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.’ Jesus is challenging
the Pharisaic doubters who believed that he was functioning as an emissary of Satan to recognize
that his ministry of deliverance was the defeat of Satan. This part of the drama begins at the
Temptation where Jesus resists Satan’s attempts to deceive; warding him off, something the first
Adam failed to do. After defeated him, he goes out into Satan’s world which has just been offered to
him, and sets about its salvation, not through submission to Satan’s false reign, but through
defeating him with compassion, word, touch and the Spirit’s power. He worked within human
volition through servanthood and grace.

The deliverance ministry then is the invasion of Satan’s dominion, the progressive release of the
oppressed by the power and reign of God. He effects complete release where one submits to the
reign of God willingly. The exorcisms then point to the defeat of evil in the ministry of Christ. Satan is
progressively beaten back as in a war by the invasion of God’s power exorcised through grace and
compassion. This is why Jesus cries out ‘I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven’ on the return of
the 72 who have seen demons submit to the name of Christ (Lk 10:18). This not a pre‐adamic fall of
Satan, but his fall brought about by the coming of the Kingdom. The disciples are given the same
authority and they too can participate as warriors of God in the deliverance of God’s humanity from
the possession and power of evil. However, they must do so without coercion over other people,
with compassion, love and servanthood as they claim the authority of Christ over demon forces.
Eschatologically, the exorcisms point to the Kingdom to come in which there will be no evil, no
demonic possession; God’s people freed completely from the grip of evil. Satan at this point will be
completely cut off and thrown into hell eternally! PTL! (cf. Mt 25:41;41 Rev 20:10).
Miracles of provision
Jesus taught radical trust in God to provide. He essentially said to his disciple that if they were
prepared to renounce a love of money and self‐reliance and rather place their full trust in God, living
in dependence and pursuing God’s Kingdom and his righteousness as their first priority, they would
experience the ongoing provision of their need 42 by God. Jesus likened God’s provision for the
Kingdom Seeker to the provision of God for birds of the air and the manner in which God has
adorned flowers of nature (Mt 6:19‐34).

He also called for the disciples to continue this work in their care for the poor, distributing what he
gives them for the needs of others (Lk 12:32; Mt 6:1‐4). Jesus demonstrated this radical trust and
concern for the poor in two miraculous provisions of food, the feeding of the 5000 (Mt 14:13–21; Mk
6:30‐44; Lk 9:10‐17; Jn 6:1‐14) and 4000 (Mt 15:28‐39; Mk 8:1‐9). Both are set in the context of
preaching and healing ministry. The crowds are hungry, the disciples want to send them away but
Jesus has compassion (Mt 14:14) for their hunger and commands that they feed them (Mk 6:37 and
pars). On both occasions Jesus goes through the same process and commands the disciples to feed
them. They are clearly lost at this point so Jesus takes what little they have and distributes a
ridiculously small amount of food to huge crowds. Remarkably, they are completely satisfied

41
Note the fire is not prepared for humanity, but for ‘the devil and his angels.’
42
Not ‘their want’. Food and clothing are promised cf. 1 Tim 6:8.
(chortazō). Both miracles then emphasise the bountiful provision of God for them, they all being
filled and their being more than enough. It anticipates the ultimate eschatological complete
provision of God.

The other ‘provision miracle’ also radically defies the law of nature; Jesus turning water into wine (Jn
2:1‐11). He is possibly here motivated by the terrible shame that would have come upon the host for
running out of wine. Here Jesus turns water from 6 water jars each containing 2‐3 metretes (75‐115
litres), a total of approximately 600l of wine (about 800 standard bottles of wine)! The quality of the
wine is also stressed, it being ‘the best’ (2:10). This demonstrates the super‐abundant provision of
the Kingdom.

The provision miracles function primarily as windows into the nature of the Kingdom in which all
oppression, famine, poverty and material suffering will be removed. In the ‘not yet’ we do not fully
experience it but have glimpses of the future in the miracles then and now. We will know this full
provision at the feast of the Kingdom. The provision of wine points to the eschatological feast at
which Jesus will again drink of the fruit of the vine (cf. Lk 22:16). It will be a party to end all parties, a
wedding feast, where Jesus and his bride (the church) are reunited! Bring it on!
Miracles over nature

There are four other miracles that demonstrate Jesus’ power over the natural order. These are the
miracle of calming the storm (Mt 8:23‐27; Mk 4:35‐41; Lk 8:22‐25), walking on the water (Mk 6:47‐
51; Mt 14:22‐33; Jn 6:16‐21), turning water to wine (Jn 2:1‐11) and the coin in the fish’ mouth (Mt
17:27). Some consider these ‘rescue’ miracles in that they are examples of Jesus saving his disciples
or others. Certainly, this is true of the calming of the storm. However, in the water‐walking miracle,
although the disciple were struggling against the wind, there is no evidence that they are facing
death; rather, the walking on water narrative is not motivated to save, but to get to the other side.
In the transformation of the wine, Jesus’ is in a sense delivering the host from the social shame of
failing to provide enough wine. In the coin in the fish’s mouth it is not really a rescue miracle but
does demonstrate Jesus’ sovereignty over the natural order or at least his providential knowledge.
All the healings and reanimations in a sense demonstrate Jesus’ power over nature too.

These miracles demonstrate Jesus’ power over nature. These miracles demonstrate Jesus’ lordship
over the natural order. They recall the power of God to create (Gen 1:1). They recall OT situations
where God controlled the natural order to save Israel, such as the Exodus through the Red Sea (Exod
13:17‐14:31), the crossing of the Jordan at the Conquest (Josh 3:1‐17), the hailstones and the
stopping of the sun (Josh 10:11‐14). They recall miracles by Elijah and Elisha that causes a suspension
of the laws of nature such as the raising of the axe‐head (2 Kgs 6). The NT testifies that Jesus was
actively involved in this creation as creator (cf. Jn 1:2; Col 1:16; Heb 1:3) and so they anticipate the
new creation, the new heavens and the new earth at the culmination (cf. Rev 21; Is 65‐66). They are
reassuring in that God is in control, but more so that God will bring about a new creation without
chaos and despite.
Miracles over death

On three recorded occasions Jesus raised the dead. In a sense these are healing miracles. However,
they are of a far more dynamic category, involving the greatest enemy known to humanity, Death.
The first is a twelve year old synagogue ruler’s daughter (Mt 9:18‐26; Mk 9:18‐26; Lk 8:40‐56). On
the second occasion (Lk 7:11‐17), after being moved with compassion (7:13) for a grieving widow in
the town of Nain, Jesus raises her son. This reanimation is probably motivated not only by Jesus’
concern for the boy, but for the welfare of the widow who would be without financial support with
the loss of her son. The third reanimation is reanimation of Lazarus after four days in the tomb (Jn
193

11:1‐43). It is the context for the I am saying: ‘I am the resurrection and the life.’ The miracle
anticipates Jesus resurrection, the stone being rolled away etc.

These miracles recall the reanimations of Elijah and Elisha and signal that Jesus is a prophet (cf. 1 Kgs
17:17‐24; 2 Kgs 4:8‐27). They go further and point to Jesus’ dramatic power in the present. They
ultimately point to the resurrection itself as Jesus will triumph over death, creation’s final enemy (cf.
1 Cor 15:26, 50‐57). They point to the hope of our own resurrection as we will be raised from death
to life; a reality guaranteed by the first fruit of the resurrection harvest, Jesus Christ our Lord (cf. 1
Cor 15:23). They point to the ultimate defeat of death and evil. Thus they are windows into the
nature of the Kingdom as the end of death; where the God of life reigns with those who wish to live
forever with him in eternity.
Miracles as visual parables

The miracles of Jesus in this sign‐sense are in reality visual parables which, like spoken parables,
have various levels of meaning. They are thus open to interpretation. For some they harden, for
others they bring faith (cf. Mk 4:11‐12). Some like the Pharisees see them, rationalise them, or seek
more concrete evidence demanding more signs which Jesus’ refused (Mt 12:38‐39; 16:1‐4; Mk 8:11‐
13; Lk 11:16, 29‐30; Jn 2:18; 4:48; 6:30). Interestingly these demands for sign all occur in the context
of Jesus’ performing his regular signs. 43 The problem for the Jewish leaders was the nature of the
signs. They were not the sort of theophanic cosmic transcendent demonstrations of divine glorious
power that they expected from God’s Messiah. Jesus’ servant Messiah ministry was not of this
category; rather, it was an invasion of grace, mercy and love and the meeting of genuine human
need. Jesus never did miracles for his own status or acceptance or self‐aggrandisement; rather, his
miracles were genuine acts of service to heal and help those who sincerely sought his help and were
in genuine need.

They are thus parabolic, open to interpretation. His opponents should have seen what was
happening, reflected on the OT passages expecting such Messianic signs (cf. Is 29:18; 35:5; 42:7; 61:1
[LXX]) and the servant nature of the Messiah and believed. However, they demanded more and
more and were never satisfied (cf. 1 Cor 1:22).

Others like liberal Protestantism rationalize them in some way, simply disbelieving that they
happened, looking for a ‘rational explanation’ or refusing to acknowledge that what has happened
has transcended the laws of nature.

For those who accept them as realities; they speak at three levels. First, they stand in continuity with
the heart and power of God in creation and the history of redemption, showing that God’s salvation
and reign has come. Secondly, they speak of the power of God to do miracles today and give present
day hope of healing, deliverance, provision and life in abundance. Thirdly, they speak of the future
nature of the Kingdom and the end to all oppression, suffering, pain and death. They are parabolic in
that they suggest these things rather than prove them and must be ‘read’. The question for us all is,
how will we read them?

43
In Mt 12; Lk 11 Jesus has just cast out a demon for all to see. In Mt 16 and Mk 8 he has just performed an
amazing feeding miracle. In John he has performed healing and feeding miracles.
Conclusion
Here are some conclusions on the basis of the Gospels in regards to miracles:
Miracles are integral to Christian life and ministry

Miracles are central to Christ’s ministry; part of the disciple’s ministry and so should be seen as
integral to the continued ministry of the church in history. To seek to evacuate miracles from
Christianity is not possible without deriving the faith of its power. Christianity is a supernatural faith
based from the first on miracle (creation) and seen in the history of Israel (see above on fulfilment)
and in the life of Christ (incarnation, virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, ascension, Pentecost). To
believe in Christianity is to base one’s life on the existence of miracles. We await the glorious return
and our own resurrection and eternal life in this regard.
Healing is integrally linked to preaching and feeding the poor

There is no separation of the miracle ministry of Christ in healing and feeding from preaching. In fact
the ministry of preaching is really healing; the word of God functioning to heal the believer
spiritually and restoring the shattered relationship with God. Hence these dynamics should function
together in the life and ministry of the local church.
Faith is important in the matter of healing

The connection of faith to miracle cannot be denied. In the Synoptics faith in the sense of trust in
Jesus and God is critical. However, this should not lead to hyper‐faith thinking as death and decay
remain realities of this era, and there are indications that people will not always be healed and that
our ministry to the sick involves more than just healing. In John, miracles are signs which should
cause people to recognise who Jesus’ is and place their trust in him. However, often this faith was
not complete and shallow.
The key point of reference to understanding the miracles is the

Kingdom of God.
The miracles point to the fulfilment, the power of the Kingdom in the presence, and the future
shalom of the consummated Kingdom. Maranatha, our God come!
The big picture and healing

Healing, deliverance and even reanimations are microcosms of the bigger picture of God healing his
world. Whether this healing will involve the dissolution of the cosmos and its restoration (cf. death –
resurrection) is unclear. However, it forms part of the bigger project of seeing God’s world become
what it was intended to be.


• How would you define a miracle?
• How would you classify the miracles?
• Do miracles happen today?
• Why do they not happen as much as NT times? Or do they?
• How do we in the West amidst our scepticism, keep our faith in the miraculous?
• How should we exercise this ministry today?
195


Chapter Eleven
THE TEACHING OF THE KINGDOM: PARABLES
Contents
The Parables of Jesus .......................................................................................................................... 198
What is a Parable? .............................................................................................................................. 198
The Use of Parables Prior to Jesus ...................................................................................................... 199
Classification of Parables .................................................................................................................... 199
Characteristics of the Parables of Jesus .............................................................................................. 200
Distribution of the Parables in the Gospels. ....................................................................................... 200
The Parables of Jesus .......................................................................................................................... 201
Allegory or Not? .................................................................................................................................. 202
The Debate ...................................................................................................................................... 202
Response: Moderate Allegorization Where Appropriate ............................................................... 203
Other Approaches to Parables ........................................................................................................ 204
The Triple Horizon of Parables ............................................................................................................ 205
The Purpose of the Parables. .............................................................................................................. 205
The Overall Purpose: To Explain the Kingdom of God .................................................................... 205
Mark 4:10‐12, the Purpose of Parables and the Kingdom .............................................................. 206
The Genius of Parables ................................................................................................................... 207
Guidelines for Interpretation. ............................................................................................................. 207
The Teaching of the Parables. ............................................................................................................. 209
The Kingdom as Present but veiled. ............................................................................................... 209
The Kingdom as Future. .................................................................................................................. 209
The nature of the kingdom ............................................................................................................. 210
Israel’s Rejection and the Kingdom for the Marginalised, Samaritans and Gentiles ...................... 210
Forgiveness for the Repentant Sinner ............................................................................................ 210
Mission ............................................................................................................................................ 211
Discipleship ..................................................................................................................................... 212
Prayer .............................................................................................................................................. 212
Mission ............................................................................................................................................ 212
Wholehearted Discipleship ............................................................................................................. 212
Repentance and Humility ................................................................................................................ 213
Judgement ....................................................................................................................................... 213
Parables and Theology ........................................................................................................................ 213
Preaching and Parables Today ............................................................................................................ 214

197

The Teaching of the Kingdom: Parables
The Parables of Jesus

Remembering that Jesus did not only teach in parables as indicated by the sermon on the
Mount/Plain (Mt 5‐7; Lk 6) and the dialogues in the Synoptics and especially John’s Gospel, it is clear
to a reader of the Synoptic Gospel’s that the primary mode of communication to the crowds was
through parables. In this section we will discuss the parables and their use in Jesus ministry. 1

What is a Parable?
The classic definition is ‘an earthly story with a heavenly meaning’. At another level a parable is a
form of teaching. Telling a story is a timeless means of conveying truth (e.g. Aesop’s Fables). In Jesus’
ministry it is no different.

The Greek term is parabolē. The term carries the sense of ‘comparison’. It has a range of meanings
that is broader than the English word ‘parable’. The meaning derives from the Hebrew māšal
(Aramaic = mathla) that is translated as parabolē in the LXX (28/39x). 2 At its essence it is a figurative
saying with a variety of nuances include proverbs (e.g. Lk 4:23), 3 riddles (e.g. Mt 3:23); 4 comparisons
(e.g. Mt 13:33); 5 contrasts (e.g. Lk 18:1‐8); 6 simple stories (e.g. Lk 13:6‐9); 7 complex stories (e.g. Mt
22:1–14). 8

It is generally agreed among scholars of all persuasions that the parables in the main, are to be
trusted as authentic and reliable. This is because they: 1) Are consistent with Jesus’ teaching and his
conflict with authorities; 2) Reflect our knowledge of daily life in Palestine at the time; 3) That such
extensive use is unique to Jesus. Apart from a few examples (e.g. 2 Sam 12:1‐4), there is little
evidence that parables were used frequently before Jesus; 4)There is little evidence of the early
church using parables or creating new ones which counts against them creating them; 5) They are
found in all strands of the Synoptic tradition, Mark, Q, M. As such, the Jesus Seminar in its edition of
the Parables of Jesus, 9 consider inauthentic (black) only the tower builder and the warring king (Lk
14:28–32) and the fishnet parable (Mt 13:47–50); and only four are rated as ones which Jesus
expressed in different ideas if not the original. The remainder they consider authentic. 10

1
Due to the constraints of this course, this will not be a thorough analysis. We will briefly look at two areas; 1)
The Parables of Jesus: a discussion of the basic issues in parable interpretation; 2) The Ethics of Jesus: A
summary of the main ethical teaching of Christ.
2
Māšal can also mean a taunt, a prophetic oracle or a byword. \
3
‘Physician heal yourself!’
4
‘How can Satan drive out Satan?’
5
‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast…’
6
‘In a certain town there was a judge… a widow…’
7
‘A man had a fig tree, planted in a vineyard…’
8
‘The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants …’
9
They use a colour scale reflecting varying degrees of authenticity: 1) Red = Jesus said the words; 2) Pink =
Jesus said something like these words; 3) Grey = Jesus did not say the words but expressed similar ideas; 4)
Black = Jesus did not say them and they were added in later reflecting varying degrees of authenticity.
10
The problem with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar is that they try to create out of the Gospel tradition a
Jesus who fits contemporary assumptions and modern expectations. They give far too much preference to the
Gospel of Thomas, which is in all likelihood a later development. The rejection of intro’s, conclusions and
allegory is out of kilter with Jewish tradition. Without doubt the writers of the Gospels edited Jesus’ parables
according to their purposes. However it is futile to seek to discern out of the final text the exact words of Jesus
(ipsissima verba). We can be confident that the Gospels present the ‘very voice’ of Jesus (ipsissima vox).
198

The Use of Parables Prior to Jesus

Jesus was not the first person to use parables, we find them in the OT. One good example is the
parable Nathan used to expose David’s sin with Bathsheba (see 2 Sam 12:1‐4). 11 However, while
there are Greek and Semitic parables, ‘there is no evidence of anyone prior to Jesus using parables
as consistently, creatively and effectively as he did.’ 12 There are a large number of Rabbinic parables
that has led some to argue that Jesus utilized popular stories from his time. However, the evidence
from Rabbinic literature post‐dates Jesus and it is unclear whether such a pool of stories existed at
the time. In fact, there is little evidence of teaching in parables before Jesus and he could have been
innovative in his use. So for example, there are no parables from Qumran, the Apocrypha, and the
Pseudepigrapha. As such, although Jesus is not the first to use them, he is the first to use them as
the basis of his teaching ministry to such an extent.

Classification of Parables
One popular way of classifying parables is to distinguish between four essential forms:

1. Similitude: an extended simile with an explicit comparison using ‘like’ or ‘as’. It relates a
typical or recurring event in real life and is often in the present tense. One example is the
parable of the mustard seed (‘the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed’ cf. Mt 13:31‐32).
2. Example story: these present characters either/or positive or negative, who are given as
examples to be imitated or avoided. Such an example is the Good Samaritan, which ends
with ‘go and do likewise’ (Lk 10:25‐37), which is not uncommon in such stories. Others
include the Parable of the Rich Fool (Lk 12:13‐21); the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus
(Lk 16:19‐31); the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Lk 18:9‐14). Interestingly, all
are in Luke!
3. Parable: Is an extended metaphor (an implied comparison) that tells of a fictional event or
events from past time to express a moral or spiritual truth. An example if the Parable of the
Banquet (Lk 14:15–24) that tells the story of a man who has a banquet and people will not
come.
4. Allegory: Is a series of related metaphors. One example is the Parable of the Sower (Mk 4:1‐
20; par’s) (clearly an allegory unless we take the form critical view that the allegorisation is
non‐authentic; I see absolutely no reason to do so!)

The main area of debate is the distinction between a parable and an allegory.

The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels defines parables can be defined generally as ‘stories with
two levels of meaning’.13 The story level provides a lens through which reality can be interpreted. I
would add the context for the levels i.e. ‘a parable is a saying or story told by Jesus which challenges
the hearer/reader to discern and act upon a second deeper spiritual and Kingdom of God level of
meaning than the simple earthly level .’

11
For others which are parabolic see 2 Sam 14:5–20; 1 Kings 20:35–40; Is 5:1–7; Ezek 17:2–10; 19:2–9; Ezek
19:10–14 cf. Judg 9:7–15; 2 Kings 14:9.
12
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
13
199

Characteristics of the Parables of Jesus

The parables of Jesus are characterized by certain features. These include:
1. Brevity: They are short and sweet e.g. ‘the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed…’ (Mt
13:31).
2. Symmetry: They often have a symmetrical arrangement based around contrasts, characters
etc. e.g. the Parable of the Weeds and the dual destinies; the weeds are thrown in the
furnace; the righteous will shine like the sun.
3. Simplicity: They leave out unnecessary descriptions, motives and leave questions
unanswered e.g. does the story of the rich man and Lazarus give us descriptions of heaven
and hell; can we see hell from heaven?
4. Regular Life: Taken from daily life; this is self‐evident.
5. Unrealistic: They are not always realistic (pseudo‐realistic) often with shock value. An
example is the 10,000 talent debt (= several million dollars) which is highly unlikely (Mt
18:23‐35).
6. Thought provoking: For example, 22 parables begin with a question such as ‘who from
you…?’ or ‘what do you think?’
7. Reversal: For example the despised Samaritan and not the Jew is a neighbour, the tax
collector is the righteous one and not the Pharisee, Lazarus and not the rich man end up in
Paradise etc.
8. The end often defines the meaning: Often called ‘the rule of end‐stress’ whereby the
meaning is focused on the end of the parable e.g. in the tenants parable, the stress falls on
the killed son and the judgement cf. Mk 12:1‐12 and pars.
9. Kingdom and discipleship orientated: Most focus on God, his Kingdom and his expectations
for his disciples in terms of behaviour and discipleship

Distribution of the Parables in the Gospels.

About 1/3 of Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptic Gospels is in parables. The term parabolē occurs fifty
times in the NT; all are in the Synoptic Gospels except Heb 9:9; 11:19. Parables make up 16% of
Mark; 29% of Q; 43% of M; 52% of L. In John Jesus does not teach in ‘story parables’ but there are
accounts which fall within the range of the broad sense parabolē and māšal (e.g. Jn 10 [the Good
Shepherd]; Jn 15 [the true vine]).

The parables are thematically arranged in the Synoptics. Mark has a chapter devoted to parables
(Mk 4) and includes overall four story parables including the Sower (Mk 4:1‐20); the secretly growing
seed (Mk 4:26‐29); the mustard seed (4:30‐32), and the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1‐12). Matthew and
Luke have all of these except the secretly growing seed and they include lost parables (Lk 15; Mt
18:10‐14). They also include parables about guests who reject invitations to a feast (Mt 22:1–14; Lk
14:16–26) and about servants who are entrusted with money to invest (Mt 25:14–30; Lk 19:11–27).
It is unclear whether they are the same parables because of different wording. This is logical as Jesus
probably told the same parables on different occasions in different contexts. Matthew places most
of his parables in ch’s 12–13, 18, 20–25. He has at least 12 unique parables. Luke arranges most of
his in ch’s 10‐19 and has a large number of unique parables (at least 15). In addition, fourteen
parables occur among the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, three of which are not recorded in the
canonical Gospels. The Apocryphon of James also has three parables not recorded in the canonical
Gospels.

It is difficult to assess the actual number because there is disagreement as to what constitutes a
parable. There is somewhere between 40 and 65 depending on your definition.

200

The Parables of Jesus 14

Markan Parables Mark Matthew Luke
Wedding Guests 2:19–20 9:15 5:33–39
Unshrunk Cloth 2:21 9:16 5:36

Wineskins 2:22 9:17 5:37–39
Divided kingdom 3:24 12:25 11:17
Divided home 3:25 12:26 11:17
Strong Man Bound 3:22–27 12:29–30 11:21–23
Sower 4:1–9, 13–20 13:1–9, 18‐23 8:4–8, 11–15
Lamp and Measure 4:21–25 8:16–18
Seed Growing Secretly 4:26–29
Savourless salt 9:50 5:13 14:34
Mustard Seed 4:30–32 13:31–32 13:18–19
Wicked Tenants 12:1–12 21:33–46 20:9–19
Budding Fig Tree 13:28–32 24:32–36 21:29–33
Watchman 13:34–36 12:35–38
Parables Shared by Matthew and Luke (Q)
Blind leading the blind 15:14 6:39
Sawdust and plank in eye 7:3‐5 6:41
Tree the fruit 7:16‐20 6:43‐45
Wise and Foolish Builders 7:24–27 6:47–49
Playing children 11:16‐17 7:31‐32
Harvest and labourers 9:37 10:2
Father and Children’ Requests 7:9–11 11:11–13
The lamp of the body 6:22 11:34‐36
Two Ways/Doors 7:13–14 13:23–27
Leaven 13:31–32 13:20–21
Lost Sheep 18:12–14 15:1–7
Wedding Banquet 22:1–14 14:15–24
Thief in the Night 24:42–44 12:39–40
Faithful and Unfaithful Steward 24:45–51 12:42–46
Talents and Pounds 25:14–30 19:11–27
Parables Found Only in Matthew
City on a hill 5:14
Divided city 12:25
Wheat and tares 13:24–30, 36–43
Treasure 13:44
Pearl 13:45–46
Fishnet 13:47–50
Householder 13:52
Unmerciful Servant 18:23–35

14
This is based on the list in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels with amendments.
201

Labourers in the Vineyard 20:1–16
Two Sons 21:28–32
Wise and Foolish Maidens 25:1–13
Sheep and Goats 25:31–46
Parables Found Only in Luke
Physician heal yourself 4:23
Two Debtors 7:41–50
Good Samaritan 10:25–37
Friend at Midnight 11:5–8
Rich Fool 12:13–21
Weather signs 12:54‐56
Barren Fig Tree 13:6–9
Tower Builder 14:28–30
Warring King 14:31–33
Lost Sheep 15:1–7
Lost Coin 15:8‐10
Prodigal Son 15:11–32
Unjust Steward 16:1–8
Rich Man and Lazarus 16:19‐31
Unjust Judge 17:7–10
Persistent widow 18:1–8
Pharisee and the tax‐collector 18:9–14
Parables Found only in John
Good Shepherd
(10:1–18; cf. Mt 18:12–14; Lk 15:1–7)
True Vine (15:1–8) Jn 15:1‐8

Allegory or Not?
The Debate
Up until the last 19th century the main approach to interpreting the parables was to allegorize
them. 15 In this approach, people would read into the parables elements of the churches life and
theology which had little if anything to do with the original context or Jesus’ intention. The best‐
known example is Augustine’s interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30‐37). 16
In his interpretation he read the gospel story into the parable assigning to every part of the parable
some dimension of the gospel. So for example: 1) The Injured Man = Adam; 2) Jerusalem – Jericho:
The movement from the heavenly city of peace to fall; 3) The Robbers = The devil and his angels who
strip humanity of immortality and persuade him to sin leaving him lost in sin; 4) The priest and Levite

15
An allegory is a story in which the component parts all correspond with aspects of truth that the story is
designed to teach e.g. A Pilgrims Progress. See also a biblical example in Mk 4:1‐20: Sower =
Christ/God/preachers?; Seed = God’s word; Soil = people with different responses to the word; shallow soil on
the path = people who don’t get it; the birds = Satan and demons; rocky soil = initial believers who fall away
through persecution and trouble; the withering sun = persecution and trouble; thorny soil = believers who are
unfruitful; thorns = worries, wealth, desire; good soil = true fruitful believers; crop = good works? Other
believers?
16
See C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 13‐14.
202

= the priesthood and the ministry of the OT which profit nothing for salvation; 5) The Good
Samaritan = Christ who brings restraint of sin (bandages), the comfort of good hope (oil),
encouragement to work fervently (wine); 6) The Donkey = Incarnation; 7) The Inn = the church; 8)
The next day = after the resurrection of Christ; 9) The innkeeper = the apostle Paul!; 10) The two
denarii = the two great commandments or the promise of this life and eternal life.

While there were one or two exceptions such as John Chrysostom and John Calvin who did not
allegorise the parables, almost all interpreters allegorized not only those parables which appear to
have an allegorical component, but all parables reading them through their age. Calvin however
earlier allegorisation ‘idle fooleries’ and was much more sensible in his approach.

It was the German scholar A. Jülicher (1888‐1889) who caused a seismic shift in parable studies. 17
Since his work the interpretation of parables has been controversial. Jülicher completely rejected an
allegorical approach even where Jesus did the allegorization (e.g. Mk 4:13‐19) arguing that this was a
creation of the Gospel writer. He argued the parables were simple, straightforward comparisons and
that they have only one point of comparison between the image and the idea expressed. This was
usually a general religious principle a ‘timeless moral truth’ as in Aesop’s Fables; such as: 1) The
Talents: ‘a reward is only earned by performance’; 2) The unjust servant: ‘wise use of the present is
the condition of a happy future.’ It is thus a part of Protestant Liberal moralisation.

Since Jülicher most have used his work as a point of reference arguing against allegorization and
arguing for one meaning for a parable. Two leading NT scholars in the 20th century C.H. Dodd and J.
Jeremias continued this approach arguing parables have one meaning and must be understood
against their original historical and eschatological context. Dodd did so against the notion of the
Kingdom, arguing that the parables teach that the Kingdom is here and rejecting a futuristic
interpretation (‘a realized eschatology’). Jeremias ‘reconstructed’ the ‘original form’ by stripping
away any introductions and conclusions around the parables 18 and removing any allegorical
features. 19 He differed from Dodd seeing Jesus as an eschatology in the process of realisation, the
Kingdom has arrived and is growing toward an eschatological climax (a more standard perspective).
Jesus’ used parables to present people with a moment of decision and an invitation to respond to
God’s mercy.

Jülicher, Dodd and Jeremias then assert that there is only one real meaning to a parable and rejected
any allegorization.

Response: Moderate Allegorization Where Appropriate

In response we can say first, that Dodd and Jeremias rightly argue that the parables must first be
understood against their first Jewish historical setting. Secondly, boiling down parables into one
theme in all cases is not always appropriate. For example, the Parable of the Sower has strong
themes associated around the three characters: 1) The Love of the Father; 2) The Repentance and
Restoration of the Lost Son; 3) The Rejection of the Return of the Son by the Older Son. It is better to
seek to discern against the historical setting the key theme or themes and let the parable speak fully.

17
A. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2 vols. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1888–89).
18
E.g. Mk 12:10‐12 where Jesus supposedly quotes Ps 118:22, 23; or Lk 16:10‐12 where Jesus explains the
Parable of the Shrewd Manager. Such are supposedly creations of the Gospel writers.
19
Both Dodd and Jeremias were heavily influenced by Source and Form Criticism by which it is argued that the
introductions, conclusions and interpretative aspects (including illegalization) were added in by the early
church and are not to be considered as authentic and critical for interpretation.

203

Thirdly, some parables are clearly to some extent or another allegorical. One example is Jesus’
interpretation of the Parable of the Sower which I see no reason to reject (Mk 4:13‐20). Another is
the Parable of the Tenants where the Son is clearly Jesus, the servants the Prophets, those who kill
the Son the leaders of Israel (Mk 12:1‐12). Similarly, in the Mustard Seed parable the seed would
initially be Jesus, the tree the Kingdom, the birds the enemies of God or the nations (Mk 4:30‐32).
Further, in the Prodigal Son the Father is God, the younger son rebellious Jews, Samaritans or
Gentiles, the older son Israel who refuses Jesus’ mission. Yet another is the Parable of the Banquet
where the banquet master is God, the servants are Jesus and/or the apostles, the disabled are the
marginalised of Israel and those on the roads and bye‐ways the Gentiles (see Lk 14:15‐24).

In some parables there is no need to allegorize because the key players are clearly identified in the
story. So for example, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan where the priest, Levite and Samaritan
are identified (Lk 10:25‐37). Similarly in the Parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, both
characters are clearly given (Lk 18:9‐14). However, in each of these parables and others, readers are
to extend the thought of the story to themselves and their context. Each parable calls for a second
reading from our own context and our applying the principles of its first reading.

Hence it is clear that we cannot rule out allegorization but must consider each parable in its own
original context (s).20 The key interpretative key is to read the parable in its initial setting and then
applying it to today. This will guard against ludicrous constructions. Hence, what is needed is a
moderate contextual allegorisation approach to the parables. That is, to consider the core elements
of the parable against their setting without excessive speculation. Not every element means
something; however, many elements do correlate to their contexts allegorically.

Other Approaches to Parables

We will not discuss in detail other modern approaches to parables which are beyond the scope of
this course and some of questionable value generally. As one can understand, there has been a
desire to get beyond the historical sceptical approach of the early‐mid 20th century. Some of these
include existential approaches where the parables are not constrained by context or historical
setting and through them Jesus gives understanding of existence and invites people to enter it
existence. Some in the 1970‐1980’s took structuralist approaches looking at the surface and deeper
structures of the parables like functions, oppositions and resolutions within texts. These approaches
are of little value for serious biblical students.

More useful are literary approaches which move beyond the purposes of the evangelists (redaction
criticism) to the text. Such approaches take the text as read and seek to discern its plot,
characterisation, patterns etc. These can be greatly helpful in terms of contemporary interpretation.
More radical and of less value is reader‐response approaches readings whereby the meaning of the
text is drawn from the interaction of the reader and the text, and not the author and the original
context. This is an indisputable factor of all interpretation in that we do bring ourselves to the text
and ultimately apply the text to our lives. However, without the anchor of the historical first
reading, it leads to extraordinary subjectivity whereby the contemporary interpreter can read into
the text what they desire.

Also useful are comparative Jewish parable approaches where Jesus’ parables are compared to
Rabbinic parables. Approximately 2000 rabbinic parables have been collected. As noted above, the

20
Below we will discuss the additional issue of more than one context for each parable. That is, the original
historical context and the secondary context in the audience and world of the writer e.g. Luke’s Greco‐Roman
audience.
204

problem with this is that the Rabbinic material post‐dates the NT period and it is unclear which of
the parables are authentic to Jesus’ time and whether a pool of such stories existed.

Today there is a return to a more balanced reading of parables in the excellent work of evangelicals
Blomberg, Hultgren and Snodgrass. They in the main, take the approach advocated here.

The Triple Horizon of Parables

As hinted at above, interpretation is not simply about reading the parable in its context and applying
it; rather, interpretation is complicated because within the Gospel itself there are two levels, the
historical first moment situation where the parable was spoken, and the evangelists situation.

Every parable has three points of reference:
1. The Original Historical Setting: This is the moment when Jesus spoke the parable to people
in Israel. That is, we ask what did Jesus mean when he told the story? What do the images
and ideas mean and refer to? E.g. What was his target? So we ask who does the prodigal son
represent in the story of the prodigal son? Is it the Gentiles? Is it the sinners of Israel
rejected by the authorities? I would say the latter is most likely. Similarly who is the son in
the parable of the tenants; clearly it is Jesus.
2. The Evangelists Historical Setting: The second point of reference is the setting in the
situation of the evangelist retelling the story. For Matthew, his Jewish and Gentile readers
perhaps in the Antioch area in the 70’s‐80’s. For Mark, Roman Gentile Christians in the later
50’s‐60’s. For Luke, well‐to‐do Gentiles in the Greco‐Roman context. So, for example, in the
prodigal son, for Luke the son might mean not only wayward Jews, but the Gentiles who are
hearing and rejecting the gospel or the Gentiles perse who are coming back to their creator
God. Similarly in the tenants, the rejected son becomes rejected Christians who are
persecuted by Gentile authorities.
3. Our Setting: The final point of reference is our situation. What does it say to us? At this
point we can apply the parable judiciously in light of its first and second points of reference
into our context. Hence the prodigal becomes the wayward sinner wallowing in sin who is
called back and accepted graciously by God.

The first setting has priority for interpretation, the second builds on it, and we apply the principles
from the first two to our setting.

The Purpose of the Parables.

The Overall Purpose: To Explain the Kingdom of God
The primary purpose of the parables is to teach on the Kingdom of God. Parables are told to engage
and instruct but they also point to something beyond themselves i.e. the Kingdom. Hence they are
not merely stories to enjoy with moral truths but demand a Kingdom interpretation to be fully
grasped. They are mirrors reflecting one reality to tell of another, the Kingdom of God. They are
paths to understanding to help people understand God’s Kingdom. ‘Jesus told parables to confront
people with the character of God’s kingdom and to invite them to participate in it and to live in
accordance with it.’ 21

One of the features of Jesus’ coming was the subversive and veiled nature of its entry into history.
Rather than the cosmic militaristic political Kingdom they expected, the Kingdom came

21
205

imperceptibly in the person of a king born in obscurity from an unknown virgin who refused to utilise
his power to bring the Kingdom by force. The Parables fit this type of Kingdom. They declare the
Kingdom in a veiled and indirect way, forcing the hearer to ‘hear’ the parable and discern the
Kingdom in and through it.

Mark 4:10-12, the Purpose of Parables and the Kingdom

The extremely difficult text Mk 4:10‐12 needs to be understood in this light. It reads:

And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those
outside, everything comes in parables; in order that (hina) “they may indeed look, but not
perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be
forgiven.”’ (NRSV)

The crunch issue here is the meaning the word hina here. There are a huge range of understandings
of this text which can apply to parables or to Jesus’ minstry. These include:
1. The Literal Interpretation: There are different ideas here. Some take hina in its most
common purpose sense i.e. ‘with the purpose that’. Some take this very strongly with harsh
literal view arguing that Jesus intentionally sought to preach in a way to ensure some would
not be saved and receive eternal destruction (Hyper‐Calvinism). Others take it in a softer
literal way; arguing that Jesus did so to ensure his rejection, and so his death and thus
salvation would be achieved. Thus, it is part of the veiling of Israel for the salvation of the
world. This is not out of the question, but this view stands in contrast to the apparent
openness of Jesus’ invitation to all throughout the Gospels and his genuine desire for
repentance. Another soft literal view argues Jesus intentionally taught in this way to veil his
proclamation to create a separation between faith and unbelief and so the blindness and
sinfulness of people is shown for what it is. 22 I would agree that it is a veiling of the Kingdom
that is in mind; however, God’s appeal for human forgiveness and repentance is always
genuine as I read the Scriptures, so a better answer is needed.
2. Unlikely Textual or Grammatical Solutions: There have been a number of attempts to
resolve the problem through far‐fetched grammatical solutions. Dodd argued that it is an
interpolation from the Pauline part of the church because of its strong determinism. 23 Some
take hina as ‘who’ based on Is 6:‐10 from an obscure Targum version of the Masoretic text
which has hina in place of the Aramaic de meaning ‘who’. This requires us believing that
Jesus used the Targum version which is unlikely. 24 Some take the hina as ‘because’ on the
basis of Rev 14:13 noting that the parallel in Matthew 13:13 has hoti (‘because’). This is
possible but not that likely as this is a very rare use of the term. Jeremias argued that hina
was shorthand for hina plerothē (‘in order that it might be fulfilled’). Again this is stretching
the Greek and assumptive.
3. Taking Hina as Result i.e. ‘with the result that’: In my view the most likely alternative is the
hina clause does not express Jesus’ purpose but the result. Hina often means result rather
than purpose. As such, the purpose of parables are not to blind, but the result of them is
that they do blind. Thus, Jesus intentionally preached in a veiled way knowing that it would
result in some rejecting the message. This aligns nicely with Isaiah and broader theology. In
Isaiah 6 the prophets appeal to Israel was genuine, but God in his omniscience knew the
outcome; they would reject the message. Similarly, with Jesus, he knew the outcome. In
broader theological terms it keeps open the genuineness of God’s desire for human

22
Cranfield, Mark, 157‐158.
23
C.H. Dodd, The parables of the Kingdom, 13‐15
24
See T.W. Manson, The teaching of Jesus, 78‐80.
206

response, but the inevitability of rejection. So Jesus preached in parables knowing that they
would call people to the Kingdom, but harden many

The Genius of Parables

As a result there are a number of reasons Jesus preached in parables.
1. Parables Retain the Veiled Nature of the Kingdom: As noted, parables are indirect and non‐
coercive. They invite but do not impose. They cause a person to reflect on meaning and
make a choice. They function in the manner of the subversive coming of the Kingdom.
2. Parables preserve freedom: Parables then are not coercive but they are subjective, allowing
people to choose their own interpretation, which preserves their freedom.
3. Parables challenge for a decision: While retaining freedom for the hearer, parables
challenge the respondent to read its deeper meaning if they have ears to hear. They are also
challenged to act as in the case of the Parable of the Good Samaritan; how will we treat our
enemy?
4. Parables are memorable: Parables are truly memorable. They disarm and communicate
truth in a manner that is interesting, memorable and provocative. Thus they are ideal
teaching devices able to be remembered and retold by people of all ages and education
standards. They are also memorisable, able to be retained and passed on easily due to their
simplicity.
5. Parables are universally relevant: Jesus spoke in stories that are, in the main, relevant to all
cultures as they take aspects of popular culture and use them to draw out spiritual insight. In
this regard they are timeless, which means that Jesus’ stories remain some of the most
powerful means of communicating God’s truth. They are capable of being applied in every
context. While the allegorisation of Augustine and others may appear crazy to us, indeed
most contemporary preachers do the very same thing with Jesus in their application. And
this is appropriate because that is the power of story (as long as sound theology and original
meaning is retained). Jesus chose material from his world, such material that the hearers
would have understood implicitly and powerfully. A.M. Hunter suggests that the stories may
have involved characters and events that were literally relevant to his context. So for
example, the parable of the leaven may have been drawn from Jesus watching his mother
Mary making bread. The ten virgins may reflect a real situation known to the hearers.25

Guidelines for Interpretation.

So how do we interpret parables. Here are some key ideas to bear in mind when coming to the
parable.
1. Think Kingdom: Remember that the parables are windows into the Kingdom. We need to
consider what they are saying about the King, the nature of God’s reign, the nature of what
it means to live as a subject of the King.
2. Think Big Story: Remember that the parables are set in the context of a redemptive
historical narrative. We need to reach back to creation, fall, Israel and forward to church,
mission, Spirit and consummation. What does the parable say in the context of the overall
picture of God’s story? There are often OT antecedents to ideas. For example, the birds in
the tree in the Parable of the Mustard Seed are probably the nations (cf. Ezek 17:23; 31:6).
Similarly, the Great Banquet recalls the great eschatological feast of Is 25:6 etc.
3. Think the Whole Ministry of Christ: Parables are set in the context of whole Gospels and we
should not interpret them in isolation. Most of the parables illustrate a point made by Jesus

25
See Hunter, the Parables, 15‐16.
207

in his ethical teaching and dialogue, so we need to build a synthetic and composite picture
of Jesus’ teaching in relation to this. In Matthew and Luke it is especially important to link
Jesus’ parables to the Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain material. In Luke too,
each parable can be linked to the programmatic statement in Lk 4:18‐19 and understood in
terms of Luke’s overall purpose.
4. Think Context: Each parable is placed in the story by the evangelist with relation to its
surrounding matter. Often the key to understanding is found in its context with the material
either side of the parable or its place in the narrative. For example, the Good Samaritan
should be interpreted against the two questions and the second great commandment:
‘What must I do to be saved?’ ‘Who is my neighbour?’ ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’
These provide the hermeneutical keys for interpretation. The parable of the wicked tenants
(Mt 21:33–44 and pars) must be seen in light of the question about the authority by which
Jesus does his acts (Mt 21:23–27). The parables of Mt 24‐25 flow out of the eschatological
discourse of Mt 24 and so must be understood in regards to eschatology and being ready for
the return of Christ.
5. Think the Triple Horizon: Ask, what did the parable mean in the initial Jewish historical
context. Ask, what is the point Matthew? Mark? Luke? Is making in the flow of their Gospels
and purposes? For example, Matthew tells the story of the lost sheep in terms of pastoral
care of the wayward; whereas Luke tells the story of the lost sheep with a stronger
evangelistic edge (cf. Lk 15:1‐7; Mt 18:10‐14). This is because they are using it slightly
differently.
6. Think the Main Point (s): While most parables resist being constrained by one point, we
should be asking what is the core point or points of the story. This is the main issue we
apply.
7. Allegorize Moderately and Contextually: We need to sober in the way we apply. We do
need to see the correlates for the characters and situations in the parables; but only as it
applies to the context.
8. Avoid Over Interpretation: Not everything in the parable has a correlate. For example, the
donkey in the Good Samaritan is probably incidental to the story. We need to be moderate
in the way we read the parable building on the obvious correlates and not creating
hermeneutical fiction.
9. Think the Characterisation: More often than not, the characters reflect a key point. So, in
the Prodigal, the Father and two Son each represent God and different responses to the new
work in Christ in different ways. Similarly, in the Banquet parable, the servants, invitees,
disabled and others are all representative. We need to carefully and judiciously make the
connections Jesus wants us to from the context.
10. Think Culture: Most parables are not fully understood unless something not immediately
obvious about the Jewish or Greco‐Roman culture is known. For example, in the Good
Samaritan, one must understand Jewish‐Gentile relationships to get the story. In the Parable
of the Sower, one must know Jewish farming techniques and typical yields to get it fully. In
the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, understanding Jewish and Greco‐Roman attitudes
to wealth and poverty is critical. In the Parable of the Banquet, understanding Jewish and
Greco‐Roman meal etiquette and social norms is important. In the Pharisee and the Tax
Collector, the religious and social status of the two groups makes this work. There is usually
a shock in the parable which needs uncovering.
11. Think the narrative: We should read it as a story noting the flow, contrasts, the structure
and devices. The parables are story, they are literature and should be treated as such. For
example, the contrast between the priest/levite and Samaritan is what makes the Good
Samaritan work (Lk 10:25‐37). Similarly, the contrast between the priest and tax collector is
what makes the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector work (Lk 18:13‐18).
208

12. Think the Climax of the Parable: Some scholars highlight the ‘rule of end‐stress’ whereby
the end of the parable gives a key to its understanding. While not all parables fit into this
idea, some do. For example, at the conclusion to the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt
21:33–44) is a quotation from Psalm 118:22 which, via a wordplay, forces the religious
authorities to realize that they, the ‘builders’ of the Jewish nation, have rejected God’s Son
(see Son of God). Whatever else may be true in the parable of the lost sheep, the focus is on
the joy at recovering that which was lost cf. Lk 15:7. If we apply this to the Prodigal Son, then
the emphasis falls more on the rejection by the older son rather than the return of the
younger son.

The Teaching of the Parables.

The key focus of the parables then is the nature of the King, the coming of the Kingdom of God and
the resulting discipleship that the Kingdom requires. When Jesus preached the Kingdom he meant
that the new era of God’s reign was now inaugurated in the earth through the ministry of Jesus.
Hence it involved the coming of the grace of God. Similarly it involved a radical call to discipleship.
Some of the parables anticipate a future consummation of the Kingdom, but the main emphasis is
that the Kingdom is present and available to the hearers of Jesus’ message. The parables also
embody an invitation to enter the Kingdom and to live according to its standards. Here are some of
the core elements of the parables:

The Kingdom as Present but veiled.

Some of the parables speak of the presence of the Kingdom. We see this in Mt 13 where each
parable gives a different insight into the Kingdom. The recurring metaphor of the ‘seed’ points to the
secret and almost imperceptible beginning of the Kingdom in the present. The similarly recurring
concept of growth indicates that the Kingdom will grow from the point of its initial beginnings and
become dominant through the work of God. However the parables point to opposition and challenge
in this growth. They also point to an end point at which there will be a consummation of the
Kingdom and a gathering point for the righteous and unrighteous. The ‘strong man’ parable (Mt
12:29) points to Jesus’ ministry of overcoming the work of Satan and not unlike a person coming to
rob a house, binding the security guard on the way.

There are other parables that indicate that the Kingdom is here now and available such as the
parables of the banquet (Lk 14:15–24) and of the wedding (Mt 22:1–14). These parables also point
to the refusal of some to accept Jesus’ message. They also point to the celebratory dimension of the
Kingdom (cf. Prodigal Son). Put together, we have a crisis of decision for the hearers of Jesus’
teaching.
The notion of ‘grace’ is strong in these parables. While Jesus did not use the term, it is strong in his
invitation to outcasts in the banquet parables, the parables of the two debtors (Lk 7:41–43), the lost
sheep, lost coin and prodigal son (Lk 15), of the unmerciful servant (Mt 18:23–35), the labourers in
the vineyard (Mt 20:1–16) and the Pharisee and the Tax‐Collector (Lk 18:9‐14).

The Kingdom as Future.

There is a tendency among some scholars to downplay this dimension of Jesus’ teaching in general
and in regard to the Parables (see N.T. Wright; C.H. Dodd). Yet it is clear from his parables that there
is a future unconsummated dimension to the Kingdom. We see this in the parables of growth e.g.
weeds, net (Mt 13:24‐30, 47‐50), which speak of a harvest, a judgment or of a master who returns to
settle accounts. That is, there will be a point of separation between the obedient, faithful and
209

merciful who will enter the kingdom and those who are not. This judgement involves punishment
and destruction.
The purpose of these future‐looking aspects is not is to cause a change in attitude and life in the
present i.e. faithfulness, mercy and obedience. We see this particularly in the parables of the ten
virgins and talents in Mt 24:45‐25:13 cf. the minas (Lk 19:11‐27).

The nature of the kingdom

A number of parables give insight into the nature of kingdom. It is veiled coming in hiddenness and
insignificance and yet will grow to be a huge kingdom into which even the nations will come. It will
be a mixed multitude of believers (good plants/good fish/sheep) and nonbelievers (weeds/bad
fish/goats) which will be sorted at the end of time. It is of inestimable value, a treasure worth giving
everything up for; the greatest of pearls that the pearl farmer will give all up to gain. It will be a place
of great celebration and satisfaction seen in the parables of wedding feast and banquet. The
miracles too have a parabolic dimension, being living stories symbolising that the kingdom will be a
place of complete physical, emotional wholeness (physical healings and deliverance); of good and
not evil (deliverance); of satisfaction and not poverty (feeding); of peace and not chaos (calming
storm); of life and not death (resurrection).

Israel’s Rejection and the Kingdom for the Marginalised,

Samaritans and Gentiles
A number of parables have their first point of reference in Israel’s rejection of Jesus and the
Kingdom. Supreme in this regard is the Parable of the Tenants in which the leaders of Israel reject
the prophets of old (servants) and then the Son, killing him. This is in effect a prediction of the
Passion and the rejection of Jesus by the leaders of the nation. They clearly understood the gist of
Jesus’ teaching and wished to kill him (Mt 21:33‐46). Similarly in the Parable of the wedding feast in
Matthew’s Gospel with its emphasis on Jesus as Jewish Messiah highlights the refusal of Israel to
come to the feast of the Kingdom and the resultant invitation of those from the streets to enter
(22:1‐14).

The parables of the wineskins and cloth too are best understood as referring to the failure of Israel
to receive the new wine of the Kingdom in Jesus leading to a rupture in its structures. To me this
refers to the truth that some would receive it and others would not, leading to a schism among Jews
at the coming of the Kingdom. Judaism itself had to be renewed to accept the new wine (Mk 2:19‐
22).
One of the probable interpretations of the Lost Son (Lk 15:11‐32) is based around Israel and the
Gentiles. The younger son represents the Gentiles who come back to the Father through the work of
Jesus. He accepts them thoroughly while the older son (Israel) rejects this (cf. Lk 4:23‐30; Acts 21:21)
who will not accept the Father’s acceptance of these unclean sinners. The Good Samaritan
challenges Jewish attitudes to Samaritans and anticipates their reception of the Gospel in Acts 8. The
Banquet speaks of inviting the disabled to the feast, and their acceptance; the Kingdom is a Kingdom
for the margins.

Forgiveness for the Repentant Sinner

The Parable of the Lost Son illustrates the nature of God (Lk 15:11‐32). The nature of God is found in
the attitude of the father who completely forgives the returning son who has squandered all he has
given him. He accepts him completely, providing him with lavish gifts of clothing and the very best
meal possible. His attitude is contrasted with the older brother who will not accept him feeling he
210

deserves punishment for his sin. Other parables such as the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Mt
18:21‐35) and the Pharisee and the Tax‐Collector (Lk 18:13‐18) speak of God’s great forgiveness.

Mission
There are a great number of parables that point to the mission of the church and individuals in
church and society. The parabolic images of Salt and Light indicate Christians’ role in society working
as salt and light to bring God’s reign and the establishment of righteousness (Mt 5:13‐16). These
parables suggest God’s overall goal of the transformation of all creation through his people
infiltrating every avenue of society, incarnating the flavoursome love and light of God. The Mustard
Seed and Yeast parables has a missionary sense in that the Kingdom grows from hidden
insignificance to a great size (Mt 13:31‐33). Again, this will happen through us as God’s seeds,
bringing life wherever we go, being, seeing humanity and the world transformed. The parable of the
Lamp also has a missiological emphasis, the believer not to hide their light but bring it out so that
others will see it and they drawn to the right path (Lk 8:16‐17).

The Parable of the Sower (Mt 13:1‐23) is in effect a parable about evangelism whether by Jesus or
his disciples. The proclaimed Word is likened to a seed and when it is preached receives a number of
responses whether it be complete incomprehension and rejection (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:1‐3; Pharisees
etc; contemporary atheism). Secondly, there are those who receive the word with gladness but give
up quickly because of troubles and persecutions (cf. Demas 2 Tim 4:10; Judas). Thirdly, there are
those who receive the word of God and appear to be fully converted but fail to grow to maturity and
become full disciples due to the love of money, pleasure and worry. It is unclear whether these are
believers who are unfruitful or pseudo‐believers whose fruitlessness reveals their real state. Finally,
there are the ideal respondents who hear the word and are completely converted and become seed
bearing and fruitful Christians (cf. The Disciples). In the context of the Parable of the Sower fruit here
is the fruit of further evangelism i.e. converts. They plant seed and it flourishes. Of course, they too
will experience the same range of responses but in their faithfulness will achieve differing levels of
fruitfulness.

The universal nature of the mission to the Gentiles is hinted at in a number of parables such as the
wedding feast/banquet where after the rejection of the servants of God by Israel, those from the
streets are invited to the banquet (Mt 22:1‐14; Lk 14:15‐24). The concept of ‘invitation’ suggests
evangelism and is a wonderful motif for understanding the nature of evangelism; an invitation to
dine at the banquet of God for eternity (Lk 14:16).

The first 2 of the ‘lost parables’ of Lk 15, the parables of the lost sheep and coin, are missiological;
the believer’s, male and female, seeking the lost so that they will repent. These give a priority to
seeking the one lost sheep over the 99 who are not lost; the one lost coin. These imply a powerful
call to go to seek and save the lost as Jesus did through the proclamation of the word (15:1‐10 cf.
19:10; 4:43). Interestingly, all involve a party and rejoicing – God and his angels party hard with great
joy when one turns to God!

The third of the lost parables concerns the son who becomes a sinner wasting the inheritance he has
sinfully demanded on loose living and ending up hanging out with the unclean pigs. Yet he is
accepted back by the father. There is no missionary‐going in this story and perhaps again this is a
condemnation of the older son who should have gone looking for the lost brother (see esp. 15:16:
‘no one gave him anything to eat’). As such it is an implicit appeal for evangelism and mission to
sinners, Gentiles and the lost sheep of all humanity.

211

Discipleship
Discipleship is a central theme of Jesus’ teaching and his parables involve a call to discipleship at
many levels. It is the call to complete submission to the reign of God by subjects of the Kingdom. The
cost of discipleship is mentioned in the Parables of the Tower Builder and the Warring King (Lk
14:28–32). Obedience is reflected in The Parable of the Owner and his Servant (Lk 17:7). Obedience
to the teaching of Jesus is the theme of the Parable of the Two Builders (Mt 7:24‐27). The Parable of
the Two Sons (Mt 21:28–32) stresses the importance of carried out obedience. A strong emphasis is
found on the importance of doing acts of mercy (Mt 18:33; 25:32–46; Lk 10:25–37). Other key
dimensions include:
The Right Use of Wealth
This is a dominant theme in Jesus’ teaching particularly in Luke. There are a number of parables
which warning against greed and its consequences. In the Parable of the Rich Fool Jesus rebukes the
greedy who store up their wealth for their own personal aggrandisement at the expense of the poor
(Lk 12:16–21). In Rich Man and Lazarus there is a strong warning to those who fail to respond to
those in need (Lk 16:19‐31). 26 Jesus also possibly commends shrewdness in regard to the use of
wealth, however in the sense of being subservient to the Kingdom economic principles (Lk 16:8–9 cf.
12:33). The practice of tithing is also critiqued in the parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector, the
Pharisee tithing regularly but in a pedantic and self‐righteous fashion and so is not justified before
God (Lk 18:10). The generosity of the Good Samaritan is a living example of the radical generosity of
the kingdom, and from a Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:33‐35). 27

Prayer
A concern for prayer is also strongly emphasized in Luke in his parables. Two parables illustrate the
need for audacity, boldness perseverance and confidence in prayer (Lk 11:5–8; 18:1‐8). The parable
of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector point to the need for humility in prayer as believers stand
before God (Lk 18:13).

Mission
As noted above under ‘Mission’, discipleship involves a mission commitment. The Sower Parable
emphasises the proclamatory nation of mission (Mk 4:1‐20 pars). Some suggest works of justice (e.g.
Sheep and Goats [Mt 25:31‐36]; 28 Great Banquet). 29 Others speak of involvement in society, bringing
God’s reign into the midst of unbelieving humanity as in the case of salt (Mt 5:13), yeast and a
mustard seed (Lk 13:18‐21) or light (Mt 5:16). The setting of the salt and light parables in the Sermon
on the Mount suggests that we leaven and light society through living the ethics of the Kingdom
expressed in the Sermon.

Wholehearted Discipleship
A number of parables indicate that the believer is to be fully devoted above all other allegiances to
God and his Kingdom. In the parables of the Hidden Treasure and Buried Pearl the one who finds the
treasure and pearl sells everything they have to gain the kingdom due to its inestimable value (Mt

26
Note he knows his name Lazarus, indicating he knew the beggar on earth but failed to care for him.
27
The two denarii would give 24 days board, a days board being 1/12th of a denarius (cf. Marshall, Luke, 449).
The Samaritan offers to pay even more if there is a shortfall on his return!
28
It is disputed whether this is a parable. It is certainly parabolic and in some symbolism, non‐literal e.g. sheep,
goats.
29
The Banquet parable has both social justice and evangelism in it; the invitation calls to mind evangelism;
those invited reflecting the social ethics of an inclusive kingdom.
212

13:44‐46). The parables of the Talents and Minas stresses that the believer is to take what God has
given them in material and spiritual terms and invest it for his purposes and so receive a reward in
kind (Mt 25:14‐30; Lk 19:11‐27). The parable of the Shrewd Manager should probably be understood
in this regard. Just as the business people of this world are shrewd in their management of worldly
wealth and so commended by the world, the believers of the kingdom should be much more
trustworthy and shrewd in their management of the resources of the kingdom. It is not an
encouragement to be dishonest but rather the opposite; Christians investing the resources of the
kingdom with integrity to bring gain for the kingdom (Lk 16:1‐15).

Repentance and Humility

The parable of the Lost Son gives a paradigm of right response to sin as the son turns from his life of
sin and debauchery among the pigs and returns to the father in total repentance (Lk 15:21). This is
even more emphatic in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector whereby the tax collector,
though a terrible sinner, is declared righteous on the basis of his humility before God as he cries out
‘God have mercy on me, a sinner’ (Lk 18:9‐14).

Judgement
A number of parables speak strongly of the coming judgement for those who reject the King and his
Kingdom. In Matthew in particular, there is a harsh tone to some of the parables such as the weeds
which are pulled up and thrown ‘into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing
of teeth’ (Mt 13:42). Similarly in the Net the bad fish are separated from the good and thrown into ‘a
blazing furnace, where there will be ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Mt 13:50). In the parable of
the Wedding Feast and Talents those who try to illegitimately enter the Kingdom suffer the same
fate (Mt 22:11; 25:30). In the Parable of the Virgins those who were not ready for the return of
Christ are shut out of the wedding banquet (Mt 25:10). On the other hand ‘the righteous will shine
like the sun’ (Mt 13:43 cf. Dan 12:1‐2).

The strongest warning probably comes in the Rich Man and Lazarus where the rich man neglects the
cries of the poor and ends up in eternal torment from which there is no escape (Lk 16:19‐31). True
faith is expressed in concern for the needy. Similarly, in the Sheep and the goats many are
condemned to eternal punishment for failing to put their faith to work in caring for the needy. Those
who failed to do so rejected Jesus himself, he identifying with his people who are in need (Mt 25:31‐
46).

Parables and Theology

It is a greatly contested point as to whether we can take theological premise from these stories.
There are those who would argue we should not and cannot, as they are stories set in a given
context immune to be ‘principlised’. Others treat the Parables like all Scripture and do not allow for
genre, symbolism and context. I think we need to find a balance in the tension of these two
extremes. On the one hand we must be able to draw from the Parables principles and concepts as
they clearly refer to truth, are based on truth and seek to convey truth. On the other hand we can
over‐interpret them and fail to account for the ambiguity in the text. An example is the Rich Man
and Lazarus. In this story, the rich man is in Hades. That much appears clear. Beyond that it is
questionable how much of the scene we should apply to theology. For example: 1) What is Paradise?
Intermediate State? Metaphorical not to be taken seriously at all; 2) Can we see hell from heaven?
Etc Etc. We can draw theological principles from Parable, but we must do judiciously; with concern
for the wider teaching of the Scriptures, Christ and the NT; with regard for genre.

213

Preaching and Parables Today

We can learn a lot from Jesus’ approach to preaching. He chose to use story to express truth. Story
has a timeless, disarming power. Actually when you stand back from the text of Scripture, the whole
of Scripture is story. Acts is story. The Gospels are stories or narratives; accounts of the life of Jesus
with a particular direction. The letters are glimpses into a story, a story we must tell to explain their
content i.e. the narrative behind the text.

I would suggest that we need to reclaim the power of story in our preaching. We need to find stories
and narratives of others and from our own lives that speak into the lives of people today. Even
framing whole sermons in this genre can be very powerful. Unpacking the letters of Paul etc through
story can bring these old letters alive; as we put together the story behind Philippians for example;
or the story behind Corinthians.

Where we draw sermon material from Parables, we must ensure we have done the work of
understanding in its first world, and translate well to our world. It is good to retell them; however,
we must do so preserving their teaching about the Kingdom of God.

• How might the three horizons affect our interpretation of the Good Samaritan, The Great
Banquet?
• What do you think Jesus meant in Mk 4:10‐11?
• Take the Prodigal Son or another parable and work through these rules of interpretation
outline in this chapter. What did you discover?
• What is the one main idea Jesus wants us to hear in these parables? Or are there multiple
core ideas?
- The Prodigal Son
- The Good Samaritan
- The Parable of the Sower
- The Parable of the Great Banquet
- The Parable of the Mustard Seed
- The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax‐Collector
• What is your favourite parable and why?
• Should we preach in parables today?
• What would it mean to preach through story?

214


Chapter Twelve
THE TEACHING OF THE KINGDOM: ETHICS
Contents
The Ethics of the Kingdom. ................................................................................................................. 216
The Communal and Relational Dynamic of Kingdom Ethics ........................................................... 216
An Ethic in Continuity with the Ethics of Israel ............................................................................... 216
The Essential Elements of the Ethics of the Kingdom ......................................................................... 217
Ethical Dualism ................................................................................................................................ 218
An Ethic Driven From Relationship with God .................................................................................. 218
A Holistic Life Ethic .......................................................................................................................... 218
An Ethic of Love for All Humanity ................................................................................................... 219
Terms linked to love .................................................................................................................... 220
Love forgives ............................................................................................................................... 221
Love abhors judgementalism ...................................................................................................... 222
Love includes peacemaking ........................................................................................................ 222
Love is inclusive ........................................................................................................................... 223
Love strengthens unity ................................................................................................................ 224
Love is generous .......................................................................................................................... 224
An Ethic of Engagement .................................................................................................................. 225
An Ethic of Justice ........................................................................................................................... 226
An Ethic of Family, Love and Sexual Purity ..................................................................................... 227
Conclusion to Ethics ........................................................................................................................ 228

215

Teaching of the Kingdom: Ethics
The Ethics of the Kingdom.
Ethics refers to the attitudes and actions of human behaviour. Hence in this section of the course we
will look at the teaching and action of Jesus in particular in regards to defining the ethics of the
Kingdom. In other words, ‘how does God want subjects of the Kingdom to live?’ Space precludes a
complete discussion of this very interesting area. Here, we will summarise the main threads of Jesus’
teaching from the Gospels.

A cursory look at the Gospels quickly brings one into a discussion of ethics. The Gospels are replete
with ethical statements, injunctions, examples, stories, and rebukes that point to the centrality of
ethics to the ministry of Christ and life in the Kingdom. Of special importance are the ‘Sermon on the
Mount’ (Mt 5‐7) and the ‘Sermon on the Plain’ (Lk 6:20‐49). However, I will not confine myself to
these very important passages (students should also cross reference to the notes on ethics and the
Sermons on the Mount and Plain in the Matthew and Luke notes). Rather I will seek to look at the
sweep of Jesus’ teaching and example to ascertain the kind of living Jesus had in mind for the
Kingdom community. The main focus for this discussion will be Matthew’s Gospel in that almost all
of Mark and a great deal of Luke are included within it. However, we will also look beyond to other
passages where appropriate.

The Communal and Relational Dynamic of Kingdom Ethics

At the centre of the Kingdom of God lies the community of the King. The teaching of Jesus in regards
to human behaviour needs to be understood in the context of this community and human
relationships. Jesus is not speaking of isolated human behaviour but the behaviour of people in
community. Jesus then is looking for a new community, a new order for all humanity and his people.
This is especially important for us who are European, our culture being very individualistic. Because
of this cultural attribute, we tend to read Jesus’ words in an individualistic sense. We need to check
this tendency and remind ourselves constantly that Jesus’ words are directed towards the ideal of a
community based on personal relationships.

An Ethic in Continuity with the Ethics of Israel

This new community is not disconnected with the people of Israel into which Jesus was born. Jesus
lived, ministered and taught within a Jewish framework. His teaching exhibits a fundamental
continuity with the OT and Jewish understanding. He explicitly states that he did not come to do
away with the law but to fulfil the law, all of which in some sense, still stand (Mt 5:17‐20). When
asked what the greatest commandment is, he quotes two OT law passages (Mk 12:29‐31 cf. Deut
6:5; Lev 19:18). When he addresses the rich ruler he asks if he has kept the commandments of
relationship from the Decalogue (Mk 10:18‐19 cf. Exod 20: 12‐16; Deut 5:16‐20).

Examination of Jesus’ references to the six interpersonal relationship commandments of the
Decalogue subsumed in the commandment to love one another suggests that Jesus heightened the
definition and demand of the ethic in terms of the spirit of the law, not its legalistic application. For
example, in the discussion of Corban 1 in Mk 7:11‐13 Jesus tells the Jews that they should not divert

1
James A. Brooks, vol. 23, Mark, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1991), 116 notes that ‘Corban’ is the English
transliteration of the Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning a gift dedicated to God, i.e., an offering.
This Hebrew word appears about 80x in Lev, Numb, and Ezek. The offering involved a vow to dedicate it
irrevocably to God. The offering was placed under a ban so that it could not be used for any other purpose cf.
v12. ‘Under no circumstances would the scribes of Jesus’ day permit a person to annul such a vow.’ It is
216

money for parents to God, challenging them to truly adhere to the command ‘honour your father
and mother’ (Exod 20:16; Deut 5:16). Jesus vindicates the command not to kill (Exod 20:13) with a
strong pro‐life stance even stating that to burn with anger at another person was to commit murder.
His appeal for an ethic of non‐violence in Mt 5:38‐42 overturns the law of reciprocity from the OT
(see Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). Jesus renounces all forms of adultery endorsing strongly an
ethic of marital fidelity at the level of desire and not just act (Mt 5:31‐32; 15:19; 19:2‐6; 19:18). Jesus
repudiates stealing (Mt 15:19). He urges integrity with one’s word and so endorses ‘do not give false
testimony’ (Mt 15:19; 5:33‐37 cf. Mt 12:35‐37).

However, Jesus also challenged some of the assumptions of Judaism including a preoccupation on
essential boundary markers such as Sabbath (Mt 12:1‐8), food regulations (Mk 7:1‐23) and pedantic
tithing (Mt 23:23). He also continually focussed away from externals to matters of the heart and a
concern love of all, especially the needy and marginalised.

On at least one occasion Jesus appears to have completely overturned an essential law of Judaism;
that is, the dietary laws concerning clean and unclean food. In Mk 7 (cf. Mt 15) Jesus essentially
redefines what is clean and unclean from being that which one consumes to that which one brings
forth from the mouth and heart. However even here Jesus is in fact highlighting one OT theme over
another giving a sense of hierarchalism in his interpretation of the OT i.e. some laws are more
important than others. Another way of looking at this is that Jesus drove to the spirit rather than the
letter of the law. Or some would argue, Jesus was concerned with the end result of application of
the law i.e. that which brings the most good or love.2 Whichever is best, Jesus asserts that the
Sabbath law was about what is best for humanity i.e. one day of rest a week. Hence when Jesus
came to heal on the Sabbath he was really reinforcing the original spirit of the Sabbath law (Mt 12:1‐
12).

As such, it is questionable whether we should use the language of ‘law’ in terms of Jesus’ ethics. If
so, we need to be careful not to be too legalistic in its application to NT ethics, the spirit of the law is
what is at issue. He did not declare a new law, but declared the fulfilment of the law. He does not
abolish it, but subsumes it in every detail in an ethic of love and grace. I prefer then the language of
ideal or principle, expressed through the Spirit in love.

The Essential Elements of the Ethics of the Kingdom
Assuming that a person has accepted the Kingship of Christ and has entered into the Kingdom of
God, Jesus through his teaching in the Sermons on the Mount and Plain and through the narrative of
the Synoptics in particular, paints a picture of a life lived ethically. What might that life look like?

unclear what caused the vow, whether it was to refuse to help parents or to dedicate one’s possessions to
God’s temple. The person who made the vow can use the property until death at which time what was left
would go to the temple.
2
It is debated whether Jesus’ view of the law was deontological or teleological. The former argues that all law
is important in and of itself. The latter, that the end result is what mattered. Those who argue that Jesus was
deontological argue that Jesus saw the law in a hierarchical fashion i.e. all laws are important but certain laws
were more important and superseded others. It is probable both dimensions are in a sense correct; all law is
important, there is a hierarchy of law in Jesus’ mind (e.g. the 2 greatest laws), and that the end outcome is
important to Christ.
217

Ethical Dualism
As with apocalyptic and Pharisaic Judaism, Jesus believed in good and evil and the world, human
relationships and the human heart as subject to either. He did this through the vehicle of antithetical
illustrations and parables which accentuate that the quality of one’s life demonstrates ones
allegiance. This is seen in the three contrasts of narrow/broad path/gate; good tree/bad tree and the
two builders on sand and rock at the culmination of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7:12‐27). Other
dualities are created with the same effect such as the good grain/weeds (Mt 13:36‐43) and the good
and bad fish (Mt 13:47‐50). The people of the Kingdom are to walk in close relationship with Christ
and seek to live the ethics of the Kingdom; they will be marked by goodness.

An Ethic Driven From Relationship with God

Jesus taught relationship with God as foundational to ethics. Jesus himself modelled a life of
dependence, imitation of God, obedience, total reliance and prayer. This is foundational to Christian
ethics and the relationship of the subjects of the Kingdom to the King by the Spirit is central. Jesus
emphasised a number of key issues here including the exclusive love and worship of God with all we
have as foundational (Mk 12:29 and pars); exclusive worship of God and not money or anything else
(Mt 4:10; 6:24 cf. Deut 6:13); imitation of the attitude of God (Mt 5:48; Lk 6:36); basing ones life on
the teaching of Christ (Mt 7:24‐27); priority of the word of God seen in Jesus’ defeat of Satan in the
temptation through correct interpretation and application of the word of God (cf. Mt 4:4; 7:24‐28); a
repentant life (Mt 4:17); following in the way of Christ (Mt 4:19; 8:22; 9:9); faith (Mk 11:22‐24);
wholehearted discipleship (Mt 5:33; 8:20; Mk 8:34‐36; Lk 9:57‐62; 14:26‐34); perseverance (Mt
10:22; 24:13); prayer (Mt 6:6‐3; Mk 11:22‐24). Above all, Christian ethics are derived from the
relationship with God in Christ by the Spirit.

A Holistic Life Ethic

Jesus taught a life which is not dualistic as if some part of our lives, our beings or spheres in which
we live are given over to God and others are not. He is concerned that our attitudes, actions and
words reflect the King. He taught a general renunciation of evil thoughts and attitudes (Mt 15:19).
He taught that our hearts 3 are the crux of who we are (Mt 9:4), of our affections (Mt 6:21; Lk 12:34)
and it is from this that we act (Mt 5:28 [lust]; 15:19), and speak (Mt 12:34; 15:18, 19; Lk 6:45). This is
plain in Mt 15:19 where Jesus explains that true purity is an overflow of the heart and gives a long
vice list of those things that flow from our hearts (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21‐22). Judgement in Mt 12:33‐37
is based on our words which will acquit us or condemn us.

He taught that our actions must cohere to the ethic of the Kingdom calling for believers to act with
love, generosity, kindness and more as we do good works. For example, believers are to sell their
possessions and give to the poor (Lk 12:33 cf. Mt 6:1‐4); they are to visit the sick and the prisoners,
clothe the naked and feed the poor (Mt 25:36).

He also appealed to believers to ensure that their speech was consistent with the Kingdom, speaking
with integrity. Speech reflects what is the heart and demonstrates the state of our hearts (Mt 12:34;
15:11, 18; Lk 6:45). Believers are to be true to their word speaking honestly and with integrity (Mt
5:33‐37), renouncing false testimony (Mt 15:19), slander (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:22), deceit, crudity (Mk
7:22). Jesus’ concern against hypocrisy challenges inconsistency between what we say and what we

3
The Greek kardia is not so much our hearts as opposed to our minds, but inclusive thereof i.e. the inward
dimension of who we are .
218

do and are (e.g. Lk 12:1; Mt 7:5; 23:28). We are to be whole people, consistent throughout our
being.

An Ethic of Love for All Humanity

If there is one concept that summarises what Christ called for it is ‘love’. Love is agapē love, 4 we
giving ourselves over to others for their good and not our own. The greatest two commandments
centre on love for God and love for each other (Mk 12:29‐31 and pars; Mt 19:19). The first
summarises the sense of the first four commandments of the Decalogue; calling for love of God with
all that we have as first priority. Hence, worship precedes and grounds love for our fellow person.
This love is an exclusive love transcending all other loves including money and possessions (Mt 6:24);
greed is idolatry (cf. Col 3:5). Such love for God sums up the law and is more important than acts of
worship such as burnt offerings or sacrifices (Mk 12:33 cf. Hos 6:6; Mt 9:13; 12:7).

The second command summarises the final six commandments of the Decalogue which focus on
interpersonal relationships. People of the Kingdom are to love each other as they would like to be
loved or as they should be loved. Love marks God’s people. It is by our love the world will know that
we are his disciples, indicating that our love for one another is primary in our witness to the world
(Jn 13:34‐35). It is sacrificial.

Love is not to be limited to friends and family, or to those who reciprocate our love. Love is for
enemies (Mt 5:43‐46; Lk 6:27‐35). As such, the subject of the Kingdom is to love all people. This is an
astonishing and radical ethic given by Christ to a people who had real and living enemies as Jews
(e.g. Romans) and as believers who would experience severe social rejection and persecution for
choosing Jesus as King from Jew and Gentile alike. Love is not to be given on the basis of seeking
reward and reciprocity (cf. Mt 5:46). Jesus broke up this social notion; rather, believers are to love
freely not for reward but to honour God. The story of the Good Samaritan tells us that our neighbour
is anyone who is in need, whether friend of enemy (Lk 10:25‐37).

Jesus demonstrated this type of love for others. One example is Mk 10:21 where he gazed into the
eyes of the idolatrous greedy rich ruler and Mark writes, ‘Jesus looked at him and loved him.’ John
especially with 44/72 uses of the agap‐ terms in his Gospel. He envisages the circle of love:

John’s Understanding of Love

4
The verb agapaō and noun agapē 72x in Gospels.
219


God’s love is foundational, he loving the world and sending his Son to save it (Jn 3:16). John stresses
the intimacy of God and Jesus’ Father‐Son relationship, he loving Jesus. For example Jn 3:35: The
Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands (Jn 3:35 cf. 10:17; 17:23).’ In fact, Jesus
in his glorious unity prayer notes that God has loved him in this way from before creation itself (Jn
17:24). Jesus loves humanity (Jn 11:5). Jesus returns God’s love, doing exactly as the Father
commands; thus it is a reciprocal relationship (Jn 14:31). Jesus demonstrates God’s love especially in
taking up the towel and washing their feet as a domestic servant would do (Jn 13:1‐23) and more
importantly in the laying down of his life for the salvation of the world (Jn 10:17). He then
commands believers to love each other in the same way, serving each other with humbling sacrifice
even to the point of death (Jn 13:34). It is this love which will mark the Christian believers as
different (Jn 13:35). Love too for the believer in John is reciprocal as is God’s relationship to Christ on
earth. As Christ reciprocated with perfect obedience, love for the believer includes obedience to the
command of Christ; this obedience is a visible demonstration that one loves Christ (Jn 14:15, 21, 23,
24).

The text that encapsulates this ‘circle of love’ is Jn 15:9: ‘As the Father has loved me, so I have loved
you. Now remain in my love.’ In 15:10 the believers are told that obedience to the Jesus will see
them remain in Christ’s love, just as Christ’s obedience has seen him remain in the Father’s love. The
specific commandment they are to obey above all others is ‘love each other as I have loved you’ (Jn
15:12). The greatest demonstration of love is the love of dying for another (Jn 15:13). So, they
should love each other (Jn 15:17).

This all demonstrates the links, God, Father, humanity; all interlinked with love. Hence, love for
Christ and God is demonstrated in love for each other.

Terms linked to love

Love then is the summary of the ethics of the Kingdom. Other notions intimately are linked to this
central ethic of love.

The first of these is mercy (ele‐), 5 carrying the idea of showing pity or mercy and doing acts of
compassion for the poor and needy (cf. Mt 6:2‐4). In the Beatitudes Jesus declares that those who
show mercy are blessed and will be shown mercy by God (Mt 5:7). The Pharisees, despite their noble
intent of living out the law, are in fact guilty of failing to show mercy (Mt 23:23). 6

Another term is compassion (splagchn‐) 7 which Jesus deeply experiences on a number of occasions
as he sees the crowds and is moved with compassion and affection and which moves him to save
them (Mt 9:36), to raise the dead (Lk 7:14), to teach them (Mk 6:34), to heal them (Mt 14:14; 20:34;
Mk 1:41) and to feed them (Mt 15:32; Mk 8:2). This is the Samaritan’s attitude as he helps the
injured man (Lk 10:33) and the Father’s attitude to his returning son in the Prodigal (Lk 15:10). The
terms relate to physical reactions in the gut, intestine or bowel; hence it is the idea of being deeply

5
There are four linked terms including eleeō (‘to show mercy, pity to’ cf. Mt 5:7; 18:33; Lk 16:24; 17:13; 18:38);
eleēmosunē (‘acts of charity, actions of mercy for the poor, alms’ cf. Mt 6:4); eleēmōn (‘merciful, show
compassion to the lowly’) cf. Mt 5:7; eleos (‘mercy’ cf. Mt 9:13; Lk 10:37); see Swanson, Dictionary, 1796‐1799.
6
See Mt 5:7; 6:2, 3, 4; 9:13, 27; 12:7; 15:22; 17:15; 18:33; 20:13, 31; 23:23; Mk 5:19; 10:47, 48; Lk 1:50, 54,
58, 72, 78; 10:37; 11:41; 12:33; 16:24; 17:13; 18:38, 39.
7
The verb is splagchnizomai (‘feel compassion for, have pity on, have one’s heart go out to someone’ cf. Mt
9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; Mk 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22; Lk 7:13; 10:33; 15:20). The noun is splagchnon
(compassion, tender mercies. Affection’ cf. Lk 1:78).
220

moved from the gut to care for the needy. 8 It is obvious that believers are to emulate this, being
moved by the plight of our fellow human in distress, and acting on their behalf.

Another associated notion is that of service. Jesus of course, as we have seen, framed his mission
against the backdrop of the Servant figure of Isaiah and as such (cf. Mt 12:18; Mk 10:45). There are
also a number of references to the ideal of servanthood as a central ethic for the subject of the
Kingdom. The verse that encapsulates this best is Mk 10:42‐45 (cf. Mt 20:28; Lk 22:26):
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be
first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many (TNIV).”

The believers’ ministry is one of service and not the exertion of coercive power. Jesus demonstrates
this in his own ministry, serving rather than being served. This is antithetical to the way power works
in the ancient world where political and military might effect dominion. The path of Christian
leadership is service. Jesus also stated that greatness is achieved in the Kingdom through greatness
for ‘whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant’ (Mt 20:26, 27; see also Mt
23:11; Mk 9:35; 10:44; Lk 22:26‐27). Thus, power is a critical issue in interpretation of Jesus’
teaching. Jesus demonstrated and taught not powerlessness, but a path of power through love,
rather than power through coercive force.

As noted briefly above, the visible demonstration of Jesus taking up a towel and a hand‐basin to
cleanse the feet of the believers is a powerful demonstration of Christian leadership and service.
This was the job even Jewish slaves did not do but was for Gentile slaves, or Jewish wives and
women (Mekh Exod. 21.2.82a, based on Lev 25:39). Touching feet was not expected even of rabbinic
students; 9 yet Jesus cleanses the feet of his disciples. The true disciple of Christ is to follow in his
footsteps (Jn 13:15).

Another important word is grace (charis) which is surprisingly found only once in the Synoptics in Lk
2:40 and in 3x in John, 2x of Jesus being ‘full of grace’ (Jn 1:14, 16, 17). This becomes more important
in the Pauline epistles for the same notion. It embodies the same principle, a deep others concerned
motivated for their good and not our own gain.

Love forgives
A manifestation of this love ethic of importance is the notion of forgiveness. The language of
forgiveness is found around 50x in the Gospels. Jesus’ ministry is preceded by the prophetic ministry
of John the Baptist appealing for repentance and forgiveness (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3). Central to an ethic of
the Kingdom is that aside from the perplexing exception of the sin against the Spirit, 10 God utterly
forgives through Christ those who come to him in genuine repentance and confession (Mt 9:2‐6; Mk

8
See also Mt 18:27; Mk 9:22; Lk 1:78 (a characteristic of God i.e. ‘the tender mercy of God’).
9
Gerald L. Borchert, vol. 25B, John 12‐21, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American
Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003, c2002), 79. See also George R. Beasley‐Murray,
vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary : John, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 233.
10
In Mk 3:28‐30 this saying of Jesus is linked to the Jewish leadership attributing to Jesus the work of Satan
rather than God. It could be that this is the idea here, Jesus saying that where we attribute the works of God to
the hand of Satan, we are sinning against the Spirit. Matthew in his account preserves this link (Mt 12:30‐31).
Luke severes it from this context but it is difficult to interpret it surely against its context as it is set in a group
of sayings which do not really help greatly. As such, I prefer the interpretation drawn from the Markan
context.
221

2:5‐10; Lk 1:77; 11 5:20‐24; 7:47‐49). The new covenant is a covenant of blood which, unlike the
limited effect of the Sinaic Covenant, brings utter forgiveness (Mt 26:28). In turn, believers are to
forgive others (Lk 6:37). The Lord’s Prayer includes prayer for both dimensions, ‘forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors’ (Mt 6:12 TNIV cf. Lk 11:4). The two dimensions are linked
indicating that believers who wish to be forgiven must demonstrate forgiveness to those who harm
them (Mt 6:14‐15; Mk 11:25). Failure to forgive others indicates a failure to accept the forgiveness of
God (Mt 6:14‐15; 18:35). The extent of forgiveness is complete as indicated by the ‘seven times’ in
Mt 18:21; Lk 17:3‐4. Jesus’ words from the cross, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what
they are doing’ indicates that this is an inclusive notion and gives us a glorious radical example of
forgiveness. Jesus appealing for God to forgive his killers, it is ‘forgive your enemies’ in action (Lk
23:34). 12 Luke records that mission is the preaching of repentance and forgiveness throughout the
world; this including God’s forgiveness and our forgiving of others (Lk 24:47).

Love abhors judgementalism

Another critical dimension of the love ethic of the Kingdom, is an abhorrence of judgementalism. In
Mt 7:1‐5 and Lk 6:37, 41, 42 Jesus commands that believers must not stand in judgement over
another. Clearly, this does not mean making judgements concerning right and wrong, discerning
what is good and what is not. Rather, the appeal is targeting judgement of others and a failure to
judge ourselves. The parable concerning logs/specks in the eye is humorous and deadly serious at
the same time. We are not to take God’s position and bring judgement on another thus usurping his
authority. True love does not stand in judgement over another, but is self‐critical with grace toward
oneself and to others.

Love includes peacemaking

Other dimensions of this love ethic include peacemaking in Mt 5:9. Blessed are those who work to
establish peace in human relationships. This is a call to be the peace‐makers of the world, to take the
lead in bringing reconciliation. Another ethical ideal is gentleness. Jesus exhorts an ethic of non‐
violence, whereby we respond to persecution and suffering with prayer and grace (Mt 5:21‐22; 38‐
48; Lk 6:27‐31). In Mt 11:28‐30 Jesus speaks of his own ministry as one of gentleness, inviting the
weary and burdened to come to him for rest, to take up his call, to learn from him because he is
gentle and humble of heart. This balances the seemingly harsh demands for wholehearted
discipleship, Jesus here indicating that he is not harsh but gentle, and gives rest to those who seek it.
In Mt 12:20 picking up the servant song of Is 42:1‐4, Matthew says of Jesus: ‘a bruised reed he will
not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out’ indicating his ministry is one of restoration
and healing where he meets brokenness and not of damaging his people. When he enters Jerusalem
he enters on a donkey rather than a warhorse coming ‘gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt,
the foal of a donkey.’ Gentleness is a mark of the subject of the Kingdom.

11
Luke has a particular interest in this as central to his understanding of salvation.
12
This is a disputed text. Many of the best manuscripts like P75 do not include it. However, many
textual scholars believe it is authentic as it makes sense of Acts 8:60. There are different views, some
believing it to be original to the text. More likely, it is an original authentic saying of Jesus added to
the text; cf. Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New
Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 154.
222

Love is inclusive
The ethic of love is an inclusive ethic. Jesus broke ritual purity regulations enjoying table fellowship
with those considered unclean and sinful; for which he was severely criticised (Mt 9:11; Mk 2:16; Lk
5:30; 7:34, 39; 15:2). He hung out with sinners, with despised collaborating traitorous tax collectors
(Mt 9:10‐13; Mk 2:15‐17; Lk 5:29‐32; 19:1‐10) even calling them to his team (Mt 9:9; 10:3; Mk 2:14;
Lk 5:27); 13 accepted the offerings and intimate physical affection of a woman who was almost
certainly a prostitute offering her acceptance and forgiveness (Lk 7:36‐50). Such people accepted the
Kingdom of God while many ‘good Jews’ did not (Mt 21:31, 32). Jesus was welcoming of those with
disabilities, calling for believers to do the same (Lk 14:21). He is found among the sick including
those seen as despised and contagious, the lepers who were marginalised (Mt 8:2‐3; Mk 1:40‐42; Lk
5:12‐13; Lk 17:10‐19). He called for believers to minister to and among the sick (Mt 10P:8; 25:36; Lk
10:34; 14:ADD), They were to reach out to the poor in spirit and the mournful (Mt 5:3‐4). He even
eats in the home of Simon the Leper (Mt 26:6; Mk 14:3). He called for believers to do the same (Mt
10:8; 11:5) along with the stranger (Mt 25:35) and the prisoner (Mt 25:36). This is remarkable stuff,
because those who were sick were considered sinners or demonised and as such, Jesus as a holy
man should have avoided them for ritual purity.

Jesus welcomed children, taking them in his arms and blessing them (Mt 18:1‐3; 19:13‐15; Mk 9:33‐
37; 10:13‐16; Lk 9:46‐48; 18:15‐17). He rebuked strongly those who teach such to sin (Mt 18:6‐8).

In a patriarchal culture where women were servants to men, were not permitted to be disciples,
where their testimony was of little value, and where a man would not speak to a woman in public,
let alone a sinner, Jesus was a revolutionary in terms of gender. While he did not appoint any
women to the 12, he did not appoint any Gentiles either; hence, this cannot be used as a basis to
limit women’s roles. On examination, he actually had a counter‐cultural permissive approach. He
accepted the intimate and almost sexual reverence of an unclean ‘sinful’ woman (probably a
prostitute with the proceeds of her trade) and honours her before the Jewish leaders (Lk 7:37‐50 cf.
Jn 8:1‐12). He travelled with woman (Lk 8:1‐3), allowed them to sit at his feet as disciples (Lk 10:48‐
42) and even sought a drink and engaged in dialogue with an adulterous and so ‘unclean’ and ‘sinful’
Samaritan woman (Jn 4:7‐42).14 This woman became an evangelist for his cause, leading her whole
village to faith in Christ as Messiah. He chose to appear to a woman first after his resurrection (Jn
20:10‐18). He placed no limitation on them and showed a generally permissive attitude to others (cf.
Mk 9:38‐41 and pars).

He refused to punish the despised Samaritans when they rejected him (Lk 9:51‐55), preferring to
make a Samaritan a hero in his next parable (Lk 10:25‐37). It can be argued Jesus was anti‐Gentile in
that he did not pick any Gentiles as Apostles, and he clearly was uncomfortable ministering beyond
Israel, stating that he had come for the ‘lost sheep of Israel’ (Mt 10:6; 15:24 cf. 15:27). He also
limited the ministry of the Apostles to Israel. However, this appears to be strategic, as while he did
this, he did give hints to a broader purpose such healing Gentiles, albeit reluctantly (Mk 7:24‐30; Mt
15:21‐28) and talking to them (Jn 12:20). More explicitly, the commission texts and others which
anticipate Gentile mission clearly indicate that the ultimate goal was the whole world (Mt 28:18‐20;
Lk 24:46‐49; Acts 1:8 cf. Mk 13:10). As such, Jesus was no racist and the Kingdom should be free of
all racism, we are one in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11‐22). The Kingdom of Love is truly an inclusive
kingdom.

13
The way in which tax collectors is viewed is demonstrated in Mt 5:46 where Jesus gives them as an extreme
example of those considered sinners by others as he explains the true scope of love: ‘are not even the tax
collectors doing that?’ See also Mt 18:17.
14
This is arguably the most radical encounter of Christ with a woman. He asks for a drink from, and speaks to a
despised Samaritan adulterer. He breaks gender, race and purity protocols. She then acknowledges him as
Messiah and evangelises her town! Wow!
223

Love strengthens unity

Unity is another manifestation of the ethic of love. Jesus began his mission through calling people to
follow him and as such created community. This group were hardly the hot shots of the age
including a mercenary zealot (Simon), fishermen (Peter, Andrew, James, John), a despised tax‐
collector (Matthew) and others, none of whom are of nobility. Women and Gentiles were not in this
initial group; however, very quickly women joined this team, some from dubious backgrounds,
travelling with Jesus and supporting him. Some of these women such as Joana the wife of Herod’s
steward Chuza, 15 were not insignificant indicating Jesus’ broad acceptance even including some of
the wealthy (cf. Zacchaeus and Joseph of Arimathea [Lk 19:8; 23:50‐53]). 16 Jesus’ commission
appealed to his followers to include in this community Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles alike. Jesus
exhorted unity. In his response to the Pharisee’s accusation of his being from Satan he stated that a
human group divided will fall (Mt 12:25‐28). In his prayer of Jn 17:23 he prayed for ‘complete unity’,
that this community would be one, united in love with God and the Son; a koinōnia of fellowship
demonstrating to God the ideal of unity. He urged believers to reconcile differences with others
before coming to worship (Mt 5:23‐26); including a preparedness to settle out of court with their
brother (cf. 1 Cor 6:1‐8). The appeals for forgiveness and peacemaking mentioned above also
demonstrate this concern for the unity of the people of God.

Love is generous
Jesus concretises the notion of love and service in particular around the issue of wealth and poverty.
Of all the ethical issues Jesus spoke to, the most vehement attacks and challenges revolved around
the issue of money and possessions. He completely renounced the love of money (Mt 6:24; Mk 7:22)
making plain that no‐one can serve both God and money. He gave great warnings of judgement
(‘woe’) for the rich (Lk 6:24‐26) while giving the hope of blessing to the poor (Lk 6:20‐22). He
encouraged his disciples to store up for themselves treasure in heaven by acts of giving and
righteousness on earth (Mt 6:19‐24). He exhorted them to focus their hearts on the matters of the
Kingdom rather than wealth accumulation (Mt 6:21‐23). He encouraged them to seek first his
Kingdom and justice and renounce worry about personal provision, radically trusting God to provide
as he did for the natural world (Mt 6:24‐34). He appealed for good stewardship with money (Lk 16:1‐
13). He warned of the dangers of greed and their power to destroy faith and fruitfulness (Lk 8:14;
12:13‐15). His parables in particular warned of judgement for those who focussed on wealth over
generosity to God and the needy (Lk 12:16‐21; 16:19‐31; Mt 25:41‐45).

Yet Jesus also spoke of material blessings for the generous (Lk 6:38) and those who made great
sacrifices for the Kingdom (Mk 10:29‐30). The overall tenor of his teaching was that this blessing was
primarily eschatological and future rather than present (treasure in heaven cf. Mt 6:19‐21; 19:21; Lk
12:33‐34). Or perhaps better, there is present day blessing if a believer is generous, but the fruit of
this blessing should be redistributed in the present for the furthering of the Kingdom. Jesus taught

15
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke : A Commentary on the Greek Text, Includes Indexes., The
New international Greek testament commentary (Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press, 1978), 317 notes
that epitropos ‘can mean “manager, foreman, steward” (Mt. 20:8); a “guardian” (Gal. 4:2**); or a
Roman “procurator” (cf. the use of the verb, Lk. 3:1 D). The precise office of Chuza cannot be
ascertained, but he may have been a high functionary in Herod’s court.’
16
See also the priests in Acts 6:7; Cornelius a Roman soldier in Acts 10:1–48; Sergius Paulus a Roman
official in Acts 13:7, 12; Dionysius a member of the Areopagus in Acts 17:43; Crispus a synagogue
leader in Acts 18:8; Ephesus officials in Acts 19:31 cf. Acts 17:12.

224

that people were blessed to differing degrees (Mt 21:14‐30). However the believer is blessed
however, they are not to hoard possessions in the present but continue to reinvest them for the
work of the Kingdom. Hence the Kingdom is like a growing business into which the profits are
completely ploughed, until the work is done. He encouraged shrewdness with material resources
without ever resorting to dishonesty, poor stewardship or the love of money (Lk 16:1‐14).

Putting it all together Jesus appeared to have little problem with people earning a big income as long
as it was ethically gained and for the right motivation (Kingdom of God first, all else second).
However, Jesus’ appeared very concerned about how people used that money and reinvested it.
That is, it was not to be enjoyed in the present but put to work for the Kingdom. This implies an
attitude of contentment, of simple living and radical giving. And in the Kingdom to come, inestimable
blessings!

An Ethic of Engagement
Jesus rarely uses the term ‘holy’ of believers using it in the main of the Spirit, places, holy people
(saints), the holy city (Jerusalem), angels, God and of Christ (e.g. Holy One of God [Mk 1:24]). This is
an interesting choice on behalf of Christ and those telling story. They are not advocating that the
people of God live in purity and avoidance of sin, rather they are to be engaged in the world.

Similarly, there are no commands to retreat from the context of the world into a communal Essene‐
like separatism. Rather, there are continual commands to be engaged with the world. Jesus
demonstrates this as he leaves his eternal pre‐existence, and engages directly with humanity
through the incarnation. He does not shun certain peoples or parts of society, but is among the poor,
the lepers, the untouchables.

Ethics cannot be separated from mission in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus encouraged emulation of the love
of God in reaching out to humanity through his own ministry to the lost sheep through his followers
going themselves to the lost sheep (Mt 10:6; 18:10‐14 [Parable of the lost Sheep]; Lk 15:1‐10).
Initially this was limited to Israel (10:6; 15:24). However, after the resurrection this was extended to
all nations (Mt 28:18‐20). This mission involved expressing a Christian ethic in attitude and behaviour
alongside sharing the message verbally. It involved caring and providing for the needy including all
who are marginalised in some way, the sick and disabled, the imprisoned, the lost, those who mourn
and suffer and more (Lk 14:15‐25; Mt 25:31‐46). At the heart of the ethic of Christ is the principle of
giving freely (Mt 10:9) and servanthood. The believer, having received the grace of God, is to pass it
on in a whole lifestyle (Mt 22:1‐14; Lk 14:15‐24). The context for the expression of the ethics of the
Kingdom is family, church and world. There is no dualism in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus called for
consistency of ethic in all contexts whether alone, in family, with friends, at work or play. The
believer is to intentionally cast ethical influence through attitude, word and deed as demonstrated in
the parables of the salt and light (Mt 5:13‐16). Without an authentic Christian ethic expressed to the
world, our mission is dead, no matter how many wonderful words we say. It is by our love that
others will know that we are Christ’s disciples (Jn 13:34‐35).

As such the ethic of the Kingdom is one of engagement whereby the people live the gospel in the
world. There are a variety of nuances to this. On the one hand we want to draw people to the
Kingdom through this ethic, it is thus a tool of evangelism. However, it is much more. Our ethic is a
demonstration of the Kingdom, declaring to the world through our unity and love that there is
another way of living so inviting people into this new life. Our ethic is also part of the broader
mission of God to transform the world, and see it restored to God’s initial intention. Hence, living the
ethic of the kingdom is transformative and mission in and of itself. God’s desire is to see love
through all dimensions of life, where love is, there is the ideal of God being lived out.
225


One area where we as westerners in a society which separates state and church fail to recognise the
engagement dimension of Jesus’ ethic is politics. Jesus on the face of it was not a political man. He
was not imperialistic and did not seek to remove from office the Jewish leadership (Sanhedrin,
Herod) or Roman rule (Caesar). He was expected to lead a coup de tat against Rome as Messiah. He
appears to our reading to work at a spiritual level, staying outside of the political scene. However,
we have to realise that Jesus functioned in a society where the spiritual and secular were tied
together, in a sense all was political and all was spiritual. There was no separation of state and faith.

When thought about in this way, Jesus was in an indirect and subversive sense, profoundly political.
His ministry at every level challenged society’s power structures. His proclamation of the Kingdom of
God declared that all other claims to ultimate authority were usurpers and that God is king. He
declared himself the King to be followed as first priority above all political powers. He taught of a
radically new world that was governed not by military might, but love. He taught of leadership
through the power of servanthood. His ministry in actually fact continually challenged and subverted
political power, social order, the status quo, the authority of Jewish religious and political rulers,
Roman might and rule. In fact, he was a revolutionary who, while completely shunning the use of
military force, was committed to a reversal of the world’s notion of political power with
egalitarianism and service!

He proclaimed a new Kingdom! That is, the chosen notion to base his work around was the political
and spiritual rule of God through him as his delegate King. When we join this Kingdom our values
clash with the ruling authorities in any context. Consequently, to be a Christian is to be profoundly
political as we proclaim Jesus is LORD (not Caesar, Labour, National or any other political power) and
work for the Kingdom of God. We are infiltrating this world based on false premises with a love ethic
seeing effectively the politics of this world crumble before the might of servanthood.

What about being involved in politics? There is no doubt that God wants Christians deeply involved
in all levels of society, at a structural level. A Christian ethic is not one of withdrawal but of
engagement. In our Westminster democratic MMP environment Christians can either form parties
and work for change, or get involved in the major parties, and work for the Kingdom from within. I
prefer the latter, because the notion of a ‘Christian party’ is not a category I see in Scripture and is
difficult to gain traction with in today’s scene.

An Ethic of Justice
True love is just in that love calls for action on the part of those who are in need and victims of
injustice. The dikaio‐ nexus of terms encapsulate the notion of righteousness and justice. We have
seen this concern for justice through the above analysis especially in terms of the Kingdom’s concern
for the marginalised. Luke’s programmatic Nazareth Sermon in 4:18‐19 citing Is 61:1‐2 strongly
speaks of the Kingdom bringing justice, bringing an eschatological reversal with the notions like
‘good news to the poor… release to the captives… recovery of sight to the blind… the oppressed go
free… the year of the Lord’s favour.’ The passage speaks of release from exile and bondage, the year
of Jubilee in which debts are wiped out and justice restored (Lev 25:8‐55). Luke’s Gospel
demonstrates how this comes to pass as Jesus’ brings God’s salvation and justice through spiritual
and material restoration.

As we examine the language of ‘righteousness’ in the Gospels, we see that the Kingdom is concerned
for justice at other points. For example, the ‘acts of righteousness’ referred to in Mt 6:1 can equally
be interpreted ‘acts of justice’, the context speaking of giving to the poor. Similarly, following on
from the concern for material need, the oft‐quoted ‘seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness’
226

can read ‘and his justice’, calling the believer to seek the Kingdom and the radical fairness of
equitable material distribution. Matthew’s quote of Is 42:1‐4 concerning Jesus also speaks of he who
will ‘proclaim justice to the nations’ and ‘till he leads justice to victory;’ the ministry of the servant to
remove injustice (Mt 12:18, 20). The critique of the Pharisees and Scribes pedantic application of
tithing in Mt 23:23 (cf. Lk 11:42) was due to their failure to adhere to the more important matters of
the law including justice (mercy and faithfulness). The parable of the persistent widow revolves
around the notion of justice, the judge granting justice on the basis of her perseverance (Lk 18:3‐8).
The Christian is committed to the removal of oppression and injustice and stand with those who are
victims. God’s restoration project is committed to the removal of all such oppression. This will
involve a concern for the poor, the marginalised, the removal of oppression on the basis of age, race,
gender and all that God created us to be. It will ascribe eternal value to every life (Mt 10:29‐31), an
ethic which undergirds Christian resistance to abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty.

An Ethic of Family, Love and Sexual Purity

Jesus entered a world that was governed by Levitical law (esp. Lev 18, 20). This law strongly
prohibited all forms of sexual union outside of a heterosexual marriage. Among other prohibited
variants, to have sex before marriage, engage in homosexuality or commit adultery was strongly
prohibited. Some sexual offences demanded the death penalty (Exod 22:19; Lev 20:15 [sex with an
animal]; Lev 20:10‐11 [adultery, incest]; Lev 20:13 [homosexuality]). The Decalogue command, ‘do
not commit adultery’ (Exod 20:14) was interpreted in the wider apodictic law as a blanket
prohibition of a wide range of offences.

Jesus endorsed a classic Jewish sexual ethic, modified it and en‐graced it. He endorsed it at several
points accepting that one should not commit adultery (Mt 5:27‐28, 32; 19:9; 19:18) and that all
porneia (sexual sin) is evil (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21 & pars).

Jesus modified the sexual ethic in several ways. At one level he intensified it, stating that not only is
the act of sexual immorality sin, but the lusts of the heart are adulterous. This takes sexual
transgression from merely behavioural to attitudinal i.e. to objectify another human for sexual
pleasure is adultery (Mt 5:27‐30). He also stated that to remarry was to commit adultery except in
Matthew, where there had been sexual immorality (Mk 10:1‐12; Mt 19:1‐9). Jesus also believed it
was possible to be single and chaste, seeing it as a gift and modelling a life of sexual purity. In other
ways he softened it effectively removing the death penalty for adultery (Jn 8:1‐11) and accepting
contact with people considered sexually immoral and sinners (e.g. Lk 7:37‐50; Jn 4:1‐24; Mk 5:24‐
29). 17

He en‐graced it demonstrated great grace and forgiveness to those who had strayed in this area,
forgiving them and reinstating them to community. He commanded an ethic of love which
undoubtedly applied to all parts of life including marriage and family. Love involves not violating the
humanity of others by objectifying them for our sexual pleasure. Sexual immorality is dehumanising
and a violation of one’s image bearing humanity and is a sin against the creator.

Putting it all together one gets the sense that Jesus held strongly to the ideal of sexual relationships
set in the context of heterosexual married contexts. He advocated no divorce except on the grounds
where one’s partner was guilty of sexual immorality and stated that remarriage was divorce. Having
said that, I would argue that this is not law in the OT sense, rather it is principle or ideal. The law
should not set the agenda alone, but must be framed in Jesus’ strong demonstration of grace and
forgiveness and ‘second chances’. We as Christians should continue to affirm this ethic without

17
The women may well have had ongoing menstrual bleeding.
227

softening on the ideal while showing tremendous grace forgiveness to those who are sexually sinful
or have been victims thereof.

Jesus endorsed family, valuing children, and encouraging love as the basis for all relationships.

Conclusion to Ethics
There are two equal and opposite dangers that can mark our approach to ethics in soteriological
terms. One is to overstate the importance of Christian ethics and promote a dogma of legalism and
works. Hence we become preoccupied with Jesus’ teaching as a new law and so a new means by
which we are chained up and held captive; preoccupied with our failure and concern for our
salvation. This is clearly wrong. We are saved by grace not by works. Our ethic is rooted in love,
freedom, the Spirit and grace and not in pedantic legalism and a salvation by works.

The second danger is to understate the importance of ethics in Jesus teaching and Christian living.
Clearly Jesus taught that right ethics was the essential mark of the authentic disciple. This cannot be
downplayed. Indeed it is because of our ethics that people will know that we are his disciples in Jn
13:34‐35: ‘A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one
another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.’

However we are to live this ethic from a positivistic framework. That is we live not out of fear of
judgement or a legalistic concern for perfection. Rather we live positively out of love with joy that
we have experienced God’s forgiveness, healing and forgiveness, and with a desire to help others
know that same grace. In this way the community of faith will be a context of grace which reaches
out with grace and into which people will wish to come and experience and express the love of God.


• How does our individualism blind us to the corporate nature of Kingdom ethics?
• Should we use the language of ‘law’ in Christian ethics?
• What does it mean that Jesus’ fulfilled the Law?

228

Chapter Thirteen
THE PASSION OF THE KING.
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 230
Elements of the account ..................................................................................................................... 230
Pre‐arrest events ............................................................................................................................. 231
The arrest, trial and suffering at the hands of the soldiers ............................................................ 231
Golgotha and the crucifixion ........................................................................................................... 232
Post‐death events ........................................................................................................................... 233
Burial ............................................................................................................................................... 233
Anticipation of his death in the Gospels ............................................................................................. 233
Synoptic Allusions and Provocation ................................................................................................ 233
John Allusions and Provocation ...................................................................................................... 235
Explicit Predictions .......................................................................................................................... 236
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 237
Crucifixion in the Ancient World ......................................................................................................... 237
Other Mentions of the Crucifixion of Christ ....................................................................................... 238
The Date of the Crucifixion ................................................................................................................. 239
The Problem .................................................................................................................................... 239
Resolving the Dilemma ................................................................................................................... 239
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 239
The Role of the OT in the Passion Narrative. ...................................................................................... 239
General fulfilment ........................................................................................................................... 240
Allusions .......................................................................................................................................... 240
Specific Citations ............................................................................................................................. 240
The Problem of a Crucified Messiah. .................................................................................................. 241
Why Was Jesus Crucified? ................................................................................................................... 242
Why the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus? ...................................................................................... 242
Issues in the Synoptics Pre‐Passion Narrative ............................................................................ 242
Issues in John’s Pre‐Passion Narrative ........................................................................................ 243
The Trial Issues ............................................................................................................................ 244
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 245
Why the Romans killed Jesus? ........................................................................................................ 246
The Role of Satan in the Killing of Jesus .......................................................................................... 247
Jesus’ own role ................................................................................................................................ 248
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 248

229

The Passion of the King
Introduction
The story of Jesus’ Passion (from Lat. Passio = suffering) is the heart of Christian faith. Christians
believe that through this event along with the resurrection, salvation was achieved. Hence, its
importance cannot be underestimated. Each of the four Gospels climaxes with the tragic then
glorious account of Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is central to the preaching of Acts and the
theology of Paul; ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Cor 15:3). The crucifixion is the point of ultimate
darkness, defeat and the shattering of the hopes of the disciples. It is a story of injustice, terrible
suffering, human brutality, pain and death. While there are differences in detail, the account is
consistent across the four Gospels.

Elements of the account
We are blessed to have four accounts of the crucifixion. There are distinctive elements to each
account. Marks is considered to be the earliest account and if, as we have argued, it is based on
Peter’s recollection, Peter is the primary source. Matthew holds very closely to Mark.

John may have had a completely different source for his tradition (probably himself) which accounts
for the different details. Some of these include:
Jesus knocking over his arrestors with the comment ‘I am’, part of John’s ‘I am’ Christology (cf. Jn
18:6).
1. The detail of the servant’s name, Malchus (Jn 18:10).
2. Differing details of Jesus’ discussions with Pilate (Jn 18:28‐38).
3. Important information such as the Roman ban on Jewish capital punishment (Jn 18:31).
4. The detail that the sign on the cross was written in 3 languages, Aramaic, Latin, Greek (Jn
19:19‐20).
5. Jesus’ words, ‘It is finished’ (Jn 19:30).
6. Nicodemus accompanying Joseph to the burial (Jn 19:38).

Luke uses Markan material but adds to it his own material including:
1. Jesus before Herod as well as Pilate (Lk 23:7‐12).
2. Jesus’ warning to Jerusalem (Lk 23:27–31).
3. Jesus’ intercessory prayer from the cross (Lk 23:34a).
4. Jesus’ interaction with the crucified criminals (Lk 23:39–43).
5. Luke’s description of the repentance of the multitudes in (Lk 23:48).
6. While Mark 15:29–30 suggests the influence of the latter half of Psalm 22:7 (‘shaking their
heads’), Lk 23:35 may have been influenced by the first half of Psalm 22:7 (‘seeing … they
mocked’).

This suggests Luke had additional sources. In that Luke was with Paul in 21:17 when he came to
Jerusalem, he would have had access to a wide range of witnesses to the event and he probably
gained additional information to fill out Mark’s account during that time.

What follows is the general outline of the crucifixion event harmonising the Four Gospels, with
notes. It takes the view of historical agreement with detail differentiation through differing
recollection and sources; differences are noted throughout.

230

Pre‐arrest events
1. The Plot to Kill Jesus (Mt 26:1‐5; Mk 14:1‐2; Lk 22:1‐2; Jn 11:53). The leaders of Israel seek to
kill Jesus to end his influence over the people and his corruption of the Jewish faith.
2. Jesus’ Anointing at Bethany (Mt 26:2‐13; Mk 14:3‐9; Jn 12:1‐8). A woman, Mary of Bethany
(sister of Martha and Lazarus) anoints Jesus’ feet with oil preparing him for burial. Judas
protests at the waste of money and Jesus accepts her lavish offering. This is to be
proclaimed throughout the world.
3. Judas’ Agreement to betray Jesus (Mt 26:14‐16; Mk 14:10‐11; Jn 13:2; 18‐30). Judas offers
to betray Jesus for money. Matthew records that it was 30 silver coins. Luke records that he
was working under Satan’s influence.
4. The Last Supper (Mt 26:17‐30; Mk 14:12‐26; Lk 22:7‐38; 13:26). Jesus’ disciples make
arrangements and then eat a final Passover meal with Jesus at which he predicts his own
betrayal from one of the twelve. In Luke Jesus teaches on servanthood. John sees it as the
pre‐Passover meal and has little detail concerning the actual meal except reference to eating
bread with Judas. However John adds the foot‐washing, significant dialogue with the
disciples and Jesus’ final prayer (Jn 13‐17).
5. The Prediction of Peter’s betrayal (Mt 26:31‐35; Mk 14:27‐31; Lk 22:31‐34; Jn 13:31‐38).
Jesus predicts that Peter will deny Jesus before a rooster crows. Peter absolutely denies this.
Mk records that the rooster will crow twice, Matthew, Luke and John only once. In Luke this
prediction has additional detail including the Satanic sifting of Peter, the need to purchase a
sword and reference to Is 53:12 linking Jesus’ death to this passage.
6. Praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36‐46; Mk 14:32‐42; Lk 22:39‐46). Jesus goes
to the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives and prays 3 times for deliverance from
the cross tempered with an overriding concern for God’s will. The disciples sleep when they
have been asked to pray and Jesus rebukes them for their soporific response. John does not
record the details of the prayer but refers to Jesus going across the Kidron Valley to an olive
grove (i.e. Gethsemane) (Jn 18:1).

The arrest, trial and suffering at the hands of the soldiers

1. Jesus’ Arrest (Mt 26:47‐56; Mk 14:43‐52; Lk 22:47‐55; Jn 18:1‐11). After praying, Judas leads
soldiers to the Garden and betrays Jesus with a kiss. One of the disciples struck the high
priests servant (Malchus [Jn 18:10]) with a sword, severing his ear. Jesus heals the ear. Mark
records a young man flees naked (John Mark?). John records the soldiers falling at the words
‘I am’ another example of his divine power and identity in John.
2. Jesus Before the Sanhedrin (Mt 26:57‐68; Mk 14:53‐65; Jn 18:12‐14, 19‐24, 28). Jesus is
taken before the Jewish Council under the leadership of Caiaphas the High Priest, and is
interrogated. They bring false witnesses who state he had threatened to destroy the temple.
When asked if he is the Messiah, Jesus explicitly states ‘I am’ invoking the name of Yahweh,
and speaks of sitting at the right hand of God and coming in the clouds of heaven in Danielic
terms. This leads the High Priest to tear his clothes and pronounce him guilty. Some of the
council mock him and strike him. John adds the information that he initially was sent to
Annas, Caiaphas’ father‐in‐law from where he was sent to Pilate.
3. Peter Denies Jesus (Mt 26:69‐75; Mk 14:66‐72; Lk 22:54‐62; Jn 18:15‐18, 25‐27). Meanwhile
Peter in the courtyard outside is asked three times if he is a companion of Jesus. He denies it
emphatically. The rooster then crows (twice in Mk, once in Mt) and Peter is filled with
remorse. This happens before Jesus’ is tried in Luke.
4. Judas’ Remorse (Mt 27:1‐10). While Mark and John are silent on the fate of Judas, Matthew
records that he returned to the Jewish leaders, threw the coins in and went out and hanged
himself. The Jewish leaders then brought a field with the money. Luke records that he
brought a field with the money and he fell headlong and his bowels burst open (Acts 1:18).
231

5. Jesus Before Pilate (Mt 27:11‐14; Mk 15:1‐15; Lk 22:66‐23:16; Jn 18:28‐38). Jesus is
interrogated by Pilate, the Roman procurator, at the behest of the Sanhedrin. When asked if
he is the King of the Jews, Jesus answers affirmatively. However Jesus refused to answer the
charges brought against him. Luke records that Jesus was also taken to Herod and he
emphasizes Jesus’ innocence of all charges. John also emphasizes Pilate’s view of Jesus’
innocence and adds details of the discussion.
6. Barabbas Released (Mt 25:15‐25; Mk 15:6‐15; Lk 23:18‐25; Jn 18:39‐40). Pilate invoked the
Passover custom of releasing a prisoner. He gave the crowd the option of Barabbas, a
terrorist, or Jesus. The chief priests stirred up the crowd to choose Barabbas which they did,
crying ‘crucify him’ concerning Jesus. Despite Jesus’ innocence, due to political expediency,
Pilate sent him for flogging and crucifixion. John refers to Pilate’s repeated attempts to
convince the Jewish leaders that he should release Jesus but for political expediency sends
him to crucifixion (Jn 19:6‐16).
7. The Soldiers Flog and Mock Jesus (Mt 27:27‐31; Mk 15:15‐20; Lk 22:63‐65; Jn 19:1‐6). Jesus
is flogged, led to the Praetorium, mocked, dressed in a purple robe and a crown of thorns
and beaten. In Luke Jesus is mocked before trial. John records that Jesus was returned to the
crowd arrayed in purple and the crown and the chief priests and their officials cry ‘crucify’.
8. Simon of Cyrene Carries the Cross (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:15‐21; Lk 23:26‐31). Jesus is led away to
be crucified and the soldiers force Simon of Cyrene to carry his cross for him. Lk adds
additional information about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem (Lk 23:28‐31). John records
however that Jesus carries his own cross (Jn 19:17) probably to emphasise Jesus’ control
over the situation.

Golgotha and the crucifixion 1

1. Gall, Gambling, Sign: The soldiers offer Jesus gall, gamble for his clothes and place a sign
above him (Mt 25:32‐37; Mk 15:22‐26; Lk 23:34‐38; Jn 19:16‐24). Jesus is taken to Golgotha
(place of the skull) for crucifixion. They offer him sour wine with myrrh and cast lots for his
robe. They place a sign on his cross which reads, ‘king of the Jews’. John records that the
sign was written in Greek, Latin and Aramaic.
2. Jesus is Crucified (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:27; Jn 19:18). Jesus is nailed to the cross. There is no
developed description, just a blunt statement of his crucifixion.
3. Two Thieves are Crucified (Mt 27:38‐40, 44; Lk 12:32‐43; Jn 19:18). Two thieves are crucified
with Jesus. Matthew and Mark record that they both mock him. Luke records one mocks him
and the other asks him to remember him, Jesus pronounces that he will be in paradise with
him that day.
4. Jesus Pronounces Forgiveness on his Killers (Lk 23:34). In a disputed text, Luke records that
Jesus prays to God for the forgiveness of his antagonists.
5. Jesus Addresses the ‘Beloved Disciple’ (John). John records that Jesus calls for the ‘beloved
disciple’ (John) to care for Mary. He also records the names of the women present including
his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
6. Jesus is Mocked by the Jewish Leaders (Mt 27:41‐43). Jesus is mocked by the Jewish leaders
challenging him to save himself, come down from the cross. In Luke he is mocked by the
general populace and the soldiers (Lk 23:25‐27).
7. Jesus Cries out in Thirst. John records that Jesus cries out ‘I am thirsty’, was offered vinegar
and accepted it (Jn 19:28‐29)

1
Golgotha (‘the place of the skull’) is the place of crucifixion in all Gospels. It is unclear where this place is. It is
a place outside of the walls of Jerusalem (Jn 19:20; cf. Heb 13:12), a public place probably near a busy road
(e.g., Mk 15:29, 40) and not too far from his tomb (Jn 19:41). This is probably where is found the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, located within the Old City of Jerusalem, but outside the wall in the 1st Century.
232

8. Jesus Final Words and Death (Mt 27:45‐50; Mk 15:33‐37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30). Jesus cries out
from the cross with the words of Ps 22:1. Those watching think he is calling for Elijah (eloi,
eloi), offer him wine which he refuses, and with a loud cry, Jesus dies. Luke records Jesus as
saying, ‘Father into your hands I commit my spirit.’ John records that his final words were ‘it
is finished’. This creates a degree of uncertainty concerning Jesus’ last words. We can
harmonise or let the traditions stand alone with a degree of doubt.

Post-death events
1. The Breaking of the Legs and Piercing of the Side. These are recorded in John only. Jesus’
legs were not broken as he was already dead. His side was pierced and the blood that flowed
had separated pointing to his death (Jn 19:31‐37).
2. The Curtain in the Temple Splits in Two (Mt 27:51; Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45). This is symbolic of
the breaking open of the inner sanctum to God all able to enter rather than just the high
priest once a year after suitable sacrifices. This symbolises the reconciliation of God and
humanity.
3. Three Hours of Darkness. Luke records that darkness descended for three hours from noon
to 3 pm (Lk 23:44‐45).
4. An Earthquake and the Dead Rise. Matthew records that there is an earthquake and some
tombs are broken open and some are raised to life (Mt 27:52‐54).
5. The centurion confesses Jesus is the Son of God (Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39; Lk 23:47). In Luke’s
Gospel he says, ‘surely he was a righteous man.’
6. The women at the Crucifixion: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses (not
Jesus’ Mum), and Zebedee’s wife are there (Mt 27:55‐56; Mk 15:40‐41; Lk 23:49). Luke does
not name the women.
7. The Crowds Leave. Luke records that the crowds left after his death ‘beating their breasts’
(Lk 23:48).

Burial
1. Jesus is Buried by Joseph of Arimathea (Mt 27:57‐61; Mk 15:42‐47; Lk 23:50‐56; Jn 19:38‐
42). Joseph, a member of a Jewish ruling council, went to Pilate, asked for his body, took it
and buried it in his own tomb. Mary M and Mary the mother of Jesus were with him. John
records that Nicodemus was also with him.
2. The Tomb Guarded (Mt 27:62‐66). Matthew only records that Pilate placed a guard over the
tomb.

Anticipation of his death in the Gospels
In all four Gospels there is a sense of increasing resentment and tension between Jesus and the
leaders of Israel. Among these references there are indications of Jesus impending death. There are
allusions and direct predictions. It is clear from these references that Jesus was painfully aware of his
fate and its importance for his mission to save humanity.

Synoptic Allusions and Provocation

In the Synoptics, antagonism as Jesus challenges Jewish theology and religious practice. In Luke, the
Nazareth encounter, which is a local clash, sees the people want to kill him for his provocative
reference to God’s preparedness to heal and provide for Gentiles (Lk 4:28‐30). The first sign of
trouble with the Pharisees and Scribes is when Jesus forgives the man causing resentment from the
233

teachers of the law and a view that he was blaspheming (Mk 2:7 and pars) i.e. challenging
monotheism and claiming divine prerogative. Controversies continue at Jesus table fellowship with
sinners (Mk 2:16; Lk 5:30; 15:1‐2), fasting (Mk 2:18; Lk 5:33). Jesus predicts his death in Mk 2:20,
speaking of a time when the bridegroom will be taken away.

The plot to kill Jesus originates from Jesus actions on the Sabbath including healing and picking grain
to eat (working) (Mk 3:6; Mt 12:4; Lk 13:14; 14:1‐4), another critical boundary marker of authentic
Judaism.

Controversy continues at Jesus’ healing ministry, the Pharisees accusing him of exorcising demons by
the power of Satan (Mk 3:22; Mt 12:24), clashes over requests from a sign which Jesus refuses (Mt
12:28; 16:1), clashes over eating regulations and Corban (Mk 7:1‐23; Mt 15:2 ,12) and divorce (Mk
10:2; Mt 19:3).

In Luke’s unique material, controversy continues as Jesus is anointed by a ‘sinful’ woman in the
home of a Pharisee (Lk 7:36‐50). Jesus is also ‘tested’ concerning inheriting eternal life (10:25) to
which Jesus provocatively responds with The Parable of the Good Samaritan with the Jewish
enemies as the hero and their religious leaders as the villains. Luke includes the ‘Beelzebub’
controversy (11:15). There is also the encounter in the home of a Pharisee in Lk 14 where Jesus
strongly challenges them on rank and status at meals (Lk 14:8‐14).

Jesus also suggested in his teaching that many Jews would not inherit eternal salvation while people
from the Gentile world would, a horrendous thought to Jewish notions of election (cf. Mt 8:10‐12; Lk
13:24‐30; 14:1‐24). Jesus also challenged the materialism of the Jewish leadership (Lk 16:14) and
their public displays of religiosity (cf. Mt 6:1‐8). The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, in
which the tax‐collector and not the Pharisee, is acceptable in God’s sight, was also highly provocative
(18:14).

The entry into Jerusalem is also highly provocative, Jesus seemingly intentionally (Mk 11:1‐3; Mt
21:1‐3; Lk 19:28‐44) fulfilling the prediction of the Messiah entering on a donkey (Mk 11:4‐11; Mt
21:4‐5; Zech 9:9). The response of the crowd is also highly laced with notions of fulfilment, the cry
‘hosanna’ (‘save’) and ‘blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ being taken from Ps
118:25‐26. This leads to a renewed determination to kill Jesus (Mk 11:12‐19 esp. 18).

After his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was also highly provocative in terms of his actions. The clearing
of the temple challenges the authority of the Jewish leaders and the sacrifice system and they seek
to kill him (Mk 11:12‐19; Mt 21:15).

Upon entry into Jerusalem Jesus engages in fierce debate with the Jewish leaders with provocative
parables and debates concerning their authority (Mk 11:27‐33); their desire to kill Jesus (Mk 12:1‐
12); paying taxes to Caesar i.e. attitudes to Rome (Mk 12:13‐17); marriage at the resurrection
leading to a clash of Jewish theology (Mk 12: 18‐27); the greatest commandment (Mk 12:28‐34), the
nature of the Messiah’s relationship to God (Mk 12:35‐40). In Matthew there is also the parable of
the Two Sons and the Wedding Banquet which challenge strongly Jewish privilege (Mt 21:28‐32;
22:1‐14. Matthew records that during this period the leaders wanted to arrest Jesus but were afraid
of the reaction of the crowd (Mt 21:46).

In Matthew and Luke the most explicit and withering attack comes in Mt 23 and Lk 11:37‐38 where
Jesus challenges directly the Pharisees with a series of seven imprecations headed ‘woe to you,
Pharisees and teachers of the law…’ In six, Jesus calls them hypocrites. He also calls them ‘blind
fools’, ‘blind men’, ‘blind guides’, ‘snakes’ and ‘brood of vipers’. His criticisms include:
234

1. For shutting the Kingdom in the faces of people (v13).
2. For travelling over land and sea to win a convert and them corrupting them (v15).
3. For rejecting the oaths of people on pedantic grounds (v16‐22).
4. For tithing pedantically but missing the heart of the law, justice, mercy and faithfulness (v23‐
24).
5. For being concerned for external purity without heart purity (v25).
6. For appearing righteous but being internally wicked (v27‐28).
7. For on the one hand stating that they would not have killed the prophets, but that they will
kill Jesus and those he sends (v29‐36).
8. The final imprecation includes a prediction of crucifixion, killing, persecution for those Jesus
will send. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus predicts the suffering of many at the end (Mt 24:9‐
14).

Luke also includes six imprecations. The first four are directed at the Pharisees and begin ‘woe to you
Pharisees’ (11:39‐53 cf. Mt 23 above). These upset the experts in the law (v45) which leads to two
further curses upon them. The imprecations are inspired by criticism of Jesus’ for not washing before
the meal (11:37‐38). Jesus then critiques them fiercely. The list is similar to Mt 23 including:
Pedantic tithing and neglect of justice and the love of God (v42).
Love of the important seats in the synagogue and public notice (v43).
Being internally spiritually dead (v44).
Burdening people with legal requirements without helping them (v46).
Killing the righteous people of God in Israel’s history (v47‐51).
Not having knowledge or giving people knowledge which will save them (v52).

These words intensified the desire of the Pharisees and lawyers to find a way to condemn Jesus in
his words (11:53‐54).

So we can see, running through the Synoptics is an continuous and increasing provocation of the
Jews by Jesus especially concerning his challenge to Judaism concerning divine prerogative, Sabbath,
ritual purity, money, hypocrisy, rank and status and authority. The institutions of Judaism are the
main problem rather than the theology of divinity as in John.

John Allusions and Provocation

In John there is a similar building of tension but in a different way focussed around Jerusalem rather
than Jesus en‐route to Jerusalem. It is also based more around Jesus’ identity and claims to divine
prerogative rather than the institutions of Judaism as in the Synoptics.

The ‘clearing of the temple’ which is most likely the same as the Synoptic event but placed
theologically, is placed early in the narrative (2:12‐25) and leads to some of the Jews questioning
Jesus’ authority (2:18). The encounter with Nicodemus is not controversial, but his inability to grasp
Jesus’ meaning points to a certain element of uncertainty on his part (3:1‐10).

The tension begins to rise after the healing of the man by the pool on the Sabbath. This leads to
Jesus being persecuted for healing on the Sabbath (5:10). In addition, John records that Jesus was
persecuted for ‘making himself equal to God by calling God his father’ (Jn 5:18) pointing to his claim
to divinity being an issue leading to their persecution. The remainder of ch5 is a dialogue in which
Jesus heavily critiques ‘the Jews’ (Jewish leaders and others who oppose Jesus).

In Jn 6 there is another clash between Jesus and ‘the Jews’ over their desire for a sign like Moses
bringing manna in the desert. Jesus claims to be the living manna and this leads to further debate
235

(6:25‐59). In Jn 7 the Jews clash over whether Jesus is the Messiah and the Pharisees and chief
priests want to bring him in (7:45). In Jn 8 Jesus clashes again, the dispute culminating with Jesus
claiming ‘before Abraham, I am’ (8:58), which was interpreted as a claim to divinity and led to a
desire to stone him (8:59). In Jn 9 the healing of the blind man led to more problems. In Jn 10 at the
Feast of Dedication Jesus claimed oneness with the Father (10:30) leading to the Jews seeking to
stone him and seize him for claiming to be one with God (10:32‐33, 38).

The raising of Lazarus is the key point in John in terms of ‘the Jews’ plotting to kill Jesus. Jesus had
left Jerusalem after the attempt to seize him (10:38). He returns despite the protests of his disciples
(11:8, 16). The amazing miracle led to ‘many’ turning to faith in Jesus. The Pharisees, chief priests
called together the Sanhedrin (11:47) and they express their concern that all will believe in Jesus if
they do not stop him (11:47‐48). In addition they are concerned that this will lead to an intervention
of Rome and the destruction of the nation. Caiaphas the high priest prophesied that Jesus should die
for the Jewish nation (11:49‐53). John records that ‘from that day on they plotted to take his life’
(11:53). This led to Jesus withdrawing to Ephraim (11:54). From Jn 12 on, Jesus returns to Jerusalem
and goes to the cross.

Explicit Predictions
Jesus explicitly predicted his execution on a number of occasions (Mt 16:21; 17:22‐23; 20:17‐19; Mk
8:31‐32; 9:31; 10:33‐34; Lk 9:22; 18:31‐33). Mark records that he spoke ‘plainly’ (Gk = parrēsia
[‘outspokenly, frankly, plainly’]) about these things. He explicitly referred to:
1. He must (dei = a sense of divine imperative) go to Jerusalem (Mt 16:21; 20:17; Mk 10:33; Lk
18:31).
2. He will be betrayed (Mt 17:22; 20:17; MK 9:31; 10:33).
3. He will suffer at the hands of the Jewish leaders (Mt 16:21; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22).
4. He will be handed over to the Gentiles to be mocked, flogged and crucified (Mt 20:19; Mk
10:33; Lk 18:32).
5. He will be killed (Mt 16:21; 17:23; Mk 8:32; 9:31; Lk 9:22).
6. He will be raised from the dead on the third day (Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mk 8:32; 9:31;
10:34; Lk 9:22; Lk 18:32).

The response of the disciple was total incredulity leading to Jesus rebuking Peter as Satan for his
failure to accept what Jesus said (Mt 16:22‐23; Mk 8:33). In Mk 9:32; Lk 18:34 their response was
incomprehension and fear, the disciples failing to understand what Jesus meant and being too afraid
to ask him. Their failure was due to their lack of understanding of the nature of Jesus’ messiahship as
a Servant Messiahship.

The prediction is accompanied by Jesus appealing for wholehearted discipleship in terms of
crucifixion, ‘take up your cross’ and ‘losing one’s life’ (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:24; Lk 9:23‐24). Hence Jesus’
suffering and crucifixion is a metaphor for the life of discipleship.

John lacks the same explicit predictions recorded in the Synoptics. However, there are points in the
narrative which predict his death. First, in the temple clearing in Jn 2:19 Jesus states, “Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The editorial note indicates that this referred to his death
and subsequent resurrection. However, it was interpreted by the hearers as a threat to destroy the
temple (cf. Mk 14:58 and pars). Secondly, the notion of Jesus being lifted up and his own anticipation
of his death is seen throughout. The concept of ‘his time’ which has yet to come is prominent in the
Jn 1‐11 (e.g. 2:4; 7:30; 8:20). The entry to Jerusalem, as in the Synoptics, is the turning point
beginning the events leading to his crucifixion.

236

In Jn 12:23 Jesus explicitly speaks of his death. He states that the ‘hour has come for the Son of Man
to be glorified’, referring to his death. He goes on to state parabolically that, just as a kernel of wheat
falls to the ground and dies to germinate and produce more wheat, so he has to die (12:23‐24). John
also records the need for sacrifice (12:25‐26) and his pain concerning what he will face (12:27). He
also refers to being ‘lifted up’ so as ‘to draw all people’ to himself (12:31) illustrating the manner of
his death by crucifixion (12:33).

He also refers to his death and resurrection in terms of his glorification (13:31) and leaving them
(14:18, 28; 16:17‐28) to go the place where he is going i.e. to the Father (13:36; 14:1‐7; 17:13). The
concept of the Spirit is linked to this, Jesus going and the Counsellor coming in his stead (15:26; 16:5‐
8). He also alludes to his resurrection: ‘in a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little
while you will see me’ (16:16 cf. 2:19‐22). John also records Jesus predicting that the disciples will
desert him and be scattered (Jn 16:32).

Conclusion
We can see from this analysis that Jesus clearly anticipated his death in specific terms. He
understood that his ministry would clash with the powers of the day, and that this would lead to his
rejection. He went to Jerusalem fully aware of what awaited him. He considered his suffering, death
and resurrection was essential to his mission. This was not something he found easy to accept as we
see in the garden, where Jesus in a very human fashion, pleads for his deliverance. However, he fully
submits to the will of God. The disciples however, did not understand this even though Jesus was
quite specific in his predictions. Their incomprehension can be put down to their inability to
understand the concept of suffering and death in association with the transcendent understanding
of the Messiah. Perhaps they thought Jesus words in this regard were parabolic and pointing to
some other reality, a reality they were seeking to grasp.

Crucifixion in the Ancient World
Crucifixion was quite common in the ancient world as a method of execution or impalement after
death among the Persians, Indians, Assyrians and others, and later among the Greeks and Romans.
There is also some evidence of Jews using it before the time of Herod the Great (cf. Josephus, J.W.
1.4.6 §§97–98; Ant. 13.14.2 §§379–383; 11QTemple 64:6–13).

Crucifixion is a particularly cruel and barbaric form of punishment. As it does not involve the major
organs of the body directly, death was slow and painful. The usual cause of death was shock or
asphyxiation as the breathing muscles tire, sometimes over 2‐3 days. Often the body was left on
public display and for the birds to increase shame. The process was normally conducted in the view
of the public with the naked recipient nailed to a cross, a stake or a tree and subjected to public
ridicule and shame.

There are few descriptions of crucifixion in ancient literature probably because members of the
cultured literary elite were not keen to dwell on such a violent and barbaric activity. The short
descriptions of Jesus’ crucifixion in the Gospels (‘they crucified him) is in agreement with this.

237

Generally speaking there was no standard form of crucifixion. Sometimes people were crucified after
death; their bodies pinioned to a wall, a tree or other implement to disgrace them in public. It is not
clear whether they were bound or nailed to the stake or whether a crossbeam was always used. The
Romans were more systematic in their crucifixions, them usually involving a flogging beforehand; the
victims carrying the crossbeam to the point of crucifixion; the nailing or binding of the victim to the
cross with arms extended and raised up. Sometimes they were seated on a sedicula or a small
wooden peg. 2

Just as there are few detailed accounts, there is also scant archaeological evidence related to the
practice of crucifixion in first‐century Palestine. An ossuary was discovered in 1968 in a buried cave
at Giv’at ha‐Mivtar in northern Jerusalem (see above exposition of Mk 15:21‐32). It contained the
bones of an adult male who was killed by crucifixion in the first century. He had nails through his
forearms 3 and heal bones (11.5cm nail). See picture below. 4 The victims shin bones may have been
intentionally broken.

In the main crucifixion Romans were exempt from crucifixion. It was usually reserved for those of
lower status including dangerous criminals, slaves and people from foreign provinces. It was used as
a weapon to impose Roman will.

Other Mentions of the Crucifixion of Christ
Jesus’ crucifixion is well attested historically. Paul in the NT mentions Jesus crucifixion on many
occasions (Rom 6:6; 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2, 8; 2 Cor 13:4; Gal 2:2 Gal 3:1) and Jesus’ death even more often
(e.g. 1 Cor 15:3). Elsewhere in the NT only Heb 6:6; Rev 11:8 specifically mention it. The Latin
historian Tacitus refers to Jesus’ death in The Annals: ‘Christus … had undergone the death penalty
in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate’ (15.44). Josephus the Jewish
historian also refers to his crucifixion in a disputed text: ‘And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross…’ (Jos, Ant, 18.3).

2
Quoted in DJG, 147 from Hengel 1977, 22–32. The details in this paragraph are drawn in the main
from this article.
3
That his wrists were also nailed is disputed cf. Evans, Mk II, 502.
4
From http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html (27/12/06).
238

The Date of the Crucifixion
The Problem
There is some uncertainty concerning the actual day of Jesus’ crucifixion. All four Gospels suggest
that Jesus was crucified on the day preceding the Sabbath i.e. Friday (Mt 27:57, 62; Mk 15:42; Lk
23:54; Jn 19:31, 42). However there is a question mark over the relationship of this Friday to the
Passover. As the Jews considered a day from sunset to sunset, the Passover Feast would have been
eaten on the evening of 15 Nissan, in the Jewish calendar. In the Synoptics the Last Supper was the
Passover meal on Thursday evening, the beginning of 15 Nissan. According to the Synoptics then, the
day of Jesus’ arrest, trial and death was 15 Nissan, the day of the Passover. However John’s Gospel
places the death of Jesus on 14 Nissan, the day of preparation for Passover (13:1–4; 18:28; 19:14,
31).

Using the relevant astronomical data and assuming Jesus was crucified sometime around A.D. 30, we
have two possibilities for the date of Jesus’ crucifixion:
1. April 3, A.D. 33 or April 7, A.D. 30 if we take John as accurate.
2. A.D. 27 or 34 would be the probable years if we take the Synoptics.

Resolving the Dilemma

Three basic ways of resolving the problem are supposed:
1. Some argue that the Synoptics are to be preferred as John has revised the tradition to
theologically portray Jesus more fully as the Passover Lamb. This lines up with Paul’s
consideration of Jesus as the Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7).
2. Some argue that John is to be preferred as Mark has creatively tried to portray the Last
Supper as a Passover Meal. However, even in John, the Last Supper appears to have a
Passover character.
3. Some seek to harmonise the accounts. For example:
a. Some argue that Galileans and Pharisees considered a day from sunrise to sunset
unlike Judeans and Sadducees who took it from sunset to sunset. Hence the meal
was the Passover meal held on Thursday evening, 14 Nissan by Jesus and his
disciples. Whereas the Judeans shared it on the Friday evening, 15 Nissan.
b. Some argue that the Passover was celebrated on two different days in the year of
the crucifixion, due to the disparity between the calendars of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.
However both these days require two consecutive days of Passover sacrifices, as possibility for which
there is no clear evidence. However, these remain a possibility.

Conclusion
It is probable then that Jesus was crucified on the 14 Nissan on either April 7 A.D. 30 or April 3, A.D.
33. The earlier date is to be preferred as it allows time for the development of the Christian
movement and Paul’s mission. However, the later date concurs with a shift in Pilate’s policies toward
Jews after A.D. 32

The Role of the OT in the Passion Narrative.
Another feature of the Passion Narratives is the use of the OT in the accounts. The accounts are
replete with specific citations and allusions to OT notions and ideas. These emphasise the note of
fulfilment in the death of Christ.
239

General fulfilment
This concern for the OT is seen in the references to fulfilment in the passion narrative in the
Synoptics in particular. So for example, Christ died ‘according to the Scriptures’ (cf. Lk 24:27, 32; 1
Cor 15:3). Another example is Mk 14:21: ‘the Son of Man will go just as it is written about him’; or Lk
22:22: ‘the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed’. These point beyond allusions to intentional
general references to the divine will. The Son of Man reference is really interesting. There is nothing
in the Daniel notion of the ‘Son of Man’ that fits this. What we have though, is what we noticed
earlier, the Gospels ‘interlaced Christology’ whereby the notions of Son of Man, Son of God were
fused with the Servant idea.

Jesus’ suffering and death here is interpreted along typological lines. Green notes that the key to
understanding the passion accounts is against the interpretative framework of the Suffering Servant
of the Lord (Is 42:1‐7; 49:1‐7; 50:4‐952:13‐53:12). Like the Servant, Jesus:
1. Is God’s chosen one who will complete his mission through suffering (cf. Is 49:4; 53:3).
2. Willingly submits to his divine mission (Is 50:4‐8; 53:7).
3. Is innocent (Is 53:8).
4. Maintains his silence (Is 42:2; 53:7).
5. Dies ‘for many’ (Is 53:4‐6, 12).
6. Is ‘handed over’ (Is 53:4‐6).
7. Is abused (Is 50:65 ; 52:14; 53:5.
8. Is ‘numbered with transgressors’ (Is 53:12).
9. Anticipates his vindication (Is 50:8; 53:10‐12).
10. Is vindicated after maltreatment (Is 52:12, 13). 6

Allusions
There are also many allusions to OT texts worked into the story which are more explicit than this
general typological fulfilment:
1. The use of the language of Isaiah 50:6 in the account of Jesus’ mockery in Mark 15:19;
Matthew 27:30 and John 19:1, 3: ‘I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to
those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.’ This
identifies Jesus with the Isaianic servant of Yahweh as does the direct quotation of Is 53:12
(cf. Lk 22:37 above).
2. Jesus’ mocked (Ps 22:7; 70:3) and taunted (Ps 42:10).
3. Jesus offered wine (Ps 69:21; Prov 31:6).
4. Jesus’ acclaimed as God’s Son (cf. Wis 2, 4–5).
5. Jesus’ acclaimed as the Righteous One (Is 53:11) and his vindication after maltreatment (Is
52:13–15; 53:10–12).

Specific Citations
Even more specific are direct quotes and citations in the text indicating specific prophecies fulfilled
in the passion narratives:

5
Is 50:6: ‘I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard;
I did not hide my face from insult and spitting.’
6
See Green, ‘Passion Narrative’ in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
240

1. New Covenant: The notion of a new covenant that picks up the OT idea of a new covenant
(Mt 26:27‐29; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20 cf. Jer 31:31‐33; 32:40; Ezek 24:25; 37:26).
2. Striking of the Shepherd: The striking of the Shepherd and the scattering of the sheep (Mt
26:31; Mk 14:27; Zech 13:7).
3. Potter’s Field: The purchase of a ‘potter’s field’ (argon toy keramenōs) for thirty coins (Zech.
11:12,13; Jer. 19:1‐13; 32:6‐9).
4. ‘My God, My God,Why have you forsaken me?’: The crying out of ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani?’ (‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ from Ps 22:1 (Mt 27:46; Mk
15:34) interpreted as calling for Elijah by the hearers. Jesus here is referring to the great
lament of David in which he speaks of an experience that strongly resembles crucifixion.
5. Numbered with the Transgressors: Jesus numbered among the transgressors (Lk 22:37; Is
53:12). This refers to his crucifixion with two thieves.
6. The suffering of the woman: The suffering of the women of Jerusalem compared the
suffering of those going into exile (Lk 23:28; Hos 10:8).
7. Casting lots for his clothing: The casting of lots for his clothing (Jn 19:24 cf. Ps 22:18).
8. The non – breaking of Jesus’ legs: The soldiers choosing not to break Jesus’ legs (Jn 19:36 cf.
Law pointing to the sacrifice not having broken bones [Exodus 12:46; Num. 9:12]; A Psalm of
David [Psalm 34:20]).
9. The piercing of Jesus’ side: The piercing of Jesus’ side (Jn 19:37cf. Zech. 12:10).

The Problem of a Crucified Messiah.
The problem that Jesus’ crucifixion created is found in Lk 24:20‐21 on the lips of Cleopas and his
companion: ‘The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they
crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.’ These words
illustrate the dashed hopes of these disciples after Jesus’ death, that the one they thought was
Messiah had been crucified! They had absolutely no idea that this was part of the cosmic plan of
God. They had a flawed eschatology, failing to recognise the necessity of a sacrificial Messiah.

The early Christians quickly found in Is 52:13‐53:12 a prophecy of a suffering Messiah, identifying the
‘servant’ with the Messiah (e.g. Acts 3:13–18; 1 Pet 2:21–24). But as we have noted through this
analysis, the hopes of 1st Century Jews centred rather on a royal glorious political and transcendent
Son of David. There is little notion of a Messiah in Isaiah’s portrait of the Servant and in the main,
late Judaism did not find in this passage any expectation of the Messiah. Hence the idea of a
‘suffering Messiah’ or a ‘crucified Messiah’ ran completely counter to this expectation and appears
oxymoronic. This is especially so in light of Deut 21:22‐23 where it is written, ‘anyone who is hung on
a tree is under God’s curse’ (see Gal 3:13). All this suggests why first Jews did not recognise this and
how amazing it was that the first Jewish Christians ultimately accepted this.

One way to resolve this dilemma is the impact of the resurrection. That is, once Jesus rose from the
dead, the Jews accepted his crucifixion as pivotal despite the cross. There is definitely truth in this.
The resurrection gave meaning to all of Jesus’ ministry and especially his death. Indeed, had there
been no resurrection, the death of Christ would have been the tragic death of another great man.

However, this does not mean that the cross was of no value without the resurrection. The immense
importance of the death of Jesus is found not only in the light of his resurrection, but in the words of

241

Jesus himself concerning his own death before going to the cross. This is particularly so in two
passages.

The first is a direct allusion to Isaiah’s servant in Mark 10:45: ‘for even the Son of Man did not come
to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ Here, Jesus describes his
mission in terms of service, and the sacrificial offering of his life as a ransom. That is, he saw his
death as a vicarious, atoning sacrifice. Along with the explicit predictions and allusion to his own
death and resurrection (see above), this points to the centrality of the cross to Jesus’ self‐
understanding as Messiah. This interpretation of Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice is found
strongly in Paul (e.g., Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3–5; Gal 2:20–21).

Secondly, it is seen in the Lord’s Supper (Mk 14:12‐26 and pars) where Jesus, holding up the
Passover wine, states, ‘this is my blood of the covenant (Luke: new covenant), which is poured out
for many’ indicating he sees his own death as an atoning sacrifice heralding a new era in God‐human
relations, a new covenant (see above for OT refs). Hengel suggests that ‘it was not primarily their
own theological reflections, but above all the interpretive sayings of Jesus at the Last Supper which
showed them how to understand his death properly.’ 7

For Jews to accept this idea in the face of a theology that did not accommodate an executed
Messiah suggests that the early Christians attributed immense significance to the death of Jesus.
They realized that his death was an atoning sacrifice.

Why Was Jesus Crucified?
A question that concerns modern commentators is why Jesus was crucified? As we examine the text
we see there are four parties involved in the death of Christ: the Jewish leaders; the Romans; Satan
and Jesus himself. We will look at each in turn.

Why the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus?

Issues in the Synoptics Pre-Passion Narrative
First we will look at the Jews and ask, why did they want to get rid of Jesus? In the Synoptics the
main issues at stake are similar.
1. Blasphemy i.e. claiming the right of the Divine, to forgive (Mt 9:3; Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21). This
clashed with Jewish views of monotheism and divine power.
2. Sabbath Abuse i.e. breaking the Pharisaic understanding of the Sabbath by ‘working’
including healing and working to take food from the harvest (Mt 12:1‐14; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:11;
13:10‐17; 14:1‐6). Despite Jesus’ cutting rhetoric against the Jewish leaders arguing that
even they pulled cows out of pits on Sabbath days etc, this clashed with Jewish
understandings of Sabbath rest and so the priority of the Torah and divine prerogative.
3. Deliverance i.e. Jesus’ supposedly being possessed (Mt 12:24; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). This
clashed with Jewish views of evil, they ascribing to Jesus satanic power.
4. Sign‐Refusal: His refusal to demonstrate his power with a cosmic theophanic sign
demonstrating his claims on demand (Mt 12:28; 16:1). This clashed with the authority of the
Jewish leadership as Jesus refused to respond to their demands. It also caused them to

7
M. Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1981), 73.
242

further doubt he truly was the Messiah because of their expectations of a military, political
Messiah.
5. Abuse of Table Fellowship Regulations including ritual cleanliness (Mt 15:1, 12: Mk 7:1‐22;
Lk 11:37‐38; 15:1‐2) and fellowship with sinners (Mk 2:16; Lk 5:30). This clashed with Jewish
theology of ritual purity and so the authority of the leadership and their interpretation of the
Law.
6. Entry into Jerusalem: The entry into Jerusalem (Mk 11:1‐11 and pars) on a donkey would
most likely have caused consternation. This was directly messianic, pointing the observers to
Zech 9:9‐10 where the King enters Messiah on a donkey and will then extend his rule. The
laying of clothes on the ground before him calls to mind Jehu’s entry into 2 Kgs 9:13 and the
crowds laying down clothes and crying ‘Jehu is King.’ The spreading of garments before a
honoured person was also known in the Greco‐Roman world (cf. Plutarch, Cato Minor 7). 8
The singing of Ps 118:25‐26 would have intensified this with its application to David would
have further intensified this. The leaders of Israel were not stupid and would have
interpreted these events and this would have further enraged them concerning Jesus’
claims, especially in light of what he then did.
7. Clearing the Temple (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:12‐19): Messiah’s do not attack the temple! The
transactions of money to purchase sacrifices was not in and of itself evil for this enabled
pilgrims to make sacrifices, and so would have enraged the leaders. It thus clashed with the
whole sacrifice system and the authority of the Jewish leadership.
8. Theological Debate and Jesus’ Pointed Barbed Teaching against the Jewish leadership (Mt
21‐23; Mk 2:18; 7:1‐23; 10:2; 11:27‐12:40; Lk 5:30; 11:39‐53; 14:1‐24; 16:14; 18:14). Here
Jesus continually humiliated the leaders with his rhetorical wisdom and questioned their
authority. At stake here is Jesus’ and Jewish authority and interpretation of the OT.

Issues in John’s Pre-Passion Narrative

In John the issues are:
1. The Temple: Jesus clearing the temple and the misunderstood threat to destroy the temple
(Jn 2:12‐25) and questions concerning Jesus’ authority. Jesus never intended to destroy the
literal Jerusalem temple, but his words concerning his death and resurrection were taken in
this way.
2. Sabbath Healing and abuse (Jn 5:10; 9:14). As with the above, in ‘working’ on the Sabbath,
nomism and divine authority (monotheism) were challenged.
3. Claims to Divinity (Jn 5:18; 8:58‐59; 10:30‐38). John’s higher Christology has Jesus’ claims to
be God’s Son, Abrahamic pre‐existence and ‘oneness’ with the Father as a direct challenge
to monotheism. After each of these incidents they sought to kill him indicating that in John,
monotheism and the exclusivity of YHWH was severely threatened by Jesus in the eyes of
the Jewish leaders.
4. Claims to Superiority over Moses (Jn 5:45‐46; 7:19‐23; 9:28‐29). This challenges the whole
basis of Israel’s faith as it is based on the authority of Moses and the law given him by God.
5. Jesus Signs, Origins and Possible Messiahship (Jn 7:25‐44): While some were convinced that
Jesus was the Messiah on the basis of his signs, many were not on the basis of his origins.
Specifically, some felt he was not from Bethlehem (Jn 7:42 cf. 1 Sam 16‐17; Mic 5:2) from
which would come the Messiah. Some wanted to kill him as a result of his ‘false’ claims.
Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives tell us he was from Bethlehem.
6. Fears of a great turning to Jesus (11:47‐48): After the reanimation of Lazarus, there was a
great fear of a complete turning to Jesus from the populace.

8
Craig A. Evans, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27‐16:20, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:
Word, Incorporated, 2002), 143.
243

The Trial Issues

When we come to the trial of Jesus we get further insight into what upset the Jews. John records
very little detail concerning the charges against Jesus (Jn 18:12‐14, 19‐24). However, the Synoptics
give some insight into the details.

The trial takes place before the Jewish Council, the 70 strong Sanhedrin. At the trial the Jewish
leadership seek to find evidence to condemn Jesus so as to go to the Romans to put Jesus to death.
They were unable to put him to death themselves because Roman law did not permit it (Jn 18:31) so
needed sufficient grounds to convince the Romans to execute him.

1. The Temple Destruction: The Synoptics record that initially they were unable to find any
evidence (Mt 27:59‐60). Then two testified falsely that Jesus had threatened to destroy the
temple and rebuild it in three days. Although the Synoptics do not record this event, we find
it in Jn 2:19 at the clearing of the temple. If we accept there was one clearing and that John
rearranged the order of events theologically, this would have happened at the beginning of
the week and would be fresh in their minds. John records the incomprehension of the
hearers who ask how this could be done in only 3 days when it has been being built for 46
years.9 However, John explains this was a prediction of Jesus’ death and resurrection,
something that the disciples did not initially get but which they understood subsequent to
his resurrection (cf. Jn 2:21). In terms of their desire to kill Jesus, this indicates he was
perceived to be anti‐Jewish, a religious terrorist and potential insurrectionist and so a severe
threat to the Jewish way of life which revolved around the temple. Such an act would cause
a political and social meltdown. It would thus be in the interests of the Romans and cause
them to put him to death to avoid the threat to the religious, social and political stability of a
nation centred on the temple.

2. Blasphemy (Mk 14:63‐64): Finally, there the high priest asks Jesus directly: ‘I charge you
under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God (Mk: ‘Son of the
Blessed One’; Lk omits ‘Son of God’).’ This appears to have two distinct dynamics: are you
the Christ (Messiah)? Are you the Son of God? Mark’s preference for ‘the blessed one’
indicates the desire to avoid the word ‘God’. Luke omits ‘Son of God’ completely. However,
it is arguable that the high priest meant ‘son of God’ in terms of the king i.e. are you the
Messiah, ‘God’s Son the Davidic King?’ 10

Jesus, surprisingly in light of his general messianic reticence to this point in the narrative,
answers unambiguously and affirmatively: ‘Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: In the
future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on
the clouds of heaven’ (Luke omits ‘coming in the clouds of heaven).

It is argued by almost all scholars without real debate that Jesus’ response ‘it is as you say’ is
not significant in what follows. However, the words are literally ‘I am’ (egō eimi), which in
John is of huge theological significance in the ‘I am’ sayings because of the relatedness to the

9
For detail of the rebuilding and chronology see Gerald L. Borchert, vol. 25A, John 1‐11, electronic ed., Logos
Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1996),
166.
10
See the discussion in Craig A. Evans, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 8:27‐16:20, Word Biblical
Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 448‐449. It is possible that the high priest meant it this way;
however, Jesus probably meant it in a divine sense. The evidence of John however, would suggest that many in
Israel took Jesus’ claims to be God’s Son as a claim to divinity (cf. Jn 5:18‐19).
244

name of God, YHWH (‘I am who I am’ (Exod 3:14: Greek LXX, egō eimi ho hōn). While it may
be intended in the soft purely personal ‘I am the Messiah’ I would argue that it is likely more,
especially when Jesus has identified very closely with God throughout Mark’s Gospel as his
son, and God as Abba Father. Similarly John sees this is one of the fundamental reasons that
the Jews were offended by Jesus (cf. Jn 5:18‐19; 10:30‐31). It is highly possible that Jesus
was stating his oneness with God in this phrase. If so, the accusation of blasphemy makes
real sense. I believe Jesus was making a subtle play on words here, affirming his Messiahship
and saying more; I am God the Son.

Whether or not this is so, Jesus directly accepts that he is the Messiah and the Son of God.
As elsewhere, Jesus is defining his mission against the notion of the Son of Man, describing
himself directly against Dan 7:13‐14. There is also here an allusion to Ps 110:1: The LORD says
to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ His
answer alludes to Ps 2:7 where the King is the Son of God (cf. 1 Kgs 19:15‐16; 1 Chr 16:22; Ps
105:15; 2 Sam 7:12, 14). Hence, Jesus’ answer is that he is the long‐awaited Davidic agent of
God who would come and bring deliverance to Israel. The dense placement of the three
titles, Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man and of his exaltation to God’s right hand and glorious
coming demonstrating his interlaced Christology and his thus is akin to a claim to being one
with the divine. It is a direct statement that he is the Messiah and God’s Son and so highly
charged.

The response of the High Priest in Mt 27:65‐66 is understandably extreme in light of Jesus’
claim to be Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man. The interplay of the three would be
construed as blasphemous. 11 He responds in kind: ‘Then the high priest tore his clothes and
said, ‘“He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you
have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” “He is worthy of death,” they answered.’

At one level Jesus carefully avoids blasphemy by using ‘the Mighty One’ rather than ‘the
name’ of God (Yahweh). However, he is guilty in the wider sense of insulting God ‘by an
arrogation to oneself of prerogatives that belong to him alone.’ 12 It was not so much the
claim to Messiahship that created the problem, but the combination of acceptance of the
concept of the Messiahship, the Son of God, the Danielic Son of Man, being seated at the
right hand of God (cf. Ps 110:1) and his coming in the clouds of heaven that suggests a divine
agency.

Conclusion
In answer to the question why the Jews killed Jesus, he clearly seen as a religious, political and social
threat by the leaders of Israel. He challenged their religious understanding and theology and in
particular monotheism and nomism and gained a great response. He also appeared to claim to be in
some sense divine and working directly as God’s agent i.e. the Messiah, the Son of God. In addition
the people took him to heart leading to a fear of a great turning and jealousy. He also directly
challenged the Jewish leadership and humiliated them, teaching directly and satirically through
parables and direct statements against their leadership. Hence, Jesus whether directly or unwittingly
was a political threat to the leadership of Israel. They were also concerned that his movement may

11
See Evans, Mark 8:27‐16:20, 453‐456 for a full discussion of all the references to blasphemy from the
relevant time and his conclusion that the scene fits the evidence nicely. He notes, ‘In the eyes of the high
priest and those who agreed with him, Jesus committed blasphemy when he claimed a heavenly identity’
(p.456).
12
Hagner, D. A. (1998). Vol. 33B: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14‐28 (electronic ed.). Logos Library
System;Word Biblical Commentary (Mt 26:67). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
245

lead to the overthrow of the Jewish religious system and an attack on Rome which could lead to
terrible suffering for the people of Israel. Cumulatively, this all combined to lead to a concerted
desire to kill Jesus. Ultimately they were able to charge him with blasphemy and insurrection and
appeal to Rome to have him executed.

Why the Romans killed Jesus?

If the Jewish leadership wanted to see Jesus killed they were unable legally to do so themselves (Jn
18:31). Later in Luke’s account of Stephen’s death we see that they were prepared to do this if
pushed, but Jesus was such a public figure that to do kill him in this way would have been too
provocative (cf. Mk 12:12). They had to convince the Roman authorities to kill Jesus. Hence it was
logical they would take him to Pilate.

Pilate’s first question in Mark and Matthew is, ‘are you the king of the Jews?’ (cf. Jn 18:33). On its
own this would indicate that he had knowledge to this regard probably passed onto him by his
Jewish deliverers and through Romans who had heard Jesus teaching and noticed what people were
saying about him. This question relates to the issue of Messiahship, where Jesus had just answered
affirmatively to being the Christ, the anointed Davidic King. That being the case, from a Roman point
of view, it was important to test what Jesus was claiming. If he was claiming illegitimate sovereignty
he may be a threat to the authority of the true King, Caesar, and to Roman rule (Mt 27:11). In Luke,
not surprisingly in writing to a Greco‐Roman audience, this is more explicit. Luke adds ‘then the
whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘we have found
this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a
king.’ The focus on paying taxes and claims to kingship are deliberately designed to get Roman
support to kill Jesus as a political revolutionary.

John records some detail concerning the dialogue at this point (Jn 18:34‐37). Jesus responds by
challenging Pilate as to whether this is his idea or that of others. Pilate points to the Jewish leaders.
Jesus then speaks of a spiritual kingship which is not a military threat. This appears to satisfy Pilate
who sees no reason to charge him. In other words, while it may be that Jesus is making these claims,
for Pilate they are not worth the hassle as they are no real threat to Caesar. Jesus has no army,
shows no interest in military power or stating that Caesar’s reign is illegitimate.

In the Synoptics, Jesus response to the question concerning his kingship is positive: ‘yes, it is as you
say!’ (See above for the play on the words egō eimi). However, Jesus did not go onto answer the
charges of the Jewish leaders who were in attendance (27:12).This amazed Pilate. Even though Jesus
answered affirmatively, after examining Jesus along with the Jewish leadership, it is clear that Pilate
did not accept Jesus’ guilt and deservedness of death and considered the Jewish leaders reasons as
spurious (envy, 27:18). Hence he acted in political expediency to placate the Jewish leaders. It is part
of the notion of pax Romana whereby the Roman rulers were deeply concerned to avoid riot and
revolution and acted pragmatically to ensure peace as far as is possible.

That they acted for political convenience is clear in Luke where the Jewish leaders insist that Jesus is
stirring up people throughout Judea with his teaching from Galilee to Jerusalem (Lk 23:5). In Luke
Pilate then sent Jesus to Herod for his examination. He too did not accept Jesus’ guilt and returned
him to Pilate (Lk 23:7‐12). Pilate then sought first to release Jesus directly (Lk 23:16) and then
indirectly by granting a Passover pardon to one prisoner (27:15).

The offering of Barabbas, a terrible insurrectionist (27:16), rather than a more likely candidate, may
indicate Pilate’s expectation that the crowd would choose Jesus. However the crowd, excited by the
influence of the Jewish leadership, chose Barabbas for release, crying out for Jesus crucifixion
246

(27:19‐23). This is incredibly ironic as Barabbas clearly is and insurrectionist and a threat to the
Empire, yet is released. Jesus is patently not a threat in a direct sense, and he is crucified. He is
crucified between two criminals, who may indeed also be insurrectionists, perhaps colleagues of
Barabbas, and so the whole scene is full of bitter irony. 13 Historically speaking, the irony goes on, as
this crucified one becomes so venerated in the Roman world that the Roman world adopts him as
their God within 300 years! Matthew records Pilate’s cry renouncing his own responsibility and
ascribing responsibility to the Jews (27:24‐25). It would appear then that the Roman role was one of
political expediency, concerned to keep Pax Romana in the face of Jewish pressure to kill Jesus.

The Role of Satan in the Killing of Jesus

At one level there is little evidence of Satan’s direct role in the killing of Jesus, people did the killing
and so sin is the reason. We cannot downplay this ‘sin’ and personal responsibility dimension;
however four aspects of the story point to a sinister evil aspect to Jesus’ death.

First, the whole of Jesus’ ministry was a clash with Satan. This is seen at the temptation especially
where Satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world without the cross in reward for worship (Mt 4:1‐
11; Lk 4:1‐11); the ministry of Jesus to restore people to wholeness and in driving out of demons (Mt
12:28); Jesus’ rebuke of Satan who seeks through Peter, to thwart Jesus’ statement that he will be
killed (Mk 8:33 and pars). These indicate, that the real clash that was going on was a cosmic clash of
Kingdoms, Jesus here to plunder the false realm of Satan and take back his world, not through
military might, but through vicarious death.

Second, there is the role of Satan noted by the evangelists in their accounts. There are four such
references. Two relate to Satan ‘entering into’ (eiserchomai) Satan (Lk 22:3; Jn 13:27). Another refers
to Satan’s role in Judas’ betrayal, he having ‘already promoted’ him to ‘betray Jesus’ (Jn 13:2). We
have an example of demonic possession here, and the destructive effect it can have. The phrase
‘already prompted’ is literally ‘to throw into the heart’ suggesting ‘to cause someone to think in a
particular manner, often as a means of inducing some behavior—“to make think, to fill the heart, to
cause to decide.” 14 The other aspect of the role of Satan relates to Jesus’ statement that ‘Satan has
asked to sift all of you as wheat’ (Lk 22:31 cf. Job 1:6‐12). This suggests that, while Satan is powerful
and appears free, he is under God’s sovereignty and limited in what he can do to God’s own. This all
suggests that Satan is active in the whole scene, seeking to destroy Jesus and cause the denial of the
disciples.

Finally, the hand of evil is implicit if not explicit in the condemnation of Jesus by the Jews and
Romans, and in the horrendous brutality of his suffering and crucifixion. It would seem then, that
Satan was very much at work in the passion of Jesus. It forms a sort of thematic inclusio with the
Temptation which launches Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ defeats Satan, is baptised and anointed, then goes
into the world to release it from the reign of Satan. Satan hatches his revenge throughout inspiring
his rejection and causing one of Jesus’ own to betray him. He does so, and Jesus is killed. However,
although not developed by the Gospel writers, there is a great irony here; Satan working for the
physical destruction of Jesus and unwittingly playing into God’s hands by ensuring his vicarious
sacrifice for the sins of the world.

13
The reasons for this possibility are: 1) Jesus is crucified between them, perhaps taking the place of Barabbas;
2) The thief on the right acknowledges that their punishment is just (Lk 23:41) possibly indicating that they
deserved the death penalty suggesting they were guilty of death on the basis of the lex talionis law (cf. Exodus
21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21.
14
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek‐English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic
Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:353.
247

Jesus’ own role

As we have noted there are a number of indications that Jesus was aware of his own fate. First,
there are the explicit predictions of Jesus (see above) which suggest that Jesus was very aware of his
need to go to Jerusalem, suffer, be killed and rise from the dead (e.g. Mk 8:31). His reaction to
Peter’s resistance to the idea of Jesus’ death indicates that he knew he had to die. Secondly, the
nature of his behaviour in Jerusalem was decidedly provocative. The dynamic entry on a donkey, the
clearing of the temple, the parables (esp. the Tenants [Mk 12:1‐12 and pars]), the direct imprecatory
teaching against the Pharisees (esp. Mt 23) and the theological debates all indicated that Jesus did
not avoid the possibility of death, and even enhanced it intentionally. Not that Jesus can be accused
of suicide or of enticing his own death. Rather, he knew that his ministry would inevitably lead to a
clash with the authorities and this clash was in the purposes of God.

Certainly at the end, as Jesus nears his fate, he prays for deliverance (see Gethsemane). However, it
is clear from the accounts even of these prayers, that Jesus was fully aware of the need for his death.
This prayer that confirms Jesus was not suicidal or even wanted to die in this way as he pleaded with
tears as drops of blood (Lk 22:43‐44) to be released from the suffering of the cross. However, he was
completely obedient to the Father knowing that his actions and words would lead to his own death.
He knew this death was the path to human salvation. As such, Paul can write, ‘he became obedient
to the point of death – even death on a cross’ (Phil 2:8).

Conclusion
The Passion of Jesus lies at the centre of the Christian faith. The Gospels plunge the reader into
despair as the most amazing human of history is betrayed, denied, falsely charged, condemned to
death for political expediency, mocked and ridiculed and brutally killed. It is a horrendous tragedy of
cosmic proportions. It brings together the pride and violence of humanity. It is the Fall crystalised in
a moment as the Son of God who did nothing but heal and release is killed. The nature of his death is
no accident, crucifixion, the most barbaric of deaths designed to cause as much pain as possible. The
coming together of Jew and Gentile is critical, all humanity participating in the killing of the saviour
of the world.

The Gospels do not give a full theology of the cross, telling the story, and giving us some hints into its
vicarious nature. It is as we read the remainder of the redemptive story and especially the letters of
the Apostle Paul that we get a full understanding of the theology of the atonement. However the
seeds of that theology are well planted in the Gospel accounts. In particular the notion that Jesus is
the Servant of Isaiah come as Messiah to give his life to save humanity through his death and
resurrection.

• Why did the Jews kill Jesus?
• Why did Jesus die in such a way? Was it important that he was crucified in such a brutal
way?
• Why do many Jews not recognise Jesus as Messiah when he suffered?
• Why did the Jews not understand Jesus when he predicted his own death?
• What do you feel as you realise what God has done?
248

Chapter Fourteen
THE RESURRECTION OF THE KING
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 250
Resurrection in the Old Testament ..................................................................................................... 250
An emphasis on the life in the present ........................................................................................... 250
Not annihilation .............................................................................................................................. 250
Earlier hints of resurrection ............................................................................................................ 251
Texts pointing to a corporate preservation of the dead ................................................................. 251
Texts supporting a belief in resurrection ........................................................................................ 251
Life after death without elaboration .......................................................................................... 251
Life after death in the little apocalypse ...................................................................................... 251
Life after death for the Servant .................................................................................................. 252
Life after death, the resurrection of the righteous (Dan 12:1‐3) ................................................ 252
Resurrection in the intertestamental period (2nd Temple Judaism) ............................................... 252
Texts rejecting resurrection (e.g. Sadducees) ............................................................................. 252
Texts suggesting spiritual resurrection i.e. (Hellenistic Judaism) ............................................... 252
Texts suggesting bodily resurrection .......................................................................................... 253
Resurrection at the time of Christ .................................................................................................. 253
Resurrection in Jesus’ teaching ........................................................................................................... 253
Resurrection in the Synoptics and John .......................................................................................... 253
Texts that presume the future general resurrection to life or destruction ................................ 253
Explicit predictions of the resurrection of Christ ........................................................................ 255
The resurrection accounts .............................................................................................................. 256
The women visit the tomb after the Sabbath ............................................................................. 256
The stone rolled away ................................................................................................................. 256
Angel(s) at the tomb ................................................................................................................... 256
The empty tomb and missing body ............................................................................................. 257
Resurrection appearances .......................................................................................................... 257
Commissioning of the disciples ................................................................................................... 258
Conclusion to the Resurrection Accounts ................................................................................... 259
Other alternatives proposed to deny the resurrection ...................................................................... 260
The resurrection didn’t happen, the stories are a fictitious construct ........................................... 260
The stolen body theory ................................................................................................................... 261
The swoon theory ........................................................................................................................... 261
The wrong tomb theory .................................................................................................................. 262
The hallucination theory ................................................................................................................. 262
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 263
The case for the resurrection .............................................................................................................. 263
The empty tomb.............................................................................................................................. 263
The missing body ............................................................................................................................ 263
The inconsistencies in the accounts ............................................................................................... 263
The problem of an alternative ........................................................................................................ 264
249

The Resurrection of the King
The testimony of the women .......................................................................................................... 264
The appearance accounts ............................................................................................................... 264
Jewish acceptance of the resurrection and Jesus’ divinity ............................................................. 265
The transformation of the disciples ................................................................................................ 265
The suffering and martyrdom of the disciples ................................................................................ 265
Josephus .......................................................................................................................................... 266
The historical impact of the resurrection ....................................................................................... 266
The personal testimonies of Christians ........................................................................................... 267
Preaching truth, lying and the resurrection .................................................................................... 267
The nature of the resurrection of Jesus .............................................................................................. 267
By what agency was he raised? ...................................................................................................... 267
Where did Jesus go between his death and resurrection and during the forty days of appearances?
........................................................................................................................................................ 267
The nature of the resurrection body .............................................................................................. 268
The Importance of Jesus’ Resurrection ........................................................................................... 269

Introduction
Each of the Gospels climaxes with the account of the empty tomb and subsequent appearances of
Jesus to his disciples. In the remainder of the NT the resurrection is mentioned as a given and there
is a future expectation of a general resurrection of the dead at which all humanity will meet God in
judgement and receive their eternal destiny. The resurrection of Jesus is essential to the Christian
story. In addition, Jesus reanimated the dead and predicted his own resurrection.

The essentiality of the resurrection to the Christian story and message cannot be overestimated.
Christianity is a resurrection‐relational religion based on the basic premise ‘he is risen.’ As Paul tells
us in 1 Cor 15 the resurrection is essential to the Christian message (v.3‐8) and if there is no
resurrection from the dead, then the whole Christian message and hope of salvation collapses like
the Twin Towers (1 Cor 15:12‐19)!

This section looks at the resurrection in the Gospels, its precedents in the OT and Judaism, the
notion of general resurrection in the Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus, arguments against and
evidences for the resurrection and finally some questions relating to the resurrection including the
descent to hell and the nature of the resurrection body.

Resurrection in the Old Testament
An emphasis on the life in the present
In the OT, life in the present and not so much the future is emphasised. The central issue is the
involvement of God in this life. Blessing for the righteous and punishment for the wicked tended to
be present in emphasis (e.g. the curses and blessings of Deut 28; Lev 26).

Not annihilation
While the emphasis is on the present, there is no real notion of annihilation in the OT. On the one
hand, death is the returning of a person to the ‘dust’ (Gen 3:19; Ps 90:3). On the other hand this is
not the absolute end of life. Existence continues after death, the person descending to Sheol which
can mean ‘death’ (Gen 42:38; Ps 89:48), the ‘grave’ (Gen 37:35; Is 14:11) or the ‘netherworld’ (Ezek
250

32:21; perhaps Ps 86:13). Sometimes the dead dwell in Sheol as, or ‘shades’ (Job 26:5; Ps 88:10; Prov
9:18; Is 26:14) suggesting a wraith‐like existence or ‘the dead’.

Earlier hints of resurrection
While the OT does not explicitly refer to existence after death, there is no denial and some evidence
in support. So for example we have the two translations of Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:9–
11) which point to their continued existence in another dimension beyond earth i.e. heaven. The
development of the hope of the return of Elijah as a forerunner to the Messiah indicates that Jews
believed him to be in existence beyond earth (cf. Mal 3:6; 4:1). Later Judaism then interpreted these
as ‘assumption’ to eternal life (cf. Heb 11:5). The story of Saul contacting Samuel after his death
through the ‘witch of Endor’ suggests the view that people survived death (1 Sam 28:1–25).

Texts pointing to a corporate preservation of the dead
Some OT texts affirm resurrection not in an individual sense, but in terms of a corporate
preservation particularly in connection to the restoration of Israel from exile. So for example Hos
6:1–3: ‘after two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his
presence.’ Another is Hos 3:14: ‘I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them
from death’. Ezekiel’s vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones suggests the restoration of Israel (Ezek
37:1‐14; cf. Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6).

Texts supporting a belief in resurrection
Life after death without elaboration
There are some statements implying life after death with little elaboration. Some of these include:
1. Job 14:14: Here Job asks ‘if mortals die, will they live again?’ An answer is found in Job
19:25–27: ‘I know that my Redeemer (goel) lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the
earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God.’ Here the
‘redeemer’ is God and the deliverance is after death suggesting a belief in life after death.
2. Psalm 49:15: ‘but God will redeem my life (Soul) from the grave; he will surely take me to
himself.’ Here the Psalmist explicitly expresses confidence that God will save his life from the
grave.
3. Psalm 16:10: ‘because you will not abandon me to the grave (Sheol), nor will you let your
Holy One (faithful one) see decay.’ Here David expresses confidence that God will not allow
his holy one to rot in the grave. Implicitly this suggests resurrection. This text was crucial in
the presentation of Jesus as Messiah in the sermons of Peter and Paul of Acts (2:27‐31;
13:34‐37).
4. Psalm 73:24: ‘You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory.’
This suggests belief in the afterlife.

Life after death in the little apocalypse

These two verses lie in what is called Isaiah Apocalypse (Is 24:1–27:13) and suggest life after death.
1. Isaiah 25:8: ‘He will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has
spoken.’ This is quoted in 1 Cor 15:54 by Paul concerning resurrection.
2. Isaiah 26:19: ‘But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake
up and shout for joy.’ This is an explicit statement of the hope of the resurrection.
251

Life after death for the Servant

The servant of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls version which of course predates the Masoretic Text
implies resurrection: Isaiah 53:9‐11: ‘He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in
his death … he will see his offspring and prolong his days …he will see the light of life and be
satisfied.’ Some dispute that this refers to eternal life suggesting that the song is not about an
individual but a corporate figure (Israel or remnant). However, in light of the redemptive story, it is
certain that this is Messianic and individual without being recognised by Judaism.

Life after death, the resurrection of the righteous (Dan 12:1-3)

Here we have the most explicit and direct statement of a resurrection from the dead from before
Christ; either in around 530BC or the mid 2nd century BC. 1 Here we have an expectation of the
resurrection of the faithful to eternal life and the remainder of humanity to eternal destruction:
Dan 12:1–3, 13 ‘At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There
will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at
that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame
and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise (or ‘impart wisdom’) will shine like the brightness of
the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever… As for you,
go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your
allotted inheritance.’

Resurrection in the intertestamental period (2nd Temple Judaism)
In this period there is a great deal of speculation concerning the afterlife but it is difficult to find a
uniform viewpoint.
Texts rejecting resurrection (e.g. Sadducees)

When we read Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees over the resurrection and marriage (Mk 12:18 and
pars) and those in Acts which confirm this (see Acts 4:1‐2; 23:8) it is clear that there are some in
Israel like the Sadducees who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. The book of Sirach for
example teaches that a deceased person abides in Sheol, a place of eternal sleep (Sir 30:17; 46:19)
and silence (Sir 17:27–28). Immortality is preserved for Israel as a nation and a person’s good name
(Sir 37:26; 39:9; 44:8–15). This is a akin to a liberal view of life after death; it exists as a metaphor for
one’s name living on.
Texts suggesting spiritual resurrection i.e. (Hellenistic Judaism)

Some texts influenced by Hellenism suggest non physical immortality with no link to resurrection.
These were those influenced by Greek thinking which completely rejected the notion of a bodily
resurrection, seeing life after death as a blessed release from the prison of the fallen body. 2 The
Wisdom of Solomon for example talks of the righteous finding peace (3:1–4) and of an incorruptible
existence (2:23–24; cf. 5:5; 6:19; and Philo Op. Mund. 135; Gig. 14). See also 4 Maccabees (4 Macc
9:22; 10:15; 16:3; 18:23 cf. 2 Macc 7:14) and 1 Enoch 91‐104 (esp. 1 Enoch 92:3–5; 103:4; 104:2, 4).

1
Of course the date of Daniel is hotly contested. For our purposes, it is not of significance as the key thing is
that it is at the least 150 years before Christ.
2
I recommend that students read the chapter in N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God in which
discusses this in depth with substantial reference to Greco‐Roman literature. My notes on the Epistles Course
also contain a summary of this.
252

Texts suggesting bodily resurrection

Some texts speak of only the resurrection of Israel or of the ‘the saints’ (1 Enoch 22:13; 46:6; 51:1–2;
Pss. Sol. 3:11–16; 13:9–11; 14:4–10; 15:12–15). Some from the first century and later speak of a
general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked (4 Ezra 4:41–43; 7:32–38 cf. T. Benj. 10:6–9; 2
Apoc. Bar. 49:2–51:12; 85:13). This is probably drawn from the thinking of Daniel 12:2–3 (above). In
2 Maccabees and Sibylline Oracles there is an extremely literal notion of bodily resurrection including
the restoration of the missing bodily parts (2 Macc 7:10–11; 14:46; Sib Or. 4:176–82). Pharisees were
in this tradition (if not the extreme), holding to the hope of the resurrection of the dead (cf. Acts
23:8).

Resurrection at the time of Christ
Out of all these ideas in Intertestamental Judaism, a variety of viewpoints had emerged by the time
of Christ.
1. Sadducees: rejected any idea of an afterlife (Mk 12:18; Acts 23:8; 26:8; Josephus Ant. 18.14;
b. Sanh. 90b).
2. Pharisees: taught of a resurrection and eternal reward for Israel (apart from apostates) in
the age to come, excluding only apostates (Acts 23:6–8; b. Sanh. 90b; b. Ketub. 111b).
3. Essenes: it is not clear where they stood. Josephus suggests that they held to the
immortality of the soul (Josephus Ant. 18.1.5 §18) but many believe that statements
referring to the faithful living with the angels (1QS 2:25; 1QH 3:19–23; 11:10–14) should be
interpreted in terms of living in this life rather than a future hope.

Resurrection in Jesus’ teaching
Resurrection in the Synoptics and John
Texts that presume the future general resurrection to life or destruction
There are a number of texts in which Jesus clearly anticipates the general resurrection of the dead.
Some texts point to eternal life for the righteous, others to eternal destruction; some texts are dualic
in nature, having a contrast in the story where humanity is divided between the two destinies.

1. Fear the One Who Throws into Hell: Mt 10:28 cf. Lk 12:5: Jesus warns the disciples that
they should not fear those who can kill the body but the one who can cast them into hell.
2. Better to amputate than incinerate (experience hell): In Mk 9:43, 45, 47 Jesus warns of the
dangers of hell where ‘the fire never goes out’. He tells them that it is better to remove the
offending parts of the body that causes sin rather than experience hell. Clearly this is not
literal but warns of the horror of hell, worse than amputation! It also warns of the
consequences of sin. Although it is disputed, the quote of Is 66:24 suggests that Gehenna is
‘a place of endless destruction; there is no hope of relief.’ 3
3. The rich ruler: In Jesus’ engagement with the rich young man, Jesus affirms the resurrection.
The rich man’s question ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ clearly asks how to
experience the resurrection of the righteous (Mk 10:17). Later in the passage, Jesus
promises those who have given their all to follow him ‘in the age to come, eternal life’ (Mk
10:30). Eternal life here has the double connotation of eternality in the sense that it is
endless in relation to time (quantitative), along with the notion of quality (qualitative).

3
Evans, Mark 8:27‐16:20, 72.
253

4. Judgement: In Mt 12:35‐37 Jesus speaks of eternal judgement in which each person will be
judged ‘for every careless word they have spoken’. Here one receives ‘acquittal’ or
‘condemnation’. In Jn 5:28–29 Jesus speaks of the ‘coming time’ when the dead will hear his
voice and ‘come out – those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done
evil will rise to be condemned’. Jesus here is judge in present (Jn 5:19–24) and future (Jn
5:25–30). Jn 12:48 Jesus speaks of condemnation at the last day for those who reject Jesus.
5. The Eschatological Feast: In Lk 14:12‐14 those who invite the poor and needy to the
banquet will be vindicated in the eschaton.
6. The Rich Man and Lazarus: In Lk 16:19–31 the rich man who had neglected the poor man
‘was buried and in Hades.’ The poor man experienced the opposite: ‘the angels carried him
to Abraham’s side’. It is probable that we should not take this parable literally in all its
details, but the key point includes the separation of humanity between heaven and hell.
7. The Parable of the Weeds and Net: Mt 13:24‐30, 36‐43, 47‐50 the parables imply a
judgement at the end of the age where the wicked will be separated from the righteous and
the wicked will suffer judgement.
8. Marriage at the Resurrection: The clearest discussion of resurrection is Jesus’ response to
the query on marriage from the Sadducees (Mk 12:18–27; Mt 22:23–33; Lk 20:27–38). Here
Jesus affirms the eternal resurrection of the dead (‘when the dead rise’ [Mk 12:25]; ‘and
they can no longer die’ [Lk 20:36]) in contradiction to the Sadducees theology. He indicates
that the resurrected will not marry but will be ‘like the angels in heaven’, who presumably
do not marry. He affirms that resurrection is continuous with the thrust of God’s revelation
to Moses in the Torah (‘even Moses showed that the dead rise’) in Exod 3:6 whereby God is
the God of the living not the dead i.e. life goes on for those in relationship with God.4 He
uses the Torah because this part of Scripture was affirmed by the Sadducees.
9. Left Behind: In Mt 24:40‐44 after exhorting watchfulness, Jesus gives three short parables of
the men in the field, women grinding and two in a bed suggesting that ‘one will be taken,
the other left’ pointing to an unexpected judgement at the Parousia where some will receive
salvation and others judgement. Interestingly, those who hold to a theology of the rapture
argue that those left behind are unbelievers. However, if we take the parallel with Noah
seriously, it is the believers who remain behind (see Mt 24:39: ‘until the flood came and took
them all away’). Hence, it is unlikely that a rapture is in mind here.
10. The Faithful and Unfaithful Servant: In Mt 24:45‐51 the good servant has a share in Jesus’
kingdom while the wicked is cast out.
11. The Sheep and Goats: In another explicit albeit parabolic section (Mt 25:31‐46) humanity is
divided in two groups on the basis of their works of service and those who have shown
mercy to those in need will receive eternal life in ‘the kingdom prepared for you since the
creation of the world’ and those who have not shown mercy will be thrown into the ‘eternal
fire prepared for the devil and his angels’.
12. The Righteous Raised at the Resurrection: In Mt 27:51‐53 it is reported that at the death of
Christ some righteous people were raised from the dead. This could contain and illusion to
Ezek 37:13‐14: ‘when I open your graves and bring you up from them … and you will live’
pointing to the dramatic effect of Jesus’ death. It points to Jesus’ resurrection being the first
fruits of the resurrection of all the faithful to eternal life.

4
Jesus use of the Torah here is intentional as the Sadducees accepted the written and not oral law.
254

13. The Resurrection at the Last Day: In Jn 6:40, 44, 54 Jesus three times refers to he himself
raising the righteous to eternal life on the last day.
14. ‘I am the Resurrection and the Life’: In the Lazarus’ narrative in Jn 11:25‐26 Jesus states that
he is the resurrection and life and promises anyone who believes that he/she will never die.
He is thus the source of ultimate resurrection.
15. Jesus’ miracles of raising the dead: The general resurrection of the dead and the
resurrection of Jesus are anticipated in Jesus’ miracles of reanimation. There are three in the
Gospels including 1) Jairus’ 12 year old daughter (Mk 5:21–24, 35–43; Mt 9:18–19, 23–26; Lk
8:40–42, 49–56); 2) The Widow of Nain’s Son, a miracle that saved the widow from
destitution (Lk 7:11‐17 cf. 1 Kgs 17:8‐14); The Raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:1‐44).
16. I am Going to Prepare a Place for You: Jesus tells the disciples in Jn 14:2–3 that he is going
to ‘prepare a place’ for them and ‘will come back’ and bring them to his side i.e. to eternal
resurrected life.
Explicit predictions of the resurrection of Christ

At a number of points, Jesus directly refers to his own impending resurrection. These were not
understood by his disciples who could not grasp his death on the basis of false understandings of the
Messiah:
1. The Transfiguration: In Mk 9:9 Jesus warns the disciples to tell no one of the Transfiguration
‘until the Son of Man has risen from the dead’.’ The Transfiguration anticipates his ultimate
glorification.
2. The Capstone: At the end of the parable of the tenants in Mk 12:10–11 the Son is killed,
clearly a reference to the killing of Jesus. He then predicts that ‘the stone the builders
rejected has become the capstone’ pointing to his vindication and resurrection.
3. The Coming of the Son of Man: The eschatological prediction in Mk 13:26 of ‘the Son of man
coming in clouds with great power and glory’ points to his resurrection.
4. The Last Supper: His statement in Mk 14:25 in the context of the Lord’s Supper that he will
not drink wine until ‘I drink it [the eschatological cup] anew in the kingdom of God.’
5. The Galilee Prediction: In Mk 14:28: Here is an explicit prediction that he will die and then
arise and go to Galilee: ‘after I have arisen I will go before you into Galilee.’
6. The Coming and Exaltation of the Son of Man: Jesus’ statement in Mk 14:62 to the High
Priest which led to his condemnation assumes a resurrection and return: ‘you will see the
Son of man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’
7. The Three‐Fold Passion Predictions: The three passion‐predictions of the Synoptics include a
prediction of Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). Some see them as vaticinium ex
eventu (‘prophecies written after the event’) but there is no reason to see them this way. All
point to his resurrection ‘three days after’ his death. This third‐day concept (1 Cor 15:4)
‘according to the Scriptures’ is connected to a number of possibilities in the OT including Hos
6:2; Gen 22:4; Jonah 1:17‐2:1 cf. Mt 12:39–42 cf. Lk 11:29–32. Some see it in a more general
way.
8. Destroy this Temple and I will Rebuild it: Another passion prediction is found explicitly in Jn
2:19: ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’ John goes on to explain that
this was initially misunderstood but was in fact a reference to his future bodily resurrection
(2:21–22). In the trial of Jesus, this was used as a reason to condemn him (cf. Mk 14:58;
15:29; Mt 26:61; 27:40). It is clear, that this was a well understood notion in that it led to the
255

chief priests and Pharisees setting a guard on the tomb to ensure no one would seek to steal
the body and fake Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 27:63).
The resurrection accounts
Critical scholarship over the 19th to late 20th centuries has tended to read the resurrection accounts
suspiciously, noting the impossibility of such an event, and building a critical sceptical viewpoint on
the differences in the accounts. It is also correct to admit that there are no actual witnesses to the
literal resurrection; rather our belief in it is due to the cumulative evidence and eye‐witness
accounts. In response, I would say, while there are differences, the sequence of the account is
generally similar across the Gospels. There are six key points of general consistency across the
accounts with some difference in detail:
The women visit the tomb after the Sabbath

(Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1‐3; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1)

The first common point is the women’s visit to the tomb. Each of the accounts begins ‘when the
Sabbath was over’ on the day ‘after the Sabbath’, ‘the first day of the week’, ‘very early in the
morning’ ‘while it was still dark. Women come to the tomb. Just who was there is not completely
clear. Matthew and Mark include Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’ = ‘the mother of James and
Joses’. Luke speaks generally of ‘the women’. John records that only Mary Magdalene went to the
tomb. Mark records that Salome was there and the purpose of the visit was to anoint the body of
Jesus.

The stone rolled away

(Mt 28:2; Mk 16:3‐4; Lk 24:2; Jn 20:1)

The second common factor is that all four Gospels speak of the stone which covered the door to the
tomb. Matthew records that there was a great earthquake and that the stone was rolled away by an
angel who had descended from heaven and was now sitting on the throne. In Mark the women ask
‘who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?’ On arrival the stone is rolled away
with no reference to how the stone moved. In Luke, as in Mark, the stone is rolled away without
explanation. In John, Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb, but the stone is moved, again without
explanation.
Angel(s) at the tomb

(Mt 28:2‐7; MK 16:4‐7; Lk 24:4‐7; Jn 20:12‐13)

Each Gospel refers to some kind of angelic intervention at the arrival of the women at the tomb, a
third common element to the narratives.

In Matthew after or contemporaneous to an earthquake, an angel ‘came down from heaven and
going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.’ Matthew describes the angel as brilliantly
white. The guards are comatose as a result of fear. The angel addresses the women: ‘Do not be
afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just
as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen
from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him. Now I have told you’
(Mt 28:5‐8).

256

In Mark en‐route to the tomb, the women are concerned as to ‘who will roll the stone away from
the entrance of the tomb?’ On arrival they find that the stone is rolled away. They enter the tomb
and find a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side of the tomb and they were
frightened. The man addressed them: ‘Don’t be alarmed,’ he said. ‘You are looking for Jesus the
Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go,
tell his disciples and Peter, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he
told you.”’ In the main this concurs with the words of the angel in Matthew.

In Luke, there is no earthquake or angelic moving of the stone but this detail may have been
overlooked by Luke. Rather, there are two angels who suddenly appear beside them. The woman
bow before them and the angels address them: ‘Why do you look for the living among the dead? He
is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: “The Son
of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised
again”’ (Mk 16:5‐7). In common with Matthew is a reminder of Jesus prediction. In common with
both Matthew and Mark are the words, ‘he is risen’. Apart from this, the words of the angel are
quite different, focussed on the prediction of his resurrection.

In John the stone has been moved and there is no reference to an angel initially. However, after
finding the tomb empty, Mary ran and told Peter and the ‘loved disciple’ who came to the tomb.
After the disciples returned to their homes, Mary encounters two angels in white seated in the tomb
(Jn 20:12). They asked her, ‘woman, why are you crying?’ She responds with uncertainty as to where
Jesus was. Then Jesus appears to her. There is no reference to the angels after this point.
The empty tomb and missing body

(Mt 28:6; Mk 16:6; Lk 24:6; Jn 20:5)

The fourth element common to all accounts in the Gospels is the empty tomb. Oon the arrival of the
women and disciples, Jesus is missing from the tomb. In the Synoptics there is a shroud; in John
strips of linen.
Resurrection appearances
(see Mt 28; Mk 16; Lk 24; Jn 20‐21; Acts 1:3‐9; 9:1‐6)

The fifth factor is that each of the accounts includes a number of appearances except for the shorter
ending of Mark (see Mark’s Gospel notes).

1. Mark: Mark’s original Gospel almost certainly did not include any resurrection appearances.
In the longer ending of Mark there are three appearances (Mk 16:9‐20): 1) To Mary
Magdalene who tells the others but they reject it (16:10‐11); 2) To Two Disciples walking in
the country, again the disciples reject the news (16:12‐13); 3) To the eleven while they are
eating. Jesus rebukes their lack of faith and sends them out to preach the gospel, which they
did (16:14‐20).

2. Matthew: Matthew records 2 appearances missing out the appearance to the two disciples
on the road: 1) To Mary Magdalene: An appearance to Mary Magdalene and ‘the other
Mary’ (28:8). Their response is to worship him (28:9); 2) To the Eleven: An appearance to all
eleven of the disciples on a mountain in Galilee at which time, Jesus gives them a
commission to go and make followers of Jesus throughout the world (28:16‐20).

3. Luke: Luke records no appearance to Mary or the women and records 3 appearances: 1) To
Two Disciples including Cleopas on the road to Emmaus (24:13‐31); 2) To Simon Peter
257


4. John: John records 4 appearances: 1) To Mary Magdalene who mistakes him for the
gardener and tells the others (20:14‐18). John records that Jesus took the news to the
disciples; 2) To Ten of the Eleven (minus Thomas) locked away in a room, Jesus appearing
among them. He gives them the Spirit and commissions them, ‘as the Father has sent me, I
am sending you.’ Thomas refused to believe (20:19‐25); 3) To the eleven including Thomas
showing him his scars. Thomas worships him (20:26‐29); 4) To seven disciples (Peter,
Thomas, Nathaneal, James and John plus 2) by the Sea of Galilee. Jesus helps them catch fish
and eat with him. Jesus reinstates Peter with the three‐fold ‘feed my sheep/lambs, do you
love me…’ (21:1‐23).

5. Acts: Acts refers to a number of appearances and ‘convincing proofs’ over a period of 40
days but refers to only one (or two) appearances: 5 1) To The Eleven when he asks them to
wait for the Spirit and commissions them (Acts 1:4‐8); 2) To Paul cf. Acts 9, 22, 26.

6. Paul: In addition Paul records a set of 6 appearances in 1 Cor 15:3‐8: 1) To Peter. Unclear
when, probably one that Luke reports (Lk 24:34) or perhaps John’s (Jn 21); 2) To the Twelve
(or better, the Eleven); 3) To More than Five Hundred of the brothers at the same time,
most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Unclear when, perhaps the
Great Commission but in reality, we don’t know (Mt 28:18‐20); 4) To James (Only reference
to this); 5) To all the apostles: Not sure if this means the ‘Twelve [eleven]’ or perhaps
another group; 6) To Paul (Damascus Road cf. Gal 1:15‐16).
Commissioning of the disciples

Finally, each of the Gospels (plus Acts in Luke’s case and in the longer ending of Mark) has a
commissioning appearance. It could be that originally Mark did not have this commissioning and that
it was added in with the rest of the longer ending. They differ in emphases: 1) Matthew focuses on
going through the world, discipleship, baptism and teaching believers (Matt 28:18‐20); 2) Mark’s
longer ending emphasises going, preaching, belief and baptism, signs and wonders (Mk 16:15‐20 cf.
Mk 13:10; 14:9); 3) Luke mentions preaching, repentance and forgiveness, witness and the role of
the Spirit (Lk 24:46‐49; Acts 1:8); John speaks in terms of ‘sending’, the Spirit and forgiveness (Jn
20:21).

While there are differences between these accounts we can isolate the key features:
1. Going: In Matthew and Mark there is a going to take the message. In John ‘going’ is replaced
by ‘sending’ which implies ‘going’ but puts the onus on the sender, God in Christ. The
Christian community is not to sit in their lovely churches and wait for them to come – we are
to go to them throughout God’s world.
2. All Nations: In the Synoptics the emphasis is on taking the message to the whole world (‘all
nations’; ‘all the world’; ‘all creation’; ‘everywhere’; ‘the ends of the earth’). Hence, it is a
cosmic or global mission incomplete until all nations have received the full gospel.
3. Baptising: Matthew and Mark emphasise ‘baptism’ of the new converts. After conversion,
disciples are to be baptised and instructed.
4. Missioning: Matthew speaks of ‘making’ disciples, Mark of preaching and signs, Luke of
preaching ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins’ and ‘witnessing’. John’s is a general
statement which indicates that believers continue Christ’s mission of preaching and healing.

5
It is not clear whether Jesus appeared twice i.e. 1:4 (cf. Lk 24:36‐49) and subsequently 1:5‐9 including a
question on the restoration of Israel, the commission revisited and concluding with the ascension.
258

5. Converts: The Synoptics emphasise the people dimension of the mission. Matthew uses the
notion of discipleship i.e. ‘make people Jesus’ disciples.’ Mark emphasises helping them
believe and be baptised. Luke does not emphasise the response but the indicative truth that
they will go as the Spirit enables.
6. Spirit: Luke and John in different ways emphasise the empowering the Spirit (Jn 20:21; Lk
24:49; Acts 1:8). Matthew includes baptism in the name of the Triune God. Mark mentions
signs and wonders. Clearly, the role of the Spirit in mission is decisive; it is his mission which
he will lead and empower; ours is to cooperate with him.
Conclusion to the Resurrection Accounts

Putting this all together leaves us with certain options:
1. Rejection: On the basis of the discrepancies in the account, some reject the resurrection as a
construction of the early church or the evangelists. Some consider that the evangelists
and/or the early church created the accounts based on the Greco‐Roman myths of a ‘dying‐
rising’ saviour or hero. Hence, they ascribed to Jesus the idea of his dying and rising to
further accentuate their claims that he was the Christ, the Son of God. Some simply reject
the whole notion on the on the basis that there is little consistency in the stories. In
addition, the shorter ending of Mark adds weight to this view, it ending with an empty tomb
but no appearances.

2. Total Harmonisation: Christians with a high view of inerrancy and/or infallibility take the
accounts and accept them as true, harmonising the accounts, softening the differences and
explaining them on the basis of authentic eye‐witness recollection. Hence, such a view
accepts all appearances and seeks to harmonise them. Most taking this approach accept the
longer ending of Mark as historical (if not necessarily original) and include this in their
analysis. If so they come up with this kind of construction of the appearances: 6
a. Mary Magdalene: An appearance to Mary Magdalene and other women (Mt 28:8‐9;
Mk 16:10‐11; Jn 20:14‐18).
b. Two on the Road: An appearance to two disciples walking in the country (Mk 16:12‐
13; Lk 24:13‐31).
c. Peter: An appearance to Simon Peter (Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:3‐8).
d. The Eleven (Minus Thomas): An appearance to the eleven minus Thomas in
Jerusalem in which he also commissions them to go and preach the Gospel (Mk
16:14‐20; Lk 24:36‐49; Jn 20:29‐25; 1 Cor 15:3‐8; Acts 1:4‐9). Some would believe
there was an initial imparting of the Spirit to the disciples at this point (Jn 20:21).
e. The Eleven: A second appearance to the eleven including Thomas in Jerusalem (Jn
20:26‐29).
f. James: An appearance to James (1 Cor 15:3‐8).
g. All the Apostles (Wider group?): An appearance to all the apostles (assuming that
this refers to a wider group than ‘the twelve’ (1 Cor 15:3‐8).
h. The Eleven in Galilee: An appearance to the eleven in Galilee sending them out in
mission (Mt 28:16‐20).
i. The Seven in Galilee: An appearance to the seven at the Sea of Galilee and the re‐
commissioning of Peter (Jn 21:1‐23).
j. 500: An appearance to 500 brothers on one occasion (1 Cor 15:3‐8).
k. Paul: An appearance to Paul (1 Cor 15:3‐8)

6
There are alternatives. One can group all the ‘Great Commission’ appearances as one (i.e. d. h. and perhaps
i.). One can also group c. i. as the same appearance to Peter. One can argue Paul’s reference to the appearance
to ‘the 12’ and ‘the apostles’ as the two appearances of John to the apostles in Jerusalem.
259

3. Moderate Acceptance and harmonisation: Another approach is to accept the accounts as
pointing to the resurrection while not being hung up on the exact details beyond the six
common elements described above. This view allows doubt to stand concerning: exactly
who the women were, (Mary Magdalene aside as she is common to all references to this);
how the stone rolled away (earthquake, angels etc); the precise number (1 or 2), the
presence and words of the angels; the exact number, place and recipients of the
appearances; the words of the commissioning. What is important is the overall point, and
not the detail. This view accepts that the basics of the resurrection should be accepted for
good reason (see below) and that there was: a visit to the tomb; the stone rolled away; the
tomb empty; an angelophony of some sort; subsequent appearances (details sketchy); and a
final commissioning of the disciples. This view also notes that there are common aspects to
the appearances suggesting that there is some degree of harmonisation possible (see
above). However, proponents of this view would not be concerned at some loose ends as
the overall thrust outweighs differences in detail.

My own position is 2 above believing there to be eleven appearances but accepting that there are
points that are clear and so avoiding dogmatism over detail.

Other alternatives proposed to deny the resurrection
A number of suggestions have been proposed concerning the resurrection.

The resurrection didn’t happen, the stories are a fictitious construct
The case against the resurrection is in many cases built on an a priori commitment against the
supernatural, miracles and resurrection. The logic works like this: resurrections do not happen in
human experience, therefore Jesus did not rise from the dead and neither will we. This is based on
the notion of naturalism which rejects all manner of occurrences that lie outside common and
verifiable human experience.

However, the a priori rejection of miracles is unsound philosophically in that it must be conceded
that any event is possible even if it has not been experienced in a given situation. In addition, the
assumption that miracles do not happen is unsustainable in that there one cannot know all
possibilities and there are recorded cases of experienced miracles. Furthermore, the resurrection lies
in the realm of history and not science, and as such, cannot be verified in terms of scientific
assumption which is not repeatable of verifiable. There is simply no way to test whether there was a
resurrection of Jesus. Similarly, while science can purportedly take us close to the origin the
existence of the universe and humanity, it cannot in fact prove or recreate the origins, leaving open
the possibility of a spontaneous creation. The surprise and impact of the one resurrection (non‐
resuscitation) in history is not ruled out by the absence of others. Indeed, this is what makes it
miraculous.

The argument that the stories are a construct based on mythological precursors designed to make
Jesus appear more divine is possible but falls over when lined up with the evidences for the
resurrection listed below. These include that the propagators of the ‘myth’ were prepared to die for
the myth for seemingly no gain and that the stories carry so many inconsistencies which makes little
sense in a construct to try and prove an individual’s divinity. The story of the resurrection lacks
features of myth including body corporeality, historical accuracy and setting and outside references
(Josephus: see below). Finally, N.T. Wright’s recent analysis of Greco‐Roman views of resurrection in
The Resurrection of the Son of God shows clearly that Greco‐Roman myths of a bodily resurrected
figure did not exist. Rather, Greco‐Roman myth and story believed in a spiritual resurrection. It is
260

therefore impossible for the early Christians to have borrowed such myths as they did not exist in
this form.

The stolen body theory
This theory argues that Jesus’ died, was buried, and that some disciples stole the body. This is the
earliest argument against the resurrection which is given its origins in Matthew itself (cf. Mt 27:64).
Some deny the suggestion of a Roman guard (Mt 27:62‐66) in that it is only recorded in Matthew
and suggest it was a detail added in after event. However, all extant versions of Matthew include
this text. Some note that the guard is not set until the day after (‘the next day’) so that the tomb
was left unguarded until the next morning. However, the guards when they sealed the tomb on the
Saturday (Mt 27:64) would have checked to ensure the body was not there.

If the body was supposedly stolen sometime after the setting of the guard then it gets more difficult
again. One option is that the guards were asleep, enabling the disciples to steal the body. However if
so, how did the soldiers know that Jesus had been stolen? It is also unlikely that the disciples would
have been able to move the stone quietly enough to keep them asleep (unless they drugged them,
and so it gets even more ludicrous). Again it is unlikely that the disillusioned and fearful disciples
behind locked doors would attempt such bravery and take on a kustodia of Roman soldiers (see
below) at fear of death. It is also unlikely that the soldiers would fall asleep at fear of death.

Yet another possibility is that they got past the Roman guard and managed to secret the body away.
This of course is anticipated in Mt 27:64 and is proposed as the explanation the soldiers were to
spread to explain the disappearance of the body (Mt 28:12‐15). If we accept the statements of
Matthew that there was a Roman guard placed on the tomb, this rules out this possibility.

The Greek here kustodia indicates a guard of 4‐16 soldiers who, in the context of battle, arranged
themselves in an outward facing square to defend themselves. They faced death if they did not
complete their mission (cf. Acts 16:27). Here the extraordinary circumstances of the situation appear
to have seen them spared.

In addition, the Gospels record that the disciples were disillusioned and in hiding after his burial and
did not comprehend the possibility of Jesus’ resurrection as a present‐day reality. If so, it is unlikely
they would have stolen the body. It is also improbable that the body was stolen in that, if it were,
Pilate would surely have gone on a rampage to round up those who stole the body and dealt to
them. There is no evidence he did this. Finally, the body has never been found which is a problem to
most alternative views.

The swoon theory
Another idea is that Jesus was severely injured and unconscious when buried in the tomb and was
not deceased. It is argued that Jesus awoke and managed to release himself from the tomb. This
crumbles at every turn. If we accept the accounts as reasonably accurate it is improbable in that:
1. Jesus was severely injured, dehydrated and unlikely to be able to move the stone which
some argue weighed 2 tonnes.
2. If Jesus had done so, would he not have rejoined his disciples and then resumed his ministry
or withdrawn with them away from the threat of the Romans. Rather, they began to preach
and died for his name.
3. John records Jesus was dead, his blood having separated into blood and water when his side
was pierced. This indicates that the blood cells had begun to separate from the plasma
261

indicating cessation of circulation i.e. death. 7 The decision not to break Jesus’ legs also
indicates that he was dead at the time (Jn 19:34).
4. Matthew records that there was a guard there. If so, Jesus would have had to get past the
stone and the guards without being noticed or would have to overpower them
5. Furthermore when Jesus was taken from the cross he was covered with 80 pounds of spices
and embalmed.
6. It is hard to believe then that the monotheistic disillusioned disciples would have worshiped
this battered and bruised escapee and then given their lives for him as they witnessed to the
world that he was God!
7. The ancient executioners were also not stupid. It was their responsibility to ensure that the
victim was killed. This is seen in the spear into the side to ensure that the victim was dead. It
is clear that the Roman executioner believed Jesus to be dead and not asleep.
8. If so, what happened to Jesus? Where is he? Where did he end up?

The wrong tomb theory
Another idea from Kirsopp Lake in 1907 8 is that the women on the Sunday morning found the wrong
tomb and so mistakenly believed Jesus had risen, when in fact he was buried in another tomb.
However, this fails to account for the explicit statement in the Synoptic Gospels that the women
were with Joseph when he buried Jesus (Mt 27:61; Mk 15:47; LK 23:55). Only John leaves out this
detail. One is forced to dispute this and accept the Johannine account as accurate and that the
women got it wrong in the dark. Furthermore, if the women got it wrong, the Apostles and Joseph
himself would easily have corrected their error. In addition and conclusively, if indeed the disciples
did get the tomb wrong, one is forced to wonder why the authorities did not produce the body when
they started preaching that Jesus was risen.

The hallucination theory
Another possibility is to explain this psychologically in the sense that the disciples experienced
hallucinatory experiences of the risen Christ which were not real. So for example William McNeil
writes: 9
The Roman authorities in Jerusalem arrested and crucified Jesus. . . . But soon afterwards
the dispirited Apostles gathered in an upstairs room' and suddenly felt again the heart‐
warming presence of their master. This seemed absolutely convincing evidence that Jesus'
death on the cross had not been the end but the beginning. . . . The Apostles bubbled over
with excitement and tried to explain to all who would listen all that had happened.

This disintegrates when one considers the corporate, geographical and psychological dynamics of
the appearances. First, if it is to be explained in hallucinatory terms, then we have the most unusual
experience of a series of corporate experiences that correlate almost perfectly. That is, we have not

7
See D. Carson, John, 623 for a discussion on the two main possibilities here: 1) That the spear pierced Jesus’
heart and the blood flowed from the heart mingled with fluid from the pericardial sac to produce ‘blood and
water’; 2) This hs hemorrhagic fluid which has gathered between the pleura lining of the rib cage and the lining
of the lung which has separated, the clearer serum at the top, the deep red layer at the bottom. The spear
pierced the chest cavity from the bottom causing both layers to flow out. He notes, ‘[h]owever the medical
experts work this out, there can be little doubt that the Evangelist is emphasizing Jesus’ death, his death as a
man, his death beyond the shadow of doubt.’
8
Kirsopp Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (London: Williams and Norgate,
1907), 250‐253.
9
McNeill, William. A World History, Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

262

one or two experiences but 10 or 11 experiences. In fact one of these experiences included 500
people (1 Cor 15:6). This is most unlikely and cannot be simply explained in hallucinatory terms.
Secondly, these appearances were geographically spread across Jerusalem, Galilee and Syria
(Damascus) which increases the unlikelihood of this. Thirdly, the psychological expectation of the
disciples was negative and not positive i.e. they had no expectation of appearances of Jesus.
Hallucinations are more likely where one is positively attuned to its possibility. All indications are
that the disciples were thoroughly disillusioned (esp. Thomas, James) and did not understand the
possibility of Jesus’ resurrection in the present day. Rather they expected as an eschatological future
event. Hence it is clear that the conditions for a hallucination experience are not in place.

Similarly, as in the case of the ‘wrong tomb’ theory, all the authorities had to do was produce the
body and destroy the claims of the first Christians; they didn’t!

Conclusion
None of these suggestions can be sustained without rejecting large portions of the biblical account.
Hence they are supposition and unsustainable.

The case for the resurrection
It has to be conceded that the resurrection cannot be proven in a scientific modern sense. It is
important that Christians do not overstate the evidence as it if it is utterly and irrevocably
conclusive. We are talking about history here, and history is always difficult to fully establish.
However, there are a number of indications that suggest that there a sound (if not watertight) case
can be made for the resurrection and that the best explanation of the evidence is not one of the
above ideas, but that Jesus rose from the dead. It is my view that the case for the resurrection, while
not water tight, is very strong. Indeed, it is the most likely explanation of the data we have.

The empty tomb
Any rejection of the resurrection requires an alternative explanation of the empty tomb and the
other data. As we have seen, it is highly unlikely with the state that Jesus was in, the soldiers guard,
and the large stone that Jesus got himself free from the tomb, that the women got the wrong tomb
or that his body was stolen. You are left with the problem of why it was empty.

The missing body
Any rejection of the resurrection also requires an explanation for where the body is now placed. It is
claimed by some (e.g. Lloyd Gering) that the body of Christ is buried somewhere in Palestine.
However, the body has not been found nor has any evidence emerged that Jesus’ survived the
resurrection or that the disciples secreted the body away. This is pure supposition. What evidence
we have, although greatly disputed, is from six biblical documents that specifically attest to multiple
resurrection appearances (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts, 1 Corinthians) and another 21 built on this
premise. There is also extra‐biblical witness from Josephus (below) to this effect.

The inconsistencies in the accounts
As has been noted, the inconsistencies of the resurrection accounts can be seen as pointing to their
lack of authenticity. This is one way of looking at the data; the differences preclude truth. However,
263

the inconsistencies can also point the other way. It is remarkable that the early Church allowed five
accounts (Gospels plus Paul) to stand alongside each other with essentially the same outline, but
quite different details (see above). This to a large degree rules out the probability of collusion,
despite Matthew and Luke clearly relying on the same source, Mark. The accounts read like
authentic, honest recollections of the writers who collected eye‐witness data, without any attempt
to tidy them up. The longer ending of Mark could be seen as an attempt to do this, but if so, it is not
based on any one of the given Gospels. There are similarities with Luke and allusions to John (Mary
Magdalene), while the final commission is quite unique and suggests a completely different source.
For that reason, it is probable that the longer ending should still reckon in discussions of the
resurrection. The inconsistencies then are one the strengths of the Christian case.

The problem of an alternative
The terrible suffering and verified death of Jesus, the large stone across the entrance, the soldiers’
guard, the absence of a body, the empty tomb and the appearances point to the problem of an
alternative theory that satisfies the data. Any other solution requires arbitrary and indiscriminate
adaptation of some of the data and rejection of other elements to recreate what happened in the
account. Anyone can come to the data, delete one or more elements at a whim, and reconstruct the
story to suit their assumptions. However, there are no external sources by which to do this. No
evidence has been uncovered in ancient literature or archaeology to support an alternative thesis.
The best assessment of the data is that Jesus died, was buried and rose again, appearing to his
followers.

The testimony of the women
One of the amazing things about the story is the primacy of the testimony of the women in all
accounts. In each, the first witnesses to the empty tomb and revelation of the angels were Mary
Magdalene and other women. In Jewish and Greco‐Roman society, such a witness was inadequate in
a court of law. 10 Hence, we have the remarkable retention of inadequate witness as the basis for the
resurrection account. This speaks to the authenticity of the accounts. Interestingly, Paul does not
include this witness, perhaps because of this very problem.

The appearance accounts
Any alternative theory has to reckon with the appearance accounts and write them off as either a
hallucination or as a construct. As we have discussed above, there is great doubt that they can be
written off as hallucinations. The idea that they are a construct is weakened by the inconsistencies in
the accounts. The amazing change in the lives of the disciples and their preparedness to suffer and
die for their commitment to the resurrection also suggests that we do not have a construct here. In
particular, any alternative theory has to account for the transformation of the recipient of the final
appearance, Saul, a Jewish monotheistic zealot non‐believer who was radically opposed to the
Christian movement and the resurrection. Here we have an account of a Pharisee who was actively
seeking to restrain and destroy the movement, converted after an experience of the risen Christ, and
becoming its key propagator to the Greco‐Roman world. For this purpose he was greatly persecuted
and eventually killed.

10
On the notion of a woman’s testimony was not valued see R. Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of Named
Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 258 esp note 2.
264

Jewish acceptance of the resurrection and Jesus’ divinity
It is true that many of the Jewish people initially and ultimately rejected the notion of Jesus’
resurrection, his divinity and Messiahship. However, the first Christians were Jews who accepted it.
This is remarkable in that Jews of the time (and many to this day), were totally committed
monotheists, who could not even understand the notion of an incarnate God, a crucified Messiah or
understand the concept of the resurrection of the Messiah in the centre of time. Yet, despite intense
rejection and persecution from their fellow Jew, these Jewish followers quickly accepted the
resurrection and the lordship of Jesus and propagated it. More than that, as the Gospel spread out
they saw Jesus as the culmination of their faith which was based on covenant, law, temple, sacrifice,
election privilege and boundary markers. They moved from a faith based on the stories of Exodus,
Sinai and land to one based around a crucified Messiah for the whole world. They were prepared to
allow new converts to be law free and not circumcised and yet accepted them as the people of God
(cf. Acts 15). When one meets radical monotheists in the Middle East today whether of Jewish or
Muslim faith, one marvels at what it was that could have caused them to shift from Judaism to Jesus
as Messiah and Lord. It is precisely such an event as the resurrection which would be required to
turn radical monotheists like Paul into believers in a triune God.

The transformation of the disciples
Another factor that has to be accounted for in historical terms is the response of the disciples. At the
crucifixion they denied Jesus. After the crucifixion they withdrew into hiding and mourning,
humiliated and lost. We see this pain on the Road to Emmaus account where the shattered disciples
are totally unsure, their hopes of Jesus as the one to restore Israel destroyed.

Yet after the resurrection they go out from this state into the public and hostile realm of
monotheistic Israel proclaiming the message that Jesus is risen, that he is the saviour of the world
and the end of law and sacrifice, and that belief in him will bring eternal life. This was extremely
dangerous from a Jewish point of view, propagating that the man they caused to be crucified was
alive and the Son of God (the very reasons they had killed him in the first place). This was also
dangerous from a Roman point of view, the disciples promulgating the message that a man they
crucified as an insurgent is the Lord of all (rather than Caesar). That this was the case is verified in
the rapid spread of the Christian message in historical terms. Any rejection of the resurrection then,
must account for this transformation on other grounds. In terms of the following point, the
preparedness of the disciples to die for their belief, this is made even more remarkable.

The suffering and martyrdom of the disciples
Within days of the resurrection and the engagement in Jewish mission, the first believers came
under pressure (Acts 4). The great response of the people at Pentecost and the healing of the
disabled man at the temple caused members of the Jewish leadership (Priests, captain of the guard
and the Sadducees) to be upset, specifically because they were proclaiming Jesus had risen from the
dead (4:2). This led to the seizure of Peter and John who were imprisoned and forbidden from
speaking any further on the resurrection (4:3, 18). Their attitude is paradigmatic for the Christian
church as it spread out in the subsequent decades: ‘But Peter and John replied, “Judge for
yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help
speaking about what we have seen and heard”’ (4:20). This is followed by prayer for more courage in
the face of suffering (4:29).

Later their response to being banned from proclamation is similar: ‘We must obey God rather than
men!’ (5:29). This is followed by the stoning of Stephen (ch7), the scattering of the church other than
265

the apostles (ch8), the beheading of James (12:1) and continual outbreaks of persecution through
the NT. Tradition has it that all but John were subsequently martyred. The opportunity to recant or
desist from mission was not an option for the first Christians. Such was their belief in the
resurrection of Jesus that they were prepared to suffer and die spreading the message.

Now it can be argued that people are prepared to propagate a lie if they can gain greatly in terms of
power or materially. Yet these people were not from the elite and gained little in those initial years
except suffering and death. In addition they did not use any arms in the spread of the gospel, rather
they propagated a message of love, forgiveness and service. They had little to gain from pretending
Jesus rose from the dead when in fact he didn’t. This is one of the most powerful defences of the
reality of the resurrection, why would people die for a lie for no apparent personal gain?

Josephus
Another line of evidence is a disputed reference in Josephus to the resurrection. As we have
mentioned in passing, Josephus records a paragraph detailing aspects of Jesus life including the
resurrection. He writes concerning the resurrection:

‘And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him
to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them
alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold … (Antiquities of the Jews
book 18.3).

This passage is highly disputed by scholars who find it difficult to accept that a non‐Christian Jewish
historian would write this. It is believed that the passage is an interpolation by Christian apologists.
However, there is no textual evidence to this regard. 11 This is critical in ascertaining whether a
passage is an interpolation (inserted and not original); where there is no textual evidence of an
interpolation, it is most likely original to the text. As such, despite the protests of those who argue
that it is improbable that a Jew would write this, it is probably to be considered authentic.

The historical impact of the resurrection
A denial of the resurrection requires an alternative explanation for the amazing spread of
Christianity. By the end of the first century Christianity was well established from Alexandria in
Africa, through Palestine and modern Lebanon, Asia Minor, Greece and Italy. In the second century it
spread through France and Britain. By the early fourth century (A.D. 313‐324), Constantine had a
religious experience which many believe was his conversion, and Christianity became the state
religion for the Roman Empire. Up until this point, Christianity was non‐military utilising the power
of love, witness, martyrdom and service. It is astonishing that such a spread was possible without
the use of violence in a world where military strength decided who held the power. This is
particularly so when one considers the outbreaks of terrible persecution with the purpose of
stopping the movement (esp. under Nero A.D. 64; Trajan A.D. 98‐117; Marcus Aurelius A.D. 177;
Septimus Severus A.D. 193‐211; Decius Trajan A.D. 250; Diocletian A.D. 301‐311). The most likely
explanation for the spread of Christianity and the manner in which it spread is that these Christians
held firm to the belief that Jesus was resurrected Lord and that they must live by his command of
love. It was the resurrection power of God that transformed the Roman world.

11
That is , all extant versions include this section. As such there is no textual evidence to support and
interpolation.
266

The personal testimonies of Christians
Another avenue of evidence for the power of the resurrection is the power seen in Christianity to
transform lives ever since. Space precludes entering a discussion of this, but since the time of Mary
Magdalene, Paul, through Augustine and to the present day in lives such as Chuck Colsen
(Watergate), Nicky Cruz and more, we see the power of God to change lives in a way that suggests
more than mere naturalistic explanation. I personally know this power, having been transformed
from an egotistical self absorbed lost sinner into one who has left behind this life of sin (although
still far from perfect)! The power of the resurrection is alive and well transforming this world.

Preaching truth, lying and the resurrection
Clearly the first Christians, based on Jesus’ ethic of honesty, preached a concept of ethical integrity
(cf. Mt 5:33‐37; Col 3:9; Eph 4:25). While it is possible for people to be unscrupulous and preach a
message of integrity on one hand and yet be found to be dishonest, several factors make this
unlikely in the main with the early Christians. First, they died for the lie in many instances. Usually
one backs off the lie when their life is on the line! Secondly, they did not gain materially or in any
other worldly way in the initial phase for the church. Hence it seems unlikely that these first
Christians would be so committed to honesty on the one hand, yet preach a lie on the other.

The nature of the resurrection of Jesus
There are other questions that remain concerning the resurrection.

By what agency was he raised?
The actual accounts give little away in this regard. Paul suggests he was raised by the power of the
Holy Spirit (Rom 1:4; 8:11). The agency of Christ himself is possible (Jn 2:19). The Father raises the
dead as well (Jn 5:21). Certainly Luke records Peter and Paul saying ‘God raised him up’ (Acts 2:24,
32; 3:7, 15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30; Rom 10:9) The first explanation is probably the best, God
raised Jesus from the dead by the agency of the Spirit.

Where did Jesus go between his death and resurrection and during the forty
days of appearances?
The traditional view of the church is that he went to hell. So for example Article 3 of the Anglican 39
articles is entitled: ‘Of the going down of Christ into Hell.’ It then reads, ‘As Christ died for us, and
was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.’ Similarly the Westminster
Larger Catechism includes ‘Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?’ To
which the correct response is: ‘Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and
continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been
otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.’

Some argue that Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world, crying out ‘My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me!’ (Mk 15:34; Mt 27:46; Ps 22:1). He thus descended to hell and was freed
because of his own innocence.

The biblical evidence for this is found in the main in 1 Pet 3:19; 4:6:

267

1 Pet 3:18‐20: ‘He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom
also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited
patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

1 Pet 4:6: ‘For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead,
so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to
God in regard to the spirit.

However, the majority view of these texts is not that they refer to a post‐mortem descent to hell to
preach to the sinners in hell for their release. Rather, 1 Pet 3:18‐20 speaks of Jesus declaring the
victory of God over the spiritual forces of darkness in hell. 1 Pet 4:6 is probably referring to the
gospel being preached to people when they were alive, but are now dead.

What of the Gospels? In the Gospels there is no speculation on Jesus whereabouts between the
cross and the empty tomb nor when he was not in appearance mode on the earth for a period of 40
days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3).

Lk 14:26 suggests that Jesus had to ‘suffer many things and then enter his glory’. However this is
ambiguous in that his suffering could include descent to hell and his glory can be heavenly, earthly or
both. In Jn 20:17, when Mary Magdalene holds his feet, Jesus stops her and says, ‘Do not hold on to
me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, “I am
returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”’ This leaves open the question of
where Jesus was in the intervening time. Hence, it cannot be argued on the basis of the Gospels with
persuasiveness where Jesus was between the time of his death and resurrection. Clearly he was alive
and existed in time‐space for some portion of that time. It is unclear whether he was in heaven and
moved freely between heaven and earth, and/or descended to hell for some missiological purpose
or was limited to the time‐space continuum until his ascension.

The nature of the resurrection body
In the accounts, one gets the impression that Jesus was very much human, physical and continuous
with the earthly Jesus. Some examples of this include:
1. That he could appear and through physical terms be recognised as the earthly Jesus (Mt
28:8‐10, 16‐20; Mk 16:9, 12‐13, 14‐18; Lk 24:13‐29, 36‐49; Jn 20:14‐18, 19‐23, 24‐29; 21:1‐
23; Acts 1:4‐9). However, he could also disappear from their sight into the clouds (Acts 1:9).
2. That he could speak in an audible human voice in known language and into their situation
with earthly geographic, theologically and commonly understood terms (Mt 28:8‐10, 16‐20;
Mk 16:13‐20; Lk 24:13‐29, 36‐49; Jn 20:14‐18, 19‐23, 24‐29; 21:1‐23; Acts 1:4‐9; 9:3‐6; 22:6‐
10; 26:12‐18)
3. That his body could be touched and experienced including feet that could be grasped (Mt
28:9; Jn 20:17 [note Jesus here asks her to desist for the reason that he was yet to return to
the Father), his hands and feet could be seen and recognised in terms of scarring (Lk 24:37‐
39; Jn 20:20, 27), he could walk (Mk 16:12; 24:17), he could eat broiled fish (Lk 24:42), he
could breath on them, albeit the Holy Spirit came upon them as a result (Jn 20:22); cook for
them and break bread (Lk 24:30, 35; Jn 21:13), he could ‘eat with them’ (Acts 1:4). He also
states that he is not a ‘spirit’ (Lk 24:37 [pneuma]) he has ‘flesh and bone’ (Lk 24:39).

On the other hand there are notes of discontinuity which suggest Jesus was something more than
human in our earthly experience. These include:
1. That his form appeared different. In the longer ending of Mark it is suggested that he
appeared to the disciples on the road in a ‘different form’ (Mk 16:12 [morphē]). This
268

2. That he could appear suddenly and leave equally quickly (Mk 16:14; Lk 24:31, 36; Jn 20:19).
In Jn 20:19, 22 he appeared in a room with locked doors.
3. That he could do things that defied natural boundaries such as enter and leave locked rooms
(Jn 20:19, 22), ascend into heaven (Mk 16:19; Acts 1:9) and breath on them the Holy Spirit
(Jn 20:22), appear in light and a loud voice (Acts 9:3‐4).
That he was concerned on occasion not to be ‘grasped’ as he had not ascended (Jn 20:17).
He could breath on them the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22).

It can be concluded then that Jesus was still recognisable as human and that his resurrection was
bodily. However, there are aspects of his physicality that suggest his body was also significantly
different and not subject to the physical laws of earthly existence. Hence there are elements of
continuity and discontinuity in the resurrection body of Christ.

This line up nicely with Paul’s description of Jesus resurrected body as a ‘spiritual body’ (1 Cor 15:44)
i.e. not a Spirit but a physical body that is animated by the Spirit of God. This body is contrasted with
the ‘natural’ body which was formed through God breathing on Adam’s inanimate form at creation
(1 Cor 15:45, 47). The spiritual body will no longer be corruptible ‘flesh and blood’ (1 Cor 15:50) but
the effect of the Fall will be reversed and the resurrection body will be indestructible, imperishable,
incorruptible and glorious. This will happen at the return of Christ when there will be an
instantaneous glorious transformation of the natural body into a spiritual incorruptible body (1 Cor
15:51‐52 cf. Phil 3:21). This resurrection has begun in Jesus’ the first fruits of the resurrection which
guarantees the resurrection of all believers (1 Cor 15:23) which will occur at the return of Christ (cf.
1 Thess 4:13‐18).

The Importance of Jesus’ Resurrection
The resurrection is utterly important for Christian faith. It marks the decisive moment where Jesus is
declared unique, and rises above the greatest of human enemies, death. It is thus the centre of our
hope, just as Jesus rose from the dead, we can hope for the same. It is the first fruits of the one
resurrection of the dead (cf. 1 Cor 15:20). As such, he is the first of a harvest of those who will rise in
Christ. It is also theologically the ushering in of the new age, when heaven entered earth, where the
eschaton (‘last days’) began. Since the resurrection of Christ, the power of the Spirit and of life is at
work transforming. It is renewing the believer inwardly and working in the world to bring shalom. It
is the prelude to the end, whereby the resurrection and reconciliation of the world will be made
complete. It tells us that our future is profoundly physical yet transformed; it points to our own
bodily resurrection into indestructibility into the new heaven and earth. It is our hope and joy. Bring
it on!

• How do you account for the differences in the accounts?
• From the records we have, how many appearances were made by Jesus to his appearances
(have a crack at harmonising the accounts)?
• How important for our proclamation of Jesus’ as Lord is the resurrection?
• What heresies do the Christians of today hold concerning the resurrection?
269

•

270

Chapter Fifteen
THE CONSUMMATION OF THE KINGDOM
Contents
THE CONSUMMATION OF THE KINGDOM ..................................................................................................... 271
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 272
The Second Coming............................................................................................................................. 272
‘Some of You Will Not Taste Death…’ (Mk 9:1) .............................................................................. 272
The Little Apocalypse and the Second Coming (Mk 13) ................................................................. 272
A Realised View (e.g. N.T. Wright) .............................................................................................. 273
A Parousia/Mixed View ............................................................................................................... 273
Other References to the Second Coming in the Gospels ................................................................ 277
A Rapture in the Gospels? ............................................................................................................... 277
Judgement........................................................................................................................................... 278
Resurrection ........................................................................................................................................ 279
Eternal Life and Reward ...................................................................................................................... 280
Service, the Path to Reward ............................................................................................................ 280
Reward in the Parables ................................................................................................................... 281
The Renewal of All Things ............................................................................................................... 283
The Eschatological Feast ................................................................................................................. 283
Reward in the Sermon on the Mount ............................................................................................. 284
The Beatitudes ............................................................................................................................ 284
Treasure in Heaven ..................................................................................................................... 285
Eternal Life in John .......................................................................................................................... 286
Eternal Destruction ............................................................................................................................. 287
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 292

271

The Consummation of the Kingdom
Introduction
In this section, we will look at the Gospel teaching on the consummation of the Kingdom. Many Jews
at the time of Christ believed in an end point in human history, a point at which God would
intervene. Looking at the four Gospels, Matthew has substantially more eschatological material than
Mark. This is especially seen in the parables gathered together after the Olivet Discourse which for
Matthew clearly has a future look. Luke too, while not have as much material as Matthew, has more
than Mark, scattered through the Gospel. John’s emphasis is very much on a realised eschatology.
However, there are notes scattered through his Gospel pointing to the consummation.

The Second Coming
The Gospels all speak of ‘the day’ or ‘the last day’, a notion which refers to the climactic event of the
Second Coming of Christ and the judgment that will follow. So for example, ‘Many will say to me on
that day, Lord, Lord…’ (Mt 7:22; Mt 25:13; Lk 10:12 cf. Mt 24:42). It is sometimes called ‘the day of
judgment’ (e.g. Mt 10:15; 11:22). John likes the phrase ‘the last day’, the day of the return, the
judgment and the resurrection (cf. Jn 6:39‐54 [4x]; 12:48). This picks up the notion of the ‘Day of the
Lord’ (Yom YHWH).

‘Some of You Will Not Taste Death…’ (Mk 9:1)
Mk 9:1 and pars appear to point to an imminent parousia, the notion that the evangelists or Jesus
expected the second coming to be very soon after his resurrection. Some believe this is strong in
Mark, but that Matthew and Luke were written later and had a more developed notion of an
extended interim between the first and second comings of Christ.

Mk 9:1 says, ‘And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste
death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.’ On the face of it, this may point to the
second coming and an imminent parousia; Mark recording Jesus stating that he will return while
some of the disciples are still living. However, there are alternative interpretations. First, the saying
is followed about a week or so later 1 by the Transfiguration at which point, Elijah and Moses meet
Jesus who is transcendent in his glory (Mk 9:2‐4). God then speaks, declaring that Jesus is his
beloved Son and that they must listen to him (9:7). It could be that Jesus was referring this
encounter as a manifestation of the coming of the Kingdom which culminates the hopes of the Law
and Prophets. A second possibility is that this refers to the Fall of Jerusalem and the end of the
period of Judaism, Jerusalem and Law. A third possibility is that this is not his second coming, but
Jesus is referring to his death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation and Pentecost as a point of the
coming of the Kingdom. The transfiguration may prefigure this event. This is the view I prefer.

The Little Apocalypse and the Second Coming (Mk 13)
This has been called the ‘Little Apocalypse’, the ‘Eschatological Discourse’ or the ‘Olivet Discourse’. It
is found in Mark 13 and its parallels Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are highly disputed in terms of their
relationship to the return of Christ.

1
Note Mark says, ‘after six days’ (Mk 9:2); Matthew ‘six days later’ (Mt 17:1); Luke says ‘about eight days later’
(Lk 9:28). These are approximations easily reconciled.
272

A Realised View (e.g. N.T. Wright)
Some, like N.T. Wright, read them in a totally realized sense, assuming that the passage refers only
to contemporaneous events and most particularly, the fall of Jerusalem. 2 This is due to the initial
questions which revolve around the temple (Mk 13:1‐4). The language is also argued to be
apocalyptic and symbolic, not to be treated literally and as futuristic (cf. later on Revelation). The
cosmic and historical events of the chapter then point to the build up to the fall of Jerusalem in
AD70. This fall of the centre of Judaism and the home of the elect people of God is the shock of the
passage. 3 Of note here is the reference to persecution before the Sanhedrin (local councils) and
synagogues which fits this interpretation (Mk 13:9). Similarly, the abomination that causes
desolation (bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) which reiterates Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 where some figure like
Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 167BC) will stand ‘where it does not belong’ i.e. a Roman ruler in the
Jerusalem temple (Mk 13:14). 4 The cosmic signs among the astral bodies (Mk 13:24‐25) refer not to
literal events, but to theophanic signs and apocalyptic imagery, 5 fulfilled at the cross (earthquake,
darkness) and pointing to the cataclysmic nature of the terror. The reference to fleeing is to the
disciples of Jesus fleeing and not remaining to fight for Jerusalem. 6 False Messiahs refers to those
who would set themselves as such in an attack on the Romans. 7 The coming of the Son of Man in
clouds with great power and glory refers to the defeat of the enemies of God (the temple
destruction) and the vindication of the people of God. 8 The notion of parousia through the text
refers not to a second coming, but to Christ’s presence as the exalted Messiah. 9 Jesus is thus the
replacement of the institutions of Israel, and especially the Temple. 10 Thus the passage is not ‘flat
and literal prose’ but ‘Jewish imagery for events within the present order’ that ‘bring the story of
Israel to its appointed climax.’ 11 The additional material concerning Noah and Lot it is argued, also
points in this direction, those who flee will be saved (like Noah and Lot). 12 The reference to the
generation not passing away then makes good sense, the fall of Jerusalem was only 40 years after its
prediction at which time many would be still alive. If this interpretation is correct, it could have been
one of the factors in the false accusation against Jesus that he would destroy the temple (cf. Mk
14:58).

A Parousia/Mixed View
Other scholars, myself included, are not as comfortable with this reading of these passages believing
that it points to both the fall of Jerusalem, and the return of Christ. 13 There are a number of reasons
for this.

2
See N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), 339‐368.
3
Wright, Jesus, 341‐342.
4
5
Wright, Jesus, 354‐358 notes resonances here with Is 13:6, 9‐11, 10 cf. T. Mos 10.1‐10 (not literal but that
Babylon will fall – an earth‐shattering event!’ He also notes Is 14:4, 12‐15; 34:3‐4; Ezek 32:5‐8; Joel2:1‐0, 30‐
32; 3:14‐15; Amos 8:9; Zeph 1:15; Is 48:30; 52:11‐12; Jer 50:6, 8, 28; 51:6‐10, 45‐46, 50‐511, 57; Zech 2:6‐8;
14:2a, 3‐5, 9.
6
Wright, Jesus, 360.
7
Wright, Jesus, 360.
8
Wright, Jesus, 362. He notes that the Greek erchomenon can mean ‘coming or going’ and Dan 7 he argues is
written from the perspective of heaven, thus the Son of Man is entering heaven not coming to earth.
9
Wright, Jesus, 341.
10
Wright, Jesus, 343.
11
Wright, Jesus, 362.
12
13
So for example, M. Brooks, Mark, 204‐271; France, Mark, 494‐547 takes it of Jerusalem up to v.32. Evans,
Mark, 293‐353 sees 13:1‐12 as concerning the fall of Jerusalem; 13:14‐23 of the Great Tribulation; 13:23‐27 of
the return of Christ.
273


First, the hermeneutical approach taken above is not universally agreed upon. Not all accept that
apocalyptic type literature is symbolic to the degree that all can be seen as metaphorical and not
pointing to some futuristic reality. For example, it is agreed by most that references to wars,
earthquakes etc are not merely devices, but point to real events, even if they are not specific.
Similarly, references to persecution is not merely symbolic, but points to real experiences. Where
there is anything that appears outside of the norm (e.g. Son of Man in the clouds), it is interpreted
without any actual reality. This would appear akin to demythologization and naturalism whereby we
remove anything that appears out of the norm.

Secondly, there are aspects of the passage that are difficult to reconcile with the Fall of Jerusalem.
There are three in particular that are difficult. One is the reference to the birth pangs like wars,
earthquakes and famines. It is not that straightforward to see how these specifically relate to the Fall
of Jerusalem. Another more important question is the meaning of Mk 13:10: ‘the gospel must first
be preached to all nations.’ Some treat it as an interpolation or something Markan inserted here
randomly, because it does not fit the flow or first century perspective; however, there is no textual
evidence of an interpolation. Some believe it was seen to be completed through the work of Paul,
but this seems to stretch things. Some seek to interpret it non‐specifically in some way. Interestingly,
in his discussion, Wright does not deal with this verse. It is unclear to me what this would mean in a
totally realized construct. There is no way that was complete by AD70, nor is it complete now. This
statement lies within the context of the birth pangs (Mk 13:5‐8) and so would seem to relate to
these other pangs in some way. This fits a futuristic consummation setting. Finally, it is unclear what
the angels gathering the elect for the four winds, from the ends of the earth would mean in such a
construct. This would seem to point to a stage where God’s people from throughout the world are
gathered by God. Another problem is the seeming clash between Jesus’ emphatic statement that
‘this generation will certainly not pass away (v.30) and that no one including he himself, knows the
day (v.32). This can be resolved in that Jesus knows the general time but not the specific time, but it
feels a little forced.

A third problem is the sense of the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in Mk 13:26. It reads, ‘at that time
people will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.’ Wright argues this
is a coming to heaven. Yet the sense of the text is that the world will see him come to earth, and
then the angels will gather the elect. In fact in Dan 7:13 it is not clear. Wright assumes that ‘coming
with the cloud of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days…’ are intimately linked. However, it
could be that this is the Son of Man coming from heaven to earth, gathering his elect, and then
being led back into his presence with his people. In fact, can ‘coming in the clouds of heaven’ really
work in a ‘heavenly’ setting? Matthew’s version in Mt 24:30‐31 is even clearer: ‘the Son of Man will
appear in heaven, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming
on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory…’ Here, the nations see him coming and mourn,
suggesting it is to this world he comes.

A fourth set of problems are drawn from Matthew version of the same material. If Mark 13 appears
to perhaps be capable of being interpreted in this way, Matthew and Luke are less clear. Matthew
uses the same material but clarifies the question in Mt 24:3: ‘Tell us, when will this happen, and
what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?’ Matthew modifies Mark’s account to
ensure his readers recognize that this is a forward looking prophecy and not to be confined to the
Fall of Jerusalem. In addition in v.9 he notes that believers will be persecuted by ‘all nations because
of me’ suggesting a global spread of the gospel. In v.13 he says, ‘he who stands firm to the end will
be saved’ and in v.14 links the preaching of the gospel in the ‘whole world’ as a prelude to the end
(‘and then the end will come’). Clearly Matthew’s version has in mind the whole world and the end
of the age. Now, if Matthew the apostle is author of the Gospel, then it is probable he modified it on
274

the basis of his memory to ensure readers had clarity. The Matthean eschatological parables (Mt
24:45‐25:46) 14 also suggest a futuristic second coming is in mind. Each parable is an appeal for
faithfulness while the master is absent, a return of the master/bridegroom (Mt 24:46; 25:10, 15, 19,
31), a judgment and blessing for the faithful (Mt 24:51; 25:10‐13, 20‐30, 32‐64). The pattern of these
parables fits a second coming interpretation which, while more ambiguous in Mark, is clear in
Matthew.

A fifth point, which confirms Matthew’s futuristic interpretation, is that Luke also takes a futuristic
line alongside the clear references to the Fall of Jerusalem. In Lk 21:24 he refers to Jerusalem being
‘trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’ This suggests a period after
the Fall of Jerusalem which must be fulfilled, in which Jerusalem is under Gentile rule, before the
end. Luke also notes that the Son of Man will be seen by humanity when they faint with terror at the
events coming upon the earth (Lk 21:26‐27). The events in v.35 affect the whole earth, rather than
just Israel. Importantly, in Acts, Luke’s second work, he speaks clearly of the return of Jesus the same
way as he ascended, through the clouds from a mountain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:9, 11 cf. Lk 24:51).

A sixth set of problems relate to the meaning of parousia (coming or presence). While it can mean
‘presence’ it can also mean ‘coming’. In the parables that follow in Matthew, they are all based
around a ruler who goes and returns to the same setting suggesting ‘coming’ makes more sense i.e.
the Lord leaves servants in charge, and his return is unexpected.

A seventh issue is the nature of biblical prophecy as fulfilled in the NT. A look back at the passages
fulfilled in the life of Christ from the OT shows that in the middle of a wide range of OT literature
including Psalms, apocalyptic, prophecy and more; the coming of Christ quite literally fulfilled
aspects of the OT within a given context but not all; they are selectively fulfilling. At times these
events had clear reference within their situations and as such, would seem to not point to Christ.
However, looking back we can see that they did. For example, the prophecy ‘the virgin will give birth
to a child’ from Is 7:14, in its context, is about a sign to Ahaz and is nothing to do with the birth of
Jesus. In the following verse Is 7:15, he will eat curds and honey; not at all relevant to Jesus. Yet, in
this text, we have a double and selective prophecy, for Ahaz and into the future of Christ.

Similarly, Ps 22 would appear to relate to a situation in a crisis in David’s life, yet it is critical to Jesus
on the cross. The Servant Songs in Isaiah were seen by Jews to apply to Israel, and yet were about
Jesus. The birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem is not clearly a messianic prophecy, yet it predicted the
birth of the Messiah (Mic 5:2). The arrival of Jesus on a donkey fulfils the prophecy of Zech 9:9, yet
not all in the context applies to Jesus at that time. Prophetic material then has a kind of double
layering and selective specificity. That is, they are working in more than one context and not every
element is directly correlative to the future. Many would see these passages working in the same
way.

A final issue is the references to the return of Christ in Paul, whose writing predates the Gospels. It
could be argued that there is a development of the idea over time. However, in one of Paul’s very
first letters, 1 Thessalonians (c. AD51), Paul refers to the return of Christ (1 Thess 4:16 cf. 1 Cor
15:23; Phil 3:20).

As such, while Wright’s and others ‘realised approach’ is enticing and articulate, it does not deal
effectively with all the evidence of the text. However, it does highlight that most, if not all, of the
passage can be seen as relevant to the Fall of Jerusalem. As such, many scholars see a here a double‐
layered passage with prophecy relevant to the Fall of Jerusalem and to the return of Christ. There
are two ways of approaching this way.

14
The Faithful Servant (24:45‐51); the Ten Virgins (25:1‐13); the Talents (25:14‐30); the Sheep and Goats ().
275


First, there are those who divide the passage into two parts: 1) 13:1‐4 or 13:1‐14: The Fall of
Jerusalem; 2) 13:5‐31 or 13:15‐31: The Second Coming of Christ. Such a view divides the passage
acknowledging that the initial question starts in the direction of the Fall of Jerusalem; however,
there is a shift either at v5 or v15 to the return of the Son of Man. What this perspective does
indicate is that there is a shift in the passage; the first part fits more comfortably with the Fall of
Jerusalem, although as noted above, not with all of the passage; whereas the latter part fits better
with the Second Coming.

Another approach is a double‐layer approach as we see in OT prophecy fulfilled in the NT. That is,
through the passage there are elements that apply to both the Fall of Jerusalem and the Return of
Christ; there are elements that apply only to the Fall of Jerusalem; there are elements that apply to
the future return only. Due to the ambiguity of prophecy, we can discern the main threads but not
the specifics. Indeed, we must take care not to be overly specific and certain in our approach, as we
may end up like the Jews who did not perceive Jesus as the Messiah because there was a whole
strand of tradition around a suffering and subsequently vindicated figure that they missed!

So, with this in mind, let me suggest some things we can say about the second coming from these
passages (including Matthew’s eschatological parables in Mt 25).

1. There may be a time of terrible strife including war, famine, pestilence (Lk),
earthquakes leading into the Fall of Jerusalem and the return of Christ (Mk 13:5‐8,
14‐23; Mt 24:6‐8,).
2. There may be a time of terrible persecution and division for believers at the Fall of
Jerusalem and before the return of Christ (Mk 13:9‐13).
3. There will be a time of terrible suffering before the fall of Jerusalem and may be time
of unparalleled suffering, hatred (Mt 24:12, 21)
4. The Gospel must be preached to all nations before Christ will return (Mk 13:10; Mt
24:14).
5. There will be an abominable opponent of God who will establish himself toward the
end cf. the man of rebellion (Mk 13:14; Mt 24:15 cf. 2 Thess 2:1‐11; Rev 13). This
may also apply to the Roman invading forces.
6. There may be false religious figures who will mislead God’s people before the end
(Mk 13:15‐23; Mt 24:5, 24).
7. There may be a series of cosmic signs in the sky such as asteroids etc immediately
preceding the return (Mk 13:24‐25; Mt 24:29).
8. Christ’s return will be a cosmic visual powerful heavenly event which many will see
and marvel at (Mk 13:26; Mt 24:30 cf. Acts 1:11; 1 Thess 4:16) and he will gather his
people to himself (Mk 13:27; Mt 24:31).
9. No one knows when this will occur, but believers should be ready at all times (Mk
13:32‐36; Mt 24:36). It may come very surprisingly (Mt 24:37‐41).
10. Believers must persevere until Christ’s return (Mt 24:13) doing good works and
serving faithfully (see all the parables of Mt 24:45‐25:46).
276

Other References to the Second Coming in the Gospels
Other passages which refer to the return of Christ include Jesus’ response to the high priest’s
interrogation: “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right
hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:61‐62; Lk 22:66‐69).
Another is Luke 12:40 where Jesus warns his hearers that they must be ready at all times for the
return of Christ as servants watching for his return to serve him because his return will be
unexpected (Lk 12:35‐48). Another reference to the second coming is in Lk 18:8 where Jesus asks
‘when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?’

Luke 17:20‐37 is another passage with direct teaching on the culmination of the Kingdom at the
return of Christ. Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ query concerning when the Kingdom will come. He
tells them that the Kingdom is among them already. 15 He then teaches his disciples that there will be
false prophecies of the return (Lk 17:22); the suddenness of the return (‘like the lightening’); that
Jesus must go through the cross first (Lk 17:25: ‘suffer many things… be rejected’); the unexpected
nature of the return as at the time of Noah and Lot (Lk 17:26‐29 cf. Gen 6:11‐7:10; 18:16‐19:29). It
will come suddenly and be a time of suffering; as in Mt 24; one will be left while one is taken. Unlike
Matthew’s version, it is not clear who is left (see below on rapture).

John uses the term ‘the last day’ to refer to the turning point of the ages at which time Jesus returns,
the righteous are raised, all are judged and believers experience the fullness of eternal life (cf. Jn
6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). In Jn 13:31‐14:5 John records from the Last Supper Jesus speaking of
his going and coming. He declares to the disciples that he will no longer be with them but will go:
‘where I am going, you cannot come’ (Jn 13:35); referring to his resurrection and ascension to
eternity. Peter asks where he is going and Jesus tells them they will follow him later, pointing to a
future resurrection (Jn 13:36).

In Jn 14:1‐4 Jesus comforts the disciples by telling them of his Father’s house, clearly referring to
eternity. He tells them that there are many rooms and places for each of them and that he is going
to prepare a place for them. He then states he will return: ‘I will come back and take you to be with
me that you also may be where I am’ (Jn 14:4). While some scholars see this as referring to the
resurrection or the impending coming of the Paraclete Spirit (Dodd), it is most likely that this refers
to Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension to the Father; from which he will return (see also Jn
14:28).16

A Rapture in the Gospels?
The rapture is primarily based on 1 Thess 4:16‐18 where Jesus returns and meets believers in the air;
it is assumed then that he takes them with him to heaven and the remainder of the world remains
behind to face the tribulation after which time Jesus will return at the Second Coming to earth and
establish the millennial kingdom.

It is argued that Mt 24:34‐41 supports the idea of a secret rapture. This is based on the idea of the
unbelievers being left behind and believers being taken away. However, a close examination of Mt
24:36‐41 suggests that it is not the believers who are taken away, but those who are unbelievers.

15
Lk 17:21 can be translated as ‘in you’ in a psychological sense. However, it almost certainly means that the
Kingdom is ‘among’ them in the sense that Jesus is there. See Marshall, Luke, 654‐655; Stein, Luke, 437‐438: ‘in
your midst’; ‘in the midst of you.’
16
See the discussion in Borchert, John 12‐21, 105.
277

The situation is likened to the Noahic flood. At that time, people were living their lives normally
(eating, drinking, marrying) right up to the entry of Noah into the Ark knowing nothing about the
flood. The flood came and ‘took them all away.’ In v39 this situation is paralleled to the return of
Christ (‘the coming of the Son of Man). In the Genesis situation, it was the unbelievers who were
swept away. If we take this parallel across, ‘taken’ parallels ‘took them all away’ in v.39 it is God’s
people who are left behind while the unbeliever is taken away in vs. 40‐41. As Blomberg notes, this
‘suggests that those taken away are taken for eternal judgment (not “raptured”), while those left
behind remain with Christ.’ 17 There are those however, who maintain that this relates to 24:31 and
those taken away are the elect at the coming of Christ. 18 It might be good to heed the advice of
Carson and Turner who both argue that whether the people are taken away to judgement or to
eternal blessing is at best, ambiguous and a distraction. 19

Judgement
The parables of Jesus often indicate that there will be a point of judgement, usually the end of the
parable. Using the rule of ‘end‐stress’ this indicates that this is often the critical point of the parable.
For example, in the Parable of the Growing Seed, the Kingdom like a seed grows imperceptibly until
the point it is fully ripe, and then judgement, likened to a harvest (‘he puts a sickle to it’) Mk 4:26‐27.
The Parable of the Weeds speaks of Satan (‘the enemy of God’) planting alongside the kingdom evil
(‘weeds’). The owner of the field determined to not to pull up the weeds but wait for the
culmination of the age (the harvest) at which time they will be burnt up and the wheat brought into
the barn (Mt 13:24‐30). Similarly, the Parable of the Net speaks of a final judgement and dividing of
the ‘good fish’ and ‘bad fish’ which are thrown into a furnace where there will be ‘weeping and
gnashing of teeth’ (Mk 13:47‐51).

In the eschatological parables of Matthew 24‐25 this is most strong. At the end of the eschatological
discourse, the faithful servant is rewarded by being put in charge of the masters possessions (Mt
24:47); whereas the servant who is unfaithful and beats up the other servants and falls into
dissipation, the returning master will ‘cut to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites,
where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Mt 24:51). In the parable of the Ten Virgins
those ready are invited into the wedding banquet, while those who are sleep without their lamps
prepared are shut out of the wedding banquet (Mt 24:10). In the Talents, those who invested their
money for the master on his return were rewarded in kind (Mt 25:20‐23) while the one who had
hidden it in fear was rebuked harshly, stripped of his talent, and thrown into darkness ‘where there
will weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Mt 25:24‐30). The same point is made in the Parable of the Ten
Minas (Lk 19:11‐27) where the servant who failed to invest the mina loses his mina and the enemies
of the king are killed in front of him (Lk 19:27).

A point of judgement is also implied in Mt 7:21‐23 where Jesus refers to ‘that day’ (v.22). This day is
clearly the point of accounting. Here some who have apparently confessed Jesus as Lord, worked
charismatic miracles like prophecy, deliverance and others, are rejected by Christ on the basis of
their failure to do God’s will and walk in relationship with Christ. This point of judgement is implied
in Mt 10:26 where Jesus states that there is ‘nothing that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will
not be made known.’ After warning his hearers of hell and assuring his followers of God’s grace, he

17
Blomberg, Matthew, 366. He notes that this is supported by Walvoord, Matthew, 193; R. H. Mounce,
Matthew, GNC (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 236.
18
Beasley‐Murray, Matthew 14‐28, 720.
19
Carson, Matthew, 509 states that ‘it is not clear’. D.L. Turner, Matthew. BECNT. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008), 590 takes the same line arguing that this is a diversion.
278

speaks of a day where people will stand before God and face judgement concerning how they have
responded to Christ; with confession of Christ or rejection (Mt 10:31‐32).

The strongest example of judgement is the Sheep and Goats. The nations of the world are arrayed
before the Son of Man, the chief shepherd. He separates the sheep from the goats and assigns to
the sheep eternal life for their good deeds on his behalf (Mt 25:34, 46). The goats are sent to eternal
destruction for failing to do the same good deeds (Mt 25:41, 46).

Judgement in Mt 12:33‐37 is linked to ones heart and speech. Jesus likens people to trees who bear
fruit. The fruit in this context is one’s speech which reveals the state of one’s heart. The good person
speaks positively and well; whereas the ‘evil’ speak carelessly and destructively. Judgement will be
based in this text on one’s words which will acquit the believer or condemn. It seems however, that
in Christ all speech can be forgiven through the grace of Christ even words against Christ himself (Mt
12:31‐32). However, the sin against the Spirit is unforgivable in this age or eternity itself. As noted
previously, this refers probably to attributing the work of the Spirit to Satan. This should warn us
against being quick to write off spiritual experience, claims or another ministry as the Pharisees did
to Jesus too quickly.

John’s Gospel also has reference to the judgement. In Jn 5:21‐22, 27 it is Jesus who has been granted
the authority to judge by God: ‘The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the
Son… And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.’ The basis of this
judgement is ‘going good’: ‘those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil
will rise to be condemned’ (Jn 5:29). Jesus states that his judgement is just (Jn 5:30).

Resurrection
The debate over resurrection with the Sadducees clearly affirms that there will be a resurrection for
the faithful (Mt 22:29‐32; Mk 12:18‐27; Lk 20:27‐40). There is clearly discontinuity with life on earth
in the sense that the married will no longer be married or marry; nor will the single be given in
marriage (Mk 12:24). Jesus here indicates that he sees this in the Torah; referring to Exod 3:6 where
God says to Moses that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The key here is the present tense
of ‘I am’ which indicates that he continues to be their God despite their having died years previous. 20
In other words, they live on. Thus he is ‘not the God of the dead, but of the living’ which reaffirms
the resurrection.

John has the strongest theology of eternal life in the Gospels and the whole Bible. ‘Eternal life’ is the
primary mode of speaking about salvation, replacing the less used notion of the Kingdom of God.’
John stresses the notion of eternal life having already started, begun at the moment of faith and
acceptance of Christ. Some scholars think that he has a completely realized and present view of life
without a future dimension. But, while the emphasis lies on the present, he does envisage a future
resurrection of the righteous. In Jn 5:21 Jesus says, ‘the Father raises the dead and gives them life,
even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.’ Jesus then goes onto speak about
judgment (Jn 5:22‐30) pointing to a future judgment and raising of the dead.

In Jn 6, after feeding the 5000 (Jn 6:1‐13, 25‐59), Jesus declares he is the bread of life indicating that
he transcends Moses who granted manna which gives physical sustenance, but is the source of
eternal life through faith in him. Jesus states in 6:39: ‘this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall
lose none of all that he has given me, but will raise them up at the last day.’ ‘Raise’ here is future

20
James A. Brooks, vol. 23, Mark, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary
279

tense referring to the resurrection of the faithful to eternal life (Jn 6:40). ‘The last day’ refers to the
culmination of the age, the return of Christ. The phrase ‘I will raise him up at the last day recurs 4x in
this passage (see Jn 6:39, 40, 44, 54). In John’s Gospel, the resurrection of Lazarus is a key moment
pointing to Jesus being ‘the resurrection and the life’ indicating his power over death (Jn 11:25). In
the previous verse Martha has confessed the classic Jewish view confirmed in the NT concerning
Lazarus: ‘I know he will rise again in the resurrection of the last day.’ This is the resurrection of the
righteous to eternal life.

John’s emphasis is on the resurrection of the righteous to eternal life. However, he also includes the
notion of a general resurrection from the dead in Jn 5:29: ‘those who have done what is good will
rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.’ This accords with the
Jewish and Synoptic tradition of a general resurrection of the dead, some to life and some to
destruction (cf. Dan 12:1‐3).

Eternal Life and Reward
There is no great detail given to what eternal life will constitute. Clearly it will be everlasting life of
the most glorious bliss with God and Jesus. Those who heed the call of Christ will find their life and
gain their life. This suggests are realized aspect of experiencing more of the fullness of life in this age
(Mt 10:39‐40).

One discussion gives us a little more insight. In his debate over resurrection with the Sadducees (Mk
12:18‐27 and pars), Jesus tells believers that there will be no marriage in eternity. He affirms the
resurrection of the dead noting that believers will be ‘like the angels in heaven’ in that ‘they will
neither marry, nor be given in marriage’ (Mk 12:25). This probably points to women no longer giving
birth to children as this was the prerogative of the married. We must not push this phrase ‘like the
angels in heaven’ and speculate that we ourselves become angels or like angels. While there is no
marriage, this does not mean that there will be no meaningful relationships in eternity; rather,
eternity will be the context of perfect relationality with God and each other. I suspect our experience
will be transcended by something even more marvelous than what we experience in this age.

Service, the Path to Reward
There are a number of indications in the Synoptics of Jesus promising reward to those who serve him.
One example in Mark is Mk 9:41 where Jesus promises reward to anyone who gives a cup of water in
his name because of their relationship with Christ. It is not specified here whether this is a future
reward of present; however, what follows is clearly future (‘the fire never goes out’ [Mk 9:45]). In
Mk 10:29‐30, along with the promise of present day blessing and persecutions, there is the promise
of eternal life for those who make great personal sacrifice to the Christ and his gospel. In the request
of James and John to hold the primary seats in Jesus’ future glory, Jesus’ answer indicates that there
will be places of privilege at his side in eternity (Mk 10:40). However, Jesus emphatically states that
this is for God to decide (Mt 20:23). James and John were perhaps thinking about a glory that came
through messianic military and political victory. Jesus was clearly pointing beyond to eternity.
Notably, the path here to any such reward is service alone (Mk 10:42‐45). This path of service may be
a path of intense suffering (a baptism of suffering) as it was for Jesus and ultimately for James and
John. For John it meant being beheaded by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1); for John, it meant
imprisonment on Patmos for his faith (Rev 1:9).

Greatness in the world to come is also associated with those who become like children (Mt 18:3).
This relates to the previous text (‘therefore’) where one must change and become like a child to
280

enter the Kingdom. In the culture a child was of little status. Jesus is thus reversing the status roles
of the world, one who wants to be great in the Kingdom must take the lowly position or humility. 21
It is thus synonymous to the notion of service as the path to greatness.

In Mt 10:38‐42 Jesus speaks of reward for those who accept his call to follow even to the point of
death (‘take up your cross’). People are rewarded in kind for their receiving of these travelling of
prophets, the righteous and even the smallest degree of care for the ‘little ones’ who are disciples
(Mt 10:40‐42). ‘Little ones’ are disciples including children and the marginalized. Reward then is
linked to receiving and giving hospitality to God’s messengers and message.

The nature of eternal life, the consummated Kingdom is disupted. Some argue that we are taken
away to heaven, and that we live on in a heavenly existence. Others believe we will live in a new
heaven and earth, which is a new creation not a renewed creation. That is, there is little continuity
with this world and the world to come will transcend this created order and is unimaginable.
Another variant of this is that we live in a world that is a renewal of this one but with little
continuity. Others believe we live in this world renewed, healed and restored; this world in
continuity with this one.

The Gospels do not give us a full answer to this question. There are indications of continuity. One
example is the thief on the cross. After his request to Jesus to remember him when he enters his
Kingdom, Jesus promises him continuity of life and relationship with Jesus in paradise (Lk 23:42‐43).
Paradeisos is found 3x in the NT (Lk 23:42; 2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7). In 2 Cor 12:4 it is the scene of Paul’s
heavenly vision; thus it is in heaven. In Revelation it is the scene of the tree of life, which is the new
heaven and new earth where humanity will dwell with God in bliss in a new or renewed world (cf.
Rev 22:2, 14, 19 cf. Gen 2:9; 3:22‐24). The term comes from Persia and suggests a ‘garden’ or ‘park’.
It is used in the LXX of the garden of God which is sometimes seen as hidden to be revealed later and
in which Enoch and Elijah live and which is located in heaven.22 Some take it here as a soul less
existence in the intermediate state between the death and resurrection. 23 Alternatively, it is the
fullness of eternal life in its fullness; this is possible when we consider a philosophy of time beyond
the space‐time continuum.

Reward in the Parables
Eternal reward contrasted with eternal destruction, is very much a central theme in many of Jesus’
parables. The mention of eternal punishment often comes at the end of the parable, which by the
rule of end‐stress, probably indicates that judgment is an important issue in the stories. In the
Parable of the Weeds, while the weeds are destroyed in the fire, the wheat which is the fruit of the
Kingdom is gathered into ‘my barn’ symbolizing fellowship with God (Mt 13:30). In the explanation,
the righteous will ‘shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father’ (Mt 13:43). This alludes to Dan
12:3 where ‘those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead
many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever’ i.e. the resurrection of the righteous to
eternal life. In the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard the three workers who arrive at different
times to work for the landowner (God) in his vineyard (the world) are all paid the same reward, a
denarii/day (Mt 20:1‐16). This seems to run counter to other texts which suggest that there are
levels of reward for believers (cf. Lk 12:47‐48). Blomberg critiques this stating that there is no text in

21
Hagner, Matthew 14‐28, 518.
22
Gen 2:8; 13:10; Ezek 31:8; Isa 51:3; T. Lev. 18:10f.; 1 Enoch 25:4‐5; 60:7‐8; 4 Ezra 4:7; 7:36; 8:52; 61:12; Apoc.
Abr. 21:6f; 89:52; T. Abr. 11:3; cf. also Luke 16:9; Life of Adam and Eve 25:3; 3 Bar 4:8; Apoc, Mos. 37:5; see
also John 14:2ff.; 2 Cor 5:1ff.; Phil 1:23; 1 Thess 4:17; Revelation 20–22.
23
H. Balz, EDNT, 3:17‐18; J. Jeremias, TDNT, V, 769.
281

the Scriptures that suggest that these differences are eternal, an idea ruled out by grace and
perfection. 24 It is possible however, that there are degrees of reward initially.

This reward‐punishment dimension is more pronounced in the eschatological parables of Mt 24:45‐
25:46. The faithful servant in Mt 24:47 is ‘put in charge of all my possessions.’ This suggests
responsibility will be granted in the new heaven and earth to those who are faithful stewards of the
Kingdom. In the Ten Virgins, those who were equipped with oil and prepared for the return of the
bridegroom (Christ), are invited into the marriage feast (Mt 25:10). Those who are not prepared are
shut out of the feast (Mt 25:10‐12). This indicates that believers must be prepared for the coming of
Christ, keeping their lives alive and burning in the interim. 25 In the Talents parable (Mt 25:14‐30),
there is reciprocal reward for those who faithfully utilized what they were given by the master. The
parable suggests different levels of financial giftedness based on ability. Those who put their
material wealth to work and gained the same (worked to their ability for the master), were
rewarded with a share of the master’s happiness and bounty (Mt 25:21, 23). The reference to
‘faithfulness’ with ‘a few things’ indicates eternal reward for being faithful stewards with what God
has given us. There seems to be levels of reward as the faithful one received the talent stripped off
the faithful servant (Mt 25:28‐29). While this is about money, the principle of the talent probably
points to the wider principle of putting to work for Christ and his Kingdom all that we have. If we do
so, we will be rewarded.

The most developed statement on judgment, reward and destruction is the Sheep and the Goats (Mt
25:31‐46). The reward is an inheritance (v34). It is ‘the kingdom prepared for you since the creation
of the world (v34). Reward then is the Kingdom. This can point in the direction of a new creation or
to Eden restored (‘since the foundation of the world’). Either way, it speaks of incredible bliss and
the glory of a wonderful new heavens and earth. ‘Inheritance’ indicates that faithful humanity will
receive this world to share in its ownership. The basis for eternal reward here is concern for the
marginalized (hungry, thirsty, foreigner, naked, sick, prisoner) who Jesus identifies with (25:35‐36).
Here ‘brothers [and sisters])’ are almost certainly fellow Christian believers because ‘brothers’ and
‘little ones’ are used exclusively in Matthew of disciples.26 Hence, eternal reward here is granted to
those who lived out their faith with social concern for their fellow Christian. In v.46 eternal reward is
described as ‘eternal life’ and contrasted with ‘eternal punishment’.

Luke forms a strong link between material generosity and eternal reward. He tells his readers to use
their worldly wealth to gain friends on earth, and when it is gone, to be welcomed into eternal
dwellings i.e. eternal life (Lk 16:9). The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19‐31) speaks of
eschatological blessing for Lazarus who is a visual demonstration of the blessings/curses of Lk 6:20‐
26. Unlike the rich man, he suffers intensely in life, covered in boils, starving and dies without a
burial. Ironically, in a culture where poverty is seen as a curse, it is he is taken by the angels to
Abraham’s bosom, is protected by him, and who experiences the bliss of eternal life. This is the
eschatological reversal of the Kingdom.

24
Blomberg, Matthew, 304; Hagner, Matthew 14‐18, 572: ‘In the kingdom where grace reigns supreme, the
equality of saints is significantly conditioned only by the priority of the last. The sovereignty of grace relegates
the doctrine of rewards to a position of lesser importance.’
25
Blomberg, Matthew, 371 notes that this is not a case of lost salvation; however, that appears forced. This
situation recalls Mt 7:21‐23. The shutting of the door and the statement ‘I don’t know you’ would appear to
suggest these virgins are shut out irrevocably. That they ‘went out to meet the bridegroom in the first place,
suggests they were believers initially. It maybe that this parable should not be read so literally as to read this
anachronistic question into it.
26
See on brothers: 10:42; 18:6, 10, 14; cf. also 5:19; 11:11. See on ‘little ones’: 5:22–24, 47; 7:3–5; 12:48–50;
18:15 (2X),21, 35; 23:8; 28:10. See also Blomberg, Matthew, 377.
282

Luke too records an eschatological parable warning his disciples to be ready as servants who are in
charge of a master’s home. There is reward for the one who is found to be faithful including great
responsibility in the eschatological kingdom i.e. ‘he will put him in charge of all his possessions’ (Lk
12:44).

The Renewal of All Things
In Mt 19:28‐30 Jesus says to his disciples that at the renewal of all things, when Jesus himself (the
Son of Man) is enthroned, the twelve will reign with him receiving eternal life. The Greek for renewal
here is palingenesia composed of palin (‘again, back’) and genesis (‘become, come about’). It thus
suggests a rebirth or a renewal. In the Greco‐Roman and especially Stoic world view it had the
notion of the cycle of destruction and new birth (cf. endless reincarnation). In the Jewish world it
was used of the restoration of Israel (Jos. Ant. 11.3.9); of the new earth (Philo, Mos. 2.65; Is 65:17;
66:22 cf. 1 Enoch 54:3‐5). Clearly, it is not used in the NT in the Greek sense of a cycle of rebirth;
however, it does perhaps point to one cosmic rebirth cf. Is 65‐66. It is used only elsewhere in the NT
in Tit 3:5 of personal regeneration through the Spirit (cf. 1 Pet 1:3, 23; Jn 1:13; 3:3, 7;1 Jn 5:1; Jas
1:18). It is possible then that Jesus here is referring to the birth of the new heavens and earth (Is
65:17) as a renewal of the present order; a new Genesis, a new creation. Alternatively, Jesus is
referring to the personal renewal such as the rich ruler experiences through Christ. However, a
strong case can be made here for the palingenesia of the cosmos, the new heavens and earth.27 If
so, we have a strong sense of the new creation as a recreation of this world and some degree of
continuity between this creation and the one to come. 28

The Eschatological Feast
Another example is at the Last Supper, Jesus spoke of not drinking from the fruit of the vine until the
consummation. This indicates continuity of experience, there will be wine or grape juice in the here‐
after (Mk 14:24‐25; Mt 26:27‐29; Lk 22:17‐18). This probably alludes to the notion of the
eschatological banquet. Reward is likened to a feast picking up the notion from Is 25:6‐9 where God
will prepare a glorious feast for the world and destroy death forever:
On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of
aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud
that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The
Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
This idea is picked up at points in the Gospels. In Mt 8:10‐13, set in the context of the healing of the
Roman centurion, Jesus astonished at the Romans faith, warns that many from the nation of the
world (‘from the east and west’) will eat at this feast with great saints of Israel’s history (Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob). However, many of the elect people of God Israel (‘the subjects of the Kingdom’) will be
rejected from the meal. They will be in darkness, with gnashing of teeth, indicating isolation and
torment. In Lk 13:22‐30 Jesus is asked whether only a few people will be saved. Jesus responds by
urging people to enter through the narrow door but many Jews will fail to enter and be shut out of
the feast despite knowing Jesus (‘we ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets). Jesus
warns that many will be shut out because they are evil doers. They will be shut out of the feast
experiencing torment (‘weeping … and gnashing of teeth’) while the saints of Israel’s past (Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob) will eat at the feast along with people of all nations (people will come from the east and

27
Hagner, Matthew 14‐28, 565; Blomberg, Matthew, 300.
28
This can work with both a premillenial and amillenial perspective. It could be that the millennium is the
beginning of the restoration. It could be that after the return of Christ, there is no millennium but a
restoration.
283

west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the Kingdom of God). Thus, the
feast is truly international while many of historic Israel will miss out.

The clearest statement on this is Lk 14 where Jesus eats at the home of a Pharisee where he heals
and challenges their ideas of table fellowship and status. Jesus tells the hearers that the banquet is
open to all and not just the rich or those of rank and status; it is a place without such rank and
status, open to the disabled, the marginalized and the poor (Lk 14:12‐14). There is a promise of
blessing for those who do this and this will be a future and not present blessing: (‘although they
cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous’). A man cries out ‘blessed
is the person’ who will eat at this feast. Jesus responds with a story of the master inviting people
who excuse themselves and who then invites the disabled and the whole world. These people enter
and experience the glorious eschatological feast (Lk 14:15‐24).

Reward in the Sermon on the Mount
The Beatitudes
The Beatitudes of Mt 5:1‐11 and Luke 6:20‐24 are important in any discussion of future reward.
There are two types of Beatitude in Matthew; while all of Luke’s Beatitudes fall into the first type.

1. Situational‐Reversal Beatitudes: The first type are situational‐reversal statements
which are ironical in the extreme, Jesus’ speaking of the Kingdom reversing
situations that are clearly negative and a result of a fallen world (‘poor in spirit’,
‘mournful’, ‘poor’, ‘persecuted’, ‘hunger now’, ‘weep now’). For example, ‘blessed
are the poor’, is a ludicrous comment from the perspective of common sense and
Jewish understanding; the poor are clearly not blessed! Jesus’ point is that the
Kingdom brings a reversal to the situation. The second part of these Beatitudes
speak of the reversal that the coming of the Kingdom brings to such as these cf. Lk
4:18‐19. They speak of the result of the coming of the Kingdom. The results have a
present dimension, some aspect being realised through the coming of the Kingdom
in the world e.g. ‘they will receive mercy’ i.e. as God’s Kingdom people grow, these
Spirit‐filled people will live the ethic of the Kingdom on behalf of the needy and the
mercy of God will be experienced today. However, the reversal is in the main
profoundly future; these things only being seen fully in the eschaton. All of Luke’s
beatitudes are of this type; they emphasise the reversal motif of the Kingdom.

2. Attribute – Reward Beatitudes: Some of them are ethical attributes to be desired
(‘gentle’, ‘merciful’, ‘pure in heart’, ‘peacemakers’). These are attributes which
should mark people of the Kingdom and are in a sense, imperatival (‘be merciful’
etc). The second part of these speaks of reward for such people, to an extent in this
age, and in the future more fully. Interestingly, these attributes work to reverse the
situational‐reversal problems.

Looking at each Beatitude a little closer, we get a sense of what the Kingdom is about:

1. The poor in spirit receive the Kingdom (Mt 5:3): a situation which the Kingdom will
reverse. Because of the coming of the Kingdom such people will receive the Kingdom
of heaven i.e. those who struggle psychologically because of great suffering and
anguish will receive the Kingdom now, and fully in the eschaton. The Kingdom will
come to people like this. They will experience complete freedom from this in the age
to come.
284

2. The mournful receive comfort (Mt 5:4): those who experience loss through death
will receive comfort. This has a realised dimension as the people of God find comfort
in the present from God’s people and God himself, and the hope of the Gospel.
3. The gentle inherit the earth (Mt 5:5 [praus cf. Mt 11:29]): a positive attribute which
will see the reward of inheriting the earth. This is present and future in orientation.
4. Those hungry for righteousness/justice will be filled (Mt 5:6): This can be a positive
attribute whereby those who are looking for righteousness and justice will
experience it and be filled with it. Alternatively, it could be those who are victims of
injustice and hope to experience it will find that the Kingdom reverses their
situation, to some extent in this world, fully in the world to come.
5. Those who are full of mercy to others will be shown mercy by God (Mt 5:7): This is a
positive ethical attribute whereby those who are compassionate and concerned for
the needs of others are granted mercy by God in this age but more importantly, in
the age to come. Note Matthew’s concern for eschatological reward in 6:1‐4
(almsgiving); 25:31‐46 (concern for the needy).
6. Those who are pure in heart will see God (Mt 5:8): This is a positive attribute; those
who are pure in regards to evil of all kinds, will see God i.e. experience future eternal
life.
7. Those who are peacemakers will receive the Kingdom (Mt 5:9): Another positive
attribute that marks the subject of the Kingdom. Such people are part of God’s
family embodying the heart of God for reconciliation. They will be children of God in
this age, and fully experience the privilege of being God’s family.
8. Those who are persecuted because of righteousness/insulted will be rewarded etc
(Mt 5:10‐12): A negative unavoidable situation for the believer, for which they will
be rewarded eternally. This is highly futurist in orientation.

Put together, the future reward here for believers includes possession and inheritance of God’s
Kingdom as his children (shared ownership of the world to come). This is defined as ‘the earth’ in Mt
5:5 suggesting the new earth at the recreation/restoration. They will receive comfort (the end of
suffering), will be filled with righteousness/justice (the end of evil/removal of injustice). They will see
God, a remarkable statement for Jews for which ‘seeing God’ was fearful. This here is positive; they
will see him and it will be good! They will receive reward for their suffering on his part.

Treasure in Heaven
Further reward is promised believers in the Sermon on the Mount. Although ‘reward’ in Mt 5:45‐46
may refer to ‘credit’ in a non‐specific sense, it could be that reward is promised to those who love
their enemies whereas those who merely love their close kith and kin are no better than tax‐
collectors (Mt 5:45‐46). Reward here is misthos (wages) suggesting something specific.

Luke’s sermon on the Plain has this same notion of reward. In Luke’s version he generalises ‘tax‐
collectors’ to ‘sinners’. There is no credit (charis = ‘grace’) in loving loved ones for sinners do the
same (Lk 6:34). Rather, believers should love and do good to enemies unconditionally. Those who do
will have great reward (misthos), will be children of God in that they emulate his mercy (Lk 6:35‐36).
Thus, while reward is promised, this is not to be a motive for love and goodness which much be
unconditional. In vs. 37‐38 the principle of reciprocity is seen where believers who do not judge or
condemn, will not be judged or condemned; those who forgive will be forgiven; those who give will
receive. Those who give will receive generously and abundantly (‘a good measure, pressed down,
285

shaken together and running over, will be poured into our lap’). The extent of the reward is related
to the giving (‘with the measure you use, it will be measured to you’).

This is an important passage for prosperity thinking. It has both a realised and futuristic dimension;
i.e. there is a present blessing for those who are generous; however, the reward will ultimately be
eternal. There is no evidence of a necessary link with the present as is argued by some. Prosperity
teaching often uses the carrot of further blessing as a motivation for giving (see above); this is ruled
out in that one is to give unconditionally. Further, in Luke, wealth is a gift of God to be used on
behalf of removing injustice and not for personal gain (cf. Lk 12:13‐34; 16:19‐31; 18:18‐30; 19:1‐10).
I would argue, that this is to be read primarily as eschatological future reward for those who
continue to reinvest for the Kingdom. Notably in Lk 14:14 believers are to give to the poor who
cannot reciprocate without expecting return or reward for they will be blessed in the eschaton!

In Mt 6 this theme of reward or misthos is continued with a promise of reward from God for those
who give secretly rather than for public acclaim as do the hypocrites (Mt 6:1‐4). This possibly alludes
the practice of loudly throwing money into the synagogue receptacles to impress.29 There is reward
(misthos) for praying in secret and without longwinded prayers unlike the hypocrites who pray in
synagogue and street corners to be seen by others (Mt 6:5‐8). Reward is promised to those who fast
without making a public show unlike those who fast for public notice (Mt 6:16‐18. The Pharisees
fasted food (but not drink) on Mondays and Thursdays and they could be in Jesus’ sights here. 30
Finally, Jesus promises eternal imperishable reward (‘treasure in heaven’) for those who do not
focus their hearts on the accumulation of wealth (‘store up…’), allow their affections to be drawn to
money (Mt 6:21) and serve money (Mt 6:24), but who are generous as they serve God.

An example outside of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain is the rich ruler (Mk 10:17‐31 and pars) who
is promised eternal life (Mk 10:18, 21‐30) if he sells all he has, gives the proceeds to the poor and
then follows Christ. That is, give his life to the King and the Kingdom and demonstrate it by
renouncing his love of money. He is promised ‘treasure in heaven’ (Mk 10:22). Jesus then speaks of
the general problem the rich face, the impossibility of their salvation without God’s mercy and
intervention. Jesus goes onto promise his disciples eternal material blessing and life, along with
present day blessing and persecution. This cannot lead to prosperity theology or one falls into the
trap in the previous pericope, the trap of the rich ruler, the wealth that ensnares (cf. Lk 8:14). In
Luke’s account, Zacchaeus is given as a living example of how a camel can go through the eye of the
needle as he gives half his possessions to the poor and repays those he has stolen from four‐fold (Lk
19:1‐10).

Treasure in heaven is found at other points in the gospels such as the promise to the rich ruler if he
obeys Jesus, sells up, distributes his wealth to the poor and follows Jesus (Mt 10:21 and pars);
disciples who sell their possessions (not all’) and give to the poor (Lk 12:33‐34); (cf. Mt 13:44).
Clearly, sacrifice for the Kingdom in this age motivated out of love will yield eternal reward.

Eternal Life in John
John loves the terms ‘life’ (zoē) and ‘eternal life’ (zōēn aiōnion). His Gospel is written with the
express purpose that people will have life eternal (Jn 20:31). For John it is received through faith (Jn
3:16). For John it begins now! It is the antithesis of destruction, perishing, wrath, judgement: ‘For
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but
have eternal life.’ It is a glorious quality of life (‘life in all its fullness’) and it is eternally durative,

29
30
286

forever. Jesus is the source of life physical (Jn 1:4; 5:26) and spiritual (Jn e.g. 3:15; 17:2). He is the
way, the truth and the life (source, origin, author), the only way to eternal life with the Father (Jn
14:6). To know Jesus and so his Father, is to have eternal life (Jn 17:3). John’s Jesus loves to speak
metaphorically of life in relation to spiritual drinking and eating. Jesus gives the Spirit (as a drink) and
this generates eternal life in the believer (Jn 4:14). He is the bread of life, the living bread from
heaven that gives eternal life to those who eat him (believe in him) (Jn 6:27‐54). The fruit of
evangelism is eternal life (Jn 4:36). Those who believe will not be judged, but have ‘crossed over
from death to life’ i.e. we are already judged and saved (Jn 5:24). They will not perish or be
destroyed, but will have eternal life (Jn 10:28). They will rise form the dead to life eternal (Jn
5:29). The Jewish opponents in John (‘the Jews’) studied the Scriptures hoping to get eternal life, but
failed to read them well and are missing their opportunity (Jn 5:39‐40). For John, he emphasises the
role of the Spirit in giving this life (Jn 4:14; 6:63). It is his words that generate eternal life (Jn 6:68),
words that come from the Father that give life (Jn 12:50). Jesus is the light shining in the darkness
that gives life (Jn 1:2‐4; 8:12). His desire is that believers have the fullness of an abundant life; the
notion of the restoration of life to God’s ideal and reversal of the Fall and overcoming of the
destructive work of Satan (Jn 10:10). Jesus grants this life and grants strong assurance to believers
that they are safe in this life (Jn 10:28). John has no real notion of a restored earth or a new heaven
and earth in his Gospel. He speaks of Jesus going and returning to get them to take them to their
home with the Father. This can refer to the intermediate state; however, it speaks of the second
coming at which Jesus takes them to the Father’s home to live with him. This is the language of
‘going to heaven’ (Jn 14:1‐4).

Eternal Destruction
Jesus clearly held to a theology of eternal destruction for the enemies of God. He saw it as a place of
imaginable torment and suffering, parabolically telling his hearers to remove offending parts of their
body if they led them into sin; it being better to gouge out an eye, or cut of a limb than enter hell
(Mt 5:29, 30; 18:9; Mk 9:43‐47). In Mt 18:7 Jesus proclaims a imprecatory ‘woe’ oracle against such a
person; why, because they are destined for hell. Punishment in hell is linked to anger and abuse of
others, 31 sexual lust (Mt 5:29‐30), hypocrisy as with the Pharisees (Mt 23:15, 33), material greed and
ignoring the plight of the poor (Lk 16:23). It is God who has authority over who goes to hell; believers
are urged to revere him for this power (Mt 10:28; Lk 12:5).

Various words are used for hell. The first is Hades. This term is found in the Gospels in Mt 11:23;
16:18; Lk 10:15; 16:23 cf. Acts 2:27, 31; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14. Hades often renders the Hebrew
Sheol and is the shadowy world of the dead. Some argue that we should distinguish between Hades
and Gehenna (below). However, the NT usage probably is fluid and is to be seen as synonymous with
Gehenna. 32 In Mt 11:23/Lk 10:15 Jesus warns Capernaum for rejecting his miracles stating that they
will go down to Hades rather than up to the heavens; suffering the same fate as Sodom. This is a
shocking comment against a Jewish town, Sodom symbolic of utter rebellion and evil (see esp. Gen
13:13; 18:20; 19:24; Deut 29:23; Is 1:10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Ezek 16:46‐56;
Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9 cf. Mt 10:15; 11:23‐24; Lk 10:12; 17:29; Rom 9:29; 2 Pet 2:6; Jude 7; Rev 11:8).
Clearly, Jesus has ‘hell’ in mind here.

‘The Gates of Hades’ are symbolic of all the forces of evil which will never stop Jesus building his
church (Mt 16:18). The other reference to Hades is in Lk 16:23 where some argue it refers to the

31
The Greek raka is drawn from the Aramaic rêqā’ which is a Jewish form of abuse meaning ‘buffoon, empty‐
head, fool.’ It carries the sense of emptiness of lack of insight; see EDNT, 3:207.
32
287

intermediate state; thus all the dead are there in the interim before judgement. 33 If so, this supports
a theology of an interim state, where all the dead exist, the righteous in bliss, the unrighteous in
torment. At the culmination, there will be a judgement and final destinies established. While this is
possible, it is more likely, in that judgement here is complete and people are in their eternal
destinies, what is in mind here may be hell itself although not with a literal representation of eternal
destruction (Lk 16:23). 34

The second term is Gehenna. This is from the Hebrew gêhinnom, the Aramaic gêhinnām, and the Gk
geena. Originally it was the name of a place: ‘The Valley of Hinnom’ or ‘the Valley of the Son of
Hinnnom’ (Heb. gê‐hinnōm gē ḇen hinnōm) referred to in Josh 15:8; 18:16; 2 Kgs 23:10 was the
name of a valley in the south slope of Jerusalem today called Wâdi̮ er‐Rabâbi. It was a place of the
sacrifice of children during the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh who sacrificed their own sons (2 Kgs
16:3; 21:6; 2 Chron 28:3; 33:6); a practice stopped by Josiah (2 Kgs 23:10). It became a symbol of
prophetic condemnation. Jeremiah prophesied that the valley would be called the ‘valley of
slaughter’ (Jer 7:32). It became a scene of future horrific judgment (cf. Jer 7:30‐33;35 19:1‐13; 32:34‐
35; Is 31:9; 36 66:24; 37 2 Kgs 23:10; Lev 18:21).

In Jewish apocalyptic literature the name Gehenna became detached from Jerusalem (4 Ezra 7:36; 2
Bar. 59:10; 38 85:13; Sib. Or. i.103; ii.292. 39 Gehenna became the place of God’s final judgment where
he would purify the world of evil and throw evildoers into the fire (e.g. 1 Enoch 10:13; 40 18:11‐16;
Jub. 9:15; 41 1 QH 3:29‐36; 2 Bar 37:1). It was said to be in the depths of the earth (Sib. Or. 4:184‐186)
with fire, darkness and gnashing of teeth(cf. Apoc. Abr. 15:6; Sib. Or. 1:100–103; 2:292–310).. This
tradition is continued into the NT in the teaching of John the Baptist (Matt 3:10, 12 and pars; Lk 3:9,
17). In the Isaiah God’s enemies will be destroyed in fire (Is 66:24) in Jerusalem (Is 31:9) cf. the Valley
of Hinnom. In 1 Enoch this fire is in the Valley of Hinnom (1 Enoch 26:4; 27:1‐3; 54:1‐6; 56:3f;

33
Marshall, Luke, 636.
34
Stein, Luke, 424.
35
‘The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the LORD. They have set up their detestable idols in
the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of
Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my
mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the
Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter,h for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no
more room. Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds and the wild animals, and there
will be no one to frighten them away. I will bring an end to the sounds of joy and gladness and to the voices of
bride and bridegroom in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, for the land will become desolate.’
36
‘“Their stronghold will fall because of terror; at the sight of the battle standard their commanders will
panic,” declares the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, whose furnace is in Jerusalem.’
37
‘“And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not
die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to the whole human race.”
38
‘And the mouth of Gehenna, and the station of vengeance, and the place of faith, and the region of hope:
And the likeness of future torment, and the multitude of innumerable angels, and the flaming hosts…’
39
See O. Böcher, ‘γέεννα, ης, ἡ geenna Gehenna; hell’, in Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical
Dictionary of the New Testament, Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch Zum Neuen Testament. (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990‐c1993), 1:239‐240.
40
‘In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: (and) to the torment and the prison in which they
shall be confined forever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound
together with them to the end of all generations.’
41
‘And they all said, “So be it; so be it,” for themselves and their sons for ever throughout their generations till
the day of judgment, on which the Lord God shall judge them with a sword and with fire, for all the unclean
wickedness of their errors, wherewith they have filled the earth with transgression and uncleanness and
fornication and sin.”
288

90:26). 42 The fire is often described as an eternal one (Sib. Or. 2:292–310; Josephus, Ant. 18.14; Jew.
War. 2.163; 43 3.374–75).

In the writings of the Rabbis gehenna is also used regularly. It is described as created before creation
(b. Pesaḥ 54a); is reserved for the wicked and sinful. 44 It contained several levels (b. Soṭa 10b). While
its torments (b. Šabb. 39a; b. B. Bat. 84a) last for a limited time (m. Ed 2:10; b. Šabb. 33b; b. Ros Has.
16b–17a), the truly thoroughly wicked do not escape (b. B. Meṣ. 58b; b. Ros. Has. 16b–17a). 45

Jesus continues in this tradition in his references to Gehenna, while never really discussing various
levels of hell. He described it as the ‘Gehenna of fire’ (Mt 5:22) or simply Gehenna (Mt 5:29). He
spoke of people being thrown into it (Mt 5:29; 18:9; Lk 12:5). He linked Gehenna to those who do
wrong including anger (Mt 5:22); sins of the eye, hand (Mt 5:29‐30). Such is the torment that it is
better to gouge out one’s own eye or amputate a body part than experience it (Mt 5:29‐30; 18:9; Mk
9:43‐47). Believers are urged to fear God because he can destroy both soul and body in hell (Mt
10:28). This indicates that it is God who judges. The basis of judgement here is found in v.32‐33 (cf.
Lk 12:8‐10) where Jesus states that anyone who acknowledges Jesus before men will be
acknowledged before God the Father. ‘Acknowledge’ is ‘confess’ (homologeō) and means confessing
declaring ‘one’s allegiance in Christ’. 46 Whereas, those who disown him will be disowned before the
Father. ‘Disown’ is arneomai suggesting ‘deny’ or even ‘refuse to follow’; thus indicating rejection of
Christ upon hearing the message. That is, rejection of Christ will lead to eternal separation. 47
‘Destroy’ here (apollumi). It is contrasted with life (Mt 18:9; Mk 9:43). Jesus strongly rebuked the
Pharisees as children of hell indicating that he saw them as subject to eternal destruction (Mt 23:15,
33).

In Mk 9:48 Jesus quotes Is 66:24 to describe the torment of Gehanna: ‘where “their worm does not
die, and the fire is not quenched.”’ Lane notes that this is ‘a vivid picture of a destruction which
continues endlessly.’ 48

42
‘And I looked and turned to another part of the earth, and saw there a deep valley with burning fire. And
they brought the kings and the mighty, and began to cast them into this deep valley. And there mine eyes saw
how they made these their instruments, iron chains of immeasurable weight. And I asked the angel of peace
who went with me, saying: ‘For whom are these chains being prepared?’ And he said unto me: ‘These are
being prepared for the hosts of Azâzêl, so that they may take them and cast them into the abyss of complete
condemnation, and they shall cover their jaws with rough stones as the Lord of Spirits commanded. And
Michael, and Gabriel, and Raphael, and Phanuel shall take hold of them on that great day, and cast them on
that day into the burning furnace, that the Lord of Spirits may take vengeance on them for their
unrighteousness in becoming subject to Satan and leading astray those who dwell on the earth.’
43
‘… and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate
does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible; but that the souls of good men are
only removed into other bodies,—but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.’
44
See b. ˓Erub. 19a; b. Yebam. 63b; b. Ḥag. 15a; cf. also b. B. Bat. 74a; b. Šabb. 104a. The sins include ‘those
guilty of a variety of sinful acts: idolatry (b. Ta˓an. 5a), immorality (b. Qidd. 40a; b. Soṭa 4b), arrogance (m.
˒Abot 5:19; b. B. Bat. 78b; b. ˓Abod. Zar. 18b), flattery and foolish speech (b. Soṭa 41b; b. Šabb. 33a), a lack of
compassion on the poor (b. Beṣa 32b; see Rich and Poor) and listening too much to women (m. ˒Abot 1:5; b. B.
Meṣ. 59a).’ See J. Lunde, ‘Heaven and Hell’ in DJG, 310.
45
See J. Lunde, ‘Heaven and Hell’ in DJG, 310
46
47
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament),
electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), DBLG 766, #6.
48
W.L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 349. He notes that in the Jewish
synagogue, Is 66:23 was repeated after v.24 to ensure comfort for the listeners.
289

The woe’s of Jesus are most often 49 profoundly eschatological. They cry ‘alas, woe’ (ouai) or ‘horror,
how dreadful.’ 50 They are found in the OT usually of terrible suffering and disaster that will come
upon the people (e.g. Num 21:29; 1 Sam 4:8; Isa 3:9–11; Jer 13:27; Ezek 24:6–9). Jesus pronounces it
upon cities who will suffer in a way worse than Sodom/Gomorrah, Ninevah or Gentile cities like
Sidon and Tyre for rejecting Jesus (Mt 11:21; Lk 10:13; 11:29‐32); punishment for those who do not
perish who are guilty of sin (Lk 13:1‐5); of those who cause people to sin (Mt 18:7; Lk 17:1). Jesus
pronounced a series of woes upon Pharisees and Scribes for shutting people from the Kingdom and
missing out themselves (Mt 23:13 cf. Lk 11:52); for hypocrisy in winning people to Jewish faith but
teaching them falsely (Mt 23:15); for inconsistency in application of law (Mt 23:16); for pedantic
tithing but material oppression (Mt 23:23; Lk 11:42); external purity but internal impurity of
greed, self‐indulgence and spiritual death (Mt 23:27, 28; Lk 11:44); for showing respect to the
martyred prophets and others while being likely to have killed them cf. Jesus (Mt 23:29; Lk 11:47);
for loving status and honour (Lk 11:43); for loading huge legal loads on people through their
theology (Lk 11:46). It is used of Judas who would betray Jesus; ‘it being better for him if he had not
been born’ (Mt 26:24; Mk 14:21; Lk 22:22). The reverse Beatitudes of Luke’s Sermon on the Plain
speak of eschatological reversal for the rich, the well fed, those who laugh mockingly, and those who
are well spoken of by the world. Such people who do not respond to the coming of the Kingdom and
work for the reversal the Kingdom brings will experience eschatological suffering (Lk 6:24‐26 cf. Lk
16:19‐31). These all speak of the ultimate problem of eternal destruction unless there is
repentance.

As with reward above, the parables often end with a strong word of warning and judgment. In the
Parables of the Weeds and the Net, the weeds and ‘bad fish’ at the final harvest are separated and
thrown into the fire (Mt 13:30, 50). In this fire there will be ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’, pointing
to the extreme torment of this experience.51 In the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant Jesus’
illustrates his point that forgiveness of one’s brother must be complete (Mt 18:21‐22). The servant
pleads for forgiveness for his huge debt (10,000 talents) which the master grants (Mt 18:23‐27). This
would be about 60million denarii which would take 164,000 years to repay at the usual day‐
labourers pay of 1 denarius/day! 52 This points out the impossibility of paying it back, the terrible
wastage of the servant to spend that much, and the immeasurable forgiving grace of the master. The
servant then refused to forgive a debt of 100 denarii (100 days pay for a labourer) despite the pleas
of the servant and threw him into prison (Mt 18:28‐31). This leads the master to challenge his lack of
mercy and had him put in jail to be tortured until he could repay his original debt of 10,000 talents
(18:32‐34). The huge amount essentially suggests eternal destruction as there is no means of making
the money in prison and the amount is so huge! It is implied in v.35 that failure to forgive as the Lord
has forgiven will lead to such punishment.

The eschatological parables of Mt 24:45‐25:46 indicate something of the nature of the eternal
destruction. There is a strong sense of a punitive judgment with great torment. In Mt 24:51 those
who are not faithful to the master are ‘cut to pieces and assigned a place with the hypocrites, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ While not literal, it points to punishment and torment.

49
See Mk 13:17; Mt 24:19; Lk 21:23 where it is used of the suffering of people at the fall of Jerusalem/end.
50
Swanson, Dictionary, DBLG 4026. Or Louw and Nida, Lexicon, ‘how greatly one will suffer’ or ‘what terrible
pain will come to one.’
51
The ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ is Matthew’s customary way of describing the eternal torment; again,
this points away from a conditional mortality view toward eternal suffering (see Mt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13;
24:51; 25:30).
52
See K.R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent. A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans ,2008), 66. According to Josephus (Ant. 17.11. 4), 600 talents in taxes were collected from all of
Judea, Idumea, and Samaria in 4 B.C.. As such, this is equivalent to trillions of dollars.

290

In the Ten Virgins, the unprepared virgins are shut out of the banquet with the story giving no way
back in with the master (Jesus) declaring that he does not know them (Mt 25:10‐12). In the Talents
the one who failed to put to work his talent but hid it, is strongly rebuked, stripped of his money,
thrown outside into darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt 25:26‐30).
Finally, in the sheep and the goats, those who failed to care for their needy brothers and sisters are
thrown ‘into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt 25:41). In v46 it is described
as ‘eternal punishment.’ There are several important points here. The fire is eternal, suggesting
either a fire of eternality in which people are extinguished or a fire where the evil are eternally
punished. This is clarified in v46 where the eternal punishment (kolasis) and life are contrasted.
Thus, the latter is likely. Secondly, the fire is not prepared for humanity but for the devil and his
angels. The purpose of eternal destruction is the eternal destruction/punishment of evil. God never
intended humanity to experience this; however, due to his justice they will do so because of their
rejection of him and their participation and identification with evil. Thirdly, the parallel between
eternal life and eternal punishment here would seem to support a theology of eternal destruction
rather than conditional mortality (annihilation of the evil).

Luke’s parable of the Faithful/Unfaithful servant speaks of terrible suffering for those who abuse
their responsibility in caring for his Kingdom (Lk 12:45‐47). If he turns to licentious gluttony and
drunkenness he will face terrible suffering: ‘he will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the
unbelievers’ (Lk 12:46). There are degrees of punishment; the one who knows what is expected and
fails will receive worse punishment than the one who is ignorant and does the same (Lk 12:47).

Jesus taught that many will receive eternal destruction whereas few will find eternal life. In the
conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount he likens the life of faith as entering a narrow gate and
walking a narrow road. On the other hand, the path to ‘destruction’ is broad and the gate wide (Mt
7:13‐14). ‘Destruction’ here is apōleia meaning ‘destruction’ and is related to apollumi (‘destroy,
lose, die, be lost’). It is at times in the Gospels of ‘waste’ (Mt 26:8; Mk 14:4). However, both terms
most often refer to the idea of eternal destruction.53 Here apōleia is contrasted with ‘life’ which
clearly refers to eternal life. Hence, it is eternal destruction that is in mind. The nature of the
destruction is not clear, perhaps indicating a long progressive deterioration (‘perishing’), or a static
state of eternal torment, or instant annihilation for all eternity.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount continues the contrast between two ways with two types of tree
and fruit. While every ‘good tree’ produces good fruit (Kingdom ethical attitudes and behavior as per
the Sermon), those trees that do not are ‘cut down and thrown in the fire’ (Mt 7:19). This can mean
the purging of a believer; however, it is probably better to see the continuation of the thought in
v.13‐14 and see here a metaphor of judgment and destruction. In v.21‐23 some Jesus warns that not
all who claim to confess Jesus as Lord will enter eternity but only those who do the Father’s will
despite doing charismatic works such as prophecy, deliverance and many miracles. In v.23 these are
rejected on the basis of their lack of relationship to Jesus (‘I never knew you’). The words ‘away from
me you evildoers’ is a powerful statement of their eternal rejection.

In the mission discourse of Matthew 10, Jesus warns of dreadful suffering for towns in Israel that
reject the messengers of the Kingdom and their message (Mt 10:14). In v.15 he warns that their
suffering will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. As noted above this is a shocking
statement to the elect people of God, these two cities being symbolic of utter rebellion and

53
Mt 7:13; Jn 17:12; Rom 9:22; Phil 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thess 2:3; Heb 10:39; 2 Pet 2:1, 3; 3:7, 16; Rev 17:8, 11 cf. 1
Tim 6:9. The verb apollumi Mt 5:29, 30; 10:6, 28, 39; 15:24; 16:25; 18:14; Mk 1:24; 8:35; Lk 4:34; 9:24, 25;
13:3, 15:24, 32; 17:33; 19:10; Jn 3:16; 6:39; 10:10, 28; 12:25; 17:12; 18:9; Rom 2:12; 14:15; 2 Cor 1:18; 8:1;
15:18; 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3; 2 Thess 2:10; Jas 4:12; 2 Pet 3:6, 9.

291

rebellion. These cities should have responded to Christ with repentance after seeing the amazing
miracles of healing he has performed (cf. Mt 11:20‐25).

Possibly the most stunning warning in the NT of the horror of hell is the suffering of the rich man (Lk
16:19‐31). He is a star on earth, loaded, dressed like a king, eating sumptuously daily, living in
absolute splendor, with food left over for the dogs. He died and was buried as was the custom. In his
culture, he would be seen positively as a blessed man, who would join his rich Father Abraham in
heaven. However, he is found in hell, in extreme suffering, separated from Abraham where the poor
man is living in splendor. He is so desperate he arrogantly pleads for Lazarus to bring him a drop of
water; his thirst and suffering intense in the fires of hell. This is refused on the basis of his failure to
live out his faith in accordance with the Jewish Scriptures and care for the poor. In addition, there is
no escape and manner of moving between Hades and paradise. It is dangerous to push the details of
the story as if the vision is literal; however, this remains a dramatic warning of eternal destruction
and punishment for evil.

While John has a strong positive emphasis on eternal life, he does have a strong warning of
destruction. For John, the world is fallen and under the power of darkness and evil. Jesus is the
creator coming to his creation, becoming incarnate within it, with the positive purpose of redeeming
its people. Jesus’ purpose is not to condemn but to save, the world standing condemned before God
already i.e. liable to destruction (Jn 3:17‐18). Rejection of Jesus and his words will see a person
condemned on the last day (Jn 12:48). Salvation is found through faith in Christ alone, which brings
eternal life to the believer; deliverance from condemnation and eternal destruction. So for example,
in Jn 3:16 faith in Christ means one ‘shall not perish’. ‘Perish’ here is apollumi which, as discussed
above, means ‘to be destroyed, to perish, to be lost’; and which occurs through the NT regularly.54
John has a strong deterministic edge, Jesus speaks of not losing any God has given him (Jn 6:39). The
thief, Satan, has come to seek to destroy (apollumi); Jesus is working against his purpose, to give
them life (Jn 10:10). He is condemned to destruction (Jn 16:11). Judas too, is the ‘one doomed to
destruction’, apollumi here clearly of eternal destruction (Jn 17:12). In Jn 10:28 this is clearly stated:
‘I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish/be destroyed/be lost (apollumi)’ (cf. Jn 18:9).
Love for this world and so, rejection of Christ and a failure to love and receive the ‘new world’ he
brings, will see a person lose their life (apollumi).

John also uses the idea of ‘death’ (apothnēskō) in a spiritual sense i.e. eternal death (cf. Rev 20:1‐6;
Eph 2:1‐3). Those who eat of Jesus (believe in him), will not die, in the sense of eternal death. He
warns the Jews that he is going away and ‘you will die in your sin’ (Jn 8:21, 24). Those who believe,
although they will physically die, will ‘never taste death’ i.e. eternal spiritual death (Jn 8:52 cf.
11:26). So Jesus can say, ‘anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die’ (Jn 11:25).

Conclusion
In conclusion, the strands of Jesus’ eschatology are consistent in the Gospels: 1) The return of Christ
is the culmination of the age; 2) At which time humanity will be judged by God and Christ; 3) Those
who are subjects of the King and have faith in Christ will receive everlasting life living with God in
glorious splendor and joy; 4) Those who reject Christ, God’s reign are separated from God eternally
and will suffer greatly.

54
It is used of food wasting or rotting (Jn 6:12, 27). This leads some to see eternal destruction as ongoing
degradation and perishing without death. It is found in Jn 11:50 on the lips of Caiaphas of the nation perishing
in the sense of being destroyed by the Romans. It is better that Jesus (one man) dies than this occur. This
suggests a strongly utilitarian ethic. This is ironical, in fact, if Jesus dies, the nation who kill him will perish
eternally (apollumi) cf. Jn 2:19.
292


It is possible that the references to hell refer to eternal destruction in the sense of annihilation;
however, one must treat all reference to torment, punishment and suffering as parabolic, symbolic
and not literal and pertaining to any reality. If we apply this principle to all of Jesus’ parables
consistently, we empty the stories of much of their power. For example, can we really claim that we
should love our enemies on the basis of the Samaritan parable and at the same time deny eternal
destruction on the basis of the Sheep and Goats?

In terms of challenging eschatological issues like raptures, millennial kingdoms, the intermediate
state, soul‐sleep, specific signs of the return of Christ, rewards in eternity etc; to greater or lesser
degrees these details are open to debate because of interpretative challenges. I suggest it is better
to stick to the clear big issues and leave the rest for interesting debate, not allowing the minors to
divide us and uniting around the core agreed central issues. Analysis of these would require
consideration of the whole NT including especially Paul and Revelation.

The purpose of eschatology is to give us hope and encourage each other (cf. 1 Thess 4:18: ‘therefore
encourage each other with these words’). Let us do so. The future consummation will be glorious
wonderful and creative. We will dwell with God forever. We will experience life as it should and
could be. Suffering, pain and death will be removed and we will be able to fully experience what it
means to be fully human and what it means to be children of God. We will be fully released into our
potential and God the creator will allow us to partner with him in whatever projects he has. It will be
creative, harmonious and joyous.
293

294

Chapter Sixteen

ACTS 1‐8
Contents
An introduction to the Acts of the Apostles ....................................................................................... 296
Critical issues surrounding the Book of Acts ....................................................................................... 297
The title ........................................................................................................................................... 297
Authorship ...................................................................................................................................... 297
The same author as the third Gospel .......................................................................................... 297
Luke as author ............................................................................................................................. 298
Date ................................................................................................................................................. 298
Recipients ........................................................................................................................................ 299
Historicity ........................................................................................................................................ 299
Historical accuracy? .................................................................................................................... 299
Theology (early church and/or the author) and not history ....................................................... 299
Sources for Acts .......................................................................................................................... 300
Speeches ..................................................................................................................................... 301
Paul and Acts ............................................................................................................................... 302
Ancient historical standards ....................................................................................................... 302
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 303
Emphases ........................................................................................................................................ 303
Text ................................................................................................................................................. 304
Structure and purpose .................................................................................................................... 304
Acts at glance .................................................................................................................................. 305
The first Church in Jerusalem: Factors that made it so effective ....................................................... 305
A God‐honouring Church ................................................................................................................ 305
A Christ‐centered Church ................................................................................................................ 306
A Spirit‐empowered Church ........................................................................................................... 308
Pentecost .................................................................................................................................... 309
Samaria ....................................................................................................................................... 311
Paul ............................................................................................................................................. 311
Cornelius’ family ......................................................................................................................... 311
Ephesus ....................................................................................................................................... 311
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 313
A well‐led Church ............................................................................................................................ 314
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 315
An evangelistic Church .................................................................................................................... 315
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 318
A prayerful Church .......................................................................................................................... 318
Continuation with the prayer life of Judaism ............................................................................. 318
A Church bathed in prayer .......................................................................................................... 319
Prayer and the Spirit’s power ..................................................................................................... 320
The link between prayer and fasting .......................................................................................... 321
295

Acts 1‐8
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 321
A worshipful Church ........................................................................................................................ 321
Gathering .................................................................................................................................... 321
Charismatic or pneumatic worship ............................................................................................. 322
Baptism ....................................................................................................................................... 322
The centrality of the Apostles teaching and word ...................................................................... 323
The breaking of bread (Communion) .......................................................................................... 324
Material generosity and care for the needy ............................................................................... 325
Praise ........................................................................................................................................... 325
A generous Church (Economic Koinōnia) ........................................................................................ 325
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 327
A persecuted Church ....................................................................................................................... 327
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 329

An introduction to the Acts of the Apostles
The importance of the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book in the NT, cannot be overestimated. It
traces three decades of the church (c. AD30‐60) including the story of the first church in Jerusalem
and the spread of the Christian faith north into Samaria, the first Gentile conversions and then its
course along the north‐eastern rim of the Mediterranean Sea as far as Rome. As such, it tells us how
those who had been with Jesus physically throughout his ministry sought to fulfilll his teaching and
establish the church.

Now it is worth reminding ourselves that Acts is part two of a two‐volume work by the same author.
That means that it continues the story of Luke, which we looked at briefly above. The point is that to
really understand Acts you need to understand Luke because it is really the continuation of the same
narrative.

Now if you read Luke you will find that the majority of NT scholars agree that Luke’s central theme is
salvation or as some put it, ‘salvation history’ (German: Heilsgeschichte). He tells the story of Jesus
emphasising how Jesus fulfills the hopes of the OT in bringing God’s salvation. He highlights that this
salvation came first to the Jews through Jesus and was universal in scope and intent. Luke
emphasises Jesus’ ministry to the margins; to sinners like Zacchaeus and the ‘sinful woman’; to
women all of whom he mentions positively; to Samaritans, much despised by Jews; to Gentiles like
the Roman centurion. Luke tells of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and the turning point of heading to
Jerusalem to fulfill the OT expectation that the Messiah must suffer and die for the sins of the world
(Lk 24:46). Luke then reports that the message of Jesus’ death and resurrection will be preached
throughout the world, his disciples being witnesses. Luke emphasises the power of prayer and the
importance of the Spirit as the energising third person of the Trinity who will empower these first
believers. The account ends with the disciples told to wait in Jerusalem in prayer until he sends them
the Spirit to empower them for mission. Acts takes up where the first narrative ends.

So the story of Acts continues the narrative of Luke. This all means that the story of the first church
in Jerusalem is absolutely vital in giving us an understanding of what Jesus had in mind when it
comes to church. Put another way, the church in Jerusalem is paradigmatic for our conception of
church today. From this church we get a real sense of those things that were important in the minds
of those first Christians, fresh off the ‘boat’ with Jesus himself. This does not mean that we can just
read the book of Acts and then do church exactly the same way. We have to think across the
sociological and cultural divide; but the ideals and principles of church are there for us. We have to
apply it thoughtfully to our context.
296


In addition, the story of Acts is utterly pivotal in understanding the nature of the mission Jesus left
with them and us. At the end of each canonical Gospel is some kind of commission to take the
message of Jesus and the Kingdom from the resurrected Jesus to the disciples (Mt 28:18‐20; Mk
13:10 [cf. 16:15‐20]; Lk 24:46‐49; Jn 20:21). 1 In Acts we hear the story of the way in which the first
disciples sought to obey this appeal from Jesus and more importantly, the work of God through
human agency. Again, Acts becomes paradigmatic for the challenge of global and local mission.

So, without doubt Acts is hugely important. It tells of the first generation of Christians and their
desire to build on Christ’s revelation of salvation. With this in mind, let’s rip into it; first looking at
the critical issues surrounding the book, and then looking at the story of the first churches and
mission of the first generation of Christians.

Critical issues surrounding the Book of Acts
In this section, we will look at some of the critical issues concerning the book. Some of course we
have touched on earlier concerning Luke, so at times I will refer you back to the earlier work in that
section above.
The title
The title ‘the Acts of the Apostles’ was not original to the text of the book but was added to the
document by later Christians. It was probably done so in the early second century (some would say
the late second century) as the works of the NT writers were gathered together for circulation. Other
suggestions for a title were made by later writers including ‘the Memorandum of Luke’ (Tertullian [c.
200 AD]); ‘the Acts of the All the Apostles’ (Muratorian Canon [c. 170‐180 AD]). The term ‘Acts’ (Gk:
praxeis), indicates a genre of writing describing great deeds of people or cities. 2

Here is a question for you to think about, what would you call the book of Acts?
Authorship
The same author as the third Gospel
It is generally agreed that the author of Acts is the same person who wrote the third Gospel. This is
because of the similarities between the prologue including:
1. A reference to ‘the first book’ which clearly refers to the third Gospel Luke (‘I wrote about all
that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven’
[1:1, 2]).
2. The same addressee, ‘most excellent Theophilus’ (which is probably a literal recipient,
although some argue this refers to the general ‘lover of God’ meaning an indistinct
individual or a wider group of Christians [see below]).
3. Continuity from the end of the third Gospel into Acts especially the appeal to witness, the
concept of the Holy Spirit coming as they wait in Jerusalem, the ascension and teaching on
the Kingdom (Lk 24:46‐49; Acts 1:8; 2:1‐4).

Luke‐Acts is possibly a two‐part work. Witherington believes that it may be in two parts because of
their length. The maximum length for a papyrus roll was 40 feet (cf. 12m). Luke’s Gospel (19,404

1
As noted in the course earlier, although the originality of the longer ending of Mark is disputed, this does not
rule out its historicity.
2
On these points see further Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 181.
297

Acts 1‐8
words) would fit on a thirty‐five foot roll and Acts (18, 734) on a thirty two foot roll. Possibly because
of this, Luke‐Acts has been broken up into two parts. 3

Personally, I feel that ‘in my former book’ suggests that there may be a gap between the two works.
Either way, now we have two works; the first focuses on ‘The Man’ (Jesus Christ); the second on ‘The
Movement’ (The Church and the mission). The problem we have is that neither Luke nor Acts is
signed by the author. Hence there is some doubt concerning the author. However there are sound
reasons to believe Luke is the author of Luke‐Acts.
Luke as author
Most of the arguments for Lucan authorship of Acts relate to the same set of data covered above
under Luke’s Gospel including the ascription, early church agreement, the ‘we‐passages’ (Acts 16:10‐
17; 20:5‐16; 21:1‐18; 27:1‐28:16), specific mentions of Luke in Paul’s letters (Col 4:14; Phm 24; 2 Tim
4:11) and the Western text of Acts 20:13. As we noted above, arguments against Lucan authorship
are not strong. Luke then is almost certainly the author. We know he was probably from Antioch,
was a friend and companion of Paul, a well‐educated physician, probably a Gentile convert, that he
wrote well as a first century historian. He is highly important for our understanding of the NT. As
Achtemeier et al. note, the two works make ‘Luke the most prolific writer in the NT, with some 28%
of the NT attributed to him.’ 4

For more on authorship read:
• Carson, Moo, Morris, An Introduction to the NT, 185‐190: they are very positive to Lucan
authorship.
• Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the NT, 268‐269: who are also positive.
• Marshall, I.H. Acts, 44‐46: who is also very positive.
• Bruce, F.F. Acts, 6‐8: who is also positive.
• Longenecker, Acts, 238‐240: who is positive noting that ‘the tradition that Luke wrote the
third Gospel and Acts goes back at least to the second century, that it was unanimously
accepted within the church, and that it would be very strange were it not true’ (p240).
Date
As noted above, the date of Acts relates very much to the date of Luke. There were noted that there
are two main views. First, there is the argument that Acts is written around the time of the events
which mark its end, and before the persecution of Nero (c. AD 62‐64). The second view argues that it
must be later, well after Mark’s production which is held to be mid 60’s and sees its culmination in
Rome as a rhetorical device related to Acts 1:8; that is, the gospel has come to the heart of the
empire and so will go to the ends of the earth. As such, it is held to have been written in the 70’s or
even the 80’s. Scholarship is split on this issue and while I prefer the former view, concede that it can
be seen either way.

On date see further:
• Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 191‐194: they take the same position that it was written
in AD62, ‘the most natural explanation’ (p.194)
• Marshall, Acts, 46‐48: they take the position it was written around A.D. 70, Luke bringing ‘his
story up to a significant point, the completion of the process of bringing the gospel to Rome,
as symbolised by Paul’s unhindered preaching there for two years. This was a fitting climax
to the story, and here Luke was happy to terminate his account (p48).’

3
Witherington, Acts, 6.
4
Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing, 269.
298

• Bruce, Acts, 10‐13: he suggests that it was somewhere between AD 69‐96 and probably the
midpoint. He takes the view that this concurs with the theology of the book and that the lack
of reference to the martyrdom of Paul and the fall of Jerusalem are inconclusive.
• Longenecker, Acts, 235‐238: he takes the position that it was written soon after AD62,
probably in AD64, before the Neronian persecution and Jewish war with Rome (AD66‐70).

Recipients
As noted above, Acts and Luke are written to a certain Theophilus who is most likely a Greek
aristocrat and representative of well‐to‐do Greco‐Roman society. As such, the two works have a
strong Greco‐Roman edge and speak into that world. This is important for interpretation.
Historicity
Historical accuracy?
An issue we have not really dealt with is that of historicity. The historicity of Acts is the subject of
great debate. In the 19th century, the Tübingen School of biblical criticism argued that Acts was of
dubious historical worth being a largely fictitious attempt to soften the supposed conflict between
Peter and Paul which supposedly dominated the whole NT and the early years of the church (esp.
Gal 2:11‐14). 5 Toward the end of the 19th century, Sir William Ramsey countered, arguing that Acts
was an excellent piece of history and the Luke could be relied on as an accurate historian. 6
According to his analysis, Luke was extremely accurate in matters related to background like
geography and secular history so should be trusted on other matters that could not be verified with
cross‐referencing to secondary historical sources. In the 20th century F.F. Bruce, C.S.W. Williams, R.
Longenecker and others have argued similarly that Acts could be trusted. In addition, others such
A.N. Sherwin White and C. Hemer have further demonstrated Luke’s accuracy in the details of
provincial government, geography, social and religious customs, navigational procedures and more. 7
While some reject that accuracy in background issues does not mean accuracy in unverifiable
matters, the connection is most likely fair. As Marshall points out, if it were not authentic, Luke
would have been writing an historical novel based around authentic historical events. There is no
evidence at all that Acts should be seen as a novel. 8 Rather, Luke, as he says in his prologue to his
‘first book’, was careful to rely on eye‐witnesses and first generation sources and he himself
participated in the events of Acts; both marks of excellent first‐century historical research.
Theology (early church and/or the author) and not history
However, historical skepticism concerning Acts has been seen in the work of form and redaction
critics who argued that the stories were constructs of the early church and/or the editor with little

5 This is not without some support such as Gal 2:11‐15; 1 Cor 1:10. However, the latter reference does not
indicate tensions between Peter and Paul; rather it indicates problems among the Corinthian’s perception of
Peter and Paul. In reality apart from the Antioch incident moment there is little evidence of tension between
the two men; if anything, they appear to be unified (cf. Acts 15:7; 2 Pet 3:15‐16).
6 See Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen; Bearing on recent discovery and St. Paul.
7 See A.N. Sherwin‐White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. London: Oxford, 1963; C.
Hemer, Book of Acts. See Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction, 208 for examples where Luke is accurate
including the death of Herod Agrippa I (12:19‐23); the famine in the 40’s (11:27‐30), Claudius’ edict (18:2), the
replacement of Felix with Festus. He also notes the points of supposed disagreement and refutes them. See
also Longenecker, 228‐229 which has an excellent summary of the same main points of historical issue. See
also Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, 67‐68 who sees Luke as trustworthy as any
ancient historian.
8 Marshall, Acts, 37.
299

Acts 1‐8
historical validity. Writers such as Dibelius, Conzelmann and Haenchen saw Acts as baseless except
for some oral tradition, which was difficult to discern within the text. Another way of coming to
historical skepticism concerning Acts is to see Luke’s motivation as theological and not historical.
Hence, Luke (for Redaction Criticism) and/or the early church (for Form Criticism) were trying to
present a ‘story’ of Jesus and the early Church with theological aims and with minimal historical
base.

It is clear that Luke does have theological emphases. However, this does not mean that he neglects
history. All history is biased to some degree or another and is crafted according to the historian’s
viewpoint. 9 Acts is no different. It is theological history telling the story of the Christian church’s
early growth.
Sources for Acts
Another factor causing people to doubt the historical accuracy of Acts is the problem of sources for
Acts. That is, where did Luke get his information? Even if we accept that Acts was written by a
travelling companion of Paul, this does not tell us where he got his information from for the first
part. The lack of evidence of sources suggests to some that Luke made it up! However, it is obvious
that this position does not need to be taken. It is highly probable that Luke had sources, took the
material he gained, and wrote it in his own style and words.10 We know that prior to Luke’s joining
Paul, Paul had visited Jerusalem on several occasions (see Acts 9:26‐30; 11:30; 15:1‐19; Gal 1:18‐
2:10) meaning he had knowledge of the Jerusalem church. Luke would have gained some insight
from Paul’s reminiscences. In Luke’s time in Jerusalem with Paul, it was probable that he visited the
Apostles, other first generation eye‐witnesses (cf. Lk 1:2) 11 and members of the Jerusalem church
such as Barnabas, Mary and John Mark. Hence, sections like the infancy narrative of Luke; the
material from Luke’s special source are drawn from discussions with these people. This is consistent
with his own testimony that he ‘investigated everything carefully’ (Lk 1:3) and consulted eye‐
witnesses (autoptēs [Lk 1:2]). There is no reason to suggest he did not do similarly for Acts. In fact,
placing Luke in Jerusalem gives us great confidence concerning the veracity of the first part of Acts.
Furthermore, being a travel companion of Paul suggests we can have a high level of confidence in
the historicity of the second half of Acts.

We can also test Luke’s use of sources in Luke’s Gospel where it is clear that Luke utilised Mark, Q
(Quelle = ‘Source’) 12 and his own special material gained from other unique sources (L). We can see
from Luke that on the whole he did so carefully and accurately while slanting the source material
theologically towards his particular emphases. Acts is more free than Luke probably because Luke
did not have an existing gospel (Mark) and other material (Q) highly honoured in the church to work
with, but a wide range of source material gained from his own interviews and experiences.

9
See further Longenecker, Acts, 214‐216; Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing, 248.
10
There have been elaborate attempts to find his sources beneath the text. Harnack for example found 1) A
Jerusalem‐Antiochian source (11:19‐30; 12:25‐15:35); 2) A Jerusalem‐Caesarean source underlying sections of
1‐12; 3) A ‘recension B’ of the Jerusalem‐Caesarea source underlying other parts of 1‐12; 4) Another separate
source 6:1‐8:4; 5) Another at 9:1‐28; 6) Legendary material in ch 1, Harnack claimed Acts 4 and 5 were
different sources of the same event. Some have found evidence of Semitisms underlying the Greek pointing to
sources beyond Luke (see further Longenecker, Acts, 221‐223; Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction, 199‐
201).
11
According to Bauckham in Jesus and the Eye‐Witnesses 39‐66 some of those would be people named in the
text like Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38‐39), Jairus (Lk 8:41), Cleopas (Lk 24:18).
12
The common material in Matthew and Luke. It is variously understood as a written document or common
oral tradition or a combination of both.
300

It is probable then that Luke gained his information from Paul and from the Jerusalem Christians
themselves. It is true that he has worked them over so that these sources are now not able to be
detected, however this does not indicate a lack of historicity.

Speeches
Another factor leading to historical skepticism is the speeches of Acts. It is believed by some that
these speeches are constructs based on the structure and details of early church preaching (form
critics) or constructs of Luke himself (redaction critics). It is suggested that the speeches differ from
supposed fragments of sermons in the rest of the NT and are really Lucan or early church theology.
In other words, Luke made up his own sermons and placed them on the lips of Peter, Stephen and
Paul.

There are significant problems with this view. First, there is no evidence of the process by which the
sermons of the early church supposedly became Scripture from the mouth of the apostles. Secondly,
a plain reading of the sermons gives no indication at all that they are Lucan constructions. They
differ greatly, although they are all recorded with Luke’s style. Thirdly, that the speeches have OT
and Jewish elements suggests originality (e.g. quotes from OT passages concerning resurrection cf.
Acts 2:17‐20; Joel 2:28‐32). Fourthly, the speeches, while having a structure (see later), are not
uniform and have examples of originality. For example the speeches of Paul to the Synagogue in
Pisidian Antioch compared to the speech to the Areopagus in Athens are markedly different in terms
of culture and emphases indicating originality (compare Acts 13:16‐41; 17:22‐31). One would expect
more uniformity if these were constructs.13 Fifthly, we note that most of the speeches would have
been in Aramaic which Luke would have paraphrased which in the main explains why they are all in
Lucan Greek. 14

Having noted that the speeches show signs of originality, the speeches are without doubt summaries
of original speeches rather than complete sermons. 15 This is indicated by their shortness, each
taking only a few minutes to read (1 – 7 mins). In addition, the memories of the early church were
focussed on Jesus and not the first sermons; hence this may suggest a general account.
Furthermore, it is clear that Luke was not concerned with word for word accuracy. This is seen by
comparing the messages of the angel to Cornelius in Acts 10 where the details differ through the
passage (cf. 10:4‐5, 22, 30‐31; 11:13‐14). Similarly it is worth comparing Luke 24:44‐53 to Acts 1:1‐11
where Luke speaks of the same events with differing detail and substantial freedom. Finally, we have
the problem of how Luke could have known the details of some of the situations such as what Festus
and Agrippa said to each other in private (25:13‐22; 26:30‐32) or the words of the Sanhedrin in a
closed session (4:15‐17; 5:34‐40). However, these can be explained as Luke’s best summation on the
basis of what was said in public and/or Luke came into contact with an eye‐witness or source from
these contexts who related to him the events. This is entirely feasible considering that he was in
Jerusalem and able to make connections with Christians present in these situations.16

Overall then we have to say that while the speeches should not be seen as total constructs, they are
general summaries of what the first Christians preached and was said in situations (we will discuss
the speeches in some detail later in the course).

13
Marshall, Acts, 41.
14
So Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 209.
15
A point Luke himself makes in 2:40: ‘with many other words…’
16
In terms of Acts 4‐5 we know of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and Luke mentions other priests who
came to Christ perhaps from these groups (cf. Acts 6:7).
301

Acts 1‐8
Paul and Acts
Another historical issue is the question of the Paul of Acts and of the letters. Some scholars see a
great disjunction between the chronology and theology of Paul’s letters and Acts. Some cannot
correlate the journeys to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts with those in the letter arguing that the
Epistles only have three trips to Jerusalem (see Gal 1:18; 2:1; Rom 15:24) and Acts five (Acts 9:26;
11:30; 15:4; 18:22; 21:17). Similarly, some find a tension between Paul’s theology of grace and
justification by faith and the sermons of Acts (esp. Rom 1‐8; Gal 2‐3). 17 However, these differences
are totally exaggerated and have perfectly reasonable explanations. Chronologically, one can
harmonise with a reasonable degree of assuredness the visits to Jerusalem with Acts. 18
Theologically, the sermons of Acts are summaries and give insufficient grounds for fully assessing
Paul’s theology. Rather, I think Acts gives a wonderful background picture of the letters of Paul and
does include a theology of grace as does Luke (cf. Lk 18:13‐18; Acts 16:31). When it comes to
assessing Paul’s theology, one should always favour the first‐hand accounts of his letters. However,
Luke provides an excellent second point of reference from a travelling companion of Paul. It is thus
spurious and unwarranted to consider Paul from his epistles alone without reference to Luke at all.
Ancient historical standards
It is argued against Acts that we cannot take Acts as solid history as ancient historians were much
looser with factual information than contemporary historians. That is, they wrote to give moral
lessons or to edify rather than to present material in a contemporary historical mode.

On the one hand this is not completely untrue. Many ancient ‘historians’ blended fact with fiction
rather freely. However, there is evidence that the ancient historians were not as loose as some
think. There are examples of criticisms of ancient historians who neglect the facts and appeals that
they should present what happened and what was said. 19 Indeed ‘ancient authors testify to very
high standards of historical reporting, standards that are not much different at all from those with
which we are familiar.’ 20

Longenecker discusses in some detail the approach of ancient historians. He notes that ancient
historical writing was not mere chronicling but was ‘the conviction that the actions and words of
distinctive people in their respective periods represent more adequately the situation than any
comments by the historian.’ 21 Similarly Bauckham has extensively defended the historicity of Luke
and the other Gospels arguing persuasively for the use of eye‐witnesses and participation in the
events in the case of Luke. 22 Thus through the ‘acts’, the stories give insight into the ethos of the
period and the character of the person in mind. The issue of chronology varied, some taking a
chronological approach (e.g. Tacitus), but most a thematic approach (e.g. Plutarch). As such, Luke as
a participant in the events of the period and as reliant on eye‐witnesses is to be considered an
excellent first century historian.

17
See E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (London, 1974), 45‐47; F.F. Bruce, ‘Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?’ BJRL
58, 1976, 282‐305; Marshall, Acts, 42‐43.
18
See for example Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 209 who note that the three trips of the epistles (Gal
1:18; 2:1; Rom 15:24) can be reconciled with the 5 trips of Acts (9:26; 11:27‐30; 15; 18:22; 21:17). They suggest
Gal 1:18 = Acts 9:26; Gal 2:1 = Acts 11:27‐30 (the famine visit) and Rom 15:24 is a projected planned visit which
was fulfillled in Acts 21:17 when Paul was sent to Rome for trial. All this proves is that Paul did not mention all
his visits to Jerusalem in his letters.
19
For detail from Polybius (2.56.10) and Thucydides, 1.22 see Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 207.
20
Carson, Moo, Morris. Introduction, 207. See also Longenecker, Acts, 215
21
Longenecker, Acts, 212.
22
See Bauckham, Jesus and the Eye‐Witnesses, a must read.
302

Conclusion
In conclusion we can be confident that the story we have in Luke is historically sound. However, the
account is selective, Luke picking and choosing what was vital to his purposes, especially related to
telling the story along the lines of Acts 1:8 (see below). In addition, the account is slanted
theologically and couched in Lucan terms and understanding rather than the language of the original
sources. For the purposes of this course we will unreservedly accept the historicity of the account
and take it as the basis for our discussion.

On historicity see:
• Marshall, Acts, 36‐44. He takes a positive view of the historicity while acknowledging there
are some difficulties.
• Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction, 206‐210: they take a very positive view of the
historicity of Acts.
• Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing, 247‐249: they take a positive view and discuss
the book history with a particular stance.
• Longenecker, Acts, 212‐216, 221‐225, 229‐231 who is highly positive.
Emphases
It is clear that in constructing his history of the first Christian church in Jerusalem and the expansion
of Christianity, Luke has emphasised certain issues. Some of these include:

1. The Sovereignty of God: One of the strong features is the sovereignty of God in Acts. It is
God who is at work in the church. He guides its growth through the work of the Spirit. Key
events such as Pentecost, the persecution of the Saul inspiring the scattering of the church,
the Cornelius story, the conversion of Saul and the incidents leading to Paul’s ending up in
Rome, are all sovereign works of God or God at work through apparently negative
circumstances. Acts is the story of the unstoppable mission of God.
2. The church: Acts gives us deep insight into the life of the early church, the way in which it
dealt with issues, its expansion, pneumatological 23 and missionary emphases.
3. Mission and Evangelism: Acts reveals the manner in which the church intentionally and
unintentionally expanded along the lines of Acts 1:8 i.e. in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to
Rome.
4. The Power of the Spirit: the role of the Spirit is fundamental to Acts (see lecture notes later).
Much of the expansion of the church through Acts is based on works of the Spirit rather than
human strategy or design (not all, as we see the role of Paul and his missionary strategy
later).
5. Key people: The importance of key figures in the expansion of the church i.e. Peter, Philip,
and Paul in particular.
6. Inclusiveness: Acts reveals the way in which Christianity crossed racial, gender and social
boundaries as it spread. Hence, it has a strong emphasis on the spread of the gospel to the
Jews first and then to the Gentiles (and Samaritans). As in the case of Luke’s Gospel, women
are freely mentioned. Particularly in the early part of Acts, concern for the poor and needy is
mentioned. However, these emphases of Luke are subsumed in the generality of the mission
to the ‘ends of the earth’ as the narrative develops.

23
Pneumatology is the study of the Spirit i.e. a theology of the Spirit.
303

Acts 1‐8
Text
The text of Acts has been preserved in two key forms:
1. The Accepted Text: One represented by the 4th Century Uncial 24 Sinaiticus (a) and Vaticanus
(B) which form the basis for most modern Greek texts and English translations.
2. The Western Text: Represented by the Uncial Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D). It is 10% longer than
the Accepted Text. As mentioned earlier, it is probably dated about 120AD. Some of the
additions are of interest including:
a. Acts 11:28: ‘and there was much rejoicing. And as we were gathered together…’
b. Acts 19:9: that Paul rented the hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus ‘from 11am to 4pm’.
c. Acts 15:20 adds to the list of things prohibited: ‘and not to do to others what they
would not like to be done to themselves.’

As Carson, Moo and Morris note, there are three positions taken on the Western Text:
1. It should be preferred: A small minority of scholars take it as the preferred text and the
accepted text as an abbreviated version of the original western text.
2. It is a different recension (line of textual transmission). That is, it is another version
emanating from the original; hence to be taken just as seriously.
3. A Secondary Modification of the Accepted Text: that is, as the text moved out and was
copied, additions were made to smooth out grammatical difficulties, clarify ambiguity,
expand references to Christ and add historical notes.

The third view is the majority view, critics believing it is a third or fourth century revision of the
original, shorter text of Acts.25 In my opinion, it is to be preferred.
Structure and purpose
Most scholars agree that the key point of reference for understanding the structure and purpose of
Acts is Acts 1:8: ‘but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my
witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’ We can break up the
narrative of Acts around this verse:
1. Spirit Power: You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you: 2:1‐4 (An emphasis
that flows through all of Acts [see below]).
2. Witnesses: The story of Acts is the story of mission centred around the witness of the first
Christians to their country‐people and then across cultural bounds as they ventured beyond
Jerusalem and Israel.
3. Jerusalem: The first sections of Acts (Chs 1‐8) focus on Jerusalem where Luke’s story ends.
This section is about the establishment of the church in the heart of Judaism. It is from
Jerusalem that the Gospel will radiate out.
4. All Judea and Samaria: The central section of Acts (Chs 8‐9) focused on the mission to
Samaria through Philip and to parts of Judea through Peter.
5. To the Ends of the Earth: The structure of Acts is not perfect; parts of chs 9‐12 tell the story
of the beginnings of Gentile mission with the conversion of Saul (9:1‐31), the conversion and
Spirit‐reception of the first Gentiles (Cornelius’ family) (10:1‐11:18) and the first real mission
to Gentiles in Antioch (11:19‐30). Acts 13‐28 tells the story of the spread of the gospel into
the nations of the world (‘the ends of the earth’) led by Paul.

24
The word Uncial is derived from uncialis (Lat) meaning ‘inch‐high.’ It refers to Greek and Latin writing in
capitals. The manuscripts have few spaces or punctuation. There are approximately 267 uncials. Three
important ones are the 4th century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the 5th century Codex
Alexandrius.
25
See further on text, Carson, Moo, Morris, Acts, 201.
304


As such, it is apparent that Acts 1:8 is programmatic for Acts in the much same way that Lk 4:16‐18 is
for Jesus’ ministry in Luke’s Gospel.
Acts at glance 26
This table demonstrates this structure:

FOCUS WITNESS IN JERUSALEM WITNESS IN WITNESS TO THE END OF THE
JUDEA AND EARTH
SAMARIA
REFERENCE 1:1 ‐2:47 3:1‐8:4 8:5 ‐12:25 13:1‐21:16 21:17 –28:31
DIVISION POWER OF PROGRESS OF EXPANSION OF PAUL’S THREE PAUL’S
THE THE CHURCH THE CHURCH JOURNEYS TRIALS
CHURCH
TOPIC JEWS JEWS AND GENTILES
SAMARITANS
PETER PHILIP and PETER PAUL
LOCATION JERUSALEM JUDEA AND ‘THE ENDS OF THE EARTH
SAMARIA
TIME 2 YEARS (AD 33–35) 13 YEARS (AD 35– 14 YEARS (AD 48–62)
48)

The first Church in Jerusalem: Factors that made it so effective
The account of the first church in Jerusalem is vital for our understanding of Christianity and its
ideals. It gives us insight into how those who lived with Jesus for his whole ministry and who
conversed with the risen Lord over those remarkable 40 days of appearances (1:3) sought to live as
the people of God. 27 A cursory reading of the text shows that the initial unity and growth of the
church were inspirational and dynamic. Reading more deeply, we can glean from the text features of
this church which are paradigmatic in giving us insight into the nature of church and mission. It is
important that we take note of these dimensions and carefully apply them to our world today. We
need to do this thoughtfully remembering that this church was established in a world very different
to ours. However, I am convinced that the principals are of vital importance in forming the bedrock
of our understanding of what church should reflect. Here then, we will summarise the factors that
led to the dynamism of the first church. While the focus of these notes is on the first church in
Jerusalem, I will make reference to other examples in Acts 9‐28 where appropriate.
A God‐honouring Church
Just Luke’s Gospel is Trinitarian in emphasis, so is his account of the early church. First is his
emphasis on God. As in the case of Luke, behind the narrative of Acts is the story of God’s salvation.
Aside from pronouns, God is mentioned directly 180x in Acts! Now that’s a lot! He is the source for
Jesus, the Spirit, his salvation and the dynamics of the mission. It is God’s Kingdom which Jesus has
established (1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23). It is God who is the object of their praise and reverence
(2:5, 11, 47; 3:8, 9; 4:21, 24; 5:29‐32; 7:55‐56; 10:2‐4, 22, 31; 12:5, 23; 16:14, 25; 17:4; 18:7, 13;

26
Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts: Old and New Testaments. Electronic ed. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1996.
27
On a personal level; if I was given the opportunity to travel back in time to spend 40 days in one time or
place; this would be it.
305

Acts 1‐8
21:20; 24:14; 26:29; 27:35; 28:15, 28). It is God who pours out his Spirit in accordance with OT
expectation (2:22). God is the empowering agent who fulfills his promises and works sovereignly
through his Son Jesus to bring his salvation by allowing his Son to be crucified according to his will, by
raising him from the dead and exalting him to God’s right hand. This view of God features
prominently throughout and particularly in the sermons of Acts (2:22‐39; 3:13‐15, 18‐26; 4:10;
10:34‐46; 13:6‐37; 17:23‐31; 19:11; 21:19; 22:14; 26:7‐8). 28

Their proclamation is the ‘word of God’ indicating that it is God’s message of salvation that stands in
continuity of the proclamation of the OT prophets and Jesus himself that they preach (4:31; 6:2, 7;
8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 46; 15:7‐14; 17:13; 18:11 cf. 20:27). Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 highlights
the first Jerusalem Christians’ understanding of the continuity between the God of the OT, to Jesus
and now into the early church (cf. Acts 7 mentions God 18x!). Jesus is God’s Son (9:20) who brings
the ministry of God into human history to the ends of the earth to Jew and Gentiles (cf. 11:17‐19;
14:27; 15:4; 16:10; 28:28). This gospel is the ‘grace of God’ (Acts 6:8; 11:23; 13:43; 14:26; 20:24) and
to believe in Christ is to believe in God (16:33, 34 cf. Acts 20:21; 26:18, 20; 27:25). Those who believe
follow the ‘way of God’ (18:26). The church is described as ‘the church of God’ (20:28). There are
angelic visitations from God who guide the movement (5:19; 8:26; 10:3‐7; 12:7‐11; 27:23) as in the
OT (7:35, 38). Just as Acts begins with the resurrected Jesus teaching them about the Kingdom of
God, it ends with Paul preaching God’s salvation and Kingdom in Rome (cf. 1:3; 28:28‐31). God the
Father is in reality, the central character of Luke‐Acts.

As such our preaching and worship should be consistently referring to God as sovereign, his mission
(missio dei), his purposes, his plans, his guidance, his priority, his initiative. We do not need to go as
far as some of our forebears did who advocated a harsh Calvinistic determinist and even fatalist
approach; however, God omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent should be glorified in all we say
and do.
A Christ‐centered Church
The second person of the Trinity, Jesus, features prominently as God’s agent of salvation. It is clear
from the start that the risen Christ was the foundation of the first church in Jerusalem. We see this
from the introduction to Theophilus where, first, Luke reminds him of his first book focussed on
Christ (Luke), and then the resurrection appearances of Jesus are stressed (1:3). The last instruction
of Christ in both Luke and Acts is to wait to be empowered for mission by the promised Spirit (Lk
24:49; Acts 1:4‐5). They obey him and are ‘clothed with power from high’ as he promised (Lk 24:49).
The Spirit then, sovereignly and through the believers, extends the work of Christ. Obedience to
Christ is seen from the beginning, their acceptance of his command to remain in Jerusalem (1:5, 12).
Their emphasis on prayer (see further below) indicates their reliance of Jesus. The importance of
Jesus as the building block for the new church is seen in the determination to replace Judas with
someone who had been with Jesus throughout his ministry and who was a witness to the
resurrection (1:21‐23).

Jesus also forms the basis of the message they take to Jerusalem and beyond. He is the main subject
of the sermons of Peter (and Paul later) including his earthly ministry of miracles, his suffering and
death, his resurrection, his exaltation and session, the giving of the Holy Spirit and the need to
respond by repentance and baptism into ‘the name of Jesus Christ’ (2:22‐39; 3:12‐26; 4:8‐12; 10:34‐
43). Notably the receipt of the Sprit is linked to the proclamation of Christ (e.g. 10:44). In a summary
statement, Luke records that they ‘continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus’,

28
God works through Jesus’ in wonders by his providence and then raises Jesus. The use of God’s name is
particularly intense in the sermons of Acts where God is mentioned with great frequency as the one who
providentially brought his salvation through Jesus.
306

illustrating how central Christ was to their life and message (4:33). Similarly Luke writes that Philip
went to Samaria and ‘proclaimed the Christ (Messiah) there’ (8:5); ‘preached the good news of the
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ’ (8:12).

Miracles are performed ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’, Jesus given the credit for empowering the
healing of the disabled beggar at the gate Beautiful (3:6; 4:10). When Peter and John were released
from prison by the Sanhedrin, their response was to pray to Jesus (‘Sovereign Lord’ [4:24]) to do
further miracles and empower their proclamation (4:30). When Peter healed Aenas, the bedridden
paralytic, he states, ‘Jesus Christ heals you.’ In other words, Peter is a mere messenger and agent of
Jesus the healer.

When commanded not to speak of Jesus anymore, the apostles refused, considering it more
important to obey God rather than the Sanhedrin. The magnitude of what they had seen and
experienced in Christ meant that they could not hold back. Obedience to Christ ruled the Jerusalem
church (4:17‐20). To obey Christ’s appeal to preach the gospel was to obey God (5:29). After being
rebuked again by the Sanhedrin, ‘day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they
never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news (euangelion) that Jesus is the Christ
(Messiah).’

The believers were baptised ‘into the name of the Lord Jesus’ (8:16; 10:48) indicating entering a new
realm and way of living; to coin Paul’s phrase, they were ‘in Christ’. Paul too, on his conversion in
which he saw and heard Christ (9:1‐6), centred his message on Jesus, preaching that he ‘is the Son of
God’ (9:21) and ‘proving that Jesus is the Christ’ (9:22).

This emphasis on Christ extended as the church spread out in Acts 11‐28. He brings messages to
believers and is the object of worship (13:2) and prayer (11:8), the one who imparts the Spirit
(11:16). This Spirit of Jesus/Christ guides the mission (Acts 16:7; 18:9; 22:8‐21; 23:11). He is the
‘Lord’, and so is YHWH among the first believers and is supreme over all Greco‐Roman and other
‘lords’ including ‘Caesar’ (e.g. 11:17, 20, 21; 17:7 [‘another king’]; 19:7; 20:21). He is the centre and
content of their message; ‘the good news about the Lord Jesus;’ ‘the word of the Lord’ (11:20; 13:12,
38, 44, 48, 49; 15:35, 36; 16:32; 17:3; 18:5, 25; 19:10, 20; 24:24; 28:23; 28:31). He is Messiah, the
long awaited Christ who suffered and rose, Paul preaching to Jews constantly seeking to prove that
Jesus was this Messiah, often to little avail (Acts 17:3; 18:5, 28). Conversion was based around
believing in Jesus as Lord (11:21, 23, 24). Miracles are attributed to Jesus (Acts 13:11; 14:3; 19:13).
He is saviour (Acts 13:23). The sermons of Paul centre strongly on Jesus (13:23, 24, 27, 33, 38; 17:3).
He is the fulfilment of prophecy (13:33 cf. Ps 2:7). He is the one who brings forgiveness. He is the
one who commissioned believers to take the gospel to the Gentiles (13:47; 20:24) and empowered
them to do so (14:3). Followers place their faith in Jesus (14:23; 16:15; 18:8), his grace saves where
faith is found (15:11, 40; 16:31; 20:21). It is for Jesus that believers work and serve (Acts 20:19),
risking life and limb (15:26). He is sovereign over the mission, opening hearts to receive the message
(Acts 16:14). The name of Jesus or Jesus Christ brings power for miracle (Acts 16:18). He converts
(Acts 22:8). His teaching was the blueprint for life, ‘the way of the Lord’ (Acts 18:25). This teaching is
the basis of their ethic (Acts 20:35). It is into Christ’s name that new believers are baptised (Acts
19:5) and by his name that they minister (Acts 19:14, 17) and for his name they are prepared to die
(Acts 21:13). It is his will they live for (Acts 21:14). His death and resurrection is central to their
proclamation (Acts 13:36; 17:31‐32; 25:19; 26:23)

Hence, it is clear that Christ formed the foundation of the first church. The implication we can draw
from this is that Christ must form the basis of any church. His power and name sustains, empowers
and animates the church. He is the subject of the message. He is the locus of life, the focus of our
attention. Our efforts are merely continuing his work as he commands. Obedience to Christ is
307

Acts 1‐8
foundational for any church of Christ. There is no room here for a truncated Christ; he is the full
Christ, the Messiah. He is Jesus, who is continuous from his earthly existence and this earthly
existence recorded in the Gospels are our foundation. He is the resurrected Lord! There is no notion
of a limited Christ without resurrection or with a spiritualised resurrection. He is Christ the Lord. Our
preaching and songs should centre around him and the historical event of his full life and,
particularly, his death and resurrection, the lynch‐pin of history.

A Spirit‐empowered Church
The third dimension of the Trinity is the Spirit. In Acts, the Spirit runs through the narrative like a red
thread. As noted previously, Luke’s Gospel stresses more than the other Synoptics the Spirit‐
dimension of Jesus’ ministry (cf. Acts 10:38; Lk 3:16, 22; 4:1, 14, 18; 10:21). The expectation of the
Spirit coming upon believers is anticipated in Luke from John’s ministry on and is fulfillled in Acts (cf.
Lk 3:16; 11:13; 12:12; 24:49). In Acts the Spirit is everywhere, from the beginning and end. If Christ is
the fountain, the Spirit is the water who runs from the fountain feeding the first disciples in the first
church and empowering them for the task at hand. This is seen throughout.

First, they are told to wait for the Spirit until he comes (1:4, 8, 12; 2:1‐4). There must be
empowerment before evangelism!

Secondly, the purpose of the Spirit’s coming is empowerment for mission, ‘to be my witnesses’ (1:8).
If tongues play a part at some of the comings of the Spirit in Acts, this is not the decisive point or
sign; mission is! Indeed this is exactly what happens when the Spirit does come; his impact has a
dramatic effect on the disciples, and subsequently on the general populace through Peter’s
proclamation, healing and the phenomenal koinōnia (fellowship) of the Jerusalem Church. At Paul’s
conversion and Spirit‐baptism, he almost immediately goes out into the Synagogues of Damascus to
preach the message that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah! (9:20‐22). This mission emphasis is
seen when Peter faces the Sanhedrin and courageously refuses to yield to their command to desist
from preaching the message. Luke describes Peter as ‘filled with the Spirit’ (4:8) and the Sanhedrin
are amazed at Peter and John’s courage (4:13). Boldness to proclaim is the work of the Spirit. This
power is seen where the believers prayed for God to move in signs and wonders and empowerment
for mission. The response is the filling of the Spirit and boldness to preach the gospel (4:31). Stephen
too was a man full of the Spirit who spoke by the Spirit; so much so, that his opponents could not
stand up to him (6:10).

In addition, the Spirit is the guiding force for the mission in all of Acts. This is seen when Philip is
guided first by an angel to intersect the journey of an Ethiopian Eunuch and then by the Spirit to
stand near his chariot (8:29). This leads to a discussion over Is 53 which climaxes in the African’s
conversion and baptism. After this Philip is ‘suddenly taken away’ by the Spirit of the Lord and
appears to translate to Azotus where he continues his mission. Peter too is guided specifically by the
voice of the Spirit (10:19) who tells him that he should not hesitate to go with the visitors from
Cornelius. At the same time, the Spirit has led Cornelius to reach out to Peter through an angel
(10:3‐4). This leads to the conversion of the first Gentiles. This Spirit‐led dynamic is seen later in the
accounts of Paul first where the initial mission is released because ‘the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for
me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”’ (13:1); and secondly, where he is
forbidden by the Spirit to preach in Bithynia and Asia and is directed in a vision to Macedonia (16:6‐
9). It is this compulsion of the Spirit that encouraged Paul to go to Jerusalem despite prophetic
warnings from the same Spirit against doing so (20:23; 21:4). Authentic evangelism is Spirit‐guided
evangelism.

308

Thirdly, the Scriptures are sourced in the Spirit. In 1:16 Peter states that ‘the Scripture … which the
Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David’ (1:16). That is, ‘David wrote, the Holy Spirit
spoke!’ (cf. 4:25). Interestingly when Philip connects with the Ethiopian Eunuch, he finds in Is 53:7‐8
the good news about Jesus; written proleptically and prophetically 800 years previous. These point
to the importance of the OT and the Word of God to the first Christians (more below).

Fourthly, the importance of the Spirit is seen in the Spirit’s dramatic comings throughout Acts. There
are five such examples in Acts. These five moments of reception are in the main at critical points: 1)
The First Jewish Believers Empowered; 2) The First Samaritan Believers Empowered; 3) The Great
Missionary to the Gentiles Empowered; 4) The First Gentiles Empowered. The fifth breaks the
pattern a little, with the believers in Ephesus being empowered. They are the first Asian converts
however and so, it is possible that these Spirit‐receptions are so dynamic due to the Lord
establishing his mission at the initial point of conversion.

The table and notes below summarise the different experiences. What is important to note is the
variety of venues, modes, recipients, agents, manifestations and timing in relationship to faith and
baptism. There is no clear pattern which should guard against overly‐schematic theologies of Spirit‐
reception which some Christians argue for.

The Various Outpourings in Acts Summarised
Text Venue M ode Recipient Agent Manifestations Timing
2:1‐4f Jerusalem, Sovereign Jerusalem God Tongues, After faith,
Temple Outpouring. Believers. sovereignly. mission. water
Courts. baptism
8:1‐17 Samaria, The laying on Samaritan God through Something After faith,
Public of hands. Believers. Apostles unspecified but water
Setting. Peter, John. visible, baptism
opposition.
9:1‐22 Home of The laying on Paul. God through Healing, After faith,
Judas on of hands. Ananias an mission. before
Straight ordinary water
Street. ‘disciple’. baptism.
10:44‐ Home of Sovereign Cornelius God Tongues, During a
48 Cornelius, a Outpouring. a Gentile sovereignly. praise. sermon
Gentile family (after
soldier faith?) and
before
water
baptism.
19:1‐20 Unspecified. The laying on Ephesian God through Tongues, After faith
of hands. believers. Apostle Paul. prophecy. and water
baptism.

Pentecost
The first and most powerful coming is the initial outpouring at Pentecost as anticipated by the
disciples on the basis of Jesus’ promise (2:1‐4). It came on a day of great spiritual significance to
Israel; Pentecost, being associated with the first fruits of the harvest. This outpouring then is the first
fruits of the Spirit’s harvest on earth. It is noticeable that there are four visible and powerful
manifestations at this coming. First, we have a sound like a violent wind filling the house. Secondly
there is the sight of tongues of fire. Notably the Spirit is impartial, falling on each one of the 120 or
309

Acts 1‐8
so, including men and women, (1:14‐15) so that all were filled. Thirdly, we have the experience of
speaking in tongues (glossalalia/xenoglossy) 29 empowered by the Spirit. Finally, we have the mission
that flows from the experience. The impact of the tongues speaking spreads to the bemused crowds
who gather, Peter preaches boldly promising the crowds the Spirit, and there is a huge response,
3000 people baptised in one day! What would that have been like? How would we handle this
today?

Those who received the Spirit here were Jews, received it spontaneously without human agency and
after baptism and faith. The map below shows where these pilgrims are from and so how this
catalysed the spread of the gospel. It is here that the church spreads to Rome, to Africa, to northern
Asia Minor (cf. 1 Pet 1). Note that it is the sovereign work of God through the Spirit that causes this
spread, a feature of Luke’s Acts narrative.

The Locus of Pilgrims and the Spread of the Gospel from Pentecost
30

29
The word comes from the Greek glōssolalia from glossa meaning ‘tongue, language’ and laleō ‘speak.’ Here
it is xenoglossy from xenoglōssia meaning ‘speaking in a foreign known language spontaneously. In Paul, he
refers to the tongues of angels and humanity (1 Cor 13:1). It is highly unlikely that the tongues in 1 Cor 14 are
known languages as in Acts 2 but something different i.e. mysterious Spirit‐given languages: 1) The speaker
does not speak to people but to God (v1); 2) No one understands the speaker (v2); 3) The speaker utters
mysteries with his spirit/the Spirit (v2); 4) Whereas one who prophesies speaks to people i.e. a known
language (v3); 5) The speaker does not edify the church (v4, 5); 6) Tongues are like indistinguishable or
meaningless sounds without meaning (vs7‐10); 7) The mind is unfruitful when one speaks in a tongue (v14); 8)
Others cannot concur with the prayer (if it was a language, someone would be able to translate it as they did in
Acts 2) (v16); 9) Unbelievers think they are mad; although they might not understanding them, they would not
think they are mad if they are speaking normal human languages (v23).
30
See Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps & Charts, no page.
310

Samaria
The second dramatic outpouring is in Samaria during Philip’s evangelisation of Samaria. He preached
and performed signs with dramatic effect, many being exorcised of demons and great joy filling the
city (8:7). There was also a power encounter with the local magi Simon. When Peter and John
became aware of what was happening, they came to Samaria and laid hands on the new converts
who ‘received the Holy Spirit’ (8:17). On this occasion there are no explicit manifestations but
certainly something happened, because Simon was aware of some spiritual effect and sought to
purchase the power (8:18). Those who received the Spirit here received him through apostles and
after faith and baptism (8:12).
Paul
The third outpouring of the Spirit came after the conversion of Saul. After his experience of the risen
Lord, Saul was blind and fasted in Damascus. A disciple named Ananias laid hands on him and he
received the Spirit. Note here that the agent of this Spirit‐ reception is not an ‘ordained’ leader or a
recognised ‘apostle’ but a ‘disciple’ i.e. an ordinary believer. Here there is one physical
manifestation, Paul’s healing, his eyesight restored (9:17‐19). Significantly Saul’s response was to
remain for several days then take to the synagogues, preaching the message. Here again, mission is
the primary sign of the coming of the Spirit (9:20). Note too that Paul received the Spirit after faith
but before baptism (9:18).
Cornelius’ family
The fourth outpouring comes upon the family of Cornelius, the first Gentile family to experience the
Spirit in this way. Peter enters the house of the Gentile (which is amazing!) and preaches the
message to them. As he is speaking, the Spirit falls upon the hearers of the message. Here there are
two manifestations, speaking in tongues, and praise of God (10:44‐46; 11:15‐17). This is the only
example of an outpouring in Acts that is not immediately followed by mission from the recipients.
However, in the narrative this leads to the endorsement of the whole Gentile mission.
Ephesus
The final experience of the Spirit comes in Ephesus. Paul travels to Ephesus and finds some disciples
there who have neither been baptized into the name of Jesus nor been filled with the Spirit. He then
baptized them (19:5) and placed his hands on them. There are two manifestations on this occasion,
speaking in tongues and prophesying (19:6). In 19:10 mission flowed from these believers as the
gospel went out through all of Asia over 2 years. In this time the Colossian and Laodicean churches
were planted by Epaphras (Col 1:6) and the Seven Churches of Revelation were probably planted (cf.
Rev 2‐3). Note that here the Spirit is received after faith and after or during baptism (it is unclear)
through the laying on of Paul’s hands.

In each outpouring something evidentiary occurred, but it varied. The claim that tongues is the sign
of the reception of the Spirit in Acts and/or in the NT does not stand up on scrutiny. First, there is no
evidence of believers speaking in tongues in the NT at all apart from in Paul.31 Paul makes it clear
that, despite that he spoke in tongues himself (1 Cor 14:18) and wishing that all spoke in tongues as
he does (1 Cor 14:5), not all do. Just as, not all are apostles, prophets or teachers; not all speak in
tongues (1 Cor 12:28). For Paul, the criteria for one having received the Spirit is that they will not
dare to curse Christ but will confess from their heart that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor 12:3 cf. Rom 10:9). 32

31
There is no evidence whatsoever of Jesus speaking in tongues. It is not mentioned in the writings of
Matthew, John, Peter, James, Jude or the writer to the Hebrews. It is mentioned in the longer ending of Mark
but this text is almost certainly inauthentic (see discussion earlier in the course).
32
The whole issue in 1 Cor 12:1‐3 is the Corinthian obsession with speaking gifts and especially tongues. Paul
refutes that tongues or any other gift are the prime mark of receiving the Spirit; rather, it is that a person with
311

Acts 1‐8

In Acts, it is only on occasion that tongues are seen (Pentecost, Cornelius, Ephesus); on others it is
unspecified (Samaria, Paul). 33 Other manifestations include prophesying, praise and healing. Mission
flows on all occasions except Cornelius; although this did become a decisive factor in the opening up
of Gentile mission at the Jerusalem Council (15:7‐8). On a tangent, it is notable that there is no
necessary connection in Acts between conversion and the Spirit. On most occasions the disciples
believe before receiving. However, in Cornelius’ case, the coming of the Spirit and conversion are co‐
terminus. Similarly there is no real connection between water baptism and receipt of the Spirit.
Sometimes the Spirit precedes baptism, sometimes if follows. It would appear hard to systematize
the Spirit on the evidence of Luke’s presentation cf. Jn 3:8 (‘the Spirit blows where the Spirit
chooses’ like the wind).

Fifthly, for the early Christians, the coming of the Spirit was the fulfilment of the hope of the OT. This
is explicit in Peter’s first sermon, where the Spirit is explained in terms of the promise of Joel 2:28‐
32. Here Peter declares the day to be the ‘last day’ and the fulfilment of the Spirit coming on all
people, young men, old men, women; causing them to prophesy, have visions and dream. This
inclusiveness is seen as the Spirit falls not only on Jews or leaders but on women (2:1‐4 [cf. 1:14]), on
Samaritans (8:17), the persecutor Paul (9:17) and Gentiles (10:46‐47; 19:6 cf. Lk 3:16). Thus the
coming of the Spirit fulfilled OT expectations of the Messiah filled with the Spirit (cf. Is 11:1‐3; 42:1;
61:1‐2; Lk 4:18‐21; Acts 10:38) and a new era where the Spirit is written on the hearts of God’s
people from every nation (cf. Is 44:3; Ezek 11:19; 36:26‐27; 39:29; Joel 2:28‐29 cf. Zech 12:10). It is
thus ‘the promised Holy Spirit’ (cf. 2:33) given as a gift (cf. 2:39) to all who believe and obey the
gospel (5:32).

Sixthly, the source of the Spirit is not only the Father, but Jesus who ‘has received from the Father the
promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear’ (2:38). It is he who baptises
with ‘the Holy Spirit and fire’ (Lk 3:16; Acts 11:16). This has critical importance for students of church
history and the filioque clause34 which divided the church between East and West at the turn of the
first millennium (see also Jn 16:7).

Seventhly, it was clearly the expectation of the first Christians that all who subsequently came to
believe in Jesus and were baptized would receive the Spirit (2:38‐39; 5:32).

Eighthly, the Spirit is connected to healing and miracles. Although the Spirit is not directly
mentioned, the prayer, ‘stretch out your hand to heal…,’ indicates the work of the Spirit as the hand
of Jesus. Interestingly, after the prayer, they were ‘filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of
God boldly’ (4:31) and God moved powerfully in healing and the miraculous (5:12‐16).

Ninthly, the Spirit is connected to the wonderful material koinōnia of the church. This connection is
implicit not explicit. After the prayer of the disciples for God to move in power in signs and wonders
(5:12‐16) and bold proclamation (see 4:31), the impact on the church went well beyond these two
manifestations into the dynamic koinōnia and sharing of the church (4:32‐5:11).

the Spirit would never curse Christ (e.g. under interrogation), but would confess Jesus as Lord (and live it). The
other mark of the Spirit for Paul is love (1 Cor 12:31‐13:13: ‘the most excellent way’). He also states in a
different context that there is an inward witness to the Spirit which confirms our reception of it in Rom 8:16.
33
It is possible that the visible sight in Samaria is tongues (cf. 8:18); however, this is not certain.
34
The Roman Catholic (Western Church) argued that the Spirit proceeds from God the Father and Jesus Christ.
The Eastern Orthodox Church argued that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and not Jesus. This would
support the Western Church.
312

Tenth, where there were outbreaks of spiritual power and renewal there was inevitably clashes with
the authorities. This is seen in the example of the healing of the disable beggar which led to Peter
and John being hauled before the authorities (4:1‐20). Similarly, after the power of God was seen in
healings, proclamation and koinōnia, they were again taken before the Sanhedrin (5:17‐40).
Ultimately the church was broken up after the death of Stephen (8:1‐4).

Eleventh, the mode of the Spirit’s reception is described in different ways throughout the narrative.
There is the notion of baptism in/by/with (en) the Spirit. John’s baptism of repentance is contrasted
from the start of the Gospels and into Acts with Jesus’ baptism in the Spirit and with fire (Lk 3:16). So
for example 1:5: ‘For John baptized with/in water, but in a few days you will be baptized with/in (ev)
the Holy Spirit.’ Similarly in 11:16 in Peter’s report to the Jerusalem Church of the outpouring on
Cornelius’ family, he contrasts baptism with water by John and being ‘baptised with/in the Holy
Spirit’. The concept of baptism suggests ‘to dip, immerse’; middle. ‘dip oneself, wash’ (in non‐
Christian lit. also ‘plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm’; fig. ‘soak’ Pla., Symp. 176b, etc.). 35 In other
words, baptism in the Spirit means to be thoroughly overwhelmed by the personal presence of God.

Although the term baptism is not used in 8:17, it would seem that the experience of receiving the
Spirit through the apostolic laying on of hands in this passage is the same experience. Hence, Luke
uses different language to describe the experience, here, ‘they received (lambanō) the Spirit’ (8:17;
10:47). He also states that the Spirit ‘had not yet fallen (epipiptō) upon them’ (8:16; 10:44). In 10:45
the Spirit is ‘poured out’ (ekchunnō) upon the first Gentile believers. The notion of ‘being filled’
(pimplemi) with the Spirit is used at various points indicating it is another way of speaking of the
same experience. For example in 2:4; ‘all of them were filled with the Spirit’. In 4:8, Peter was filled
with the Spirit as he addressed the Sanhedrin. In 4:31 when the room was shaken, ‘all were filled
with the Holy Spirit’ and this led to courageous evangelism. Paul was filled with the Spirit initially in
9:17 and again in 13:9. Due to this freedom Luke has to move from metaphor to metaphor in his
description of the receipt of the Spirit, we should not get too hung up on the different language as if
each is a different type of experience. Rather, Luke uses the language fluidly and interchangeably;
each metaphor helps describe the indescribable and gives a different slant or insight into the
extraordinary and wonderful experience of receiving God’s Spirit within us; a truly glorious miracle!

Finally, the Jewish opponents of the early Christians were seen as those who ‘resist the Holy Spirit’
(7:51). Stephen here is not merely alluding to rejection of the first Christians message, or of Christ,
but of the whole history of Jewish people who have failed to honour God (‘your fathers’). In every
generation, there are those who resist the Spirit.
Conclusion
John highlights the function of the Spirit in support and comfort (Jn 14:16), bringing truth (Jn 14:17;
16:13), reminding the believer of Jesus’ teaching (14:26), giving testimony to Christ (Jn 15:26),
conviction (16:8‐11) and bringing glory to Christ (16:14). Paul emphasises the work of the Spirit in
generating gifts for the good of the church (Rom 12:3‐8; 1 Cor 12:1‐31; Eph 4:11‐16) and
sanctification (Rom 8:1‐17; Gal 5:22‐25).

35
Arndt, William, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek‐English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and
Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch‐Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen
Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, c1979.
313

Acts 1‐8
Luke emphasises the coming of the Spirit, the experience of the baptism of the Spirit and the
importance of the Spirit for church unity, life and especially mission. Hence, he presents a rich
theology of the Spirit placing the Spirit in the driving seat for church life and mission. Contemporary
church life and mission should be no different. It should be led by the Spirit, empowered by the
Spirit, guided by the Spirit and the verbal witness of the church should be placed alongside acts of
grace and healing (i.e. signs and wonders) of the Spirit.

A well‐led Church
Another feature of the Jerusalem Church is the leaders of the church and the movement. Prominent
is Peter who has a strong role in preaching and the miraculous through the first half of Acts. He is
clearly the leader of the church, standing as spokesman at the appointment of Matthias (1:15‐26;
3:12). The decision however, is not made by the leader Peter, but rather by the group but with his
initiative (1:26). 36 This indicates that Peter and the first Apostles resisted the notion of autocratic
leadership, preferring a consultative model. Similarly, he is the spokesman on other occasions
throughout (2:11‐41; 3:1; 4:8). Surprisingly he fades out of the limelight after Chapter 12, although
he does play a prominent and important role in the circumcision debate (15:7‐11).

John too is mentioned in connection with Peter on a number of occasions pointing to his prominent
role alongside Peter; however Peter seems to do most of the talking (3:1; 4:4, 13; but see 4:1, 19).
There is surprisingly little mention of other apostles except in general (e.g. 5:29). The appointment
of Matthias indicates an initial need to retain the concept of the 12. However, there is no indication
that this was to be continued contra‐Catholic thinking. Indeed, if the two qualifications for
apostleship remained in Luke’s mind, the continuation of the apostolic ministry would have died as
those who were with Jesus died out. However, there is possible evidence of the wider concept of
apostle in Acts 14:14 where Barnabas and Paul are both called ‘apostles’ by Luke.

Flexibility in leadership is seen in the appointment of the Seven to distribute food to the Grecian
Jewish widows. Rather than get caught up in this service, the leaders established another group to
take on the role, and concentrated on prayer and preaching (6:4). Again it is significant that while
the proposal came from the 12, the ‘proposal pleased the whole group’, indicating an egalitarianism
in decision making under the guidance of wise leadership. This led to further spreading of the word
and saw the release of a new group of leaders. Prominent were Stephen whose ministry was
powerful and effective and ultimately ended unjustly (6‐7), Philip who led the mission to Samaria
(8:4‐40) and Barnabas (11‐15).

This flexibility is seen in the ministry of Saul, converted Pharisee who took on the Greek name Paul.
His acceptance as a leader was especially significant in the spread of the Gospel. Other key leaders in
this regard mentioned in Luke are Barnabas and Silas. While women are not mentioned as apostles,
the Seven or elders in Acts, Priscilla is active in mission, hosting others for worship and teaching
alongside her husband Aquila. Interestingly, she is mostly named ahead of Aquila (5/7x) by Luke that
possibly indicates some level of priority (Priscilla first: 18:18, 19, 26 cf. Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19; Aquila
first: 18:2; Rom 16:19). Some of the converts were women of high standing (17:4, 12, 34). Lydia is
also interesting, hosting Paul and his team at her house indicating she is a woman of means (16:14).

A strong feature of all the leaders mentioned in Acts is that they modelled Christian living. They are
found preaching, praying, laying hands on others. They showed amazing courage before persecution
refusing to relent on the call of mission, Stephen and James even dying for the cause. They remind
me of the great All Black leaders of our sporting history who led by example; spilling blood for the

36
On the basis of lots.
314

jersey and calling people to follow (e.g. Meads, Lochore, Whineray, Mourie, Shelford, Fitzpatrick,
McCaw). They are not distant figures in offices directing troops into battle while they themselves are
separate from the battle. They are like Alexander the Great and others of Greco‐Roman history who
led their armies into battle. They were engaged and led by example. Christianity is more often
caught than taught. These leaders and knew this and led the way. Paul was similar, in his letters,
calling for imitation of his life (e.g. 1 Cor 4:15; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:19). Jesus led in this way, taking
people under his wing and travelling with them, showing them how, talking it through with them,
mentoring them and treating them apprentices.
Conclusion
The issue of leadership is always crucial. This church had great leadership who were not scared to
make decisions and lead yet in a non‐autocratic manner, including all believers in their decision
making. One of the great stories of the NT is the journey of Peter from the stumbling, spontaneous
fisherman to the great leader we see in Acts. Clearly he was not perfect (see his development in the
Synoptics and his clash with Paul in Gal 2:11‐14), but he is a great paradigm of the progress of a
Christian leader. The role of others cannot be underplayed as well especially Philip, Stephen, and
John and later in the story, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy and Silas. The leaders of the Jerusalem Church
appeared to be able to bring together the aspects of flexibility, participative leadership along with
leadership by example. This latter point stands out the most to me. Peter, John and other leaders
were prepared to lead, standing up before persecution and showing the way ahead.
An evangelistic Church
Another powerful feature of the Jerusalem Church is their commitment to evangelism. By
‘evangelism’ here and throughout, I mean the proclamation of the gospel not in any set sense like
street‐corner evangelism but in terms of the basic meaning of the euang‐ set of words (good news)
i.e. ‘verbal communication of the message.’ This can include personal 1‐1 evangelism (5:42), family
evangelism (within a family gathering) (see ‘households in 11:14; 16:15, 31; 18:8 cf. 1 Cor 7:17),
market place open air agora evangelism (14:8‐18; 17:18f), proclamation in a gathered community
(e.g. synagogue cf. church, camp etc e.g. 14:1; 18:4), family evangelism (1 Cor 7:15; 1 Pet 3:1‐7),
apologetic defensive proclamation (cf. Acts 4‐5; Col 4:6; 1 Pet 3:15), verbal witness to Christ (Acts
1:8). What is meant here by evangelism is the verbal communication of the gospel message with the
intention of convincing someone to believe that Jesus is saviour and Lord that they may accept God’s
gracious offer of salvation by faith. It is always in the NT linked to a whole life given over to Christ,
ethical witness (living Jesus’ way), love and is a collective rather than just individual notion.

This emphasis on evangelism is prominent from the outset in Acts 1:8 where the Spirit empowers
the believers for witness. It is significant that the Spirit came upon all the church including the
women, suggesting that the witness was corporate encompassing all believers and not just apostles
and evangelists (2:4). However, while their evangelism was inclusive it also focused on key leaders.
This accords with the NT pattern of especially gifted and called evangelistic leaders leading the
mission and equipping others for evangelism (cf. Eph 4:11‐16).

That the evangelistic mission extended beyond the disciples is seen in members of the Seven
Stephen (6:5), Philip (8:4‐40), and especially the non‐apostles, men and women (8:3) who took the
word with them when they were scattered after the great persecution of Acts 8 (8:1, 4). There are
also a wide group involved in the extension of the gospel from Psidian Antioch (13:49) and Ephesus
into all of Asia Minor (19:10‐20).

Evangelism is opportunistic rather than systematic in Acts. The first sermon of Peter comes from a
dynamic move of God which leads to the disciples’ speaking in tongues which in turn, leads to
enquiry from the community. Peter takes up the opportunity brilliantly, preaching a sermon based
315

Acts 1‐8
on the Spirit, and a huge number are saved. The second great evangelistic opportunity comes after
the healing of the disabled man which leads to a great swath of interest in what had happened.
Again Peter takes the opportunity to preach the message, this time referring to Jesus’ miracle
power, with great effect (3:11‐12). A third occasion for evangelism is linked to persecution. Peter
and John take the opportunity to witness before the Sanhedrin and refuse to yield to their appeal to
desist (4:1‐3). Another example of this opportunism is seen when the church apart from the apostles
are scattered. Luke records that those who were scattered ‘preached the word wherever they went’
(8:4). Luke records some went as far as Antioch which became a centre for the next phase of
mission, north‐east to Rome and so the gospel went to the Gentiles (11:19‐21). In Paul’s mission the
same applies, with Paul’s sermon in 13:16‐41 an example of Paul’s messages to Jews in the
Synagogue. This is probably the only example we have of a ‘systematic’ sermon, possibly the gist of
what Paul preached to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. In Derbe Paul’s
message is brilliantly drawn from the locals desire to deify Paul and Barnabas as Hermes and Zeus,
Paul preaching against idolatry and the God of nature and morality (14:15‐18). In Athens, Paul takes
an opportunity to preach to the philosophical guild at the Areopagus and picks up the notion of the
unknown god, God in history and Greek poets (17:17‐31).

Evangelism is intimately linked to the work of the Spirit. This is evident at Pentecost, where the
outpouring of the Spirit generates the interest of the people and Peter preaches with great effect.
Similarly the healing of the disabled man at the gate leads to the preaching of the word. The
connection is seen after the prayer in Acts 4 where there are many healed, the disciples preach
boldly and more and more are added to their number. Again in Philip’s mission to Samaria, he
proclaims and moves in signs and wonders including deliverance (8:4‐7). Evangelism then does not
stand alone from healing. As in the Gospels in Jesus ministry, the two dynamics of healing by the
Spirit and preaching work together in harmony to see effective evangelism. The leading of the Spirit
is also decisive in the ministries of Philip (8:29, 39‐40); Peter (10:19) and Paul (16:6‐9). The
opportunities referred to above are a result of the work of the Spirit in healing and opportunity.

Evangelism is also effective in the initial parts of Acts. The impact is amazing. This seen in its impact
and the growth of the community:
1. The people were cut to the heart and sought salvation (2:37).
2. 3000 were added in one day (2:41).
3. The number of people added up to 5000 (4:4).
4. Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their
number (5:14).
5. ‘The Word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a
large number of priests became obedient to the faith’ (6:7)!
6. ‘There was great joy in that city’ (Samaria [8:8]).
7. After the conversion and preaching of Paul in Jerusalem is written: ‘then the church
throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and
encouraged by the Holy Spirit; it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.’
8. After the gospel reaches Antioch with the scattered disciples: ‘The Lord’s hand was with
them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord’ (Acts 11:21).
9. The conclusion to ch 12: ‘but the word of God continued to increase and spread’; and the
scene is set for Paul and Barnabas to launch the next phase.
10. After the mission in Psidian Antioch, ‘the word of the Lord spread throughout the whole
region’ (13:49
11. From the base of the lecture hall in Tyrannus, ‘all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the
province of Asia (Asian Minor) heard the word of the Lord… ‘the word of the Lord spread
widely and grew in power’ (19:1‐20). In this time, the seven churches of Revelation were
probably planted (Rev 2‐3) along with the Colossian church (Col 1:6).
316


The evangelism of the first Christians however was not always met with joy; on occasion it caused a
negative response as well. This is seen throughout the narrative from the governing authorities in
particular leading to outbreaks of persecution (4, 5, 7‐8). However, the response of Peter, John and
the others was continued fervent proclamation despite their protestations.

The message of the first Christians is contained in the speeches of Acts. There are a number of these
including Peter at Pentecost (2:14‐20), in the temple (3:12‐26) and at Cornelius’ home (10:34‐42);
Stephen before the Sanhedrin (7:2‐53); Paul in Psidian Antioch (13:16‐41), Lystra (14:15‐18) and
Athens (17:22‐31), Jerusalem (22:1‐21) and before Agrippa (26:1‐23). The main theological
emphases include God and his work in creation and history; the fulfilment of OT hope (not in the
Gentile sermons); Jesus as the Messiah and Lord, relevant aspects of his ministry, his crucifixion and
resurrection; the expected response including repentance, renunciation of idolatry (to Gentiles).
They are very Jesus‐centred but vary greatly. In the final two messages, the dominant theme is
Paul’s testimony. What we can glean from these is that evangelistic messages were Spirit led,
contextually relevant and focussed on Jesus. It is interesting to compare the sermons to the Jews of
Peter and Paul (esp. Pentecost. Temple, Cornelius, Psidian Antioch) with Paul’s Gentile sermons
(Lystra, Athens). They are markedly different indicating the attempt to contextualise the message to
their audiences.

Evangelism in the Jerusalem Church is a non‐negotiable. Even on threat of death before the
Sanhedrin on two separate occasions, the apostles refused to stop sharing the message. This is seen
in their responses. For example in 4:19‐20: ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to
obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’ In
4:30 the church responds to being forbidden from preaching by praying for more boldness: ‘Now,
Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness.
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your
holy servant Jesus’. In 5:19‐20 after again being forbidden from preaching they are released by an
angel; Luke writes: ‘In addition, after further imprisonment, an angel released them and
commanded them to continue preaching ‘the full message of this new life.’ They are further
interrogated and say to the Sanhedrin: ‘we must obey God rather than people’ (5:29). This verse and
4:20 above indicate that for them, obedience to God required that they share the message, despite
persecution. In 5:42 after a flogging Luke records: ‘day after day, in the temple courts and from
house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ’
(5:42). Stephen too exemplifies this commitment, being put to death for sharing the faith (7:54‐8:1).
James too, was killed for his faith (12:1). Throughout the mission of Paul and Barnabas, they
encountered terrible persecution but continued to proclaim the gospel (see further below).

The clear implication here is that evangelism was a non‐negotiable to the first Christians despite the
persecution and suffering that this led to.

Evangelism in Acts is also intimately connected with experience. The emphasis is on witness and
testimony to ‘what we have seen and heard’ (4:20). They are witnesses to the resurrection. This is
not just individual, but collective, the collective experiences of God’s people as individuals and
corporately communicated to the world through attitude, life and word. Paul’s two defences in
Jerusalem and before Agrippa (Acts 22, 26) are full of his testimony of conversion. They spoke of
what they had seen and heard.

Evangelism in Acts was a priority of the church. The establishment of the Seven to feed the widows
was not only to solve the problem of feeding the Greek‐Jewish widows, but was motivated to ensure
that the apostles were free to focus on prayer and preaching (6:2,4). This indicates that evangelism
317

Acts 1‐8
was such a priority that leadership structures had to be reordered to preserve it. The result was that
the ‘word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number
of priests became obedient to the faith’ (6:7)!

Evangelism in Acts is governed by the sovereignty of God. It is clear from Luke’s narrative that the
gospel almost has a life of its own fuelled by the Spirit. It is a force that cannot be stopped (see esp.
Acts 6:7; 13:49; 19:10, 20 cf. Col 1:6; Phil 1:19‐20; 2 Tim 2:9). It will not be limited, it cannot be
chained! When they face persecution they continue to preach wherever they go. God moves by his
Spirit in healing and signs and wonders causing the gospel to spread. Jesus appears to Paul and
converts him from his antagonist into his agent to take the gospel to ‘the ends of the earth’. He
causes Peter to have visions which lead to the first Gentile conversions. It is clear that nothing will
stop the growth of the church and evangelism.

It is possible that one note of failure concerning evangelism is seen in the Cornelius’ event, In the
Great Commission recorded in Lk 24:46‐48 and Acts 1:8 there is a stress on ‘all nations’ and ‘every
nation’. Yet there is no real impulse in the first Christians to go to the Gentiles or even the
Samaritans with the Gospel until God moves sovereignly through persecution scattering the
Christians so that they took the Gospel to the Samaritans and Gentiles in Antioch (8:1‐17; 11:19‐23)
and through the Spirit in the Cornelius’ episode and Paul’s mission (Acts 10‐11; 9, 13‐28). It also
takes non‐apostles to get the ball rolling in this direction. This could indicate that the first Jewish
Christians did not grasp what Jesus meant and God had to move sovereignly to cause them to realise
the cosmic scope of mission. Similarly, the Judaising dispute and Jerusalem Council (cf. Acts 15)
indicates that they struggled to come to terms with the Gospel going to the Gentiles in a non‐Jewish
and Mosaic legal mode. It is also strange that Peter needed his three‐fold vision (Acts 10) to realise
that it was OK to go to the Gentiles with the Gospel. Their surprise at the outpouring of the Spirit
among the Jewish Christians also reinforces their lack of understanding (Acts 11). Interestingly
though, Luke does not include the material from Mk 7/Mt 15 concerning eating kosher food which
may have been intentional, as its inclusion would have reinforced this possibility. It may be that Luke
simply wanted to highlight the sovereignty of God in evangelism. That is, it was not failure, but the
way that God unfolded his cosmic plan. Anyway, I consider it possible that this all combines to
indicate that the first Christians remained locked into a Jewish mindset concerning the salvation of
the Gentiles i.e. through attraction to Judaism, circumcision and adherence to Christ in the context
of Judaism; and so failed to grasp the truly gracious and cosmic nature of God’s mission. Do we have
similar blind spots today?
Conclusion
The determination to continue in evangelism is without doubt, one of the dominant features of the
Jerusalem Church. They set examples for us that are difficult to emulate. Their leaders paved the
way and the people followed when the chance arose, taking the Gospel themselves as far as
Antioch. Their determination to let nothing stop them preaching the Gospel is an attribute this
nations church needs above all else.
A prayerful Church
Another key to the success of the Jerusalem Church was its dynamic prayer life. This is seen from its
inception. This concern continues the emphasis on prayer in Luke’s Gospel (cf. Lk 3:21; 5:16; 6:12,
28; 9:18, 28‐29; 11:1‐13; 18:1‐8, 10‐11; 21:32) often at significant points in Jesus’ ministry such as
the appointment of the twelve and the transfiguration. This is carried over into Acts.
Continuation with the prayer life of Judaism
A feature of their prayer life is their continuation of their Jewish commitment to prayer. In Acts 3:1
for example, Peter and John are en‐route to pray at the temple at the 9th hour i.e. 3pm. This accords
318

with the 3 Jewish times of prayer which included: 37 1) Early in the morning at the time of the
morning sacrifice; 2) At the ninth hour (3pm) at the time of the evening sacrifice; 3) At sunset (6pm).
In addition, in 10:9 Peter is prayer at noon. This could indicate that the first Christians were not not
constrained in keeping to these times. Alternatively, it could indicate continuity with devoted Jews
who prayed at noon on the basis of Ps 55:17: ‘evening, morning and noon I cry out in distress, and
he hears my voice’ (NIV) cf. Dan 6:12. Several other aspects of Jewish prayer come through. First,
there are Gentiles who either converted to Judaism through circumcision (proselytes [if male of
course]) and God‐fearers who prayed with the people of Israel (e.g. Cornelius [10:2]). Luke records
that the prayers of the God‐fearer Cornelius bring pleasure to God, his prayer and gifts being a
blessing to him (10:4, 30‐31). Secondly, in Philippi there was a gathering of women praying by the
river at a ‘place of prayer’ (proseuche) on the Sabbath (16:13, 16). This probably indicates that there
were not enough Jewish men to form a Synagogue. 38 Paul still utilises the opportunity to evangelise.
A Church bathed in prayer
There are some general statements which indicate that the first believers met regularly. In 1:14 Luke
records: ‘they all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother
of Jesus, and with his brothers.’ In Acts 2:42 Paul writes that they ‘devoted themselves to … prayer’
alongside devotion to the apostle’s teaching, fellowship and to communion. The Greek proskatereō
in these two texts indicates that they ‘busied themselves, were busily engaged in, or were devoted
to’ prayer. 39 ‘All’ (pas) and ‘the women etc’ is inclusive of the whole church and not some section
thereof; prayer was thus corporate and not just private and individual; something we in the west
must rediscover.

Just as prayer is found at critical times such as Jesus’ baptism, the selection of the twelve and the
transfiguration (Lk 3:21; 6:12; 9:27), we find prayer at critical times in the life of the church. For
example, at the selection of Matthias to replace Judas (1:24‐26), the appointment was made
through prayer: ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to
take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.’ 40 So, while they used lots
for the decision, which is unique in the NT and pre‐Pentecost and so probably not a model to be
emulated (cf. Prov 16:33), it was still bathed in prayer to ensure the right decision. There is also
prayer at the ‘commissioning of the Seven’ (6:1‐7 esp. v4). The setting apart of Paul and Barnabas for
their mission (13:1‐3) is also laden with prayer, the church at worship (leitourgeō) 41 and fasting. In
this context the Spirit spoke to the church calling them to set them apart for their mission (13:2).
Subsequent to this they again ‘fasted and prayed’ and ‘placed their hands on them and sent them
off’ (13:3). The elders (presbyteros) in the Pauline churches (e.g. 14:23) were chosen by Paul and
Barnabas and ‘with prayer and fasting’ they were entrusted to the Lord.

The church is found in prayer at times of crisis and Luke records that their prayers are very effective.
When told to desist from preaching by the Sanhedrin, the church gathers and responds in prayer
(4:23‐30 cf. Is 37:16‐20). The prayer is corporate. It is directed to God as ‘Sovereign Lord’

37
See Longenecker, Acts, 293.
38
According to Rabbinic teaching, Judaism required 10 males to form a synagogue (see Bruce, Acts, 310).
39
BDAG, 881.
u
S Rev 2:23
40
Some argue the church should have waited for God to appoint Paul to that position. Longenecker, Acts, 267
notes in response: 1) Paul was not with Jesus in his earthly life; 2) The necessity of 12 was symbolic and
religious i.e. to match the 12 tribes of Israel for Jewish mission, whereas Paul’s focus was ‘the Gentiles’; 3) Paul
himself recognized his apostleship was focused differently to the 12 cf. to the Gentiles, and he was
illegitimately born (1 Cor 15:7‐8).
41
Has the double meaning of service in a religious sense and of worship in the more contemporary sense.
319

Acts 1‐8
(despotēs). 42 It includes interpreting their current crisis and opponents on the basis of the OT, here
Ps 2:1‐2; a messianic psalm that anticipates global opposition to God’s Messiah. Herod, Pilate,
Romans and Jews are all implicated in this opposition. Yet, these Christians recognise that these
people are merely acting out the will of God, despite their apparent freedom and will. 43 Then they
turn to their appeal which is a direct challenge to their opponents: ‘consider their threats and enable
your servants to speak you word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform
miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus’ (4:30‐31).

This is a radical prayer. It is an appeal for increased boldness for evangelism and increased
manifestations of the Holy Spirit in miraculous signs. The impact of the prayer is dramatic. First, its
impact is immediate, the place is shaken and the disciples people have a fresh experience of being
filled with the Spirit which recalls Pentecost (4:30). Secondly, they experience increased boldness to
speak the word in the public domain, the camp of the enemy! (4:30). Just as Pentecost saw them
speak in tongues and the gospel proclaimed, here the gospel is further proclaimed. Finally, its impact
is seen longer term in subsequent events including radical economic sharing within the community
(see below [4:32, 34‐37]), powerful and effective evangelism (4:33), signs and wonders including
powerful healing even by Peter’s shadow (5:12‐16), death (5:1‐10) and growth (5:14). Ultimately this
led to further persecution and a renewed determination to continue to proclaim! (5:17‐42). 44

This commitment to pray in a crisis is also seen when Peter is in prison in Acts 12. James has been
beheaded and Peter imprisoned. The church’s response is to gather to pray at the home of Mary, the
mother of John Mark. The Greek tells us that the church was there (12:12), praying ‘eagerly,
fervently, constantly’ (12:5 [ektenos]). The impact is a powerful release of Peter through an angel.

The leaders of the church also prioritise prayer. The reason for the selection of the Seven in Acts 6 is
to release the leaders into prayer and proclamation. This is successful, as after the Seven are
appointed, the Apostles were able to focus their ministries back on these central tasks. Note the
impact again is the growth of the church: ‘so the word of God spread. The number of disciples in
Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith’ (6:7).
Prayer and the Spirit’s power
Luke wants us to see a connection between prayer and the enhanced experience and release of
power of the Spirit. That is, not that we control the Spirit, but that God honours the prayers of his
people by moving in answer to their earnest requests.

This is seen at Pentecost where it is the church gathered in prayer which experiences the Spirit (1:14;
2:1). Similarly, it is the persecuted church gathered in fervent prayer that experiences the shaking of
the room, a fresh infilling of the Spirit, and the empowerment for further witness, signs and wonders
and radical generosity (4:23‐5:16). It is seen in Samaria and Saul’s conversion as the Spirit comes
through the laying on of hands (8:17; 9:11, 17). Miracles of the Spirit come through healing like the
healing of Tabitha (9:40). The vision of Peter to go to the home of Cornelius a Gentile occurs during
prayer (10:9; 11:5). There is thus a strong connection between the amazing signs and wonders and
the powerful spiritual manifestations seen in the early church and prayer. While God is most

42
Gaertner, Acts, Ac 4:30 (no page): This term is found often in the LXX and calls attention to the
supreme authority of God as ruler of the universe cf. Exod 20:11; Neh 9:6; Ps 146:6; Isa 42:5. In the
NT see Luke 2:29 and Rev 6:10.
43
This is consistent with OT examples of anti‐Israel world leaders fulfillling the will of God such as
Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.
44
During this time Peter is released miraculously from prison by an angel. Although the text does not mention
them praying, it is probable they were at the time (5:18‐19).
320

definitely the initiator, the one who works the miracles and sends the Spirit; on the evidence of Acts,
God answers sincere human prayer and changes things.
The link between prayer and fasting
Another feature of prayer which we have referred to above is the link between prayer and fasting.
The importance of fasting is found in the Gospels (Mt 4:4 [Jesus temptation]; 6:16‐18 [Sermon on
the Mount]; 9:14; Lk 2:37 [Anna]; 5:33‐35 [wineskins]; 18:12 [tax‐collector/negatively]) and in Acts
(13:2‐3; 14:23). It is seen in the OT often with mourning, confession, great emotion and intercession
for deliverance. 45 In the NT it seems to be associated with prayer and enhances the power of the
prayer, enhances defeat of the devil and flesh and releases the power of God.
Conclusion
The importance of prayer flows through the second part of Acts as well (see later on Paul’s mission
strategy). In the Jerusalem Church we have an example of a praying church. Is it any coincidence it is
also a church that impacts its community, has radical community life, is evangelistically successful
and sees the power of God released in its midst and mission?

The lessons for today’s church are clear. An effective church must be founded on its commitment to
prayer. From a Western point of view, we need to learn again the importance of corporate prayer,
an outstanding emphasis of Acts. Every dimension of church and individual life should be bathed in
prayer if we are to be effective as Christians. The prayer appears to have been daily, at least thrice a
day, as the Christians continued the prayer life of Judaism. We get little insight into how they prayed
except in the approach of Acts 4:26‐30.

So we see that the prayer life of the first church was persistent, corporate, expectant and effective.
All this brings us to some important questions for reflection:
A worshipful Church
Worship has two dimensions in the NT: 1) The traditional notion of the worship of God through
ritual, prayer either corporately or individually; 2) Worship involves the wider idea of service. In
terms of the second meaning, all of authentic Christian life can be seen as worship. In this section of
the notes, the focus is on the first dimension, worship directed to God in Jerusalem Church. 46 We
have already mentioned at length the importance of prayer, which lay at the heart of the worship of
the Jerusalem Church. However, prayer is not the only dimension of worship mentioned in Luke’s
narrative. There are a number of features of the worship.
Gathering
It is common to speak of an ‘unchurched faith’ today; however there is absolutely no idea of this in
the NT or in Acts. Throughout Acts the people of God gather together to worship God and
experience community. Faith is not merely pietistic and individualistic, those who followed ‘the Way’

45
See Jud 20:26; 1 Sam 7:6 (with confession); 31:13 (seven days after death of Saul cf. 2 Sam 1:12); 2 Sam
12:16 9David for the Lord’s mercy for son); 1 Kgs 21:9, 12, (national day of fasting); 21:27 (Ahab); Ezra 8:21, 23;
Neh 1:4 (with prayer); 9:1 (repentance); Esther 4:3, 16; 9:31; Ps 35:13 (humility); 69:10; 109:24 ; Is 58 (here
Isaiah critiques empty fasting without concern for justice, compassion and love cf. Jer 14:12); Jer 36:6 (a day of
fasting); Dan 9:3; Joel 1:14; 2:12; Jon 3:5; Zech 7:3, 5 (fasting every 5th and 7th month for God’s deliverance
from Babylon); 8:19 (they will fast on the 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th months).
46
Having said this, in a sense this is an arbitrary distinction as the vertical (God‐humanity) and horizontal
(interpersonal relationships) dimensions of ‘worship’ in the first church are fused together. For example the
notion of ‘communion’ is set in the context of a meal which means there is no clear distinction able to be
drawn between the two. Anyway, for the purposes of our analysis we will persist.
321

Acts 1‐8
gathered. The gathering was inclusive including male and female (1:14), and as the church extended,
Greek Jews (6:1) and Gentiles. The extent of their gathering is seen in that originally it was daily:
‘every day they continued to meet in the temple courts’ (2:46; 5:42). They also met in homes for
prayer (12:2‐10), to break bread (eat together and celebrate the Lord’s Supper) (2:42, 46) and to
teach and evangelise (5:42). In Acts at as early as the mid AD 50’s there is also evidence of the shift
from Saturday (Jewish Sabbath) gathered worship to Sunday (first day/resurrection) worship (Acts
20:7 cf. 1 Cor 16:2).
Charismatic or pneumatic worship
Another feature of the worship is the pivotal role of the Holy Spirit in the gathered worship of the
Jerusalem and Antiochian churches (e.g. 2:1‐4, 42‐47; 4:29‐31; 13:1‐2). There was a profound sense
of ‘experiencing’ the Spirit in guidance, spiritual gifts (charismata), signs and wonders, being ‘filled
with the Spirit’ (see above on the Spirit).
Baptism
Baptism is the pivotal initiation rite of the Jerusalem Church. There are four types of baptism
referred to through Luke’s narrative: 1) John’s baptism: of repentance, the marker point for the
beginning of Jesus’ ministry (1:22; 10:37; 11:16; 13:24 cf. 18:25; 19:3‐4); 2) Baptism of Suffering: Lk
12:50 refers to Jesus’ cross as a ‘baptism’ of suffering. Christian suffering is a form of baptism,
participation in the suffering of Christ; 3) Baptism in the Spirit: as noted above, this refers to the
profound experience of being overwhelmed or filled with God’s presence and power (see above); 4)
Initiation Water Baptism.

This fourth concept of water baptism is important as a means of initiation into the people of God. In
Luke, it is baptism ‘into the name of Jesus Christ’. In 2:38, Peter tells the crowds who have heard the
message, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children
and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.’ Here water baptism is linked to
repentance i.e. turning from sin and alternative faith objects to Jesus as saviour and Lord. In
addition, baptism is linked to forgiveness and the receipt of the Spirit which is promised to those
who are water baptised. Mass baptisms were not unusual in Acts e.g. 2:41 where 3000 were
baptised in one day! Stop for a minute and imagine this scene: what would it look like to be at
church and see 3000 baptised in one day!

While there is a sense of immediacy between the receipt of the Spirit and water baptism in this
reference, subsequent references indicates that the immediate temporal link between water
baptism and Spirit baptism cannot be established on the basis of Acts. So for example, in Acts 8 Philip
preaches the message to the crowds and many believe and were water‐baptised (8:12‐13).
However, there is no immediate receipt of the Spirit in any evidential manner. It is not until Peter
and John come up from Jerusalem and lay hands on the believers who have already been baptised
that they receive the Spirit (8:17). Here, Luke seems to draw a clear distinction between being
baptised into the name of Jesus Christ (initiation) and baptism in the Spirit. In other situations the
relationship of water baptism to Spirit reception is not consistent. So for example at the baptism of
the Ethiopian Eunuch there is no evidence of Spirit reception (8:38 cf. 16:15, 33; 18:8). Again the
baptism of Paul follows faith and receipt of the Spirit (9:18). Similarly at the conversion of Cornelius’
family, baptism follows faith and the reception of the Spirit (10:44‐48). At Ephesus we may have an
example of water and Spirit baptism occurring at the same time. However, Luke’s words could mean
that we have another example of Spirit baptism following water baptism (19:5).

The temporal gap between conversion and baptism in the Early Church was immediate. That is,
baptism followed immediately after expression of faith. This is seen at Peter’s sermon (2:39‐41),
322

Philip’s ministry in Samaria (8:14), the Ethiopian Eunuch (8:36‐38), Saul (9:18), Cornelius’ family
(10:47‐48), Lydia’s household (16:15), the jailor’s household (16:33), Crispus’ household (18:8) and
Ephesus believers (19:5). This raises the question of whether the contemporary church is doing the
right thing in allowing a long gap between conversion and baptism. Why do we do this? Is it
justified?

The person doing the baptising is unclear and in most cases unspecified. There is evidence it was not
merely the evangelist or apostle but may have been other believers present (unspecified but
probably the Apostles in 2:38‐41; Philip in 8:14, 36; unspecified but probably Ananias in 9:18; others
commissioned by Peter in 10:47‐48; unspecified in 16:15, 33; 18:8; probably Paul in 19:5 as he seems
to be the only Christian there). It is interesting in 1 Corinthians that Paul states that he did not
baptize many of the Corinthians suggesting that others did the baptism; whether it be Timothy, Silas
or the first converts (see 1 Cor 1:12‐17).

The final question is the question of children’s baptism (paedo‐baptism). The cases of ‘household’
‘oikos’ baptism where whole households are baptized when the leader of the home comes to faith
certainly raise the possibility of children, along with slaves and others in the wider first century
Greco Roman family being baptised (16:15, 33 cf. 18:8).47 However, this is not explicit and remains a
possibility at best. On the other hand, faith (8:12, 13; 16:33; 18:8; 19:5), 48 acceptance (2:41),
repentance (2:38) or other response language (8:36; 9:18; 10:47‐48; 16:15) 49 is explicitly referred to
in the context of baptism on most (but not all) occasions. It is arguable then that where children
were baptized (if they were), they had also become believers. The absence of explicit reference to
children’s baptism in the NT is a real problem to proponents of paedo‐baptism. 50 Having said this, it
has to be conceded that sociologically it remains possible that there are children under the age of
cognition in these families that are baptised. The first century world saw the family follow the faith
of the head of the home (usually the oldest man [paterfamilias] or the matriarch if she was widowed
or divorce) and it may be that family including slaves were all baptised by right when the leader of
the home was converted. Thus, while the evidence leans away from infant baptism (before
cognition), it is not a totally conclusive argument.
The centrality of the Apostles teaching and word
Acts 2:42 begins: ‘they devoted themselves to the Apostle’s teaching…’ This suggests
the prioritization of the teaching of the Apostles. We can assume this was centred on Christ in that
one of the criteria for apostleship in the early part of Acts is having been with Jesus and having
witnessed the resurrection. This meant that the Apostles could teach firsthand of the ministry and
life of Christ.

47
The oikos involved all who lived in the extended family including children, others outside the nuclear family,
slaves and even animals. However, there is no thought of animal baptism at this point!
48
In the case of the Philippian jailor his question ‘what must I do to be saved’ and Paul’s response telling him
to ‘believe…’ suggests that he responded positively. The faith of the remainder of his household is not explicit.
So also of the Ephesus believers.
49
In 8:36 faith is expressed in the desire to be baptized. This shows that reference to baptism had been made
in Philip’s explanation of Is 53 and the gospel. Similarly in Paul’s case, clearly he now believed, even if it is not
explicitly stated. In the case of Cornelius the water baptism is granted on the evidence of the Spirit coming i.e.
they must believe because they have received the Spirit. In Lydia’s case we have one of the most beautiful
descriptions of conversion: ‘the Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message’ (16:14).
50
My own mode of doing theology leaves me unable to accept children’s baptism on the basis that there is no
explicit evidence in the NT. However, in that there is a possibility of infant baptism in the oikos sections of Acts,
I am happy to leave the issue and get on with weightier matters such as salvation itself. In addition, in that
infant baptism is a second‐generation Christian issue, the absence of explicit reference in the NT does not
completely preclude infant baptism in the life of the church as it developed.
323

Acts 1‐8
One of the key dimensions of this teaching was finding Christ in the writings of Israel (the OT).
Hence, Acts is replete with examples of quotes from the OT which they interpreted as pointers to
the Jesus the Messiah. Some of those explicitly referred to include:

1. A replacement leader for Judas (1:20 cf. Ps 69:25; 109:8).
2. The Spirit poured out (2:17‐21 cf. Joel 2:28‐32).
3. Jesus’ exaltation and resurrection (2:25‐28 cf. Ps 16:8‐11).
4. Jesus exaltation over enemies (2:34‐35 cf. Ps 110:1).
5. Jesus the fulfilment of the hope of a prophet (3:22‐23 cf. Deut 18:15, 18, 19).
6. Blessings of Abraham to all nations through Jesus (3:25‐26 cf. Gen 22:18; 26:4).
7. Jesus the rejected capstone (4:11 cf. Ps 118:22).
8. Opposition to the Messiah predicted (4:25‐26 cf. Ps 2:1‐2).
9. The presentation of the history of Israel in Stephen’s final speech also points to their
knowledge and reinterpretation of the OT in light of Jesus’ coming (7:2‐53 [full of references
and allusions]).
10. Jesus the suffering servant (8:32‐33 cf. Is 53:7‐8). 51
11. This high view of OT Scripture is seen in the references to the work of the Spirit through the
human agency of the production of Scripture (e.g. 1:16; 4:25).
12. Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 retraces with a great deal of Scriptural detail the whole history of
Israel including: 1) The Election of Abraham; 2) The Patriarchs Isaac and Jacob; 3) Joseph in
Egypt; 4) Suffering in Egypt; 5) Moses and Exodus with the hope of a prophet (Deut 18:5); 6)
Tabernacle and Temple.
13. In his sermon in Acts 13:17‐22 Paul retells the whole story of Israel including 1) Election of
Abraham to Conquest: the 450 years including Election, Egypt, Exodus, Wilderness
Wandering, Conquest; 2) The Judges to Samuel; 3) The Kingdom from Saul to the Davidic
Dynasty. He points out how this leads to the Messiah from the line of David. He quotes in
13:32 Ps 2:7 concerning the Davidic King being Son to God the Father; Ps 16:10 of Jesus
resurrection (13:35); Hab 1:5 as a warning not to reject the message (13:41); Is 49:6 of his
ministry to the Gentiles (13:47).

Clearly for the first Christians, the OT narrative pointed to Christ and their teaching and preaching no
doubt involved pouring over the documents of the LXX to find Christ in them.
The breaking of bread (Communion)
Acts 2:42 speaks of the church being devoted to the ‘breaking of bread’. Here it probably means not
only table fellowship (so important to first century culture), but also refers to regular participation in
the Lord’s Supper; which probably initially formed part of an ordinary meal. At some point in the
gathering, bread was broken and wine from a cup drunk to symbolize the unity of the church around
the death and resurrection of Christ. 52 The use of the same phrase in 2:46 may indicate merely
eating meals together, or may refer to the same combination of meal and Lord’s Supper. Either way,
the fellowship of the community was constant, daily and involved great sacrifice. It was clearly the
rich who led this dimension of the church fellowship, they being the land and home owners who
opened their homes for the rest of the church.

51
See also Paul’s speeches in Acts including Jesus’ divine sonship (13:33 cf. Ps 2:7); Jesus the fulfilllment of the
blessings promised to David (13:34 cf. Is 55:3); Jesus resurrected (13:35 cf. Ps 16:10); the rejection of the
message (13:41 cf. Hab 1:5); the apostolic fulfilllment of the servants mission (13:47 cf. Is 49:6); the message
going to the Gentiles (15:16‐17 cf. 9:11‐12)
52
See Bruce, Acts, 73; Longenecker, Acts, 289‐290.
324

Material generosity and care for the needy
Below is reference to the amazing material generosity and voluntary redistribution of resources
within the church including the sale of land and the redistribution of wealth for the needy by the
apostles and the Seven; caring for the widows.
Praise
In Acts 2:47 Luke records that the Jerusalem church gathered to praise God. The same Greek term
aiteō meaning ‘to give glory to God’ is used in Lk 19:37 at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and in Acts 3:8‐
9 of the healed disabled beggar, who walks, leaps and praises God after his healing. It has a strong
sense of genuine joy and open enthusiastic expression of adoration for God.
A generous Church (Economic Koinōnia)
The community life of the Jerusalem Church was utterly remarkable. Some things have been noted
above such as their gender involvement, commitment to daily gatherings, table fellowship, prayer
and worship. Aside from working through the issue of feeding the Greek widows and later the issue
of circumcision, there is no evidence of disunity. However, if there is one dimension that stands out
it is the matter of material generosity; sometimes called by scholars, economic koinōnia (fellowship,
participation).

One remarkable dimension of the community of the early church is the radical corporate sharing of
resources. This is stated generally in 2:44‐45: ‘all the believers were together and had everything in
common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.’ The emphasis
here is on communal possession in continuity with the common purse which the disciples and Jesus
lived by in his ministry (see Jn 13:29) and the material support of women recorded by Luke (8:1‐3). It
also was a living out of Jesus’ command to ‘sell your possessions and give to the poor’ indicating that
the disciples took seriously his commands about money (e.g. Lk 12:33 cf. 14:33; 18:22). The concept
of such corporate living is also seen in the Qumran community (1 Q6) where the sharing of
possessions to the community was compulsory. However, unlike Qumran, the selling of possessions
in the early Jerusalem church was voluntary. 53 Interestingly, there is no mention of compulsory
tithing in Acts. Rather, the emphasis is on radical generosity and not a set percentage. This silence is
remarkable and could simply suggest that the practice was so entrenched that it was not worthy of
comment, or it calls into question those churches which almost demand a tithe from their people,
NT giving appears to be more radical and without compulsion. 54

The recipients of generosity were those in ‘need’. These certainly included ‘widows’ (ch 6) and would
have included others who were poor. That this was a central issue is confirmed in the imperative
given to the Paul by the Jerusalem Apostles when discussing the validity of Paul’s mission and gospel
in Gal 2; ‘continue to remember the poor’ (cf. 2:10).

53
Marshall, Acts, 84.
54
There is also no reference to tithing in Paul, John, James, Mark and Jude. Heb 7:1‐10 does not endorse
tithing but uses the Abrahamic tithe to Melchezidek as an argument for Jesus’ priesthood over the Levitical
priesthood. Mt 23:23; Lk 10:42; 18:12 are all texts in which Jesus critiques attitudes to tithing. One possible
interpretation of the first two texts there is that Jesus reinforces the tithe with the words ‘without neglecting
the former’ (so Hagner, Matthew 14‐28, 670; Stein, Luke, 341; Marshall, Luke, 498). However, this is a
disputed interpretation. Blomberg, Matthew, 346 for example notes, ‘The last sentence of v. 23 does not imply
that Jesus is becoming more conservative with respect to the law or that tithing is mandated of Christians,
merely that as long as the Mosaic covenant remains in force (up to the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection),
all of it must be obeyed but with discernment of its true priorities.’
325

Acts 1‐8
In 4:32‐37 Luke gives more detail concerning this generosity. Luke speaks of the unity of the church
(‘one in heart and mind’), corporate ownership (‘no one claimed that any of his possessions was his
own, but they shared everything they had’). The result of this was the eschatological fulfilment of
Deut 15:4: ‘there should be no poor among you.’ The radical generosity involved for some the selling
of land or houses and the giving of the resultant funds to the apostles for distribution to the needy.
Luke gives two examples, one positive and one negative. Barnabas, the ‘Son of Encouragement’ is
the positive example, who sells a piece of land and gives the money to the church. It is unclear
whether the land is from his native home Cyprus or family land in Jerusalem. 55 On the other hand
Ananias and Sapphira sell property but only give a portion while claiming to give it all; the result is
their death by the power of the Spirit.

On the face of it these are examples positive and negative of living out the ideals espoused by Jesus.
However, scholars have found reason to critique this. Some see here an example of ‘failed
communism’. That is, the selling of land left the church vulnerable to the famine which struck and
eventually led to Paul needing to lead and aid mission, raising funds from the newly formed
churches (the Jerusalem Collection).

However, this view is unnecessarily cynical. Rather, we should see here a sincere attempt to live out
the ideas of Jesus for economic koinōnia. There is no evidence of any such problem of resultant
poverty; rather, the church grew and people were attracted. This growth led to the need to assist
the Grecian Jewish widows in Acts 6. Furthermore, the principle that the rich will care for the poor as
a benefactors is found here. In addition, to describe this as ‘communism’ does not do justice to
either communism or the early church.56 Communism was state‐enforced egalitarianism, which in
reality failed to do what it set out to do. This is no such thing. The giving of Acts 2, 4 was clearly
voluntary, people retained personal ownership of their property and gave freely as led.

While the focus of the economic koinōnia is the needy, the community of the Jerusalem church
speaks of the commitment of the wealthy among the first Christians to care for the needy. Clearly,
they had taken to heart Jesus’ frequent appeals for radical giving, renunciation of greed and wealth,
and seeking first the Kingdom. The rich took seriously the call that goes with great wealth, to care for
those without.

What do we make of the Ananias and Sapphira story? Some find this distasteful. However, there are
important lessons to learn from it. First, it demonstrates the seriousness of sin to the Jerusalem
Christian community. The consequence of sin is death and this demonstrates it vividly. Furthermore
it demonstrates the real problem with dishonesty; it is the work of Satan (5:3) and a lie against the
Spirit (5:4, 9). In particular, sin within the family of God. Thirdly, it reveals the corporate nature of
sin. It recalls the story of Aachan whereby his whole family was put to death for disobeying the
express word of God to leave the plunder in the city of Ai (Josh 7).

Fourthly, it calls into question the leadership of Peter in the minds of some. Particularly, in the way
he did not tell Sapphira that her husband had died earlier or when she appeared and so give her an
opportunity to repent. However, Peter did give her an opportunity to repent in his question, ‘Tell
me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?’ On the other hand, some question whether
the Jesus of Jn 8:1‐12 would have treated either of them in such a way? If not, then perhaps this is
an example that not everything in the first Jerusalem Church was perfect.

55
Some note that he was a Levite who should not own land (Num 18:20; Deut 10:9). However, this principle
was not always adhered to (see Jer 32:7‐12).
56
As Marshall, Acts, 85‐86 puts it, ‘we have avoided using the term “communism” in describing this practice,
since modern communism is a description of a political and economic system of such a different character that
it is anachronistic and misleading to use the term in the present context.’
326


Fifthly, it does challenge our understanding of God’s power, the Spirit, justice and judgement. Here it
appears that God moves in the present in judgement against those who sin against him (cf. 1 Cor
11:29‐30). If so, we cannot rule this out in the present.

Finally, it is not clear whether the agency of their death was God’s direct intervention, satanic power
or psychological shock. Whichever is true, it does however show the power of God and his justice
where he is affronted. In one sense the story is a living illustration of Jesus’ words that no sin against
the Spirit will be forgiven (Mk 3:29 and pars.).
Conclusion
The gift of the Spirit should lead to the demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit
is best demonstrated in love, not merely verbalised or in sentiment or emotion; rather, in concrete
terms. Luke’s Gospel and this early part of Acts powerfully state that true Christianity sees
communities where people are deeply concerned for the needs of others to a level of personal
material sacrifice. 57 This is carried on in the NT. Two other NT writers who were members of this
dynamic community state this same principal in different ways:

1. 1 Jn 3:16‐18: ‘This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we
ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his
brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that
person? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.’
2. Jams 1:27: ‘Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after
orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.’

This dynamic is sadly missing from many contemporary western churches. The sin of materialism
which has such a grip on our consumeristic world has tamed the church and the radical edge of
voluntary sacrificial giving is missing in many instances. We tend to take the radical challenge of Luke
in this area as unrealistic and soften its power (cf. Lk 6:20‐36; 9:57‐62; 14:26‐34). The challenge for
us on an individual level and in Christian community is to rediscover what it means to have voluntary
economic koinōnia in today’s world. We need to move beyond the compulsion of the ‘tithe’ which
can be an oppression of the genuinely poor and a soft option for the genuinely wealthy. Rather, we
must rediscover the radicality of the command of Jesus and example of the first church in caring for
the needy; concerned for the weightier matters of the law like justice, mercy and love for the
marginalised. What would our churches look like if there was no need among them! Certainly it is a
complex issue when one considers that we are in a capitalistic economy governed by profit
maximisation; where our society is based on expensive technology; where many of the justice issues
we face are global; where we have a far more complex global economy of investment, banking,
shares etc; where we have a social welfare system; where working out the best way to use our
resources for the poor may not be selling our possessions and giving to the poor? Etc. Yet with all
such questions in mind, if we take the issue out of the too‐hard basket, one wonders what impact
we might have on our communities and world?
A persecuted Church
Thus far we have looked at positive features of the church. This feature is not one that can be
controlled and is not really a positive attribute. However, persecution under the sovereignty of God,
and their strength in the face of it, played a huge part in the development of the Jerusalem Church.

57
See Lk 4:18‐19; 6:20‐36; 9:13; 10:25‐37; 12:13‐34; 14:13‐24; 16:1‐31; 18:18‐30; 19:1‐10.
327

Acts 1‐8
Persecution slowly intensifies through the narrative. There is a slight hint of opposition in 2:13
where some accuse the Spirit‐filled tongues‐speaking Christians of drunkenness. In reality, the
church is held in great favour in its initial phase with ‘everyone filled with awe’ and the church
‘enjoying the favour of all the people’, presumably including the Jewish leaders who will turn against
them as the story unfolds (2:43, 47).

The healing of the disabled beggar in ch3 sparks a great response and Peter’s sermon in the temple
is decidedly provocative, he directly targeting the Jews for their responsibility in the killing of Jesus
(read 3:13‐15, 17‐18, 23, 26). This excites a strong response from the Sanhedrin who attack the
leaders of the movement, imprisoning Peter and John and, although they are in some ways
impressed by John and Peter (4:13‐14), they forbid them from preaching the message. The response
of the apostles is not quietism (holding back and not sharing the gospel) or retreatism (retreating
from evangelism) but rather, a renewed determination to preach followed by a prayer for courage to
do so (4:19‐30).

There is then a period of growth in which their pray is answered dramatically and many turn to
Christ, signs and wonders are performed and the church experiences radical fellowship. However,
again Peter and John the leaders are arrested and placed in prison. Then, miraculously, they are
released from prison by an angel and told to continue to preach the message in the temple courts.
This leads to confusion, further persecution and threats. Yet the apostles are unfazed and rather
than desist they rejoice that they ‘had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name’
(5:41) and they continued to preach in the temple and in homes (5:42). The first church clearly
expected and embraced persecution, seeing it as continuity with the sufferings of Christ on their
behalf (see 1 Pet 4). At no time did they respond with violent resistance or by withdrawing from
evangelism. Rather, they prayed for their persecutors and despite their protestations, continued to
proclaim.

The persecution of the church came to a head with the martyrdom of Stephen. Then the Jewish
leaders, having failed to stop the growth of the new movement through attacking the leadership,
now attack the church itself. The church is scattered under the leadership of the zealous Pharisee
Saul (7‐8:3). However, due to the sovereignty of God, this turns out to be a positive thing as the
Spirit moves in the expansion and the gospel is shared by these believers in Samaria and to the
Gentiles in Antioch (see Acts 8; 11:19‐21). So, even the persecution was interpreted positively by the
early Christians, it being utilised by God to enhance his message (see Phil 1:12‐14). It was seen as an
honour, as participation in the sufferings of Christ and part of the cost of ‘taking up one’s cross.’
After the scattering of the church in Acts 8, Luke records little of the impact of the church in
Jerusalem. However, its impact in the world beyond Jerusalem and Judea is dramatic. It is possible
that this occurred because of the failure of the initial Christians to take up the commission given by
Jesus to go to the Gentiles (see above),

In Jerusalem James is killed and Peter imprisoned (Acts 12:1‐10). Yet from Antioch where the church
had flourished due to the mission set ablaze by the persecution of Saul, a mission is launched that
saw the gospel in Rome within 25 years. Through the mission of Paul, persecution abounds yet
further. There is a consistent pattern. Paul begins in the synagogue but experiences rejection from
his own people (13:34‐35; 17:5‐9, 13; 18:4‐6; 19:8‐9). He then goes to the Gentiles (13:46‐47; 18:6;
19:9) establishing the church in homes, where he experiences significant success (13:49; 18:7‐8;
19:10, 20), but often faces further Jewish persecution (13:49‐51; 14:19; 18:12‐17), or the wrath of
the Greco‐Roman city (16:16‐39; 19:23‐41) which is threatened economically, religiously and
politically by the new movement. Ultimately, it is persecution that leads Paul to Rome, he appealing
to Caesar when facing great suffering in Caesarea (25:12). Through it all we can see the glorious
hand of God using the persecution of God’s people for the purposes of mission. The pattern of the
328

cross is the pattern of mission and the people of God; as they serve the Lord and world they face
tremendous hostility from the forces of darkness and the ignorance of humanity. Yet, the gospel
triumphs over all as the gospel spreads and their reward is great in eternity.

Hence the impact of persecution as a factor in the growth of the early church cannot be
underplayed. The refusal of Christians to respond with violence was critical in demonstrating the
love of God toward enemies. Similarly the refusal of Christians to withdraw from evangelism in the
face of persecution also speaks volumes of the reality of the faith they espoused. Over the
subsequent generations of the Christian church these two dynamics would be critical in the growth
of the church. As Tertullian has said, ‘the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.’ 58

As I consider this dynamic in the growth of the church again I feel that the Western Church has, in
the main, lost its nerve. In a post‐modern environment a renewed commitment to evangelism will
without doubt lead to significant opposition, however graciously it is conducted. Because of this
reality, too many Christians adopt a quietistic or retreatist model of witness, waiting for someone to
ask them a question about their faith. The truth is that they will hardly ever ask! They are too clever
for that and so is the Devil! While I am not advocating stupid witness without respect and the love, I
wonder; were the church to get proactive and excite a negative response alongside some who will
come to Christ, would this persecution could be the very dynamic that kick‐starts us out of the
spiritual doldrums?

I believe that we should increase our proactivity and join the first Christians in rejoicing that we
suffer for Christ. If we respond to this persecution with grace and forgiveness and a continued
determination to give witness to the message, we will see people profoundly affected.

I am not advocating a martyrdom complex or offensiveness in our approach. Indeed it is clear from
the NT in such places as 1 Pet 3:1‐2 that there is a time not to preach. In this text Peter exhorts
believing wives not to preach the word to their husbands who have heard the word and disobeyed
it. Rather, we must work with what I call a soteriological imperative, where we live in every way
among unbelievers with the goal that they come to Christ and are saved (see 1 Cor 10:24‐11:1). In
NT terms this involves the sharing of the gospel message graciously, respectfully, holistically with
attitude, word and deed, lovingly and out of communities of love.

I am advocating determined, gentle but determined ongoing evangelism. There are sectors of
society that the government has closed us out of (e.g. schools, town centres etc) which I believe we
must find our courage to evangelise again through attitude, word and deed. If it leads to
persecution, prosecution, court cases and even imprisonment, we should rejoice, for in that very
response, we will see the seeds sown for a new era for the gospel and church in NZ.
Conclusion
These factors are critical for the expansion of the church. As we ponder our own churches and
nations it is good to take time out to consider how we are living in contrast to the first Church in
Jerusalem. To do so, take some time to reflect on your own life and the life of your church in relation
to these 8 features. Then live the word and be the word!

It is apparent to me that God gave us the story of this church as a beacon of hope and possibility.
Through it was can see the possibility of what the church can become. This can lead to false idealism
whereby no church ever measure up and we become disillusioned and walk away, feeling that the
church is a flaccid representation of what it could be. However, rather than disillusionment we

58
Students are encouraged to read Foxes Book of the Martyrs which illustrates this principle powerfully.
329

Acts 1‐8
should let the story of the Jerusalem Church set us ablaze with hope and a determination to be a
leader in the people of God who will bring such a church to be. Such churches do exist. Our charge is
to believe in the vision that we get a glimpse off through the first chapters of Acts, believe in the
church no matter how big a mess it is in, and be open to the Spirit to contribute to see the church be
what it was designed to be, the broken and resurrected body of Christ to a broken world, that it may
know the love and salvation of God! Christ said, ‘I will build my church and the gates of hell will not
prevail against it;’ so, make like a big nike tick and just do it!
• Do you think that the case for Luke’s authorship is strong? Or should we look for another
author? What does it matter?
• Which date do you find convincing? Why?
• Can Luke’s account be trusted? How would we test his reliability? Why is this important?
• Does your Church have a balanced emphasis on the three persons of the Trinity in its
theology and praxis?
• What is your experience of receiving the Spirit?
• What should we expect to see if someone has received the Spirit? (Consider also John 14‐16;
1 Cor 12‐14).
• Is evangelism still a priority for you, your church, the church in your culture and experience?
How might we do evangelism today considering it is imperative yet the world is highly
resistant? What strategies do you think work? What blind spots do we have concerning
evangelism? Can we over‐emphasise it? What are the dangers of under‐emphasising it?
Whose job is it?
• How does your church pray? How is your prayer life? How is your family’s prayer life? Are
your family, study, mission and life bathed in prayer?
• Think about worship today in your church experience? How does it align with this? What
needs to change?
• How are we doing in this regard? How can we do this better? Is the tithe a cop out in light of
the NT approach to wealth and the needy?
• What questions are raised for you? What do you think, is this view expressed above right?
What is the role of persecution in suffering?
• What do you think is the main feature or the main feature of the Jerusalem Church? What
would you like to see change in the church you are in? What can you contribute? What has
to change in your life?

330

Chapter Seventeen

THE EXPANSION OF THE GOSPEL TO SAMARIA, JUDEA
AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL (ACTS 8‐28)
Contents
The expansion of the gospel to Samaria, Judea and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 8‐28) .................... 331
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 332
The Persecution that Launched the Expansion (Acts 8:1‐4) ............................................................... 332
The Evangelisation of Samaria (8:4‐25) .......................................................................................... 333
The Gospel goes to Africa (8:26‐40) ................................................................................................ 335
The Conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles (9:1‐31) ................................................................. 336
The gospel spreads through Judea (9:32‐42) .................................................................................. 337
The Gospel goes to the Gentiles (10:1‐11:18). ............................................................................... 338
The Gospel spreads into Antioch .................................................................................................... 339
Further news from Jerusalem ......................................................................................................... 340
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 340
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) ......................................................................................................... 341
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 341
Acts 15 ............................................................................................................................................. 341
The Problem: Different Views of Salvation, the People of God, and the Law ............................ 341
The Response 1: A Gathering to Consider the Matter ................................................................ 344
The Response 2: A Decision Led by the Spirit in Community ..................................................... 345
Conclusion and Application......................................................................................................... 346

331

The Expansion of the Church to Samaria, Judea and the Jerusalem Council
Introduction
In this section we will look at chapters 8‐12 of Acts. We will not go into the detail of the narrative but
note the way in which the gospel spread leading up to the launch of the Pauline Gentile mission
which dominates the second half of Acts (13‐28). We will not look into chapters 13‐28 in this section,
but deal with that material in the life of Paul, who dominates these chapters.

Acts 8‐12 is a very important section seeing the promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1‐3 reach fulfilment.
It also sees the hope of the prophets for the restoration of Israel and Judah begin to come to pass in
the church. It also is important as we see the first Jewish disciples realise that the gospel must go
beyond Israel, a major development in salvation history.
The Persecution that Launched the Expansion (Acts 8:1‐4)
As we have already discussed, the inspiration for the mission beyond Jerusalem and Judea in Luke’s
account was not a passion to complete the Great Commission, but rather, persecution. Ironically, the
agent of the persecution was to become God’s prime worker in the initial evangelization of the
Gentiles, Saul of Tarsus. It seems whether he liked it or not, God had set apart Paul for the task of
causing mission from the first Christians even while an enemy of the gospel! The irony deepens
when one considers that later in his own career, when authorities attempted to shut Paul down and
imprison him, the gospel often spread more (cf. Acts 28:15‐31; Phil 1:12‐13). Even more ironically,
Paul caused the church to expand even before he was a believer through his persecution which
scattered the church and saw the gospel spread among Gentiles in Antioch!

Up until the attack on Stephen, persecution had been targeted at the apostles and in particular,
Peter and John (see ch3‐5). Yet here they are not targeted. Perhaps the authorities realized that
their previous attempts to stop the movement had failed and served to simply harden the resolve of
the apostles to preach the gospel and the movement’s growth. These first Christians appeared to
consider it an honour to experience persecution in Christ’s name and responded to persecution with
increased fervency (cf. 1 Pet 4:12‐14).

The overriding consideration here is that God uses all circumstances to spread his word (8:4). We
should not be concerned about evangelization leading to persecution from a resistant public. God
will use it for his glory, whatever happens!

The persecution was certainly severe. It involved a ‘great persecution’ (diōgmos megas) (8:2). The
Greek in v3 lumainomai indicates ‘smashing’ the church. 1 It was targeted at the whole church (‘all’)
including men and women. Believers were dragged out of their homes and gatherings and thrown
into prison. Significantly, Luke notes that they were scattered ‘throughout Judea and Samaria’. Thus,
this was a means used by the Spirit to spread the gospel into these regions as Jesus had promised in
Acts 1:8. In 9:31, after Paul’s conversion, it is churches filled and formed by these believers no doubt
that are referred to: ‘Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of
peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it
increased in numbers (cf. 1 Thess 2:14).

1
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek‐English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989.
332

The Evangelisation of Samaria (8:4‐25)
Luke records that those who were scattered went on their way into Judea and Samaria preaching
the gospel (8:4). These included Philip, one of the seven who went to Samaria with the gospel. Here
is a map of his movements.

Philip’s Travels 2

Samaria 3 is used both of a province and a city. As a region it is the area between the Judea and
Galilee, both of which were Jewish. After Herod the Great rebuilt Samaria and renamed it Sebaste, it
was used exclusively of the province. In the NT, it thus means the province and not the city.

Obviously the Samaritans were natives of this region. However, just who these people were is
shrouded in some mystery. Samaritans believe themselves to be direct descendents of Israel
believing that the nation’s centre should be never have been moved from Gerizim to Shiloh
(Jerusalem). In Jewish thought they are linked with 2 Kgs 17:24‐41 when the Assyrians colonised the
area adopting the Israelite faith alongside their own religion, the so‐called Cuthaeans (v41). Josephus
tells us that in addition, the priest Manasseh was expelled from Jerusalem and a sanctuary was built
for him at Mount Gerizim in the 4th century and other priests from Jerusalem joined him. This
accounts for the Jewish character of their practice. However, scholars now reject 2 Kings 17 as
relevant as it refers to the ‘people of Samaria’ (v29) rather than Samaritans.

The city of Samaria itself had been built by Omri in the 9th century BC (1 Kgs 16:24) and was capital
until destroyed by Sargon II in 721 BC (2 Kings 17). It was rebuilt by the Assyrians and little is known
until Ezra 4 where the people opposed the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, suggesting some
Jews remained in the city. It was destroyed by Alexander in 332 BC and he rebuilt Shechem settling it
with many Syro‐Macedonians and was thus a non‐Samaritan religious city. Thus the area was

2
See Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps & Charts, no page.
3
Information here gleaned from P. U. Maynard‐Reid, ‘Samaria’, in DNTLD (libronix; no page); and H.
G. M. Williamson, ‘Samaritans’, in DJG, 724‐728.

333

actually recently populated; the earliest references being to Shechemites from Shechem rebuilt at
this time (Sir 50:26; 2 Macc 5:22–23; 6:2; Jos, Ant. 11.340–47; 12.10).
Who these people were is unclear but probably included some ‘old Israelites’ who could trace their
heritage back to pre‐exile days; however, there may not have been many. There were some others
descended from Israel who had returned from exile (2 Chron 30; 34:6; Jer 40:5). Others were
probably Greeks as the city was highly Hellenized. Some of these would have adopted Samaritan
religion in some form, but in a highly syncretistic manner. Others may have been priests forced out
of Jerusalem due to the strictures of priestly leadership who followed Ezra and Nehemiah (see
Josephus above). It may indicate why they claimed a legitimate priesthood.

The strong resentment between Jew and Samaritan may be due to political tensions between
Ptolemies and the Seleucids, Jewish resentment against hellenization and non‐involvement in Jewish
revolt (e.g. against Antiochus Epiphanes) among other things. In addition, in 128BC the Jewish
reformer John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple in Mt Gerizim in Shechem and the city itself between
111‐107 BC. It was rebuilt by Herod the Great and called Sebaste. It was then smashed by the
Romans in AD66. In light of this, Samaritan rejection of Israel and its view of history would have been
further developed. Another aspect which would have caused tension was the Samaritan acceptance
of only the Pentateuch as Scripture and a rejection of the temple in favour of Gerizim. They also
probably believed a Messiah as a ‘prophet like Moses’. In AD 6‐7 some Samaritans scattered bones
in the Jerusalem temple during Passover (Ant. 18.29–30) and in AD 52 some killed a group of
Galilean pilgrims (Ant. 20.118).

Samaritans were viewed not as Gentiles however, but as schismatics, heretics or half breeds; neither
Jew nor Gentile. The city (polis) in which Philip ministered is defined as ‘a city’ which would either be
Shechem, Sebaste (old Samaria City), or Gitta the traditional birthplace of Simon Magus (Acts 8:8).
Some scholars believe it was not Sebaste as there no sense of Hellenism in the text; thus it may be in
the main city of the indigenous Samaritans, Shechem.

Wherever Philip was, his ministry included proclamation of Jesus as the Christ. This suggests that he
was preaching to believers in YHWH who had hopes of a Messiah (cf. Jn 4:25). He sought to convince
them that the crucified prophet Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the risen Messiah (8:6). His ministry
also included signs including deliverance and healing (8:7); the classic NT combination of preaching
with signs and wonders.

The response in the city was highly positive with joy, faith and baptism (8:6, 8, 12). This is
evangelisation of Samaria is highly important. Luke records that Jesus had been rejected by the
Samaritans and James and John had sought its destruction, something Jesus refused (Lk 9:51‐56. This
section is the turning point of Luke’s Gospel, and so there began the journey to the evangelisation of
the Samaritans, but through the cross, Pentecost and now the scattered Jerusalem Christians. Jesus
was not bringing the wrath of God on renegade Samaritans who had deserted the true Temple‐
based Yahwistic faith, but would save them by his death and resurrection. This positive attitude to
Samaritans had been seen in the Good Samaritan story and 10 Lepers healings where, outrageously
to the mind of a true Jew of the time, such a thought was anathema (see Lk 10:25‐37; 17:11‐19).

In the broader biblical redemptive story, it was highly significant. This was God undoing the
bifurcation of his people when the north broke away under Jereboam (1 Kgs 12) thus fulfilling the
hopes of the prophets of a reunified Israel (e.g. Is 1:1‐4, 10‐12; 11:13; Jer 3:18; 23:6; 30:3; 31:1‐37
[esp. v27, 31]; Ezek 37:15‐28; Hos 1:10‐11; 2:2). These are linked to the hope of a Messiah in a

Ant. Antiquities of the Jews
334

number of instances (Hos 1:10‐11; 11:1‐4, 10‐12; Ezek 37:15‐28). Interestingly, the Samaritans also
longed for the Messiah (Jn 4:25); he had now come to people.

One of the features of the time in Samaria was the encounter with Simon a sorcerer who was greatly
regarded in the city (8:9‐11). But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news
about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Because of the ministry of Philip, many from the city and Simon himself believed (8:12‐13). However,
when Peter and John visited and the Holy Spirit came upon the new believers he offered to pay
money to receive the Spirit. Peter was not impressed and refused urging Simon to repent which he
did (8:18‐24).

This Simon is significant in later Christian tradition where he is labelled Simon Magus (‘magician’)
who is supposedly the father of Gnosticism. Justin Martyr tells us he was from the village of Gitta
with a large following in Samaria and Rome. He was accompanied by a prostitute Helen, was
demonized to imitate Christianity) and was divinized (see Just, Apol. 1.26). Irenaeus in the late 2nd
Century cites him as a source of heresy (haer. 1.23‐27), whose conversion was fake and he claimed
to be god, the ‘absolute authority’ and Helen as an incarnation of the Gnostic goddess Sophia. They
were gods to the Simonians at Irenaeus’ time. According to Hippolytus (Refutations 6. 2, 4–15 c230)
Simon died claiming he would rise on the 3rd day but did not do so. Other such traditions exist across
the early church. 4

Another feature of this evangelization of Samaria is the visit from Peter and John after the
acceptance of the gospel in Samaria. When they came they prayed for the new converts who
received the Spirit (8:14‐17). This suggests that the Jerusalem leaders were active in overseeing the
expansion of the gospel. This is seen again in the Cornelius incident. This suggests to some that the
transmission of the Spirit had become institutionalized and connected with the Jerusalem apostles
through the laying on of hands. However this is ruled out in the Acts narrative by other times
previous and subsequent where the Spirit comes spontaneously (2:1‐4; 10:44), is transmitted
through a mere ‘disciple’ Ananias (9:17) and through Paul (19:6). Rather, this points to the variety of
means by which the Spirit is transmitted in Luke’s account (see also Lk 3:15=22).

The great significance of this event in the flow of Acts is the expansion of the gospel along the lines
of Acts 1:8: ‘to all Samaria’ which has is anticipated in Luke’s Gospel (cf. 9:52‐56 [Jesus rejected in
Samaria]; 10:25‐37 [the Good Samaritan]; 17:10‐19 [the Grateful Samaritan Leper]).

The Gospel goes to Africa (8:26‐40)
After this event Philip encounters an Ethiopian eunuch from the court of the Queen of Ethiopia,
Candace. Ethiopia would have connoted the region south of Egypt. The readers of Luke would have
seen this Ethiopian positively as Ethiopians were romanticised in Greek literature seen as the
handsomest and tallest of all to Heroditus (Homer, Od. 3.17‐20) and similarly, Homer (Od. 1:22‐23).
However, it is unclear whether he was a proselyte or Gentile. It is unlikely he is a proselyte as
eunuchs were unable to become full proselytes (cf. Deut 23:1; Joseph. Ant 4.290‐91). Hence he may
be a Gentile. However, Luke’s account indicates that Cornelius is clearly seen by Luke as the first the
Gentile convert. In that he is worshipping in Jerusalem and reading Isaiah 53, although he is a
Eunuch, these suggest he is a Jewish ‘God‐fearer’, 5 if not a full proselyte. 6

4
See “Simon (Person)” in Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday,
1996, c1992.
5
See, F.S. Spencer, ‘Philip the Evangelist’, in DLNTD (no page).
335


The encounter is characterised by dynamic guidance by the Lord through an angel (8:26) and the
Spirit (8:29). The text tells us that he had ‘come to Jerusalem to worship’ (8:27) and was reading
Isaiah 53:7‐8. Led by the Spirit, Philip used the text as a basis to share the gospel. A feature of the
account is the instant baptism, the Ethiopian requesting immediate baptism and Philip obliging
(8:36‐38). Another interesting element of the story is the apparent translation by the Spirit of Philip
from the point of baptism to the town of Azotus where he continued to preach the message (9:39‐
40). The significance of this story lies in the spread of the gospel through this encounter to Africa.
Throughout Acts we see this dynamic, the gospel spreading through pilgrims at Pentecost, the
persecuted after the Sauline persecution and here. The gospel is an unstoppable force propelled by
the Spirit. This story reinforces the spread of the gospel to ‘the ends of the earth’.
The Conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles (9:1‐31)
Chapter nine shifts the emphasis from the Jerusalem church to the story of Saul’s conversion. Saul,
with letters of commendation from the high priest, was en‐route to arrest followers of ‘the way’ and
return to Jerusalem to imprison them (9:1‐2). As he is travelling he has a spiritual encounter
involving the manifestation of a great light, the voice of Jesus and Saul’s blinding (9:3‐4). He has an
encounter with Jesus who speaks to him instructing him to go to the city and await instructions. His
companions take him into Damascus blinded where he fasts (9:7‐9).

The story is another example of God at work. While Saul was in the city, a disciple Ananias is
instructed explicitly by God in a vision to go to the house of Judas where Saul is staying and he is to
place his hands on him, heal him and commission him to be God’s instrument in taking his message
to the Gentiles (9:10‐16). Ananias is reluctant but showing great courage and obedience goes, prays
for Saul; he is baptised in the Spirit and healed. He was then baptised (presumably by Ananias) and
ate, regaining his strength (9:13, 17‐19).

At this point Saul’s life took a dramatic turn. Instead of going to the Christians of Damascus and
arresting them; rather, he goes into the Jewish synagogues preaching not that ‘the way’ is heretical,
but that this crucified Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah, totally confounding the expectations of
the Jews in Damascus (9:19‐22). This not surprisingly led to a death threat against Saul, the first of
many. Fortunately Saul became aware of the plot and ‘his disciples’ took him and lowered him in a
basket through an opening in the Damascus wall (9:23‐25).

From Damascus Luke records that Luke Saul returned to Jerusalem not with prisoners in tow, but as
a Christian. In Jerusalem he sought to join the disciples and understandably they were terrified
imagining that he had returned to continue his crusade against them (9:26). Here again we see the
quality of Barnabas, the ‘son of encouragement’ who came to Saul, heard his story and presented
him to the apostles (9:27). After his acceptance by the Jerusalem Christians he went out engaging in
evangelism with the Hellenistic Jews, probably his former friends, colleagues and Pharisaic students
and disciples (9:28‐29). As with Stephen, they sought to kill him; the second plot against Saul (9:29‐

6
See “Ethiopian Eunuch” in Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York:
Doubleday, 1996, c1992. Noel notes that because of this anomaly leads to discussions of Luke’s
sources. Some think it comes from Philip; some see it from Philip and it does have the first
conversion of the Gentiles with Luke wishing to preserve Peter’s primacy in his account of Acts 10‐
11; some see it as a legend about the conversion of a prominent individual. I would argue it came
from Philip.

336

30). The Jerusalem believers learned of the plot and got Saul out sending him to Caesarea and home
to Tarsus (9:30).

The conversion of Saul brought the persecution period to an end and the church in Judea, Galilee
and Samaria stabilized, experiencing peace and growth (9:31).

This conversion is one of the most important moments in the history of the church setting ablaze the
ministry of the apostle to the Gentiles who established the Gospel firmly from Jerusalem through to
west Macedonia and onto Spain.

The gospel spreads through Judea (9:32‐42)
Luke now turns to recount a missionary journey of Peter. Rather than evangelism, the purpose of his
mission appears to have been pastoral; he going ‘here and there among all the believers’ and visiting
‘the saints living in Lydda’ (9:32). This points to Peter’s apostolic role including not just evangelism
(Acts 2‐3) but strengthening and following up the converts; he fulfillling Jesus’ appeal to him after his
resurrection, to ‘feed my sheep’ cf. Jn 21:15‐18.

Peter’s Travels

On one trip, through Peter, God healed Aeneas who had been bedridden for eight years with
paralysis. Peter spoke directly to him ‘Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!’ His
healing was immediate as he acted out of faith again indicating the centrality of healing to the
ministry of the first Christians. While Peter’s trip was pastoral in intent, the impact of the healing
was evangelistic, the healing spurring a huge turning to the Lord among the residents of Lydda and
Sharon (see map) (9:33‐35). This indicates that Peter preached and ministered in signs and wonders
as did Jesus, Paul and Philip.

Whilst in Joppa Peter had another miraculous encounter with Tabitha/Dorcas, a disciple who was
devoted to good works and acts of charity especially toward widows (9:35, 39). This is another
example of material ministry as we saw in the Jerusalem Church; now it is being experienced across
the churches of Judea. This is another indication of the spread of the gospel and witness. When she
became ill and died the believers sent for Peter who came to her amidst the mourning widows who
had been recipients of her ministry. Peter removed the mourners (cf. Jesus and Jairus’ daughter [Mk
5:37]). Again he directly addressed the deceased woman telling her to ‘get up’. This led to her
337

responding by opening her eyes and living again (9:41‐42). Again the impact of this is to see many
coming to Christ form Joppa. These encounters point to the decisive role charismatic miracles had
on the spread of the gospel in the early church. They were also signs of the Kingdom, demonstrating
that the time of salvation had come.
The Gospel goes to the Gentiles (10:1‐11:18).
Chapter 10 tells the story of the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles. This is utterly significant in the
history of Judaism and Christianity, the breaking out of the gospel beyond Judaism! Again the story is
God‐inspired and not as a result of strategy or intentional mission. It is God who sparks it
dynamically, working in two contexts simultaneously engineering the encounter of the apostle Peter
with the devout Cornelius. Cornelius is an example of a Gentile with more than a passing interest in
Judaism, God‐fearer. He is a Roman centurion and, while not a circumcised proselyte, is a devout
believer in God along with all his family participating in Jewish prayer life and giving to the poor
(10:1).

During one of his thrice‐daily prayer times, an angel speaks explicitly to him telling him that God has
heard his prayers and to send for Peter who is at the home of Simon the tanner in Joppa which he
does (10:2‐7).

The following day Peter is praying on his roof and has the experience of a vision which three times
encourages him to eat unclean animals. Peter refuses and three times he is instructed to eat. Finally,
the Lord says ‘what God has made clean, you must not call profane’ (10:9‐16). The significance of the
three‐fold experience can be linked to the three‐fold denial of Christ (Lk 22:54‐62) and his three‐fold
restoration (Jn 21:15‐19). I find this an interesting story because in Mk 7 and Mt 15 the evangelists
record Jesus’ teaching the creation principle (cf. Gen 2:15; 9:3) that all food is good i.e. ‘it is not what
goes into a person that makes them unclean, but what comes out of their mouth’. This suggests that
a sub‐text of the Lucan narrative as noted above is possibly the failure of the church to grasp fully
the cosmic scope of mission. Peter should not have needed the experience but, just as he and the
other disciples failed to fully understand the Spirit of Christ suffering and death, they were slow to
respond to the call to go to all nations with the Gospel. It took the sovereign work of God to break
through to them.

While Peter was unsure of what to make of the vision, the men of Cornelius arrive and request that
he come with them as the angel had instructed. The Spirit instructed him to go with them and Peter
invites them into his home to stay the night, an astonishing act of hospitality from a Jew to a Gentile;
he allowing them to stay with he and Simon (10:17‐23).

The next day Peter and some other Christians from Joppa went to Caesarea where Cornelius fell at
his feet in worship. Peter rejected his act of worship and asked him why he a Gentile had requested
that he, a Jew who by his own law was not to associate with a Gentile, would send for him (10:24‐
29). Cornelius then recounted the story of the angel (10:30‐33).

Peter clearly accepted this story and began to preach the message to them (see above on the
speeches of Acts for more detailed discussion). Beginning with God’s acceptance of all nations, he
recounted the story of Jesus’ ministry, his death, resurrection, commission and prophetic fulfilment
(10:34‐43).

Then came a second critical moment of the coming of the Spirit in the book of Acts (cf. Pentecost),
when the Spirit fell spontaneously upon Cornelius’ family in the middle of Peter’s sermon (10:44).
This represented the acceptance by God of the Gentiles into the community of God. The importance
of this is seen in Peter and other believer’s astonishment (10:45) as they saw Cornelius and his family
338

speaking tongues and praising God (10:46). They were then baptised and Peter stayed with them, a
devout Jew in the home of Gentiles, for several days (10:47). We cannot underestimate the
significance for Peter and salvation history. Here Gentiles are received fully into God’s people by the
sovereign act of God without prejudice. This ultimately caused a complete rethink of standard
Jewish thinking which believed that Gentiles would be saved and integrated into God’s Kingdom
through becoming Jewish, circumcision and adherence to the Law.

The gravity of the encounter is seen when Peter returns to Jerusalem to face the criticism of Jewish
believers for eating in the home of the uncircumcised (11:1‐3). Peter then defended his actions on
account of the vision (11:4‐11), the direction of the Spirit to go to the Gentiles and enter their home
(11:12‐13), the remarkable coincidence that God had spoken to Cornelius through an angel (11:12‐
14) and the manner in which the Spirit fell upon Cornelius’ family as he spoke (11:15‐16). Peter then
interpreted the outpouring as a fulfilment of the expectation expressed by John the Baptist that
Jesus would baptise with the Spirit (Lk 3:16). Peter then asked how he could stand in the way of God
(11:17 cf. 4:19‐20; 5:29). This silenced the criticisms, the Jewish believers accepting that ‘God has
given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’ (11:18).
The Gospel spreads into Antioch
At this point the narrative shifts back to Acts 8:1‐4 and the account of the Christians scattered from
the persecution of Saul. We read in 8:1 that the scattered went into Samaria and Judea. Here we see
that they went much further, more evidence of the impulsion of the Spirit in spreading the gospel.

Some of these travelled to Phoenicia (north of Galilee), Cyprus (an island in the Mediterranean of
the coast of Phoenicia and Syrian Antioch preaching the word (11:19). In Antioch some from Cyprus
and Cyrene shared the gospel not only to Jews, proselytes or God‐fearers, but to Greeks. A great
number of Gentiles believed continuing the theme of Gentile conversion (11:21).

The news reached Jerusalem and, as in the case of the Samarian mission, they sent an emissary to
check out what was happening. Appropriately they sent a Cyprian Levite, Barnabas (the ‘son of
encouragement’), ‘a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith’ (11:21‐22, 24). His response was
positive, rejoicing and he exhorted them in their faith and being a part of further evangelisation
(11:23‐24). Barnabas then went and found Saul in Tarsus and they returned to Antioch where they
continued to teach the converts, the disciples for the first time being called ‘Christians’ (sing:
Christianos; Pl. Christianoi) (11:25‐26). The ending of the singular –ianos is equivalent to the Latin –
ianus and describes ownership i.e. ‘people who belong to Christ’, perhaps in the sense of slaves.7 It
was commonly used by non‐Christian writers of believers (Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.64; Tacitus, Annals
15.44; Pliny, Epistles 10.96–97; Lucian, Alexander 25.38). This reflects that Christianity was beginning
to be identified in its own right aside from Judaism, further indicating of the spread of the gospel.
We see here further evidence that the gospel is now spreading spontaneously through the power of
the Spirit to the Gentiles (cf. 1:8).

Then we see the importance of social action in the early church. Agabus a prophet of Jerusalem
came to Antioch and predicted a famine throughout the world. The response of the Antiochians was
to raise money and send a gift to Judea through Barnabas and Saul (11:27‐30). This is probably the
visit of Paul to Jerusalem in Gal 2. 8 This is important indicating that accurate predictive prophecy
was a part of the life of the early church (see also Acts 21:10‐11). We also have the beginnings of
itinerant prophetic ministry.

7
Dennis Gaertner, Acts, CPNIV (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1993), Ac 1:1 (no page).
8
Some believe that Gal 2 refers to the Acts 15 but this is unlikely.
339

Further news from Jerusalem
Luke then returns to Jerusalem and speaks of another outpouring of persecution upon the Jerusalem
Church. This time it is initiated from King Herod Agrippa who had James, the Son of Zebedee and
brother of John, killed by the sword (12:1‐2). 9 He was the grandson of Herod the Great and the son
of Aristobulus killed by Herod the Great in 7BC. Herod Agrippa was raised in Rome with his mother.
He was appointed by Caligula to rulership in areas of the north in AD 37 and this increased until, by
AD 41 under Claudius, he was ruler of all of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, the Transjordan and Decapolis.
Because of Roman political volatility, he was important for him to ensure strong support in Israel; so
he did all he could to please the Jews, including supporting the Pharisees. This could provide
background for his treatment of the Christians. 10

Seeing that the killing of James me with widespread acclaim from the Jewish community, he
imprisoned Peter, no doubt with the intention of killing him too. The response of the church was
fervent prayer, no doubt in the hope of saving him from a similar fate to James (12:3‐5).

Here Luke emphasises again the power of God in response to prayer (cf. Acts 4:26f). Whilst asleep
bound between two guards, an angel appears in a bright light, released him and directed him to get
up, get dressed and follow him (12:6‐9). Peter followed still believing himself to be asleep passing
through the gates which opened automatically finally coming to himself in the street (12:10). He
then realised what had happened and went to the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark where
the church was praying (12:11‐12).

After the servant Rhoda initially thinking the visitor was Peter’s angel, 11 Peter was welcomed in and
he told them the story and then escaped (12:15‐17).This led to the soldiers being interrogated and
put to death while Peter went to Caesarea. 12

The first half of Acts finishes with the account of Herod’s death whereby he died for accepting the
crowds praise of him as a divinity (12:20‐23) followed by the continued growth of the gospel and the
return of Saul, Barnabas and John Mark to Jerusalem (12:24‐25).

Conclusion
There are a number of key issues that these sections raise:
1. The continuation of the redemptive story with the hopes of the restoration of Israel and the
bringing of Gentiles to faith in God.
2. The continued work of the Spirit in spreading the message throughout the world through
divine action.
3. The importance of signs and wonders and social action alongside evangelism.
4. The importance of pastoral ministry for the strengthening of believers alongside continued
evangelistic mission.

9
Polhill, Acts, 278 notes that if he killed him in a Roman way which is most likely, he would have had
him beheaded with the support of the Romans (remember that he had no right of capital
punishment). If he was killed in a Jewish way which forbade beheading as a desecration to the body,
he would have had the edge of the sword thrust through his body.
10
Polhill, Acts, 277.
11
N.T. Wright argues this may indicate a Greek understanding of resurrection thinking Peter to be deceased
and this an appearance of his spirit.
12
That the soldiers were killed on this occasion strongly contrasts with the soldiers at Jesus’ tomb who were
not put to death despite the disappearance of the body i.e. his resurrection cf. Mt 27:62‐64).
340

5. The importance of cross‐cultural mission; God not showing favouritism and wanting all
cultures and nations to be saved.
6. The role of persecution in the spreading of the gospel in its initial phases.
7. The role of courageous and obedient key figures set apart by God for mission e.g. Philip,
Paul, Peter, Barnabas and unnamed disciples in Antioch etc.

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)
Introduction
The Jerusalem Council in AD 49 is an important moment in the Book of Acts 13 and was a watershed
moment in the history of the church. 14 It resulted from the impact of the gospel going beyond
Judaism and into the Gentile world. It brings to a head issues of culture, race and Jewish notions of
election.

In light of Jewish views of election, covenant, law and the Gentile world, it was a critical moment. It
forced the Jewish leaders of the burgeoning church to face the challenging question of the status of
their precious and loved law (cf. Ps 119) and religious ritual (esp. circumcision) now that faith in
Yahweh had not only been reconstituted around the person of Jesus the Messiah, but had begun to
spread rapidly into the world of the uncircumcised. The decision made was radical and daring. The
process of decision making is paradigmatic for dealing with controversial issues. Let us turn to
analyse what happened. What follows is a general exegetical analysis of Acts 15 and application for
today.
Acts 15
The Problem: Different Views of Salvation, the People of God, and the Law
So often in Christian life we clash over differences of opinion. Many of these have caused the church
or churches to split as people have not been able to deal with the disagreement and come to an
amicable resolution. 15 Here we have the first really critical point of disagreement that spanned the
whole early church. 16

The issue was sparked by certain individuals who came from Judea to the church that had developed
in Antioch. As we have already seen a number of believers from Jerusalem who had been scattered
in the Sauline persecution had come to Antioch preaching the gospel (8:4; 11:19). They had seen a
number of Gentiles converted and Barnabas and Saul had taught there for a year (11:19‐30). The
church had a number of prominent teachers and prophets in its midst (13:1‐3). From this church,

13
Marshall, Acts, 242 notes this passage is the centre of Acts structurally and theologically.
14
Marshall, Acts, 244‐247… notes that this is one of the most controversial passages from a historical point of
view; especially in regard to correlating this text with the Epistles. There are three main views with variations:
1) Acts 15 = Gal 2:1‐10; 2) Acts 11:29‐30 = Gal 2:1‐10; 3) Acts 11:29‐30 = Acts 15 = Gal 2:1‐10 (i.e. the two visits
are actually one event; a doublet). The best answer appears to be 2) as Marshall argues persuasively as does
Longenecker, Acts, 440‐442. Thus, Galatians itself, represents the problem of Judaisers in the south Galatians
church before the Jerusalem Council; the very problem the council addresses.
15
For example, ‘the filioque clause’ which states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son) and
caused the split of Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic churches. Other examples are the debates over the
Reformation; baptism (Anabaptists), charismatic splits over the Spirit, women in ministry and now,
homosexuals in ministry.
16
Clearly there were other issues within churches (e.g. Acts 6:1‐6); however, this is the first issue that needed
resolution across the whole church.
341

Paul and Barnabas had set out on their mission to take the gospel to the Gentile world, he being the
‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (cf. Acts 13:2‐3; Gal 2:1‐10). We know from Acts 11:27 that there was a
constant flow of interaction between Jerusalem and Antioch, including Barnabas (11:22), Agabus
and other prophets (11:27‐28), the first collection (11:29‐30) and these teachers. We also know that
at some time Peter came to Antioch, probably after Paul’s first missionary journey and before the
Jerusalem Council. Similarly, some Christians (who were not Judaisers) came from the leader of the
Jerusalem church James (Jesus’ brother), to Antioch, during which time there was a controversy over
eating with Gentiles (Gal 2:11‐14). 17

These teachers appear to have been Jerusalem Christians who had gone under their own volition
and without the authorisation of the Jerusalem Christian leadership. Such people have come to be
called ‘Judaisers’. ‘Judaisers’ were Jews who had accepted Christ as Messiah and Lord but believed
that new believers whether Jew or Gentile, needed to adhere to the Law of Moses for salvation and
inclusion in God’s people. In particular, they insisted on the circumcision of new male converts to
Christianity for salvation in the same way as Gentiles who wished to be Jewish proselytes were
required to be circumcised. 18 Hence their message: ‘unless you are circumcised according to the
custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’ (15:1). They may have been concerned that the influx of
Gentile believers may have diluted the ethical purity of the church. 19 Another concern would have
been how Jewish Christians could continue in table fellowship with uncircumcised Gentile
Christians. 20 Thus, to become a part of the people of God, was to join the people of Israel under the
old covenant, but now gathered around Jesus as Messiah.

Who these people are is unclear. However, they must be Jewish converts to the view that Jesus was
indeed the Messiah, but who held onto their long term belief that salvation involved adherence to
the covenant and law. We know that the ranks of the Jerusalem church included Levites (e.g.
Barnabas cf. 4:36) and that a ‘large number of priests became obedient to the faith’ after the
appointment of the Seven in Acts 6:7. There were about 8,000 priests in Palestine, 21 and about 2000
in Jerusalem. 22 They were not from the High Priests aristocratic family, but were mainly poor and
supported themselves with their own hands. 23 Acts 11:2 refers to some in the church who criticized
Peter for going to the home of Cornelius, suggesting strong concern for Jewish ritual purity among
some of the Jerusalem believers. In 15:5 it is clear that some of these were from ‘the party of the
Pharisees.’ The Greek for ‘party’ here (airesis) indicates a ‘sect, party, school, faction’ and was used
of schools of philosophers i.e. a wing or stream of Pharisees. 24 Gal 2:12 also refers to a ‘circumcision
group’ (lit: ‘those from circumcision’). These may refer to those with the same mindset. Thus we
have within the growing Christian movement, a group of Pharisees who were converts but held a
Judaising viewpoint. Paul of course was a Pharisee himself (Acts 23:6; Phil 3:5), however his views
were different.

17
For detail on this see Longenecker, Galatians, 70‐73. As he notes, there is no evidence that Peter and James
supported these Judaisers (see p.442).
18
Bruce, Acts, 286‐87. He notes there were a few exceptions to this expectation; however in the majority of
cases it was expected that Gentile proselytes were circumcised.
19
Bruce, Acts, 286.
20
Marshall, Acts, 243.
21
Polhill, Acts, 183.
22
D.A. Fiensy, ‘The Composition of the Jerusalem Church’ in R. Bauckham, The Book of Acts in its First Century
Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 228. He notes that some argue that these are Essene priests, however
this is unlikely.
23
Polhill, Acts, 183.
24
BDAG, 27.
342

Critical are the italicised words, ‘cannot be saved’ (ou dunasthe sōthēvai =lit. ‘not able to be saved’)
which indicate that these Judaisers are arguing that one can be saved through works. As such, it is a
huge question theologically and the repercussions of this dispute had it been ruled in favour of the
Judaisers could have been an end of the gospel of grace which is so central to authentic Christianity
before it really got going! It would have meant to becoming a part of God’s people and entering
salvation for a Gentile would mean not only accepting Jesus as Lord and saviour, but becoming a Jew
and adhering to the law including circumcision, Sabbath, tithing, temple, ritual purity and eating
laws.

The epistles of James and Galatians are arguably related to this issue. James it is argued by some like
Carson and Moo is written in the mid 40’s and may represent James’ view of salvation through
works which clashes with Paul’s view of salvation by grace through faith (e.g. Eph 2:8‐9; Jas 2).25
They believe James changed his position at the Jerusalem Council to a law‐free grace gospel.
However, as we will discuss concerning James later on in the course, this is highly disputable, the
supposed clash between Paul and James is over‐stated and James does not deal with this issue.

The dating of Galatians is highly disputed with some arguing for a mid‐50’s date alongside Romans
whereas others for a date around 48AD. 26 If, as is more likely in my view, the latter is true, Galatians
demonstrates that some Judaisers from Jerusalem not only went to Antioch, but were active going
to the Pauline churches in south Galatia evangelised on his first missionary journey and seeking to
turn them from a law‐free gospel to a Judaising view. Paul’s letter counters this. The letter of
Galatians demonstrates that this is a major issue which Paul deals with strongly stating that any
other gospel which advocates salvation by anything other than grace through faith, is to be rejected
(see esp. Gal 1:6‐10) and circumcision was not necessary for salvation and inclusion in the people of
God (2:3; 5:3, 6; 6:15).

It is clear from all this that the problem was not insignificant, Paul and Barnabas disputing their
viewpoint with great passion and engaging in debate with them (15:2). 27 Paul and Barnabas, in
contrast to the Judaisers’ insistence on salvation by faith in Christ and adherence to circumcision and
the law, proposed that salvation is by grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ! Faith of course is not
a ‘work’ but an inward mental and volitional response to the gospel. Indeed there is no evidence of
new Gentile converts including Cornelius, Antiochian Christians, Titus (cf. Gal 2:4) and those from
Paul’s first journey being circumcised (Acts 10‐13). 28

The issue was clearly not resolved in Antioch and Paul and Barnabas along with some from the
Antioch church were appointed to travel to Jerusalem to discuss the question with the Jerusalem
apostles and elders (15:3). This decision was probably made for a number of reasons. First, the
preachers were from Judea and so the matter involved the Jerusalem context. Secondly, throughout
Acts one gets a sense of Jerusalem and the apostles being afforded some degree of priority over the
church due to their selection by Jesus and their living with him from the beginning (cf. Acts 8:17;
11:1‐18, 22 cf. Gal 2:1‐10). As such, coming to agreement with the Jerusalem leadership on the place

25
See Carson, Moo, Introduction, 627. See similarly, Guthrie, Introduction, 749‐752.
26
This depends on whether you think Galatians was sent to the northern part of Galatia (the North Galatian
Theory) or the South Galatian towns, those Paul evangelised on his first journey (South Galatian Theory). We
will discuss this later in the course. For a good analysis see Guthrie, Introduction, 465‐481
27
The Greek here for dispute is stasis suggesting an ‘insurrection’ or a ‘heated quarrel’ so Swanson,
James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), GGK5087.
Oak Harbour: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. It is used of Barabbas the insurrectionist in the
Gospels (cf. Lk 15:7). That it was ‘no small’ dispute reflects the gravity of the situation; it sounds like
a full‐blown row!
28
Similarly Marshall, Acts, 242.
343

of circumcision and the law was critical to the church. Thirdly, Barnabas had initially come to Antioch
from Jerusalem and was a fellow‐missionary to the Gentiles with Paul (Acts 13:2f).

After travelling through Phoenicia and Samaria and sharing the news to the Christians of the area of
the conversion of the Gentiles on the first missionary journey to a great reception of joy (15:3), 29
they came to Jerusalem. Interestingly, their positive reception in Phoenicia and Samaria indicates
that these new converts understood a law‐free gospel was essential, unlike the Judaisers.

On arrival in Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas reported to the church the story of the conversion of
Christians in Pamphylia and Lycaonia. The reaction of some believers who were Pharisees was
negative, they restating the principle that it ‘is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to
keep the Law of Moses’ (15:5). Again, note the emphatic wording – obedience to the Mosaic law is
essential for salvation. This effectively meant for a Gentile to be saved, they had to become a Jew in
the OT Mosaic sense. If this had been carried, the Christian faith would have remained a sect of
Judaism.

Hence the problem is clear. It was a matter of whether or not a new Gentile believer should not only
believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord, but adhere to the Law of Moses and circumcision to be saved.
They were thus syncretising the Christian faith to Judaism. This point is critical; throughout the NT
we see syncretism at work; i.e. where people compromise the essentials of the faith to their culture.
In Corinth we see it with the Greco‐Roman culture of elitism, sexual immorality, spiritual
‘resurrection’ and more. In our age, it is materialism, individualism, sexual immorality, hedonism etc.
Here, it is Judaism and its view of the law and circumcision. This was no small matter. Paul and
Barnabas were not only advocating a move away from tradition, but a move away from what was
considered to be sacred revelation to Abraham (Gen 17:10‐14)30 and Moses (Exod 20:3‐17). It is no
surprise that it was converted Pharisees who raised the objection (cf. Acts 6:7; 11:2), they being
considering themselves arbiters of the law and preservers of the purity of Israel.
The Response 1: A Gathering to Consider the Matter
The response of the apostles and elders was appropriate. They ‘met together to consider the matter’
(15:6) in a manner not unlike the way they sought to resolve the Hellenist issue (6:2). 31 In‐ so‐doing
they brought time and avoided a hasty decision. This is a critical principle of dealing with issues, to
take ones time and not rush, especially where the matter is of extreme importance. Indeed, the
whole church could easily have fragmented if a hasty decision was made.

The gathering was intense, there being ‘much debate’ (lit: ‘much controversy/dispute/debate’
[pollēs zētēseōs] (15:7). At some point, perhaps days into the discussion (?), 32 Peter spoke, his last
contribution to the story in Acts. First, he reminded them of the salvation of Cornelius’ family, the
first Gentile converts (Acts 10:1‐11:15). In his speech he emphasized God’s election, the pouring out
of the Spirit, the cleansing of the heart, faith for salvation and that there is no discrimination
between Jew and Gentile in the heart of God (‘them and us’) (15:7‐9); and all this without the
recipients being circumcised! 33 In other words, God’s acceptance of uncircumcised Cornelius and his

29
By this time there were well established Christian communities along the Phoenician coast through the work
of scattered Christians (Acts 11:19) and in Samaria through Philip (8:1‐18). As converts through scattered
Hellenist Jews, they were less likely to be concerned about circumcision cf. Bruce, Acts, 288.
30
Bruce, Acts, 287 notes that to refuse circumcision was to relax the terms of the Abrahamic covenant and so
‘forfeit all claim to remnant righteousness, all title to salvation on the last day’.
31
“So the twelve gathered all the disciples together.”
32
Perhaps the gathering was not unlike a Maori Hui?
33
Cf. Bruce, Acts, 290.
344

family demonstrated by the outpouring of the Spirit, despite his not being circumcised, that
salvation for all including Jew and Gentile was by grace and not by law. The pouring out of the Spirit
here is decisive; an indication that God had accepted these new converts. He then turned to the
question of circumcision and the law asking whether by asking new Gentile converts to be
circumcised and adhere to the Law of Moses, the Jewish believers were placing an unnecessary
burden (yoke) 34 on the new converts, 35 a burden that the Jewish people in the past had not been
able to fulfil. 36 He then stated that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are saved by the grace of Jesus
(15:10‐11). Clearly Peter had sorted out his perspective since the clash with Paul over table
fellowship in Antioch (Gal 2:11‐14). 37

In‐so‐doing, Peter sided with Paul and Barnabas who in the ‘much debate’ (15:7) had no doubt
presented the principle of salvation by grace, through faith and not through law or any type of works
or human effort (cf. Gal 2:15‐16; Eph 2:8‐10).

Then Barnabas 38 and Paul were given an uninterrupted opportunity to speak of the wonderful
things that God had done through them in their travels including signs and wonders, the work of the
Spirit. 39 The reference to the silence of the assembly at this point could suggest that they had not
had an uninterrupted opportunity to share what had happened. Alternatively, it could be that
Peter’s support for the Antiochians silenced the opposition. 40
The Response 2: A Decision Led by the Spirit in Community
This was followed by James, 41 seemingly now the leader of the Jerusalem church, 42 who recalled
positively Peter’s words 43 and pointed to what had happened as fulfilment of OT expectation from
Amos 9:11‐12 of the Gentiles coming to faith in God (15:14‐17). 44 This was radical too in that James
was probably seen as the ‘champion of a conservative Jewish outlook.’ 45 James too, sided with Paul,
Barnabas and Peter and made a ruling (‘I have reached the decision’) that Gentiles did not need to
be circumcised and adhere to the Law of Moses (15:19) i.e. salvation is by grace and not works of the
law or works.

34
The zugon is used as a frame for draught animals of slavery (see Swanson, Lexicon, GGK2433).
35
Bruce, Acts, 290 notes that to ‘take up the yoke of the kingdom of heaven’ became equivalent to reciting the
Shema (Deut 6:4‐5).
36
This text is significant because it shows a similar view of the law as something unable to be fulfillled as we
find in Paul (cf. Rom 3:20; Gal 3:10, 23‐24).
37
There Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from table fellowship with the Gentiles when Jerusalem Christians
came to Antioch for fear of Judaisers.
38
It is surely significant that the local man Barnabas who was highly regarded in the Jerusalem community is
named ahead of Paul who was probably treated with far greater suspicion by all and especially the Pharisee‐
Christians.
39
No doubt including the blinding of Elymas (13:11); the healing of the disabled man in Lystra (14:10); the
healing (resurrection?) of Paul after being stoned in Lystra (14:19‐20). These were probably just some of the
miracles from the first journey.
40
Marshall, Acts, 250.
41
Known as ‘James the Just’ ‘because of his piety, he was ascetic and scrupulous in keeping the law’
(Longenecker, Acts, 446.
42
Bruce, Acts, 292 notes that the elders of the Jerusalem church may have been organized as a kind of
Nazarene Sanhedrin with James as their president.
43
Simeon is a variant of Simon, referring to Simon Peter.
44
His words carry special significance in that he calls the Gentile converts a people (laos) which is traditionally
used of the Jews in contrast to the Gentiles (the nations = ethne [Ex 19:5; 23:22; Dt 7:6; 14:2; 26:18f]) i.e. a
people for himself from the nations! Cf. Marshall, Acts, 251.
45
Marshall, Acts, 251 who suggests that James may have shifted position in the discussion.
345


He then suggested a letter be taken to the new Gentile churches encouraging them to abstain from
four things. First, they should desist ‘from things polluted by idols.’ This probably refers to objects
and food that was associated with the temple. This is an issue in 1 Cor 8‐10 where Paul argues for
the Corinthians to have freedom in this regard; however, out of love for those who find this
threatening, not to do so. This decision probably is similar; out of love for the Jewish members of the
congregation, new Gentile Christians should not do this. Secondly, they should refrain ‘from
fornication’ (porneia) meaning, sexual immorality as defined in Jewish thinking by Lev 18. 46 Thirdly,
they should refrain from eating animals that had been strangled; and fourthly, from eating or
drinking blood (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10; Deut 12:16, 23‐25). 47 The reason (gar = ‘for’) for this is given
in 15:21 i.e. because such activities would give offence to Jewish Christians who are found in every
city. 48 Thus it is pastoral, a compromise position in cultural terms. 49 It may also have had a
missiological concern in that this decision left the path to evangelism to Jews at least to some
extent, open; they being able to come to faith and not be offended by the practice of Gentile
Christians. In other words, the decision would give the best possible hope of the greatest number of
Gentiles and Jews being saved (1 Cor 10:31).

This decision appears to have been accepted by the whole church (15:22) who also accepted the
decision to select Judas (Barsabbas) 50 and Silas, who was to become a travelling companion of Paul
in his second missionary journey, to travel with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and beyond to the new
Gentile congregations to deliver the letter (15:22‐23).

The letter is a summary of the decision made by the Jerusalem Council (15:23‐29). Significantly the
letter notes that the Judaising teachers do not represent the church at all and distances the
Jerusalem leadership from their message which ‘disturbed you and unsettled your minds.’ The letter
too vindicates Barnabas and Paul in two ways calling them ‘beloved’ (agapetois) and emphasizing
the way in which they risked their lives for the sake of the mission of Christ (15:26). The role of the
Holy Spirit is also stressed: ‘it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit’ … (cf. 13:2). Thus the mind of the
Spirit was found in the context of open discussion of issues, in community decision making. 51

As an aside, this letter is of interest hermeneutically in that we have a letter embedded in the text of
Acts.
Conclusion and Application
Since the times of the Jerusalem Council, the church and denominations has faced, and today
continues to face, critical decisions. In recent times this has been seen with controversies over

46
Some limit this to marriage between close relatives (Lev 18:6‐18). However there seems no justification in
limiting it thus.
47
The Western Text states that the Gentiles ‘abstain from idolatry, from fornication and from bloodshed, and
from doing to others what they would not like done to themselves.’ Bruce, Acts, 296 notes that for Jews
‘idolatry, fornication and murder’ were considered the three cardinal sins binding on the whole human race.
48
Marshall, Acts, 254 notes two other possibilities: 1) That there are Jews in every city whose scruples the
Christians should respect cf. Longenecker, Acts, 448; 2) As there are synagogues in each city, Christians who
want to find out about Judaism can visit them. Neither ring true; rather, I take it missiologically: that is, by
ensuring that the Gentile believers respect these customs despite not being circumcised, they give least
offence to Jews in the hope of their salvation.
49
As Longenecker, Acts, 448 notes, this is not a compromise between the two parties, but a practical
compromise for the growing church.
50
Perhaps related to the Joseph called Barsabbas in 1:25, one of the two candidates to replace Judas Iscariot.
51
Bruce, Acts, 298 notes that this is a unique statement in terms of defining a decision by a corporate body by
the Spirit.
346

resurrection, women in ministry, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuals in church and ministry. It is
probably the latter issue that is causing the greatest problem in the mainline churches today
(whereas the more fundamental and conservative churches with a stronger focus on the scriptures
in a literal sense, do not contemplate the issue).

The Jerusalem Council gives a great paradigm for resolving issues. One can discern the main
elements of the context:
1. The problem surfaces.
2. The church gathers and discusses the problem openly and with vigorous debate.
3. The leadership after hearing the discussion, prayerfully sense the Spirit’s leading based on
the principle of grace over works and make a decision after careful process (‘it seemed good
to the Holy Spirit…).
4. The decision is considered and approved by the whole gathering (God willing; this is an ideal
and doesn’t always occur).
5. The decision is enacted.
6. The decision is accepted by those who opposed it! Or was it? There is evidence that this
issue went on in the church in Romans and Philippians 3. Interestingly, Philippians 3 is
written probably in the early 60’s and indicates that the problem of travelling Judaisers
remained strong. There are other letters which have heretical issues perhaps not of full
Judaising level, but show tensions over the Jewish faith remained (e.g. Rom 14‐15; Col 2; 1
Tim 1).

Of course this is all very ideal and can break down at any point if those involved in the debate opt
out. In the case of the Jerusalem Council, the church could have split irrevocably very early between
the Judaisers and ‘grace’ Christians which would have torn apart the Jerusalem community and
perhaps even disrupting irrevocably the Gentile mission.

• Why is this period so important in the redemptive story?
347

348

Chapter Eighteen

PAUL’S LIFE AND CONVERSION
Contents
PAUL’S LIFE AND CONVERSION .................................................................................................................. 349
The Life of Paul .................................................................................................................................... 350
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 350
Paul’s Life in Outline ....................................................................................................................... 351
Paul’s Pre‐Christian days ..................................................................................................................... 352
Conversion (the Damascus road) ........................................................................................................ 354
Paul in Arabia (Gal 1:17) ..................................................................................................................... 355
Paul’s First Trip as a Christian in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18‐19; Acts 9:26‐30) ............................................ 356
Paul’s Mission to Cilicia and Syria ....................................................................................................... 356
Paul in Antioch .................................................................................................................................... 356
Paul’s Missions From Antioch ............................................................................................................. 357
Missionary Journey One (began c. AD 47‐48) ................................................................................. 357
Missionary Journey Two (began c. AD 49‐50) ................................................................................. 358
Missionary Journey Three (begins c. AD 52) ................................................................................... 361
Jerusalem‐Caesarea ........................................................................................................................ 363
Journey to Rome ............................................................................................................................. 364
Paul’s Possible Fifth Missionary Journey ........................................................................................ 365

349

Paul's Life and Conversion
The Life of Paul
Introduction
The thirteen letters attributed to Paul make up a significant portion of the NT. They are in the main,
the earliest documents in the NT and as such give us extraordinary insight into the life of the early
church and the expansion of Christianity. In this discussion we will briefly look at overarching issues
in regard to Paul. As the map below indicates, Paul’s life focussed around a region from Jerusalem
through to Rome, along the Great Sea (Mediterranean).

Paul’s Life Key Geographical Points 1

1
From Nelson’s Complete Book of Maps and Charts, Revised.
350

Paul’s Life in Outline
The story of Paul’s life is a remarkable story. Here we will trace in very general terms, the contours
of his life in chronological detail and place the letters in the flow of Paul’s life. The main sources for
this are Acts and the letters which I believe correlate nicely to give a reasonably full picture of Paul’s
life.

2
A Suggested Chronology of Paul’s Life and Ministry

DATE EVENT
1‐10 Paul’s Birth
3 4
Aut 27‐Aut 28 Ministry of John the Baptist
Spring 28 Baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:9‐11 par)
Summer 28 Early Judean ministry of Jesus (Jn 2:13‐4:3)
Autumn 28‐Aut 29 Galilean ministry of Jesus ((Mk 1:14‐9:50 par)
Aut 28‐Spring 30 Jesus in Judea and Perea (Mk 10:1 par)
April‐May 30 Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost (Lk 23‐Acts 2)
c. 33 Conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1‐22; Gal 1:15‐17)
c. 35 Paul's first visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26‐30; Gal 1:18‐20)
c. 43 Death of James, Peter's escape from prison (Acts 12:1‐17)
March 44 Death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:20‐23)
45‐48 Famine in Judea (Acts 11:28)
5
c. 46 Paul and Barnabas visit Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; Gal 2:1)
c. 47‐48 Paul and Barnabas MJ1 to Cyprus, S. Galatia (Acts 13:4‐14:26)
6
c. 48 Galatians
c. 49 Apostolic council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6‐29)
7
c. 49‐50 Paul MJ2 to Macedonia (Acts 16:9‐17:14; 1 Thess 1:2‐2:2)
Aut 50‐Spring 52 Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:1‐18; 1 Cor 2:1‐5)
Late 50 1 & 2 Thessalonians
c. May 51 Gallio proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12)
Spring‐Summer 52 Visit to Judea and Syria (Acts 18:22)
Aut 52‐Sum 55 Paul in Ephesus (Acts 19:1‐20:1)
Early 55 Paul sends Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia (Acts 19:22)
Spring 55 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 16:8)
Summer 55 Paul's sorrowful visit to Corinth (2 Cor 2:1; 13:2)
Sum/Aut 55 Titus' reconciling mission in Corinth (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5‐16)
Aut 55 Paul in Troas (2 Cor 2:12)
Wint 55‐Aut 56 Paul in Macedonia and Illyricum (Acts 20:1f; Rom 15:19)

2
F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Third edition. W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1990). I have made one or
two minor adjustments and additions.
3
This represents spring in the southern hemisphere etc.
4
If H.W. Hoehner, ‘Chronology’ in DJG, 118‐22, is right then this should be dated rather at Aug 19 AD 28‐Dec
31 AD 29 meaning Jesus ministry lasted from AD 29 to his death Friday, April 3, AD 33. This is the view of L.C.A.
Alexander, ‘Chronology of Paul’ in DPL, 115‐23.
5
Taking the 14 years in Gal 2:1 as inclusive of the 3 years of Gal 1:18 and equating the Gal 2:1 visit to
Jerusalem with the famine visit (Acts 11:30). This has real problems.
6
Most scholars would now place Galatians in the early mid‐50's. However a strong case can still be made for a
pre‐50’s date. See for example R. N. Longenecker, Galatians. WBC 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), lxxii‐lxxxviii.
7
This creates the problem of a really rushed Macedonian visit.
351

56 2 Corinthians
Winter 56‐57 Paul in Achaia (Corinth) (Acts 20:2f; Rom 15:25‐28; 16:23)
Early 57 Romans
May 57 Paul's arrival and arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21:15‐33)
57‐59 Paul detained at Caesarea (Acts 23:23‐26:32)
Sept 59 Paul sails to Italy (Acts 27:1f)
Wint 59‐60 Paul in Malta (Acts 28:1‐10)
Feb/March 60 Paul arrives in Rome (Acts 28:14‐16)
c. 60 Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians
c. 61‐62 Philippians
Late 61‐62 End of Paul's Roman detention (Acts 28:30)
62‐64 Fourth Missionary Journey to West?
July 64 Great fire in Rome
64‐65 Imprisonment in Rome
64‐65 Pastoral Epistles: 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy
65? Neronian persecution; Peter and Paul killed.
70 Destruction of Jerusalem

This indicates that Paul was converted around AD33 in his 20’s, began his Antiochian missionary
journeys in about AD47‐48 in his mid 40’s; wrote his letters between AD48‐64AD; died in his early
60’s in Rome under Nero.
Paul’s Pre‐Christian days
Paul’s life before his conversion is a remarkable example of the way in which God prepares his
workers for ministry. He is testimony to the way in which God prepares and calls. The role he was to
take up; namely, ‘the apostle to the Gentiles’; was utterly critical to the extension of God’s work on
planet earth. When we look at Paul’s life we see a man set apart by God specifically for the ministry.
Indeed it is difficult to contemplate a person better prepared for sharing the gospel of Jesus, the
crucified Jewish Messiah and Lord to the Greco‐Roman world. Just as God prepared Moses in the
court of Pharaoh and desert; just as he prepared David in the pastures of Judah caring for sheep and
chasing off lion and bear; God’s preparation of Paul is miraculous.

Paul was a Jew of Jews. Originally Saul, he was born sometime in the first decade of the first century
AD. ‘According to traditions preserved in Jerome (Philemon commentary; Vir. 5) and Photius
(Quaest. Amphil. 116), Paul’s parents were carried off as prisoners of war from the Judean town of
Gischala to Tarsus.’ 8

Saul was raised in Tarsus in Cilicia, a cosmopolitan city on the river Orentes (see above). This meant
he was well versed in Greek culture as well. He was from the tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:5) which was
honoured for two reasons: its faithfulness to Rehoboam at the time of the division of Kingdoms (1
Kgs 12:21‐23) and for the first king, Saul, after whom Paul was named (1 Sam 9:1).

There he would have been raised as a good Jewish boy with a full knowledge of the OT Scriptures
learnt in the crucible of the synagogue. 9 He would have also grown up with a thorough knowledge
of Greco‐Roman culture including the Greek language. We know that Paul was a brilliant student,
above other Jews his own age (Gal 1:14). In that he was a ‘Hebrew of Hebrews’ (Phil 3:5); he was
probably a Hebrew speaker. 10 From Acts 23:6 where Paul describes himself as a ‘son of Pharisees’ it

8
In M. Reasoner, ‘Roman Citizenship’ in DPL, 140.
9
‘Circumcised on the eighth day’ (Phil 3:5).
10
Most scholars believe this is what the term ‘Hebrew of Hebrews’ indicates.
352

seems Paul was descended from a line of Pharisees. This suggests he grew up with a very strong
sense of Jewish identity and concern for the Law, both written and oral. This would mean that he
would have from birth been committed to purity and resisted syncretism in the pagan environment
of Tarsus.

At some point in his youth, possibly because of his brilliance and Pharisaic connections, he was
chosen to travel to Jerusalem and train to become a Pharisee under the leadership of the well‐
renowned Pharisee and scholar Gamaliel (Acts 22:3; 26:3; Phil 3:5 cf. Acts 5:4). We are not sure
when he was there, but it is possible his time in Jerusalem coincided with Jesus’ ministry. However, if
so, neither Luke nor Paul himself gives any indication of this which makes it unlikely.

As a Pharisee he came to his conversion with a strong theology. It would have included a belief in
Yahwistic monotheism; Covenant; Jewish national privilege and election; the centrality of the Law;
Jewish distinctives such as circumcision, Sabbath, ritual purity; the importance of the temple;
sacrifice. He would have held a number of views that continued into his Christian theological
framework like angels and demons; a Davidic Messiah who would come at the end of time to restore
Israel; a 2‐age apocalyptic understanding meaning a culmination of this present age with the
Messiah; the woes of the Messiahs whereby the world would go through a time of turmoil and
travail before the victory of God; the resurrection of the dead; God’s judgement on all humanity; the
righteous granted eternal life with God forever and the unrighteous to eternal destruction in
Gehenna (cf. Acts 23:8); a new heaven and earth, whether restored or recreated. In addition to, he
would have been well versed in religious and political matters from a Jewish perspective: ‘educated
strictly according to our ancestral law.’ As a Pharisee he may have developed his tentmaking
vocation, Pharisees often working in such a way.

Paul was also a Roman citizen. Three times in Acts Paul refers to his citizenship (Acts 16:37‐39;
22:25‐29; 25:7‐12). On each occasion Paul uses it as the basis of an appeal when under extreme
persecution. His family, as prisoners of war would have initially been slaves. At some point they must
have been manumitted, granted citizenship or purchased it. Paul's Roman citizenship enabled him to
travel freely in the Roman Empire and to accomplish his mission along the north‐eastern
Mediterranean (Rom 15:19a). His citizenship also enabled him to avoid prison (in Philippi), death by
a mob (Jerusalem) and trial and probably death in Jerusalem (Acts 25). Being a Roman citizen
allowed him to travel freely within the Empire. It meant that he had the right of appeal after trial
(provocatio); had exemption from military duties and service (Muneris publici vacatio); the right to
choose a local or Roman trial (Reiectio), a right he made use of in Caesarea when he appealed to
Caesar (cf. Acts 25:11‐12); exemption from flogging (cf. Acts 22:25).

It is puzzling then in some situations Paul is flogged and endures great sufferings despite his right of
appeal (cf. Acts 16:22‐23; 2 Cor 11:25). This may indicate that Paul rejoiced in experiencing the
11
sufferings of Christ, that he did not always have the opportunity utilise it, did not have the paper
work on him at the time (which was often required), or as is more likely, that he was ignored. For
example, the frenzied situation in Philippi may not have given him opportunity to present his
claims. 12 Paul makes no mention of this in his letters preferring to speak of citizenship of heaven
(Phil 1:27; 3:20‐21); indicating that for him, this is the citizenship that matters most. He did
encourage believers to live at peace within the empire (cf. Rom 12:18; 13:1‐7; 1 Tim 2:1‐3); however,
allegiance to Christ is primary.

11
M. Reasoner, 'Citizenship' in DPL, 139‐41. I consider this unlikely as Paul moved on from
persecution rather than staying to relish it (cf. Acts 16:40; 17:1‐16).
12
Witherington III, Acts, 500‐501. He also notes Paul’s theology of citizenship was primarily heavenly and not
Roman and this may have contributed to his reticence to use his Roman privileges cf. Phil 1:27; 3:20.
353


All indications are that Paul was a man greatly zealous for his faith (Acts 22:2). His response to the
burgeoning Christian movement in Jerusalem after the resurrection of Christ was passionate. He
stood by approvingly at the unlawful stoning of Stephen, holding the clothes for those who killed
him (Acts 7:58). With the support of the high priest, he engaged in a furious persecution of the
Christian movement which claimed that Jesus was Messiah and Lord (Phil 3:6; 1 Tim 1:13; Acts 8:1‐3;
9:1‐2; 22:4‐5; 26:10‐11). The upshot of all this is that Paul was a brilliant young Jewish man who was
zealous for the law and traditions of Israel; so much so, that he was determined to destroy this
movement which falsely claimed that the crucified Jesus was Messiah and were threatening the
institutions and faith of Israel.

There is no evidence he was married during his life as a Christian and missionary. Certainly at the
time of writing 1 Corinthians (55AD) he explicitly states he is single (1 Cor 7:8). However, this verse is
interesting because he uses the term agamos which may well mean here ‘widower’, rather than the
general unmarried. He then states ‘as I am’, perhaps suggesting that he was previously married but
his wife has died. 13

He was a man of his culture, a Jew, but he sought to identify with those he ministered to without
compromising the gospel (1 Cor 9:19‐22).
Conversion (the Damascus road)
His conversion came totally unexpectedly at around c. AD 33. As he was travelling to Damascus to
continue his campaign against the first Christians, he had a personal encounter of Jesus. Paul clearly
considers this experience on a par with the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the period
immediately after the crucifixion (cf. 1 Cor 15:5‐8). Luke gives three accounts of this experience. The
first he narrates 9:1‐19. The second (22:6‐21) and third (26:12‐18) come in the context of Paul
testifying before Jews and King Agrippa.

The outline of the event can be discerned:
1. Trip to Damascus: Paul is en‐route to Damascus to continue his destruction of the Christian
movement by bringing back Christian Jews to prison in Jerusalem with letters of support
from the high priest and other leading priests (9:1‐3; 22:3‐5; 26:9‐11). Luke records on Paul’s
lips that he went from synagogue to synagogue seeking to get them to blaspheme (recant)
and implies that Damascus was not the only foreign city he targeted (26:11).

2. A visionary experience of the risen Lord near Damascus: In the middle of the day (noon)
near Damascus Paul had his experience. Elements include:
a. A bright light ‘brighter than the sun’ flashed around him and his companions (9:3;
22:6; 26:13).
b. Paul fell to the ground (9:4; 22:7; 26:14). This possibly indicates shock, or worship. In
the latter reference all of Paul’s companions fell to the ground. According to 22:9
Paul’s companions saw the light but did not understand the voice. In 9:7 this is

13
See Hays, 1 Corinthians, 119 who notes that this is a hint that he was previously married; that this would
have been normal and virtually mandatory for a Jewish man who studies the Torah. He notes the later rabbinic
teaching from b. Quibb. 29b: ‘He who is twenty years old and not yet married spends all of his days in sin.’ See
also G. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 288 who notes this view is held by Jeremias, Ford and Arens; he himself says, ‘That
Paul is not now married is certain; that is supported both by this text and a normal reading of 9:5. But this
passage suggests that formerly he very well may have been married.’ There is no evidence at all of children
from this marriage.
354

further clarified with the men not seeing ‘anyone’ i.e. not seeing Jesus; and heard
the sound of the voice.
c. Paul hears the voice of Jesus (9:5‐6; 22:7‐8; 26:14‐18). There is some disagreement
of the exact detail of what is said. Common elements include:

3. Jesus initiates the conversation: ‘Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ (9:4; 22:7; 26:14).
In his sermon to Agrippa Paul adds, ‘It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ According to
Louw and Nida this means ‘to react against authority in such a way as to cause harm or
suffering to oneself— “to hurt oneself by reacting against a person or command” i.e. ‘Saul,
why are you persecuting me? You are hurting yourself by your resistance’ 14
a. Paul responds: ‘Who are you Lord?’ (9:5; 22:8; 26:15). ‘Lord’ here must carry a sense
of transcendence and so Paul recognises it as a visionary experience of God.
b. Jesus identifies himself saying something about persecution: ‘I am Jesus (of Nazareth
[22:8] whom you are persecuting’ (9:5; 22:8; 26:14).
c. Jesus tells him to get up from the ground (9:7; 22:10; 26:16).
d. In 22:10 Paul is told to go into Damascus to await instructions.
e. Paul gets up and finds that he is blind and is led into Damascus (9:8; 22:11).

4. Events in Damascus: Acts 26 telescopes the whole commissioning; taking out Ananias as a
factor and attributing his words to Jesus directly. Whereas Acts 9 and 22 outline his
interaction with Ananias in which Jesus commissions Paul and he is baptised in the Spirit and
healed of his blindness. An outline includes:
a. 3 days of blindness and fasting (9:9).
b. Ananias a disciple (9:10) and devout observer of the Law (22:12) has a specific vision
to go to Paul (9:10‐11) and heal him and commission him to take the gospel to the
Gentiles and experience suffering (9:15‐16; 22:12).
c. This he does and Paul receives his sight and is given God’s commission (9:17‐19;
22:13‐16).

In this encounter then, Jesus appeared to Paul and told him to go into the city and await further
instructions. This he did, staying in the house of Judas on Straight St. While Paul was there, God
spoke to a disciple by the name of Ananias and instructed him to go to Paul, lay hands on him, heal
him and prophesy over him telling him that he was God’s chosen instrument to lead his mission to
the Gentile world. This Ananias did, praying for Paul so that God healed him of his blindness and
filled him with the Spirit. Paul was then baptised (Acts 9:3‐19; 22:6‐16; 26:12‐18; Gal 1:16). Paul
tends to telescope the whole experience into one event – his conversion and commission (cf. Gal
1:15‐16).
Paul in Arabia (Gal 1:17)
Subsequent to his conversion it seems Paul went to Arabia for three years (c. AD 33‐35 cf. Gal 1:17).
Arabia is a vague term meaning the whole Nabatean Kingdom, which was the area south from
Damascus toward the Arabian Peninsula. 15 The capital city was Petra in the south and there were
other centres like Bostra in the north.

14
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek‐English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic
Domains. New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989.
15
T. George, Galatians, 124; Longenecker, Galatians, 34 notes, ‘[i]t lay to the east of the Jordan valley rift, and
traditionally extended from the Red Sea on the southwest to the Euphrates River on the northeast.’
355

It is unclear what Paul did in Arabia. Some argue that he engaged in preaching and teaching. 16 In
support of this, 2 Cor 11:32 tells of the king of the time, Aretas, seeking to arrest Paul, indicating that
he had done something to cause this. 17 However, there are no records of any Christian communities
in the area 18 from his long stay, which counts against this. While this is possible, I consider it likely
that he spent the time in spiritual and theological refection in which he worked through the
implications of his experience. This would have included his theology based around the notion of
Jesus as Messiah (more below). It would also have included the development of a strategy by which
he went out to evangelise the Gentiles as he had been commissioned to do (more below).
Interestingly, the word Arabia is found in Gal 4:25 as the location of Mt Sinai which leads some to
suggest he went to Mount Sinai in emulation of Moses. 19 Perhaps he did both. 20
Paul’s First Trip as a Christian in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18‐19; Acts 9:26‐
30)
After his time in Arabia he went to Jerusalem (c. AD 35) 21 for a fifteen day period where he was not
initially welcomed by the new Christians. This is surely understandable as these believers would have
been suspicious of his intention, perhaps considering Paul was trying another tactic of destroying the
Christian movement. However, through the initiative of Barnabas, truly the ‘Son of Encouragement,’
he was accepted by the Apostles (at least Peter and James) and stayed for a period preaching (Gal
1:18‐19; Acts 9:26‐30). This must have been a dramatic moving time, to see their antagonist
preaching that Jesus is the Christ!
Paul’s Mission to Cilicia and Syria
He left Jerusalem due to a death threat and travelled to Caesarea and onto Tarsus, his home town
(Acts 9:30; Gal 1:21). While in Tarsus he without doubt engaged in evangelism of his town and the
surrounding region of Cilicia and Syria (cf. Gal 1:21). It is significant that Paul went to evangelise his
own town and region; mission begins at home.
Paul in Antioch
After a time Barnabas sought Paul out in Tarsus and asked him to join the burgeoning work in Syrian
Antioch where he ministered with Barnabas for a whole year (Acts 11:25‐26). It is possibly here that
Paul further developed his theology as he shared the gospel among Greeks. As noted above, it is
here that they are first called Christians. The clash of Judaisers with Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:1‐2
indicates that the Antiochian mission did not include a requirement that new Gentile believers be
circumcised. Acts 11:29 and 13:1 indicates that alongside Barnabas and Saul, there were a number of
significant prophets and teachers in the church including: prophets from Jerusalem including the
prophet Agabus from Jerusalem (Acts 11:29; 21:10‐11); Simeon who is called Niger, meaning black,
and so probably an African; Lucius from Cyrene in North Africa (this is not Luke); 22 Manaen who had

16
F.F. Bruce, Galatians, 94.
17
Bruce, Galatians, 96.
18
T. George, Galatians, 124.
19
This is possible, but Paul seems to mean the Nabatean Kingdom and so this is questionable.
20
T. George, Galatians, 125. Longenecker, Galatians, 34 writes, ‘many have supposed that it was for
the purpose of missionary outreach. But it could just as well be argued that it was principally for
solitude to rethink his life and learning from the perspective of Christ’s revelatory encounter, away
from Jewish jurisdiction and pressures.
21
Three years reckoned to include 33‐35.
22
Some think this is Luke himself, a kind of signature to the book. Some connect this to Rom 16:21 where
Lucius is referred to as Paul’s co‐worker with him in Corinth. However, the name Lucius (Lat. Lucius) is different
to Luke (Lucanus).
356

been brought up in the house of Herod Antipas (Lk 3:1; Acts 4:27) and so an educated and wealthy
man who probably had held a good position in the court. Thus, there was a rich array of cultures and
spiritually gifted leaders in this burgeoning church. It was from this church that Paul and Barnabas
are set apart for their mission as they prayed, fasted and worshiped (13:2).

Whilst in Antioch, a great famine hit the Greco‐Roman world (c. AD 46). Paul and Barnabas led a
social mission to Jerusalem to bring material gifts to the struggling Jerusalem Church (Acts 11:29‐30).
This is probably the visit mentioned in Gal 2:1‐10, fourteen years after his conversion; although
some argue that Gal 2 is the Acts 15 visit. If Gal 2 = Acts 11, Paul had the additional purpose not
recorded by Luke, that of discussing the nature of his gospel and his proposed mission to the Gentile
world with the Jerusalem Apostles. They agreed that he was called to take the gospel to the Gentile
world whilst Peter was to lead the mission to the Jews (Gal 2:7‐9).

Paul’s Missions From Antioch
Missionary Journey One (began c. AD 47‐48)23

From Jerusalem Paul returned to Antioch where he and Barnabas were set apart by the Spirit to go
to evangelise the regions to the west (13:2‐3). So he set off on his first missionary journey with
Barnabas and his nephew John Mark. They travelled through Cyprus (Acts 13:4‐12), Barnabas’ home
and then onto Pamphylia and Pisidia. Whilst in Perga, there was a significant disruption to the
mission when John Mark returned to Jerusalem for some unknown reason (13:13). While there was
a strong Jewish reaction to the mission, there was considerable impact made in Pisidian Antioch
where ‘the word of the Lord spread throughout the whole region’ (Acts 13:49). Churches and
significant works occurred in Iconium (Acts 14:1‐7), Lystra (Acts 14:8‐20) and Derbe (Acts 14:20‐21).

23
From Nelson’s Maps and Charts.
357

After his mission in Derbe, Paul returned to Antioch through the same towns appointing elders and
engaging in further evangelism (Acts 14:21‐28).

Some of the other features of this journey include: 1) The Leading of the Spirit (Acts 13:4); 2)
Proclamation of the gospel in synagogues (Acts 13:5; 14:!) including the summary of a full Pauline
sermon in the synagogue of Psidian Antioch (Acts 13:16‐43); 3) Some Jewish acceptance (Acts 14:2)
but mostly severe Jewish rejection of the message sometimes enlisting Gentile support (Acts 13:44‐
45, 50‐51; 14:2, 5‐7, 19‐20 24 ); 4) Gentile acceptance of the message, sometimes into the regions
around Paul and Barnabas’ mission (Acts 13:48‐50; 14:1); 4) Significant power encounters and
miracles (13:6‐12; 25 14:3, 8‐10 26 ); 5) Proclamation to crowds in the street (14:11‐18)

Returning to Antioch, Paul reported to the church the wonderful way in which the Lord had blessed
the mission, and many Gentiles had come to Christ (cf. 14:27). He remained in Antioch until the clash
with the Judaisers (Acts 15:1‐2) which led to the Jerusalem Council to debate the circumcision issue
(see above).
Missionary Journey Two (began c. AD 49‐50) 27

The second missionary journey of Paul appears to be motivated by three desires. First, an apologetic
purpose to guard against false teaching; Paul along with prophets Silas and Judas Barsabbas 28 were
appointed to take the letter from the Jerusalem Council to ensure they did not fall prey to the
Judaisers (Acts 15:30‐33). Secondly, a pastoral purpose of strengthening the churches; Paul wanted

24
Here Paul was stoned, not on the weed, but with rocks!
25
Involving a Jewish sorcerer opposing Paul and being blinded by God at Paul’s command. This calls to mind
the Ananias and Sapphira account of Acts 5.
26
A man lame from birth is healed.
27
From Nelson’s, Maps and Charts (no page).
28
Again showing the importance of prophecy in the first churches.
358

to generally strengthen the new converts (Acts 15:36). Thirdly, an evangelistic purpose; Paul wanted
to push further west with the mission.

The clash of Paul and Barnabas over John Mark launches the story, getting the journey off to a rocky
start. Paul and Barnabas clashed over whether John Mark should join them in the mission, Paul
upset that Mark had deserted them in Perga on the first missionary journey. Their disagreement was
no small thing, described by Luke as a paroxysmos, meaning a ‘sharp disagreement.’ 29 The issue split
the team, so Barnabas and John Mark returned to Cyprus while Paul and Silas went through Tarsus
back to the south Galatian churches (Acts 15:37‐41). This event shows we should not romanticise
Paul or the early church. Rather, it illustrates that human nature and conflict were aspects of the
church. It appears that John Mark and Paul reconciled later in his ministry (cf. Col 4:10; Phm 24; 2
Tim 4:11).

This journey is called Paul’s second missionary journey and involved first delivering the letter to the
new churches and engaging in pastoral and evangelistic ministry. Paul travelled back through the
towns of southern Galatia, picking up a new right‐hand man, Timothy in Derbe. He was the son of
Jewish woman and a Greek father who was popular among believers of the region. Paul somewhat
surprisingly, had him circumcised (Acts 16:1‐5). 30 He then continued west with the intention of
evangelising Ephesus in Asia Minor or pushing into the northern Asian regions of Bithynia and
Pontus. However, the Spirit moved decisively blocking Paul from these regions (Acts 16:6‐7). God,
through a vision of a man in Macedonia, then directed Paul across from Troas to Macedonia (Acts
16:9‐10). This indicates that the Spirit is sovereign over the mission for Paul and for Luke.

Paul then engaged in mission in Europe, first to Philippi where he ministered to Jewish women by
the riverside in prayer, there not being 10 men to form a synagogue. Lydia was converted, a slave
girl was delivered of a demon leading to Paul’s imprisonment, where the Roman jailor was
converted; so a church was established (Acts 16:11‐40). He left Timothy and Silas behind and moved
onto Thessalonica where he established a church but was expelled from the city through persecution
from Jews and Gentiles (Acts 17:1‐9). He then had a brief stay in Berea where his ministry was
extraordinarily well received by Jews in the synagogue. 31 However the Jews of Thessalonica came to
Berea and drove him out (Acts 17:10‐15). He then visited Athens, preaching in the market place and
Areopagus (Athenian Council). While there were several converts, there is little evidence of an
effective ministry and a church planted (Acts 17:16‐34).

He then travelled to Corinth where he stayed for a year and half (Acts 18:1‐18). Early in his time in
Corinth (c. AD Aut 50 – Spr 52), 32 after Timothy and Silas had rejoined him (Acts 18:5), it is probable
that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians (c. AD late 50) in response to news they brought of the new church.
It is probable that 2 Thessalonians (c. AD late 50) was also written sometime during his time in
Corinth.

29
BDAG, 780.
30
Timothy was not a Gentile, but a Jew, through his mother’s line. Having him circumcised then was not a
compromise of Paul’s law‐free gospel, but application of 1 Cor 9:19‐22; ‘To the Jew, I became like a Jew, to win
the Jew.’ Circumcision would allow Timothy to minister freely to Jew and Gentile and remove offence.
31
This is unique among Paul’s visits to Jewish synagogues. Unfortunately, Jews from Thessalonica ruined the
party.
32
We have reasonable confidence in this date due to external evidence in dating Gallio as proconsul of Achaia
(c. AD 51).
359

Whilst in Corinth Paul linked up with two Jews, Aquila and Priscilla (also called Prisca) who had been
expelled by Claudius from Rome (AD49) (Acts 18:2). 33 His mission then involved working in the
tentmaking shop, synagogue ministry and other evangelism as the opportunity arose. We know that
Paul engaged in tentmaking as an integral part of his missionary strategy. We are not sure whether
he worked with leather or the skin of goats (cilicium), probably the former. We are not sure where
he learnt his trade, perhaps from his father, as a Pharisee, or even in Corinth itself at this point.
Whatever, it is clear that Paul wanted to provide for himself to avoid being a burden and being seen
as a peddler of the gospel. In addition, he no doubt preached the gospel from his workshop.

The Corinthian church was well established during this time with some well‐to‐do people converted
along with a significant number of people from the lower echelons of Corinthian life (cf. 1 Cor 1:26‐
28). 34

After his stay in Corinth Paul left Corinth for Cenchrea and travelled by ship to Ephesus with Prisca
and Aquila where they engaged in evangelism (Acts 18:18‐21). Paul left them behind and travelled
from Corinth to Caesarea and returned to Antioch (Acts 18:21‐23) (Spring‐Summer AD 52).

Other features of the Second Missionary Journey include: 1) Reference to the strengthening of the
churches of Paul’s first trip (15:41; 16:4); 2) Dynamic Spirit Guidance (16:6‐10 [above]); 3) Power
clashes with the gospel with Jesus dominant (16:16‐18); 35 4) Persecution from pagan authorities
(16:19‐ 5) The public worship of Paul and Silas in Philippian prison and its dramatic effect (16:25‐28);
6) The sovereign work of God in conversion (16:14, 25‐36); 7) Whole households converted and
baptised (16:15, 31‐34; 18:8); 36 7) The pattern from the first journey of Jewish evangelisation first
(16:13; 17:1‐4, 17; 18:4‐6); 8) The pattern from the first journey of small pockets of Jewish and God‐
fearer acceptance, but general rejection and persecution with pagan authorities (17:4‐9, 13‐15;
18:12‐17); 37 8) Gentile acceptance of the message (16:31‐34; 17:4, 34; 18:6‐8); 9) The Sermon to the
philosophers of Areopagus (Stoic, Epicurean among others), a very important example of Christian
contextualisation of the message (17:22‐31); 38 9) Evangelisation of the marketplace daily (17:17).

33
This is a very important event in the history of the development of the church. Claudius expelled all Jews
from Rome because of a clash among Jews over Christ. This left the Roman church without Jewish leadership
until their return in AD54. This may be a factor in interpreting Romans esp. Rom 14‐15.
34
That there were well to do people is seen in some of the references to those named in Corinthians, Rom 16
(from Corinth) and in Acts who are home owners, city officials and others. In addition there is clear indication
of rich‐poor clashes at Corinth (e.g. 1 Cor 11:21) cf. 6:1‐8 where rich members of the congregation are taking
each other to court.
35
An important NT passage for the link between the occult and specifically, fortune telling, and the demonic;
not to mention, the supremacy of Christ over all.
36
Evangelisation is different to individual conversion in this world. Once the leader of the household is
converted, the house becomes ‘Christian’ by definition. This enhanced the speed of the spread of the gospel
but also led to potential nominalism.
37
Note that they were charged with defying Caesar by declaring Jesus is ‘another king.’ This indicates that
some persecution was due to their challenging the supremacy of Rome and the Imperial Cult. In contrast, in
18:15 there is little interest from Gallio concerning Jewish complaints.
38
Note Paul quotes a Cretan philosopher Epimenides and the Cilician Stoic philosopher poet Aratus; he bases
his message around the unknown god; he refers to God’s self‐sufficiency, freedom, his sovereignty over
creation, as the source of life and father of all, his governance of history. He renounces idolatry and now calls
for repentance. Note the rejection of the resurrection; a joke to the Greco‐Roman mind, which longed for
escape from the inferior body to the freedom of a soulless existence.

360

Missionary Journey Three (begins c. AD 52) 39

After staying in Antioch for sometime he again returned to the churches from his initial mission,
strengthening the new converts (Acts 18:23). This is referred to as his third missionary journey.
Although Luke surprisingly does not refer to the collection, 40 we know from the letters that one of
additional purposes of this trip was to raise funds for the Jerusalem Christians who were suffering a
great famine; the so‐called Jerusalem Collection (Rom 15:31; 1 Cor 16:1‐4; 2 Cor 8‐9).

The Ephesus ministry continued to blossom under Aquila and Prisca and with the arrival from
Alexandria of Apollos, a dynamic preacher who Aquila and Prisca taught further in his faith (Acts
18:24‐26). While Paul was travelling through his churches, Apollos went to Corinth and ministered in
the city, winning converts and strengthening the church (Acts 18:27‐28). Luke speaks positively of
this; however, we know that Apollos’ trip to Corinth led to some conversions and factionalism in the
church around the ministries of Paul, Apollos and Peter (see 1 Cor 1:10‐4:21 esp. 1:11; 3:1‐15).

Meanwhile, Paul, after travelling through Cilicia and the southern Galatian churches, took the inner
road and came to Ephesus (c. AD Aut 52 – Sum 55) and found some converts who knew only the
baptism of John the Baptist and so did not fully know the gospel or the Spirit and he baptised them
in the Spirit (Acts 19:1‐7). Then began a great time of ministry in which Paul first ministered in the

39
From Nelson’s Book of Maps and Charts.
40
This is puzzling and it is uncertain why. Perhaps it is due to Luke’s avoidance of doublets i.e. stories which
are very similar e.g. feeding of the 5000/4000 (Luke only records the 5000); the anointing of Mary at Bethany
is excluded while the anointing of the sinful woman is included.
361

synagogue, and then after meeting resistance, took the converts and established a church in the
lecture hall of Tyrannus. For two years this served as a base for the evangelisation of all Asia Minor.
One of the outcomes of this was the planting of the church in Colossae by Epraphas who was
probably a local of Colossae and who was one of Paul’s disciples from Ephesus (cf. Col 1:7‐8; 4:12‐
13). Luke records that there was an astonishing substantial spiritual revival in Ephesus, God
performing wonderful miracles, spiritual encounters and a great turning from sorcery and the occult.
Great opposition also rose up against Paul in Corinth as the growth in the Christian community and
the consequent turning from idolatry bit into the socio‐economic structure of the city based around
idols especially to the goddess Artemis (hills, forests and moon). A blacksmith named Demetrius,
whose livelihood was threatened by a significant drop in sales for his idols, caused a great riot and
Paul was forced to leave Ephesus (Acts 19:8‐41).

At some point in his time in Ephesus, before his departure, Paul was visited by some Corinthians
including some from Chloe’s family; Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus; and received a letter from
them and interacted with Apollos (1 Cor 1:10; 7:1; 16:5‐18). He was informed that the Corinthian
church was now disintegrating into factionalism based around preferred Christian leaders and that
there were a great number of consequent problems. So he wrote 1 Corinthians (Spring AD55) as a
response. There is evidence in 1 Corinthians 5 of another earlier letter of Paul concerning
relationships between believers and radically sinful pseudo‐believers which was misunderstood by
the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:11).

Although not recorded in Acts, there also appears to have been a trip from Corinth to Ephesus; the
so‐called ‘painful visit’ (c. AD Aut 48) (2 Cor 2:1; 12:14; 13:1). The trip was probably a response to the
failure of the Corinthians to respond to 1 Corinthians. The trip did not go well, Paul rebuking those
who were guilty of sin in 1 Corinthians (2 Cor 12:31; 13:2). However, Paul appears to have met
significant resistance with one unnamed individual causing him great pain (2 Cor 2:5; 7:12) and the
congregation not supporting him (2 Cor 2:3). He then returned to Ephesus.

After his time in Ephesus Paul continued his journey visiting the congregations and disciples in
Macedonia (Acts 20:1‐6) (c. AD wint 55 – Aut 56). During this time in Macedonia he gathered funds
for Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:1‐2) and wrote 2 Corinthians (c. AD 56) (2:13; 7:5) in which he addresses
further the situation in Corinth including the sorting out of the one who humiliated him, the
Collection and the problem of false teachers. He may also have moved west along the Via Egnatia as
far as Illyricum with the gospel (cf. Rom 15:19) although this could have been a mission from the
Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:6‐8 cf. Col 1:6). From Macedonia he moved on south to gather funds for
Jerusalem from the Grecian churches (2 Cor 8:8‐10; 9:1‐15) and in particular Corinth, and stayed
there for three months (c. AD win 56‐ 57).

During his time in Corinth, he wrote Romans (c. AD [early] 57) to the Roman church explaining his
gospel, addressing problems in the Roman church and his desire to travel to Rome and onto Spain
after he has delivered the gifts to Jerusalem.

After his time in Corinth, Paul initially planned to travel by ship to Syria and onto Jerusalem to deliver
the gift. However, he became aware of a death threat and travelled back through Macedonia
revisiting the churches and disciples (Acts 20:3‐6). He was accompanied by a significant group who
were representatives of the churches in south Galatia (Gaius, Timothy), Asia (Tychicus, Trophimus),
Macedonia (Sopater from Berea; Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica) and Achaia who had
contributed to the Jerusalem Collection (Acts 20:3‐5). After passing through Macedonia he travelled
by sea across the Agean to Troas where he first bored Eutychus to death with a three hour message
and then raised him! (Acts 20:7‐11).

362

He then travelled to Jerusalem along the south‐eastern coast of Asia Minor making a number of
short stopovers including Miletus to bless the Ephesian elders through an extraordinary message
(Acts 20:17‐38) and onto Caesarea with Philip and his family. Whilst there he was warned
prophetically of the suffering awaiting him in Jerusalem (Acts 21:8‐13).

Other features of this journey include: 1) The same pattern of evangelisation of synagogue, some
Jewish acceptance but mostly rejection leading to Gentile evangelisation (19:1‐10); 2) The powerful
challenge of Christianity to pagan religion (19:11‐19, 23‐41) where it takes root; 41 3) Persecution
from pagans (19:23‐41); 4) The extraordinary death and reanimation of Eutychus (20:7‐12); 42 5)
Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders which is full of emotion and is important for understanding
pastoral ministry (20:17‐35); 43 6) Dynamic guidance of the Spirit (21:4, 11); 44 7) The ministries in
Philip’s family and the Caesarea church including he as evangelist (21:8), and his daughters who
prophesied (21:9) 45
Jerusalem‐Caesarea
In Jerusalem (May 57) Paul and (we presume) his gift were warmly welcomed in answer to his
prayers (Rom 15:31; Acts 21:17‐20). However, the same cannot be said of the non‐Christian Jews.
After being recognised in the temple and making an address Paul was imprisoned in Jerusalem. Paul
remained in prison in Jerusalem and was then transferred to Caesarea after a death threat (Acts
21:17‐26:32). Over a space of several years (AD 57‐59), he was brought before Jewish courts (Acts
22:30‐23:11; Agrippa [Acts 25:13‐26:32]) and Roman leaders (Felix in Caesarea [Acts 24:1‐26]; Festus
25:1‐26:32] and ultimately through appeal to Caesar, he was sent to Rome (Acts 26:32).

41
Specifically, the burning up of scrolls and the decline in the business of those who manufacture idols.
42
Eutychus was ‘bored’ to death, falling asleep in a 3 hour message. This indicates their commitment to Paul’s
teaching. The implication is that he was raised from death.
43
Note: 1) The emphasis on God’s appointment (‘of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers);
2) Overseeing the flock (episkopos); 3) Shepherding (v28); 4) Warnings against false teachers
(‘savage wolves); 5) Watchfulness (v31). Note too, that the terms for leaders ‘shepherd’, ‘elder’, and
overseer (episkopos = bishop or overseer) are used fluidly throughout. This should guard us against
getting too parochial over forms of church government.
44
There is an interesting challenge here concerning the leading of the Spirit telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem
(21:4, 11); yet Paul’s determination to do so. Those who say this to Paul see what will happen to him; yet, he
knows, like Jesus being led into the wilderness to be tempted by the Spirit, he must still do so.
45
This is important in terms of spiritual gifts. Interestingly, girls here are prophesying.
363

Journey to Rome 46

He was then sent to Rome (departure Sept AD 57; arrival Feb/Mch AD 60) where we find him at the
end of Acts, in his own rented accommodation, teaching and preaching the gospel (Acts 28:16‐31).
This suggests an initial ‘gentle’ imprisonment in Rome. Whilst in this incarceration, Paul wrote a
number of letters. First, Ephesians (c. AD 60) to Ephesus or possibly a general letter sent to a
number of churches with the extant version to Ephesus being the one we have (see later). It
addresses the cosmic nature of Christ, the wonder of salvation by grace, the unity of Jew and Gentile
in church, the structure of the church, ethics and spiritual warfare. Secondly, he wrote Colossians (c.
AD 60) which also speaks of the cosmic Christ, the victory of the cross and life in Christ. Thirdly, he
penned Philemon (c. AD 60) which is a heart‐felt appeal to take back a runaway slave Onesimus who
was converted by Paul in Rome and who has been a great help to Paul. Finally, he wrote Philippians
(c. AD 61) which addresses the problem of contention in the Philippian church. By the time of
Philippians it appears that his situation in Rome had seriously deteriorated and he faced possible
death in more serious Roman incarceration (cf. Phil 1:19‐26).

Further mission after Rome? A Fifth Missionary Journey?
What happened subsequently we cannot know for sure? Some believe Paul died around AD 62 due
to the Philippian situation. However, it is very likely that he got out of prison (c. late AD 61‐62) and
engaged in further mission. Some possible details of this can be gleaned from the letters. It could
have been that Paul went west from Rome and fulfilled his desire to share the gospel in Spain (Rom
15:24, 28) (c. AD 62‐64).47 He could have returned from Spain by ship to Crete (Tit 1:5), Miletus (2

46
Map from Nelson’s Maps and Charts.
47
See E.E. Ellis, ‘Pastoral Letters’ in DPL, 661 who notes that 1) It is anticipated in Rom 15:24 (cf. Acts 1:8; Acts
13:47); 2) It is held in first and second century early church tradition that Paul went to Spain including In 1
Clement 5.7 (c. AD 70), the Acts of Peter, 1–3, 40 (probably Asia Minor, c. AD 160–180) and the Muratorian
Canon (Rome, c. AD 170–190); 3) Clement of Rome who according to Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3; c. AD 180) sat
under the teaching of Peter and Paul speaks of Paul preaching in the west which for a Roman writer, probably
meant Spain or Gaul (cf. 2 Tim 4:10), and of Paul reaching ‘the extreme limits of the West’ (to terma tes
364

Tim 4:20), Colossae (Phm 22), Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Philippi (Phil 2:23‐24; 1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Tit
3:12) and Rome (2 Tim 1:7). While in Rome it is probable that Paul had the Pastoral Epistles
written. 48 1 Timothy (c. AD 63) is written to Timothy in Ephesus where he is working on Paul’s behalf
to sort out the problem of false teachers. Titus (c. AD 63) is written to Titus in Crete for similar
reasons. 2 Timothy (c. AD 64) is Paul’s last known letter and appears to have been written just
before his death with the intention of inspiring Timothy to keep up the ministry. These letters differ
in style from others and may have been penned by a secretary (e.g. Luke) with a good deal of
freedom. If he did leave Rome and then return as I suspect then he would have been martyred in
Rome on his return sometime AD 64‐68.

Below is a map taken from the NIV study bible with a recreation of Paul’s possible missionary
journey to Spain after he was released from Rome.

Paul’s Possible Fifth Missionary Journey

dyseos); 4) Later church tradition supports that Paul was released after Acts 28 and continued his mission
(Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 2.22.1–8: logos echei. In that Origen did not know of this (cf. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.1.3) and
that there is little evidence of Spanish churches planted by Paul, it may have been a brief mission (c. AD 63–64)
from which he returned to his churches in the Aegean area.
48
A number of scholars do not accept Pauline authorship. They believe they were written after Paul died and
are pseudonymous works. I believe Paul had them written on his behalf while in prison, perhaps by Luke?
365

366

Chapter Nineteen
PAUL’S MISSIONARY STRATEGY
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 368
Paul targeted main urban centres ...................................................................................................... 369
Paul initially targeted Jewish centres (the Synagogue) ...................................................................... 370
Paul evangelised the market‐place (agora) with open‐air evangelization ......................................... 371
Paul taught and evangelised in homes ............................................................................................... 372
Paul taught and evangelised in a lecture hall ..................................................................................... 373
Paul evangelised in law court, prison or before hostile crowds ......................................................... 373
Paul evangelised in the workshop ...................................................................................................... 373
Paul’s mission involved ministry through the power of the Spirit ...................................................... 375
Paul’s mission strategy was flexible subject to the sovereignty of the Spirit ..................................... 376
Paul’s mission involved concern for social justice .............................................................................. 377
The Antiochian collection ............................................................................................................... 377
Only, that you continue to remember the poor (Gal 2:10) ............................................................ 378
The Jerusalem collection ................................................................................................................. 378
Concern for widows (1 Tim 5:1‐16) ................................................................................................. 379
Paul’s mission focused on the establishment of local churches ......................................................... 379
Follow up pastoral support for Paul’s churches ................................................................................. 380
Paul’s missionary support ................................................................................................................... 381
Paul’s team ...................................................................................................................................... 381
Financial support ............................................................................................................................. 382
Prayer support ................................................................................................................................ 383
Home Church Support .................................................................................................................... 383
Paul wanted churches to continue the mission .................................................................................. 383
Centripetal attraction mission ........................................................................................................ 384
Mission through worship ............................................................................................................ 384
Mission through community love and Life ................................................................................. 384
Centrifugal proactive mission ......................................................................................................... 384
Apologetic witness ...................................................................................................................... 384
Healings and miracles (signs and wonders) ................................................................................ 384
Social engagement ...................................................................................................................... 384
Ethical witness ............................................................................................................................ 385
Proactive evangelisation ............................................................................................................. 385
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 387

367

Paul's Missionary Strategy

Introduction
It is pretty obvious that Paul was totally committed to preach the gospel.1 Paul’s conversion
included his commission to take the gospel to the Gentiles ((Rom 1:1, 5, 14; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1, 2;
12:11‐12; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 2:6; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim 1:1; 1:11; Tit 1:1). He
considered he had a specific and unique call from Jesus Christ to be the messenger of God to the
world outside his own people, the Jews. On the other hand the Jerusalem apostles and in particular
Peter along with James and John, were charged with the task of taking the gospel to the Jews (Gal
2:7‐9). This distinguishes Paul from the Jerusalem apostles and Jesus himself who focused on
conversion of the Jews (Matt 15:24; Gal 7‐10).

For Paul, ideally, this would have meant conversion of the known world including what we would
know as Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. He had what we would call today, a global
perspective. It is apparent that Paul wanted to take the gospel to all people and nations. 2 This is
seen in 1 Tim 2:5 where Paul says, ‘God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the
truth.’ Again in Rom 16:26 he says that he preaches the gospel ‘so that all nations may come to
know him’. His then was to win all humanity to faith in Christ as Messiah and Lord and to see the
establishment of Christian communities throughout the world.

Unquestionably Paul had a strategy to achieve this goal. It is possible that the ideas were formed in
his mind when reflecting on his conversion in Arabia. Evidence of strategy is found in Rom 15:19b
where he writes, ‘So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the
gospel of Christ.’ That is, he has completed his task of planting churches which will continue the
work in their areas through the region from Jerusalem, north to Cilicia, and west to Rome.

We see in his letters and Acts his moving west in phases: 1) Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21 cf. Acts 9:30;
11:25); 3 2) Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia (southern Galatia) (Acts 13:4‐14:28 cf. Gal 4:13) (MJ1, 2); 3)
Asia, Macedonia to Illyricum (Acts 15:39‐18:22) (MJ2, 3) West to Rome and Spain (Rom 15:19b)
(planned, MJ4?). In each context he had a repeated pattern which we will discuss below. He wanted
to work in fresh fields, establishing the church and moving on (e.g. Rom 1:13; 15:22‐24).

In this section we will discuss the strategy employed by Paul as he engaged in mission. For a number
of reasons this is important. First, Paul is the first ‘great’ cross‐cultural intentional missionary of the
early church and the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ and as such is important for our understanding of cross
cultural mission. 4 Secondly, Paul was extremely successful in his mission in the sense that in a ten
year period he established the Gospel in unevangelised territory from Cilicia to Greece; a remarkable
achievement. Thirdly, I believe that just as the Jerusalem Church gives us a marvellous basis for

1
E.g. Rom 1:13‐15; ‘I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but
thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of
the Gentiles. I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish (i.e. all
people) — hence my eagerness to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome. See also: ‘woe to me if I
do not preach the gospel’ (1 Cor 9:16).
2
So for example 1 Tim 2:5 (‘God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’); 1 Cor 9:19‐22
where he accommodates his practice to the culture in terms of non‐essentials so as to win as many as possible;
Rom 16:26: ‘so that all nations may come to know him’.
3
It is probable that the references to Paul being in Tarsus in these verses indicate he evangelized his own
home town and the surrounding areas as per the Galatians account.
4
Peter, Philip, Stephen and others are clearly missionaries but in the main, to their own culture. Philip did go
to the despised “half‐breeds” of Samaria and there are the missionaries to Antioch; but Paul’s standing and
mission makes him the first “great” cross‐cultural missionary.
368

church and local mission, Paul’s strategy gives us the foundational principles for effective mission
across cultures. We can thus learn a great deal from Paul as to how to do mission today.

There are a number of things we can say about his mission strategy.
Paul targeted main urban centres
One of the central features of Paul’s missionary strategy is his focus on key cities. Some scholars
term this Paul’s Zentrumsmission (‘mission from a centre’). That is, he picked out certain strategic
centres and set to establish cells of Christians in their midst. His purpose was to focus on the district
or provincial capitals, each of which stands for a whole region. 5 In an agrarian society, these were
cosmopolitan, bases for trade, religion and community life. The cities themselves were full of
community networks based on ethnicity, vocation and religion. When Paul says in Rom 15:19 that he
has fully proclaimed the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum, he means that the gospel is established
in these main cities along the north‐eastern rim of the Mediterranean (the Great Sea). There is
virtually no record of Paul visiting the regions where many local dialects, various cultures and
countless villages were found. In these contexts the Greek, Roman and Jewish culture had less
impact and mission was more complex. He left his churches the task of this evangelisation. As such,
he focussed on the main cities which were ideal for the quick movement of the gospel. Some of
these include:

1. Tarsus for Cilicia (Acts 9:30):6 Paul’s hometown. It stood on a river (Cydnus), on major trade
routes between the Taurus mountains and central plateau; had about 500,000 people; 7 was
8
a ‘university city’; was highly syncretistic.
2. Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13): The capital of Pamphylia, a coastal province of Asian Minor
between the provinces of Lycia and Cilicia, 5 miles inland from the seaport of Attalia.
3. Antioch in Syria (Acts 13:1): It was the considered the third city with Corinth of the Roman
Empire after Rome and Alexandria; had its own Olympics established at the time Paul
arrived (43AD); had about 300,000 (Strabo, Geog. 16.2.5); had many Jews (22,000‐65,000).
4. Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14): It was 176km inland from Perfa; was a centre of trade on the
goods road; had a large Jewish population; was a Roman colony like Philippi with many
retired Roman military and families settled there.
5. The Lycaonian Cities of Lystra, Derbe and also Iconium in Galatia (Acts 14:6): Iconium is the
modern city of Konya; important crossroads and agricultural centre in the central plain of
the province of Galatia; Lycaonia was a district east of Pisidia, north of the Taurus
Mountains. It was part of the Roman province of Galatia.
6. Philippi in Macedonia (Phil 4:15): A Romanised city named after Alexander the Great’s
father, Philip II of Macedon; was prosperous; had the rights of a leading Italian city (Ius
Italicum); had independent organised in the manner of Rome; pop. About 100,000 on the
Via Egnatia the main east‐west trade route; only 16 km’s away from port of Neapolis; had a
lot of gold in the region; had many ex‐Roman military settlers.
7. Thessalonica in Macedonia (1 Thess 1:7f):9 Modern Saloniki; a bustling sea port (Thermaic
Gulf); important communication and trade centre; alson on the Via Egnatia; the most
populous and important city in Macedonia until the 3‐4th century; pop about 200,000;
capital of Macedonia (since 146BC); a Jewish settlement.

5
D. Bosch, Transforming Mission, 130.
6
See in our introductory lecture for details of life in Tarsus.
7
See New Bible Dictionary, 1154.
8
F.F. Bruce, The Acts, 245.
9
Paul was well received in Berea after the poor response in Thessalonica hence he left a cell behind.
369

8. Corinth in Achaia (1 Cor 16:15; 2 Cor 1:1): 10 Pop. About 650,000 (250,000 freedmen;
400,000 slaves); rivalled Antioch as the third city in the empire; centre for trade and military
movement with two harbours joined by an isthmus across which they dragged ships
(Cenchrea, 10 km’s east on the Saronic Gulf; Lechaeum, 2.5 km’s west on the Corinthian
Gulf); so centre for trade, wealthy city; a militarily strategic; well known for its bronze ware
(e.g. gongs, mirrors cf. 1 Cor 13); had biennial Isthmian athletic games (cf. 1 Cor 9:24‐27);
had huge number of temples and sacred places; famous for sexual immorality; young city
(rebuilt 44BC) full of Romans and based on Roman law, culture and religion with Latin as the
city’s official language; a large community of Jews (cf. Acts 18:8, 17); a ‘pluralistic melting
pot of cultures, philosophies, life‐styles and religions, and had the feel of an economic
‘boom‐town’. 11
9. Ephesus in Asia (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Cor 1:8): Key city in west Asia Minor (now
Turkey); richest region in the Roman Empire; Pop. about 250,000; port city (Aegean) so
centre of east‐west and African trade and so prosperous; intersection of major road trade
routes as well; had a huge Artemis temple (one of 7 wonders of Ancient World) and was a
centre for two annual festivals for Artemis (cf. Acts 19:23, 28); centre for an important
athletic context ‘Ephesia and the Common Games of Asia’ were held in Ephesus; It was a
centre for magical practices in antiquity (cf. Eph 6:10‐18).
Paul initially targeted Jewish centres (the Synagogue)
Even though Paul’s commission was to take the gospel to the Gentiles, he began his missions with
evangelisation of the Synagogue. So, for example, in Acts 14:1 we read: ‘Paul and Barnabas went as
usual into the Jewish synagogue’ (cf. 17:2). 12 Philippi is the only city where he did not visit the
synagogue probably because there were too few men, there needing to be 10 men to form a
synagogue (16:11‐15). 13 However he still began his mission from the context of Judaism, as he went
to the Jewish place of prayer to share the message.

There are a number of reasons for Paul to begin this way. First, although Paul was the ‘apostle to the
Gentiles, he still wanted to save his own people, the Jews! 14 He offered it ‘first to the Jew and then
to the Gentile’ (cf. Rom 1:16; Rom 2:9, 10). Secondly, as a Pharisee he had speaking rights in the
synagogue which gave him an ideal opportunity to present the message of Jesus, the Messiah
crucified (note on Acts 13:5 they were asked to preach). Thirdly, the Christian message is not a new
message, but the continuation of the Jewish faith. He is their Messiah. As such, Paul knew that he
would have an interested audience as he declared the next chapter of redemptive history. They
would above all else, understand the message and hopefully respond.

Fourthly, and most importantly, Paul, we can be sure, understood the power of beginning his
mission in such a way. He knew the Jewish and synagogue culture well. The synagogue gave Paul a

10
Athens by this time was 5 centuries past its glory although an important academic city. Paul appears to move
on from Athens without planting a church (cf. 1 Cor 16:5).
11
S.J. Hafemann, ‘Corinthians, Letters to the’ in DPL, 164‐79, 173.
12
Pisidian Antioch (13:14, 42); Iconium (14:1); Thessalonica (17:1‐2); Berea (17:10); Athens (17:17); Corinth
(18:4, 7); Ephesus (19:8). While there is no mention of visiting the synagogue in the Lycaonian cities it is
probable that he did visit them and Luke decided not to mention it (Acts 14:6‐20)..
13
See I. H. Marshall, Acts, 266‐67.
14
Paul’s passion for own people leaks out on occasion; e.g. Rom 9:2‐3: ‘I have great sorrow and
unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for
the sake of my people, those of my own race; Rom 10:1: ‘Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and
prayer to God for them (the Jews) is that they may be saved;’ Rom 11:13‐14: ‘I make much of my
ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.’
370

free opportunity to preach to a ‘captive’ audience who understood the context of what he was
sharing. It would have been easy to connect the message to the hearers. If even a few Jews were
saved, it would give a good base with a strong theological background to the church. In addition, it
gave Paul an initial opening into the Gentile community as there were many proselytes and God‐
fearers attached to the synagogues. Proselytes (prosēlutōn) were Gentiles who had fully converted
to Judaism (Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:48 cf. Matt 5:22; 23:15). God‐fearers, on the other hand, were Gentiles
who appreciated Judaism and so attended worship, were monotheistic and who respected the ethics
of Judaism (cf. Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26; 16:14; 17:4). However they fell short of complete
conversion marked by circumcision.

It is apparent in virtually every town that Paul’s message created conflict within the synagogue
community and Paul was forced either to leave the town or to leave the synagogues and move to
homes. 15 Hence while Paul began in the synagogue, his mission did not remain confined to the
synagogue for any significant length of time. Hence we have Like recording Paul stating, ‘Since you
reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles’ (Acts
13:46; 18:6).

This principle of mission is vital today, as we look for ideal contexts to seek to establish the gospel,
especially in virgin mission fields. We need to consider the question; what are the ‘synagogues’ of
our given context?
Paul evangelised the market‐place (agora) with open‐air
evangelization
In recent years there has been a tendency in western scholarship to deemphasize this dimension of
Paul’s mission. There are a number of reasons for this. First, there are in reality few references to
such engagement (see Acts 14:8‐20; Acts 17:17: ‘So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and
the God‐fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be
there’). 16 Secondly, the increasing difficulties associated with open‐air preaching in a modern
western environment, have led some scholars to wish to re‐look at the issue and find other more
effective means of proclamation in their own contexts. 17 Thirdly, some scholars consider open air
evangelism was unlikely as it incurred great danger in the social context of the day. In addition, Paul
makes no reference to this in his letters raising questions about how much he really did engage in
such activity.

However, there are sound reasons even to argue that it was an integral part of Paul’s approach to go
to the agora and engage in debate with religious and philosophical thinkers. First, Luke notes in Acts
17:17 that Paul went ‘day by day’ (lit: ‘every day’) suggesting regular engagement. Just as he went to
the synagogue regularly it is reasonable to suggest he also went to the market place in each town.
Secondly, there were events in the public realm that led to proclamation as in Lystra where there
was the healing of the lame man (Acts 14:8f), and in Philippi where there was the deliverance of the

15
In Pisidian Antioch, 3 Sabbaths and then expulsion (Acts 13:13‐48). Thessalonica 3 Sabbaths and then flight
(Acts 17:1‐9). Berea is an unusual case where the synagogue received the message positively but flight was still
required (Acts 17:10‐15). Corinth, a number of Sabbaths, until Paul went to a personal home (18:1‐7). Ephesus,
3 months of Sabbath’s, then left to the lecture hall (Acts 19:8‐10).
16
The encounter with the demon‐possessed girl in Philippi may indicate similar activity, but it is not explicit
(Acts 16:18).
17
Some of the difficulties include: a reticence to listen in many contexts; the sense that the proclamation is
doing more harm than good (i.e. putting people off); the abuse of street preaching by fringe‐groups or those
with a particular slant; the cultural lack of such religious and philosophical engagement in city centres as
opposed to the Pauline context. Other emphases include tent‐making evangelization, relational (friendship)
evangelization, apologetic rather than proactive evangelization, life‐style evangelisation.
371

slave girl (Acts 16:18f). These led to open air proclamation. Thirdly, such engagement was eminently
logical in light of the culture whereby religious and philosophical engagement in the town centre
was highly normal and expected activity. That is, just as was the case with the Synagogue, the agora
would have been a socially acceptable context in which to have such debate. There is evidence on
Athens of real interest in this new message (17:18, 19 [‘this new teaching’). As time went on and
Christianity began to be understood and permeate, this became increasingly dangerous; it is
anachronistic to read back this in its initial stages.

So Paul it seems, joined the throng of the agoras of the Greco‐Roman world and like a travelling
sophist or philosopher, preached the Christian message among the man messages of the day. He
engaged in public debate and dialogue (dialegomai ) e.g. Acts 17:2. 18 This would suggest not only
open‐air presentations, but ongoing debate and interactive discussion with enquirers (Acts 17:18).

This would indicate that market‐place proclamation should be seen as one of a number of strategies
for evangelization. Its effectiveness will vary depending on the openness of the recipients and the
cultural‐relevance of the activity. It is worth bearing in mind that in Athens Paul’s effect was quite
limited (cf. Acts 17:32‐34).
Paul taught and evangelised in homes
There is clear evidence that Paul engaged in evangelisation and discipleship in homes into which he
was invited. There are at least four examples of him going to the homes of new converts and
baptising the whole family. No doubt, this involved some further evangelisation (Lydia [Acts 16:15];
Philippian Jailor [Acts 16:33, 34]; Jason’s home [Acts 17:5‐7]; Crispus [Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14). In the
visit to the home of the Philippian jailor, Paul shares table fellowship with them, and probably spoke
after the evening meal with him and other males present. Crispus’ home is of special interest. In this
home it is written, ‘his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who
heard Paul believed and were baptised.’ Thus many came into the home over the time Paul stayed
there and heard the gospel. They were baptised in the bath which lay in the centre of the Atrium
(see above on culture).

In Acts 20:20 in his sermon to the Ephesian elders in Miletus, Paul reminds them of his ministry
which included teaching publicly and ‘from house to house.’ In that the first church was established
in homes, this is not surprising, much evangelisation occurred in the homes of first believers (cf. 1
Cor 14:20‐25).

As such, the spread of the gospel in homes is probably a dominant means of evangelisation in the
initial spread of the faith. There is little evidence of door to door evangelism in the contemporary
formal sense. Rather, Paul went into the homes of his converts and contacts when invited or given
opportunity, and shared the message to the rest of the family, friends and contacts, after an initial
contact was made. Again this is sound missiological practice seen especially among non‐western
cultures where individualism is not rife.

18
It is used of disciples debating as they walked along the road (Mk 9:34); Paul debating in the market place
(Acts 17:17), the synagogue (Acts 17:2, 4 , 19; 19:8), in the lecture hall (Acts 19:9 [over two years]); in a church
gathering (Acts 20:7‐9); at the Jerusalem temple (Acts 24:12); with Felix (Acts 24:25); the exhortation from
Prov 3:11‐12 (Heb 12:5); Michael disputing with Satan over the body Moses (Jude 9). In most of these contexts
it would appear that there was some proclamation (e.g. Sabbath preaching) and interactive debate as a result
of the proclamation.
372

Paul taught and evangelised in a lecture hall
In Eph 19:9, after effectively being driven out of the synagogue as was normal, Paul left behind his
mission to the synagogue and set up in a lecture hall or school building either owned by Tyrannus or
in which a certain Tyrannus taught. Paul he held discussions for two years. In the disputed western
text of Acts it is recorded that Paul was active from 11.00am to 4.00pm daily teaching, probably
after the close of morning tentmaking work. 19 Interestingly, this suggests to me that the early church
meeting in homes was not due to this being the God‐ordained approach to church gathering as some
micro‐church proponents might argue; rather, it was sociological, and where opportunity to do
otherwise arose, it was taken (cf. the worship in the Temple in Acts 2 suggesting that believers
moved to homes for sociological reasons). As such, we today, should utilise the opportunities given
to us to the max.
Paul evangelised in law court, prison or before hostile crowds
We have already seen how Peter, John and Stephen fearlessly proclaimed the gospel when brought
before authorities despite being forbidden, imprisoned, flogged and even killed (esp. Acts 3‐5, 7).
Paul demonstrates the same commitment and courage when he was brought before the authorities.
This is seen at a number of points. First, in Acts 13:6‐12 Paul and Barnabas preach to the proconsul
Sergius Paulus despite the strong opposition of Elymas (also known as Bar‐Jesus [‘son of Jershua]), a
sorcerer (magos). 20 The result is dramatic with the Spirit blinding Elymas and the conversion of the
Pro‐consul.

Second, when in Philippian prison were find Paul and Silas, despite just having been attacked,
stripped, flogged, and thrown into the deepest and most repulsive part of the prison in stocks; are
praying and singing worship songs in the jail in the hearing of the other prisoners (Acts 16:25). The
effect is dramatic with an earthquake and the conversion of the jailor and his family (Acts 16:26‐40).

Thirdly, in Jerusalem, Paul is arrested in the Temple, and rather than merely going away placidly with
the officers, he spoke in Aramaic to the crowd. In this message recorded in Acts 22:1‐21, Paul gives
his testimony of experience Christ on the Damascus Road. This time the effect is not positive, with
the crowd wanting to kill him for stating he was sent to the Gentiles (v21). The following day, before
the Sanhedrin, Paul provokes a fight between Sadducees and Pharisees over the resurrection of the
dead leading to his release (Acts 23:6‐9). Fourthly, before Felix, Paul gives his testimony again in
response to the charges of Tertullus, the Jews and others (Acts 24:10‐21). Finally, before Herod
Agrippa Paul gives his testimony in his defence (Acts 26:1‐24).
Paul evangelised in the workshop
A highly underestimated aspect of Paul’s mission has been increasingly recognised in recent years,
i.e. evangelism in Paul’s tentmaking workshop. 21 The origin of Paul's tentmaking is either a trade he
learnt from his father (possibly related to his Father being a Pharisee); something he learnt in
Jerusalem training to be a tentmaker. 22 As a skēnopoios Paul may have worked with cilicium or

19
I. H. Marshall, Acts, 309‐10.
20
Polhill, Acts, 292: ‘a charlatan, a trickster, a claimant to false powers.’
21
See 1 Cor 4:12; 9:1‐18; 2 Cor 6:5; 11:23, 27; 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8; Acts 18:3; 20:5, 34‐35. The Greek
skênopoios literally means 'tentmaker' or 'leatherworker'. The origin of his tentmaking is unclear, options
include: a. The family trade; b. In his training as a Pharisee. The actual work he did is unclear, options include:
a. Paul worked with cilicium (goat’s hair) from Cilicia; b. He worked with leather. If the latter as most think, he
probably produced and repaired tents and other leather goods. The work was tough (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8;
Acts 20:34‐35; 1 Cor 4:12). Paul's endeavour seems to have been an exhausting all day affair.
22
This is based on later Rabbinic texts that suggest that rabbis were expected to support themselves by some
form of labour. See for example: ‘make not of the Torah... a spade wherewith to dig... whosoever derives a
373

goat’s hair from his native province Cilicia. It may be that, after beginning in this way with his
23
Pharisee‐father, he moved to leather work. However, the tanning of leather was a despised trade
24
among Jews. Tentmaking involved the manufacture and repair of a number of leather and woven
goods including tents. Such work was disdained by the higher social classes and his stained hands
would have made Paul the object of ridicule among upper‐class circles (cf. Acts 17:12, 19; 19:31;
Rom 16:23). While there was little need for tents in urban centres, many travellers may have
purchased goods or sought repair, sailors may have stayed in tents and booths, canopies and
awnings for city use may have been needed in urban centres. The work was physical and arduous (1
Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8; Acts 20:34‐35; 1 Cor 4:12). Paul's endeavour seems to have been an
25
exhausting all day affair. According to the western text of Acts 19:9 suggests that Paul taught
between 11am‐4pm suggesting that he taught over the siesta and worked from dawn until 11am
and then from 4pm to evening. He probably spent many of his evenings teaching in homes.

Paul’s vocation has been neglected until recent years in discussions about his missionary strategy.
This has recently been remedied partly because of the shift to define Paul’s missionary strategy in
relation to the record in the epistles rather than Acts; along with the search for new ways to do
evangelism as we struggle with traditional forms. If one takes Acts as the only point of reference to
Paul, even though Luke does record that Paul was a tentmaker (Acts 18:3), he doesn’t highlight it as
a means for evangelism. However, it is in the epistles that we find the importance of tentmaking to
Paul (see 1 Cor 9:1‐19; 2 Cor 11:8‐10; 12:14‐15; 1 Thess 2:1‐9; 2 Thess 3:6‐12).

Looking at these texts we can see a number of reasons for Paul to opt to be a tentmaker including: 1)
A desire not to hinder the gospel of Christ as those who provide patronage may hinder Paul and his
purposes; and/or he might be seen as a peddlar of the gospel (1 Cor 9:12, 18; 2 Cor 2:12); 2) It was a
great thing (a ‘boast’) to be self‐supporting (1 Cor 9:15); 3) It was to his personal benefit in terms of
his relationship with God and eternal reward to be self‐supporting (1 Cor 9:17f); 4) It was culturally
inappropriate to accept money from his recipients in the active proclamatory context probably to
avoid accusations of peddling the gospel (2 Cor 2:12); 5) He did not want to be a burden upon those
(especially the poor) to whom he preached (2 Cor 11:9; 12:13‐16; 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8); 6) As the
‘father’ of his churches he should provide for them rather than be provided for (2 Cor 12:14)! Now
that is a radical thought!; 7) He did not want to accept patronage and so accountability to anyone
other than God; 8) He wanted to be a work‐evangelistic model a model to his recipients (2 Thess 3:6‐
10).

profit for himself from the words of the Torah is helping his own destruction’ (Rabbi Zadok in Pirqe 'Abot 4.7);
‘An excellent thing is the study of the Torah combined with some secular occupation, for the labour by them
both puts sin out of one's mind. All study of the Torah which is not combined with work will ultimately be futile
and lead to sin” (Rabbi Gamaliel III in Pirqe 'Abot 2.12).
23
R. Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Mission (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 20‐21 argues that it is
almost certain he worked with leather. He may of course have worked with both.
24
J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 303‐12.
25
See P.W. Barnett, 'Tentmaking' in DP, 925‐27.
374

Robert Hock is the scholar most instrumental in recognizing this dynamic in Paul’s ministry. 26
He argues that Paul engaged in workplace mission. He paints the picture of how it might have looked
for Paul:

During the long hours at his workbench cutting and sewing leather to make tents, Paul
would not only have been supporting himself, but he would also have had opportunities to
carry on missionary activity (see 1 Thess 2:9). Sitting in the worship would have been his
fellow‐workers and perhaps one or more visitors, perhaps customers or perhaps someone
who has heard of this tentmaker – ‘philosopher’ newly arrived in the city. In any case, they
would have been listening to, or debating with, Paul, who had raised the topic of the gods
and was exhorting them to turn from idols and to serve the living God (1 Thess 1:9‐10).
Some of these who listened – a fellow‐worker, a customer, an aristocratic youth, or even a
Cynic philosopher – would want to know more about Paul, about his churches, and about his
Lord and would return for individual exhortation (1 Thess 2:11‐12). From these workshop
conversations some would eventually accept Paul’s word as the word of God (1 Thess
2:13). 27

As such, Paul gives a methodology for ministry ‘without burden’ and this approach could be valuable
as the church seeks to engage its culture more effectively in NZ and beyond. In fact, this is often the
only way of gaining access to many countries who are resistant to Christian evangelisation.’ Paul’s
approach also challenges the model of televangelism and other such ministries that open the way
for accusations of ‘peddling the gospel’.

This tentmaking approach should cause us to read Paul carefully with the ‘workplace’ in the back of
our minds at all times. He was not a cleric or a charismatic financially supported ‘faith—living’
evangelist. Rather, he was a self‐supporting working man. We need to ‘declericalise’ Paul from the
professional pastor/missionary model and see him as a workplace self‐supporting missionary and
take seriously his intentional modelling of workplace Christianity. His appeals for lifestyle Christianity
have immediate and lived out application in the workplace e.g. ‘pray continually’ = ‘pray in all
situations including your workplace through the day!’ Or again, ‘rejoice in the Lord always’ = ‘rejoice
everywhere, whether it be at home with the kids, with the family, on the sports‐field etc…’ Or
‘contend for the faith of the gospel’ = ‘contend for the gospel in all situations including the
marketplace.’ In terms of his strategy, Paul modelled work‐place mission and many of his converts
probably were reached in his tentmaking shop.
Paul’s mission involved ministry through the power of the Spirit
An essential aspect of Paul’s mission strategy was he and his team’s ministry in the Spirit. Paul’s
preaching ministry involved the conviction and power of the Spirit. The power of God is expressed
through the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18). His preaching came with a
demonstration of the Spirit’s power, which may be signs and wonders, or the power of the gospel to
convict and convert (1 Cor 2:4‐5). His very words of proclamation he attributes to the Spirit (1 Cor
2:13). The word of God is the ‘sword of the Spirit’ indicating that the agency of the Spirit’s work is
the word (Eph 6:17). In 1 Thess 1:5 Paul speaks of his proclamation coming with power, the Holy
Spirit and deep conviction.

26
Robert Hock, ‘The workshop as a Social Setting for Missionary Preaching’, CBQ 41 (1979), 438‐50
demonstrates from the texts in Acts and Paul and from the Greco‐Roman context a solid rationale to support
Paul’s use of the workshop as a context for gospel proclamation.
27
R. Hock, ‘The workshop’, 449‐50.
375

Paul also speaks of ministering signs and wonders. In Gal 3:5 he refers to God working miracles
(dunameis) among the Galatians (e.g. Acts 14:2, 8‐10). In Rom 15:19a Paul appeals to his ministry of
what God had accomplished through his ministry, ‘by the power of signs (sēmeiōn) and wonders
(teratōn), through the power of the Spirit’. In 2 Cor 12:12 Paul mentions that he had done with great
perseverance the things that mark an apostle, signs, wonders and miracles (‘works of power’;
dunamesin). 28 Unfortunately Paul does not indicate what these signs and wonders were. Other
references to this include possibly 1 Thess 1:3‐5; 1 Cor 2:4‐5; 4:20.

Luke records two general statements of Paul’s miraculous ministry. First, in Acts 14:3: ‘the Lord
confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to miraculous signs and wonders.’ Secondly, in
Acts 19:11 we read of astonishing works by God through him: ‘God did extraordinary miracles
through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick,
and their illnesses were cure and evil spirits left them’. In addition Luke records 4 specific instances
where Paul moves in the miraculous including healing of a disabled man in Lystra (Acts 14:8‐10); the
deliverance of a demon which enabled her to have foresight in Philippi (Acts 16:16); the raising of
Eutychus from dead (Acts 20:9‐11); miraculously surviving being bitten by a poisonous snake without
any effects in Malta (Acts 28:3‐6).

In‐so‐doing, Paul carries on the linking of preaching and the miraculous (esp. healing and
deliverance) in the NT.

We have a concept here that westerners struggle with in the post‐enlightenment world. However in
this post‐modern environment there is far more interest in the possibility of the miraculous. Those
who engage in mission outside of the west testify that the miraculous is part and parcel of mission.
We have so much to learn in this regard.
Paul’s mission strategy was flexible subject to the sovereignty of
the Spirit
While Paul had a strategy, his strategy was not fixed and Paul enslaved to it. There are a number of
indications of freedom in his strategy depending on circumstances, Satan, and the Spirit. Some
examples of this include:

1. Gospel Doors: Paul speaks of taking opportunities created by God to preach the gospel
which he calls ‘gospel doors.’ In 1 Cor 16:8‐9 he states he will stay in Ephesus to take one of
these despite formidable opposition. In Col 4:3 he asks for the Colossians to pray for more of
them (cf. Acts 14:27).

2. Preaching Because of Illness: In Gal 4:13 Paul reminds the Galatians that the reason he first
preached the gospel to them was because of an illness (lit. ‘Weakness of the flesh’). What
Paul’s problem was is not clear. 29

28
See also 1 Cor 4:20; 1 Thess 1:5. In 2 Thess 2:9 Paul speaks of the ‘anti‐Christ’ performing counterfeit
miracles, signs and wonders.
29
Some of the ideas expressed concerning this illness include: a. A result of his severe suffering (cf. 2 Cor
11:23‐25); b. The unspecified thorn in his flesh (2 Cor 12:7‐10); c. Malaria contracted in the marshes of
Pamphylia (Ramsey); d. Epilepsy based on a literal reading of ‘you did not spit out’ [4:14] referring to the
practice of spitting to avert the evil eye or to exorcise an evil spirit, as in the case of epilepsy (so Wrede;
Klausner); e. An affliction of the eye (ophthalmia) based on Paul’s statement in 4:15. Speculations like these
are interesting but inconclusive!
376

3. Satanic Hindrance: In 1 Thess 2:17‐18 Paul speaks of the way in which Satan had many times
thwarted his desire to visit Thessalonica. This indicates the reality of spiritual warfare in
regards to Paul’s mission and travel plans. It is probable that Paul encountered such
problems at other times (cf. Eph 6:10‐20). Satan is thus real and able to disrupt Paul’s
strategy. This leads onto the need for prayer for mission to overcome these disruptions,
flexibility of strategy, perseverance and confidence in God.

4. Pastoral Concern: At times Paul adapts his plans for a pastoral concern. Some examples are
Acts Some examples include his desire to return to preciously evangelized towns on his
journeys (Acts 15:36‐41; 18:23). On one occasion he leaves behind an open gospel door to
find Titus as he has no ‘peace of mind’ (2 Cor 2:12‐13 cf. 1 Cor 16:9). Thus, Paul was no hit
and run evangelist; he was concerned for his churches and co‐workers and would adapt his
mission strategy for the context.

5. Invitation or Church appointment: Paul at times moves because of opportunities or
invitations. For example, he goes to Antioch to work with Barnabas at his request (Acts
11:26); goes to Jerusalem with the Antiochian Collection when the famine is predicted by
the prophet Agabus (Acts 11:30); goes to Jerusalem to discuss the circumcision theme on
behalf of the Antioch church (Acts 15:2); travels with the Jerusalem Council decree to the
Gentile churches on his second missionary journey (Acts 15:30‐35; 16:4); accepts an
invitation to speak to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:19).

6. Persecution: As we have noted, there are a number of examples of Paul moving on because
of persecution (Acts 9:22; 13:50; 14:4‐6, 19‐20; 16:38‐40; 17:10, 13‐15; 19; 19:40‐20:1. In
the latter part of Acts (21:17‐28:31) involves Paul moving in relation to his imprisonment, his
appeal to Caesar and decisions of the secular courts. However most of these were not
dictated by Paul.

7. Direct Spiritual Guidance: There is strong evidence from Acts that Paul always reserved the
Spirit the right to change his plans: 1) Paul leaves Antioch with Barnabas on their first
missionary journey (Acts 13:3); 2) Paul travels through Phrygia and Galatia yet is forbidden
by the Spirit from preaching there (Acts 16:6); 3) The Spirit stops Paul entering Bithynia so
they travel on west to Troas (Acts 16:8); 4) Paul responds to a vision and travels to
Macedonia with the gospel (Acts 16:9‐10)

While Paul has a clear strategy, he is flexible, always prepared to adjust to the Spirit and/or
circumstances.
Paul’s mission involved concern for social justice
Another feature of Paul’s ministry is his concern for social action on behalf of others in need. On one
level there is a surprising lack of any imperative to be concerned for the poor. Certainly, there is
nothing as direct as we find in the mouth of Jesus. A cursory reading of Paul could suggest that Paul
does not refer to poverty as such due to his own ‘freedom from worldly concern’ (1 Cor 7:28‐35) and
his contentment in any state of wealth (Phil 4:10‐13). However, closer examination suggests there is
a greater concern for the poor and those in need than the lack of any imperative suggests. These
include:
The Antiochian collection
Luke records in Acts 11:27‐30 that Agabus predicted the famine in Jerusalem in the reign of Claudius.
Extra‐biblical records confirm that the reign of Claudius was marked by crop failures across the
empire including Judea. During AD 46‐48 there was Judean famine due to flooding. These caused
377

higher prices and a real crisis for the poor. It is most likely that this occurred in AD 46. 30 The disciples
of Antioch each contributed as they were able to a collection and Barnabas and Saul delivered it.
Only, that you continue to remember the poor (Gal 2:10)
The context is Gal 2:1‐10 where Paul has presented his gospel to the Jerusalem Apostles who have
concurred that he is the apostle to the Gentiles. The one condition they have is that he continues to
remember the needs of the poor. This visit probably aligns with the above visit of Paul to Jerusalem
in Acts 11:27‐30. 31 Some read the poor here as the ‘the poor among the saints’ in Rom 15:26 and
that refers to the Jerusalem poor i.e. this is an appeal for more collection support. However, this is
reading Galatians through the eyes of a book written some 8 years later. What we have here is an
appeal to Paul from the Jerusalem apostles that as he goes about saving the lost, he remembers the
needs of the poor. There are several other examples of Paul’s concern for the poor, primarily within
the community but not exclusively so (Rom 12:10; Gal 6:9‐10). For Paul, authentic Christian mission
sits alongside the power of the Spirit and a concern for social justice.
The Jerusalem collection
Readers of the NT often miss this dimension because it is not mentioned by Luke and is only noted
when one pieces together 1 Cor 16:1‐2; Rom 15:26 and 2 Cor 8‐9. When one does, we realise that
one of the key reasons for the 3rd missionary journey was to raise money for the poor Christians in
Jerusalem who were experiencing a famine. There are a number of reasons for poverty in
Jerusalem; 32 the most likely of which is that economic oppression, marginalisation and famine. The
poor were highly oppressed due to temple taxation, Roman taxation and the tithing system. The
burgeoning Christian church was no doubt marginalised by mainstream Judaism.

The second appeal was a large scale collection of material support for Jerusalem from the Pauline
churches. There are several references to this:

1. Paul appeals for the Corinthian churches as he has the Galatian churches, to set aside gifts
when they meet (1 Cor 16:1‐2).
2. Paul gives a long and detailed appeal for Corinthian generosity in 2 Cor 8‐9.
3. Paul refers to the delivery of the Collection in Rom 15:26.

The reason for the Collection is primarily concern for the poor (cf. Gal 2:10). However, may have
been a motivation to express unity. 33

The giving of the collection points to the importance of social action on behalf of others. It also
indicates the need for the community of the Church to demonstrate material generosity and the
alleviation of suffering. It points to the priority of Jesus’ example as a foundation for Christian giving

30
See Polhill, Acts, 275.
31
A number of less conservative scholars believe Gal 2 = Acts 15. However, this is unlikely. See later on
Galatians.
32
S. McKnight, ‘Collection for the Saints’ DPL, 143‐47, 144 notes 5 possible reasons scholars have come up
with for the poverty in Jerusalem: 1) The relief of more and more widows (Acts 6:1‐7); 2) The burden of
pilgrims to Jerusalem; 3) Potential problems arising from Jerusalem’s early experimentation with communal
life (Acts 4:32‐5:11); 4) Economic hardship caused by the famine (Acts 11:27‐30); 5) Personal stresses due to
economic persecutions (cf. James 1:9; 2:6‐7; 5:1‐6).
33
See McKnight, ‘Collection’, 144‐46 for other reasons given by scholar including: 1) A substitute for Jewish
entry rites: instead of sacrifice and circumcision, the Gentile church gave financially to Israel as a ‘visible sign of
their recognition of the priority of the Jewish nation in salvation‐history; 2) Eschatological provocation: That
Paul hoped that the conversion of the Gentiles to provoke jealousy among the Jews and thus salvation (Rom
11:24) and as a fulfilment of OT hopes of Gentiles bringing gifts to Israel (cf. Is 2:2‐4; 60:6‐7, 11; Mic 4:13).
378

(2 Cor 8:9), that Christians should be concerned for other Christians in need, that Paul upheld the
principle of material justness and fairness and so a redistribution of wealth in the Christian
community (2 Cor 8:13), 34 the need for love as the basis for giving (2 Cor 8:8, 24; 1 Cor 13:2) and
that people should give generously and without compulsion (2 Cor 9:7). Paul clearly saw such
concern as an extension of OT teaching on material generosity and the alleviation of poverty (2 Cor
9:9). 35
Concern for widows (1 Tim 5:1‐16)
Another example of Paul’s belief in material Christian care for other Christians in need is exemplified
in his instructions to Timothy to care for the widows of Ephesus. We have already seen how
important caring for widows was in the early church (Acts 6:1‐7). In 1 Timothy he gives Timothy
explicit instructions to ‘give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need’ (5:3).
However the first priority to care for the widows must be the family (5:4, 8, 16). Paul goes as far as
saying that a failure to support the needy widow is a denial of the faith (5:8). Implied here is that the
widow in real need is the one who has no Christian family to support her. Along with the material
assistance, the widow is to be instructed to pray and put hope in God and not live for pleasure (5:5,
6).

The widows who are to be supported are to be over sixty; have been faithful to her husband; are
well known for her good deeds (care for children, hospitality, serving other Christians, helping those
in trouble and devotion to good deeds) (5:9‐10). Younger widows are not to be put on such a list
because of sensual desire, idleness and gossip. Paul considered that they should marry, have
children and manage their homes faithfully (5:11‐12).

Paul demonstrates here that common sense is to be applied to the distribution of help to the needy.
His concern about younger widows relates to the problems in Ephesus with women in the church
and is contextual and not universal. We are called to apply the same principles in our own contexts.

Paul then was concerned that Christians cared for the poor and in particular those in the church. He
encouraged believers to avoid laziness and dependence and provide for their own living (Eph 4:28; 1
Thess 4:11‐12; 2 Thess 3:6‐15). He demonstrated this in his own self‐supporting practice (see above).
He warned of the dangers of wealth (1 Cor 5:11; 1 Tim 3:3; 6:6‐10; 2 Tim 3:2) and advocated
generosity. His practice and teaching stands in continuity with the teaching and practice of Christ
and the Jerusalem early church.
Paul’s mission focused on the establishment of local churches
Paul was not merely concerned with evangelisation of people for personal salvation, but a key
feature of Paul’s mission strategy was the establishment of church’s in each of the town in which he
ministered. It is probable that initially Paul would like to have converted whole synagogues into
Christian churches. However without exception, he was unable to do so and left the synagogue to
create cells in local homes or in the case of Ephesus, a lecture hall (see above). He was successful in
many of the cities he visited, but there is no evidence of success in Berea and Athens.

34
Paul writes in 2 Cor 8:13, ‘our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that
there might be equality’ (ijsovth"; isotes, ‘equality’, ‘justness, fairness’). This need not be taken in a
western scientific exact sense but rather to the redistribution of excessive wealth to those in need. At other
times, the situation may be reversed (2 Cor 8:14). This principle should make us in the highly wealthy west sit
up and think. Is there socio‐economic equality across the church throughout the globe?
35
2 Cor 9:9 quotes Ps 112:9. See also Exod 23:10‐11; Deut 14:28‐29; 15:1‐11; 24:19‐22. See also the prophets
regularly.

379


W.P. Bowers has in recent times quite rightly emphasised that the formation of church’s was Paul’s
goal and so Paul’s mission transcended the individualistic approach of contemporary western
thinking. 36 These churches were themselves, to carry on the mission of Paul in their towns and
regions (below).

Follow up pastoral support for Paul’s churches
Paul did not merely plant churches and leave them. He was concerned for the ongoing development
of individual discipleship and the Christian community. Any analysis of Paul’s strategy must go
beyond the initial evangelisation and examine his strategy for the maturation of his churches and
converts. He developed a number of strategies for this including:

1. Extended Stays: The length of Paul’s stays in the towns he evangelized is inconsistent. For
example: Psidian Antioch in Acts 13:13, 44‐(2 Sabbaths = 1‐3 weeks); Iconium in Acts 14:3
(‘considerable time’); Thessalonica in Acts 17:2 (3 Sabbaths = 1‐4 weeks); Corinth in Acts
18:11, 18 (18 months cf. ‘some time’); Ephesus in Acts 19:8, 10 (2 years 3 months). The
variance is due in the main to Paul having to move on through persecution or other Spirit‐
impelled reason. It is probable he wanted to stay longer in most places. If so, it indicates his
concern to see the church well established.

2. Paul’s Visits: We see this in Paul’s 1st missionary journey, where he returns through the
towns he had previously evangelized to strengthen them and appoint leaders (Acts 14:21‐
22). Paul’s 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys are, according to Luke, also pastoral in motivation
(Acts 15:36 cf. Acts 20:2). In the Epistles, there are numerous references to Paul’s visits or
his desire to visit churches, even beyond those he had planted (Rom 1:10‐15; 15:24; 1 Cor
16:5‐9; 2 Cor 1:15‐16; 1:23‐2:3; 13:2,10; 1 Thess 2:17‐18).

3. Co‐workers visits: Paul often sent his representatives in his own place. Timothy and Titus in
particular are seen in the epistles travelling back and forward from Paul as his agent to his
churches. 37 The Pastorals reflect this practice best of all. The Timothy letters find Timothy in
Ephesus while Titus finds Titus in Crete carrying on the task of overseeing the Pauline
churches.

4. Visits from other apostles and leaders: Paul is suspicious of the activities of other apostles
or leaders in his churches (2 Cor 10:13‐17). He is absolutely outraged when such preachers
are distorting the gospel he preached to his converts (esp. 2 Cor 10‐13; Gal; Phil 3:2‐21 and
the Pastorals). He is similarly disgusted when his recipients began to develop factions around
their favourite apostle (1 Cor 1:10‐13) However he also indicates that where the gospel is
not distorted and where his own authority is valued, he welcomes other preachers such as
Peter and Apollos.

5. The establishment of leadership in the new churches: A key facet of Paul’s missionary
strategy concerning the church is the establishment of local leadership in each Christian
community. In each church Paul established formal leadership to oversee the church. In Acts
14:23 Luke tells us ‘Paul and Barnabas appointed elders (presbyteros) for them in each
church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they put their

36
W.P. Bowers, ‘Church and Mission in Paul’ JSNT 44 (1991) 89‐111.
37
Timothy: 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor 1:19; Phil 2:19; 1 Thess 3:2, 6 and 1 & 2 Tim cf. Acts 16:1). Titus: 2 Cor 2:13;
7:6; 7:13‐14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; Gal 2:1‐3 and the book Titus.
380

trust’ (cf. Acts 20:17). They were given the task of shepherding, oversight and protection
(see Acts 20:28). Paul uses the same word in 1 Tim 5:17 with reference to the double honour
and respect (not pay) elders should receive in the church. In Tit 1:5‐9 Paul gives Titus
instructions on the required character of those who are appointed elders in the church. In 1
Tim 3:1‐7 Paul uses a different term ‘overseer’ (episkopos) and gives Timothy instructions
similar to those found in Titus concerning the elder’s character. Paul also refers in the same
passage (1 Tim 3:8‐13) to the office of deacon (diakonia). Again his concern is that those
who are appointed to this role in the church are of good Christian character. Unfortunately
we are unsure of the relative functions of the elders and the deacons although many have
attempted to resolve this dilemma. R. Banks suggests that the elders were ‘older, respected
Christians who probably had a corporate responsibility for a cluster of churches in a city’. He
suggests that the deacons were ‘helpers’. He wonders whether the ‘deacons’ were persons
hosting a house church and their female assistants or wives.38 Paul in Phil 1:1 addresses the
‘overseers and deacons’ of the Philippian church indicating the two‐fold leadership structure
of the church. This indicates that the follow up and care of believers was critical to Paul.
There are also charismatic functionary roles in the church; apostle, prophet, evangelist,
pastor and teacher (maybe pastor who teaches); whose role is to lead and equip the
believers, encourage maturation, and protect, for the growth of the church (Eph 4:11‐16 cf.
Rom 12:28‐31).

6. Epistles to the Churches: Paul’s letters are another way of continuing his care for his
churches. They are in the main written for two main purposes: 1) To Deal with False
Teaching (e.g. 2 Cor 10‐12; Galatians; Colossians; 1 Tim; Titus; 2) To Deal with Matters of
Disunity (1 Corinthians; Philippians; Rom 14‐15); 3) To Deal with Concerns e.g. death (1
Thess 4‐5); ethics (Rom 12‐15; Gal 4‐6; Col 3; Eph 4‐5); 4) Personal Matters (e.g. Philemon).

Paul’s missionary support
Paul was not a lone ranger missionary. He arranged a number of elements of personal support
including co‐workers, financial support, prayer support and church support. We will look briefly at
each in turn.
Paul’s team
An essential element of Paul’s missionary strategy was his use of co‐workers and teams. Throughout
his ministry, Paul worked with others. There are a number of good examples. The first is Barnabas
who took Paul under his wing on his conversion welcoming him into the Jerusalem Church (Acts
9:27), inviting him to work with him in Antioch (Acts 11:25‐26), delivering the Antiochian collection
(Gal 2:1‐9) and ministering with him on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:1‐4‐14:28). There were
problems in their relationship with Barnabas caught in Paul’s clash with Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:13)
and a rather sharp parting of the ways at the beginning of the second missionary journey (Acts
15:36‐39). There is possible evidence of reconciliation with a reference to Barnabas in 1 Cor 9:6 and
Col 4:10.

The second is John Mark whose mother’s home was a gathering place for the Jerusalem church (Acts
12:12). He was a cousin of Barnabas (anepsios) (Col 4:10) and joined Paul and Barnabas after the first
collection to Jerusalem (Acts 11:25). He then travelled as helper to Paul and Barnabas on their first
journey (Acts 13:5, 13). Unfortunately John Mark had deserted Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia and
as such, Paul did not want to take him on the second journey (Acts 15:36‐39). It appears he and Paul
were reconciled and John Mark was with Paul in his Roman imprisonment (Col 4:10; Phm 24; 2 Tim

38
R. Banks, ‘Church Order and Government’ in DPL 131‐37, 134.
381

4:11). Tradition says he is author of Mark. I find it encouraging that a man who in some way fell from
grace as he appears to have done is an author of the foundational gospel Mark. Perhaps he and
Peter linked up in part because they had both had a fall from grace.

The third major companion is Timothy. After the rupture with Mark and Barnabas, Timothy was
taken under Paul’s wing in Lystra (Acts 16:1). He quickly became Paul’s most trusted travel
companion, so much so that Paul could say of him, ‘I have no one like him’ (Phil 2:19). He is
mentioned many times (see above). He figures as co‐author/sender of 2 Corinthians, Philippians,
Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Philemon. He may have been scribe for some of these letters.
He may have delivered 1 Corinthians.

Another travelling companion is Titus who was an uncircumcised Gentile convert of Paul and who
travelled with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem when Paul went to Jerusalem to discuss his gospel
(Gal 2:1‐5). He worked with Paul at Ephesus on his third missionary journey and travelled to Corinth
to help the church (2 Cor 2:12‐13; 7:5‐6; 8:6). Titus was sent by Paul to care for the Cretan church
(Titus). We read in 2 Tim 4:10 that later on he went to Dalmatia on mission (2 Tim 4:10).

Silas (Silvanus) appears in Acts 15:22 as one of the Jerusalem prophet‐leaders appointed to deliver
the Jerusalem edict to the Gentile churches with Paul and Barnabas. He travelled with Paul on his
second missionary journey (Acts 15:22, 27, 32, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5; 1 Cor 1:2 Cor
1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). He appears as co‐sender of the Thessalonians letter because of his
involvement in the mission and his presence with Paul at the time of writing. We are unsure of his
movements after Paul’s visit to Corinth.

A number of others travelled with Paul. Bosch following Ollrog suggests that there were three
classes of Paul co‐workers: 1) First, the intimate circle including Barnabas and Mark; then Timothy,
Titus and Silas; 2) Independent workers such as Priscilla and Aquila and Apollos; 3) Workers from
local churches such as Epaphroditus, Epraphas, Aristarchus, Gaius and Jason. These people were
released to work with Paul for confined periods of time. This enabled the churches to be involved in
the mission.39 The point is this; Paul (like Jesus) was a team player. He preferred to travel and
minister with others, involving his churches in his mission. In this sense he mirrored Jesus who
worked with the Twelve including an inner circle of Peter, James and John.
Financial support
Paul determined that it was not in the best interests of his mission to receive financial assistance
from the immediate recipients of his evangelism. He considered he had the right to such support but
relinquished that right (1 Cor 9:1‐22). He did not want to put any stumbling block in anyone’s way by
asking for money (1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 11:9; 12:14‐18). He wanted also to remove any ground for boasting
in that he received money for his ministry (1 Cor 9:15‐18). Neither did he want to be a burden upon
his recipients (2 Cor 11:9; 12:13, 14, 16 cf. 1 Thess 2:6, 9; 2 Thess 3:8). Nor did he want to be accused
of peddling the gospel. He resisted accepting patronage and any limitation on his ministry from
possible patrons. He wanted to be a model of a working missionary for his converts (2 Thess 3:7f).
Hence Paul preferred to provide for himself with his tentmaking (see above and in the introduction).

However, indications suggest that Paul was also prepared to accept support from churches outside
of the particular town he was ministering in and where they were not trying to limit his mission
through patron‐client expectations. Hence in Phil 4:10‐20 he is thankful to the Philippians for their

39
W. –H. Ollrog, Paulus und siene Mitarbeiter (Neukiechen‐Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 92‐122. D.
Bosch, Transforming Mission, 132.
382

support while he was in Thessalonica (cf. Acts 17). 2 Cor 11:8 40 suggests other churches also
supported Paul at other times. After he had established a church, Paul was prepared to accept their
support.

Again we have here some solid missiological principles. It is inadvisable to accept money from
immediate recipients of the gospel as it could lead them to consider the evangelist as a charlatan. TV
evangelists could do well to consider this. Secondly it is good for established churches to support
mission and missionaries.
Prayer support
On regular occasions (Rom 15:30; Eph 6:19; Col 4:3; 1 Thess 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1) Paul requests prayer
support from his congregations for his mission. It is interesting and instructive to look at these
prayers. In these prayers Paul prays for: 1) Deliverance from enemies and danger (Rom 15:30‐32); 2)
Success in mission goals (Rom 15:30‐32); 3) Travel plans (Rom 15:30‐32); 4) Refreshment (Rom
15:32); 5) Proclamation with the right words (Eph 6:19), courage (Eph 6:19), open doors to the
message (Col 4:3‐4), clear proclamation (Col 4:3‐4) and the speedy spread and acceptance of the
message (that it may run) (2 Thess 3:1).

Clearly Paul considered general prayer support a priority (Col 4:3). The clear emphasis is on the
word of God being powerful and successful.
Home Church Support
As we have already discussed, Syrian Antioch was Paul’s base for mission. From there he launched
his first three missions (Acts 13:2; 14:26;‐28; 15:36; 18:22;‐23). After each he returned to his home
church to report and no doubt, receive refreshment.

It is apparent that Paul wanted to establish a new base in Rome for his western mission, probably
because Antioch was too distant to operate as an effective base. Hence, he requests of the Romans
assistance for his western mission (Rom 15:24; 29). If this is the case it could provide some insight
into why Paul writes such a long presentation of the gospel in Romans i.e. to gain their support for
his gospel.
Paul wanted churches to continue the mission
The final dimension of Paul’s mission strategy is the church. Clearly there are a number of
dimensions of the churches role in continuing on the mission. We have already noted two ways that
Paul wanted churches to support his mission; namely, prayer and financial assistance. There are a
number of other ways that Paul envisaged his churches being involved in mission. Some of these are
‘attraction’ dynamics i.e. centripetal mission. These dimensions are ways in which the church would
be an attractive of magnetic missionary force, people attracted to Christ to it. This is the dominant
mode of mission in Jewish thinking before Christ, people attracted to the Jewish faith. However, Paul
also believed in the church mobilised, proclaiming the gospel to the world in its behaviour, in
defence of the gospel and in proactive evangelisation.

40
‘I “robbed” other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.’

383

Centripetal attraction mission
Mission through worship
Paul clearly envisaged situations when pre‐Christians came into the church (1 Cor 14:20‐25). He
encouraged the church to desist in public untranslated proclamation and prayer in tongues as it
could potentially cause the unbeliever to think that the believers are mad. He saw an important role
in the charismatic prophetic oracle from the ‘prophet’ who would convict the unbeliever of their sin
and need for God so that they would turn to Christ. In Acts 16 while in Philippian prison in stocks and
having been severely flogged, Paul and Silas at midnight are praying and singing hymns in the
hearing of other prisoners (see Acts 16:25). In highly Romanised Philippi, this would have been a
controversial and potentially dangerous thing to do. It leads to the conversion of the jailor and
family. Thus, witness involves worship.
Mission through community love and Life
The overwhelming emphasis of Paul’s teaching concerning the church in regards to unbelievers is an
appeal for living consistent with the gospel (e.g. Phil 1:27). The key dimension here is agape love in
which the believers within the context of the church community demonstrate the love of God
through the fruit of the Spirit under the rubric of ‘love one another’. Paul’s vision is for unbelievers
to be attracted to the unity, non‐elitism, generosity, grace, mercy and love of Christian communities
who are different to the world. This is one of the reasons why Paul’s letters are so concerned for
relationships and unity; so that unbelievers will be attracted to Christ.
Centrifugal proactive mission
Apologetic witness
In Col 4:6 Paul states that he wants the Colossians to ‘know how to answer everyone’. This echoes 1
Pet 3:15 and envisages all believers being ready and able to respond to the questions and enquiries
of unbelievers. Remember that this was originally penned in an environment when Christians were
persecuted (e.g. Paul who is in prison at the time), and so, it is a readiness to front up to antagonists
and enquirers with answers to their questions. Christians should be apologetically prepared.
Healings and miracles (signs and wonders)
Paul sees healing and miracles (lit: ‘powers’) as a gift of the Spirit which he envisaged operating in
the local church (1 Cor 12:9, 28; 13:2). While he never directly states that this will connect with the
lost, it is reasonable to suggest that within the community of faith and in connection with pre‐
Christians and new Christians, healing was an important part of church life. Although deliverance is
not explicitly mentioned, it probably falls under this concept in Paul (cf. Acts 16:16‐19). Just as Paul
himself moved in signs and wonders in his mission (cf. Rom 15:19a; 2 Cor 12:12; 1 Cor 2:4‐5), as we
go into mission, we too are to pray for the sick and needy, knowing that God will do works of grace
among them.
Social engagement
Paul did not envisage believers separating from the world into community life. Sure, they were to
gather, and experience rich community life. However, leaking out of his letters are hints that he
wanted his converts out in the world and not separated from it. For example in 1 Cor 7:15 he urges
believers to remain in their marriages to unbelievers to see them won to Christ; while allowing their
spouses freedom to leave if that is their desire. In 1 Cor 7:17f Paul broadens this principle,
encouraging believers to remain in the social situations they were in at conversion; no doubt with
the hope that some of those will be won to Christ. In 1 Cor 10:27‐29, Paul the committed Jew,
speaks in an off‐hand manner of believers eating at the home of unbelievers. This is a radical shift of
384

thinking from his Pharisaic days. Believers are not to shun the ‘unclean’ but engage them. They are
to do so with grace, eating what is placed before them even if from the temple butchery, yet not
doing so if they cause offense. The presence of enquirers and unbelievers at worship in Corinth
suggests that worship was open and believers were to invite unbelievers to their gatherings (1 Cor
14:16, 23‐25). Again, love is critical, believers ensuring that their worship is comprehensible and
non‐offensive to the visitor. Believers are to bless their persecutors, refusing to repay evil with evil,
living at peace with all people as far as possible (Rom 12:14‐21). They are to live quiet lives, not
causing offense and behaving properly toward outsiders (1 Thess 4:11‐12). This is echoed in 2 Tim
2:1‐2 where Paul urges the Ephesians to pray for all people including Caesar and to live quiet and
peaceable lives with godliness and dignity. Partners in social relationships, whether wives and
husbands, children and fathers or slaves and masters, are to remain in their relationships, and live
out of love cross‐culturally renouncing the power and prestige of the existing social order, and rather
living out of love and mutual submission and servanthood (Eph 5:21‐6:9). Paul modelled this himself
as a tentmaker, engaged in society, and not with a dualistic separatist approach.
Ethical witness
As noted above, believers are to live out the ethics of the faith in the world. This is one of the most
powerful means of mission in Paul’s mind. They are to ‘do everything without complaining or
arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and
depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe’ (Phil 2:15). Just as Jesus told
believers in his great ethical sermon that they are the salt and light of the world, Paul here is urging
his readers to let their light shine before all people. They are to live in a manner worthy of the gospel
(Phil 1:27) and live a life worthy of the calling they have received (Eph 4:1). For Paul, love is the
supreme attribute, compelling mission and it should undergird every dimension of live (2 Cor 5:14; 1
Cor 13; Gal 5:22‐25; Eph 5:1‐2). By this mercy, grace and love unbelievers will be found by the love of
God.
Proactive evangelisation
Some scholars believe that Paul did not envisage the church being active in evangelisation beyond
answering questions from unbelievers (apologetic witness above). 41 They argue that Paul believed
that the gospel mission would be completed by Paul himself, his team of co‐workers and other
apostles and evangelists i.e. through specialist proclaimers. They see the churches role as one of
attraction through the quality of their lifestyle, worship and social integration. The role of the church
in mission is limited to prayer and financial support for those specialists like Paul. They interpret all
texts in line with this. For example:

1. Texts that could suggest that there are churches involved in mission (e.g. Rom 1:8; 1 Thess
1:8) are interpreted as others reporting about the church rather than active mission from the
church.
2. Texts that suggest believers are to evangelise (e.g. 1 Cor 7:15; 14:20‐25; Eph 6:15, 17; Phil
1:27; 2:16) are taken as effectively defensive or perseverance orientated and say nothing
about telling others proactively about Jesus.

41
W.P. Bowers, ‘Church and Mission in Paul’, JSNT 44 (1991): 89‐111; W.P. Bowers, Studies in Paul’s
Understanding of his Mission (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, 1976), 104‐121; R. Banks, Paul’s Idea
of Community (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980), 161‐164; R.Y.K. Fung, ‘Body of Christ’, in DPL, 81; E. Ellis,
Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 14. J.C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: the
Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Augsburg: Fortress Press, 1980): 306; N. Elliott, Liberating Paul: the Justice
of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1994), 197; A.J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). D. Bosch, Transforming Mission (New York: Orbis Books, 1992); J.P.
Dickson, Promoting the Gospel. ‘Mission‐commitment’ in the Churches of Paul against its Jewish Background
(Unpublished PhD Dissertation; Sydney: Macquarrie University, 2001).
385

3. Texts that suggest extensive (numerical) growth for the church are in fact to be taken as
talking about growth in terms of maturation and increased quality of Christian life and not
adding new believers to the church (intensive/qualitative growth) (e.g. Eph 4:11‐16; Col
2:19).
4. Texts that involved proclamation involve only specialists and do not apply to ‘general’
believers (e.g. Phil 1:14; 2 Cor 8:18).
5. Texts that suggest imitation of Paul do not involve proclamation but basically relate to
imitating Paul’s attitudes and ethics only (e.g. 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6; Phil 3:17; 4:9; Eph 5:1‐
2).
6. Rom 15:19a: ‘fully proclaimed the gospel’ does not refer to churches continuing the mission
but the mere establishment of the church to encourage the second coming.
7. Being an ambassador for Christ in the context of 2 Cor 5:20 refers not to all Christians but to
the apostolic team over against the church. Hence, it does not indicate general evangelism.
8. Texts speaking about the power of God for salvation (e.g. Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18; Eph 6:17)
are general and do not lead to the idea that we should therefore preach the gospel.

Another group of scholars however take this idea to task. They do not dispute that Paul envisaged
the church being an attractive community; that they were to support ‘specialist’ proclaimers; that
believers and churches should seek to attract unbelievers through the quality of their lives; that
believers should answer the questions of enquirers.42 However, they argue that there is more and
that many of the texts mentioned above point to proactive evangelisation for the church in the mind
of Paul. For example:

1. 1 Thess 1:8 points to the gospel being taken by the Thessalonians (‘from you’) into
Macedonia and Achaia and beyond.
2. Eph 6:15, 17 suggest that the well equipped Christian (soldier) who is never identified as
only preachers or other ‘specialists’ will be ready and equipped at all time to move with the
gospel (the shoes of readiness to preach the gospel) and to proactively share the gospel (the
Word of God = the sword of the Spirit).

42
These include: P.T. O’Brien, Consumed by Passion. Paul and the Dynamic of the Gospel (Homebush West:
Anzea, 1993) (also published as Church and Mission in Paul); M. Keown, The Missing Imperative: A Discussion
of the Absence of a Clear Imperative to Proclaim the Gospel in the Pauline Epistles with Particular Reference to
Philippians, 2007; A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (Trans. J.
Moffatt. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 368; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament (Trans. Frank
Clarke; London: SCM Press, 1965), 95‐110; M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Crowborough: Highland
Books, 1970), 200‐233; G. Bornkamm, Paul (Trans. D.M.C. Stalker. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971); G.W.
Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972); H. Ridderbos, Paul: an Outline of his
Theology (Trans. John Richard de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 434; W.‐H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine
Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission (Neukirchen‐Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1979), 130f; D. Senior; C. Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (London: SCM, 1983), 183‐
185; H. Doohan, Paul’s Vision of the Church (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989), 105‐125; J.P. Ware, Holding
Forth the Word of Life: Paul and the Mission of the Church in the letter to the Philippians, in the Context of
Second Temple Judaism (Unpublished PhD dissertation; Yale, 1996); ‘The Thessalonians as a missionary
congregation: 1Thessalonians 1,5‐8’, ZNW 83 (1992): 126‐131; I.H. Marshall, ‘Who Were the Evangelists?’ in J.
Ådna and H. Kvalbein, The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. WUNT 127 (Tübingen: Mohr
(Siebeck), 2000), 252.
251‐263; A.F. Glasser, ‘The apostle Paul and the missionary task’ in R.D. Winter & S.C. Hawthorne, Perspectives
on the World Christian Movement (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1981, 1992), 125‐133 esp.130‐132.

386

3. Eph 4:11‐12 suggests that the role of the evangelist is not only to proclaim the gospel but
equip the general believer for works of service including proclamation of the gospel, a good
work prepared in advance by Christ (Eph 2:10).
4. Phil 1:27 suggests that believers are to contend for the faith of the gospel which should be
seen as proactive and outward evangelization (cf. Phil 4:2‐3: where ‘contend’ is the same
Greek word clearly used of evangelism).
5. Phil 2:16 should be interpreted not as ‘hold fast to the word of life’ but ‘hold forth the word
of life’ cf. Dan 12:1‐3.
6. 1 Cor 7:15 points to a general Christian (a wife/husband) seeking to evangelise their spouse
pointing to an evangelistic motivation where one’s family is concerned.
7. Four imitation texts point to proclamation. First, 1 Cor 11:1 where the believer is to imitate
Christ and Paul who are both proclaimers (e.g. 1 Cor 9:19‐22). The second is Phil 4:9 which is
a general appeal for total imitation including by definition, proclamation; which is important
throughout the letter. A third is 1 Thess 1:6‐8 where the believers of Thessalonica imitated
the Pauline team in mission. Finally, in 1 Thess 2:13‐16 the believers of Thessalonica imitated
the Judean churches in sharing the faith and receiving persecution.
8. A number of general texts in Paul appealing for behaviour should not be seen to exclude
evangelism (e.g. Phil 1:11; Col 1:11).
9. Rom 15:19a refers to self‐supporting churches planted in the region from Jerusalem to
Illyricum who will continue the mission to their regions.
10. 2 Cor 5:20 may involve general evangelization in the sense that, wherever a Christian is
found representing Christ in the world, they are an ambassador and they are to appeal to all
around to ‘be reconciled to Christ.’
11. In Col 4:5 logos should be interpreted against is use in 4:3 where it refers to evangelism. As
such, Paul’s appeal here is for their evangelism to be seasoned with salt and gracious.
12. There is evidence of church appointed apostles who preach the gospel and plant churches
(e.g. 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; Eph 4:11).

My own view developed in my recent book Congregational Evangelism in Philippians is that the
second alternative is unquestionably correct. Paul envisaged Christian leaders leading the
evangelization mission (apostles, evangelists and co‐workers). However, the mission was not
confined to them alone. Their role was not only to do the ministry but to equip the ‘general
Christian’ for all manner of ministry including evangelism. The Christian was to become ready and
equipped to proclaim the gospel as one dimension of Christian maturation (cf. Eph 4:11‐16; 6:15,
17). There are a number of texts that point to church involvement (cf. Phil 4:2‐3; 1 Thess 1:8).
Philippians in particular, along with a number of other themes, includes an appeal for evangelism
(see in particular 1:12‐18a, 27; 2:16; 4:2‐3; 4:9).

That being the case, the final dimension of Paul’s mission strategy was the church. The church is the
body of Christ who through expression of spiritual gifts (charismata) and under the leading of the
Spirit continue the full mission of God. This involved growth in intensive terms i.e. the maturation of
the body and every individual believer. It also involved extensive growth i.e. making new converts
and planting churches. The key to this is the liberation and support of apostles and evangelists who
lead the mission and equip others for the task.
Conclusion
Paul’s missionary strategy is rich and variegated. No doubt it was developed and honed over his 20
or so years of missionary life. The principles Paul developed and demonstrated form the basis of
modern missionary strategy. Just as the Jerusalem Church lays a foundation for what church should
be, Paul’s approach to mission give us the basic principle for mission. If we learn the lessons and
387

apply the principles I am confident our effectiveness in mission, whether local or overseas, will be
greatly enhanced. So, as Paul says in 1 Cor 11:1: ‘imitate me as I imitate Christ.’
388

16B
• Is marketplace proclamation still a relevant and appropriate means of gospel proclamation
today? Why? Why not? If so, what sort of methodologies might be utilised in today’s
environment to make it effective and aside from the offense of the gospel itself, non‐
offensive?
• Should contemporary believers continue to evangelise with door to door evangelism? Why?
Why not? If so, how? When?
• Do we recognise Paul's tentmaking approach? What would change if we did? Is blending a
marketplace vocation with ‘ministry’ a viable option today?
• What is the place of the miraculous in mission, ministry, local churches? If we believe the
two should go hand in hand, how can we rediscover it avoiding the excesses of some
churches and the scepticism of others?
389

Chapter Twenty
SOME BASIC CONTOURS OF PAUL’S THOUGHT
Contents
Salvation History ................................................................................................................................. 390
All Lost in Sin ....................................................................................................................................... 391
The Centrality of the Crucifixion and Resurrection............................................................................. 392
Jesus Lord ............................................................................................................................................ 393
In Christ ............................................................................................................................................... 393
Righteousness of God/Justification .................................................................................................... 394
Reconciliation ...................................................................................................................................... 394
Redemption ........................................................................................................................................ 395
Sanctification ...................................................................................................................................... 395
Grace and not Law .............................................................................................................................. 396
Faith .................................................................................................................................................... 397
Adoption ............................................................................................................................................. 397
The Spirit ............................................................................................................................................. 397
The Church of God, Christ and Spirit .................................................................................................. 397
Worship ............................................................................................................................................... 398
Love ..................................................................................................................................................... 399
The Culmination .................................................................................................................................. 399
Mission ................................................................................................................................................ 401

389

Some Basic Contours of Paul's Thought
In many ways it is Paul who has given Christianity its theological framework. His letters are not
systematic theology but through them breaths the core theological bases upon which Christianity
has been built, especially for Protestants. Here I will briefly present some of the more important
concepts you need to grasp to understand Paul’s thinking. These notes are a bare introduction to
these ideas which in many cases are extremely complex and battlegrounds for scholarship. We will
look at some of them in more detail in 1 Corinthians and Romans over years to come. Here, we will
introduce some of the main ideas you meet through Paul’s letters.

Salvation History
Paul’s theology has a strong sense of salvation history. It begins before creation with God immortal,
invisible and sovereign. Paul never defines creation, but assumes that the world and all things are
created by God, that there was a point of creation, that man and woman were created (e.g. Rom
1:20; 8:19‐22, 39; 1 Cor 11:9; Eph 3:9; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 4:4). Paul accepts Christ’s lordship over this
creation and his involvement in forming the world (Col 1:15‐16 cf. Jn 1:3; Heb 1:2). Paul accepts
notions of election, predestination and foreknowledge. He speaks of believers being ‘called’ to
salvation and God’s people 1 and mission (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:15; 5:8); that God’s people are
elect (Rom 9:11; 11:7, 28; 2 Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1 cf. 1 Tim 5:21). He assumes that God has
foreknowledge (Rom 8:29) human salvation falls under God’s sovereignty and predestination (Rom
8:29‐30; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5, 11; 1 Thess 3:3). Scholars debate exactly what this means and how this
plays out in relation to personal response. What is clear is that for Paul, in some sense, history is
being played out as God foreknew and predestined.

Certain aspects of the story are drawn on as he presents his gospel. He has a strong sense of the
past, especially that of Israel as found in the OT Scriptures. He clearly accepts creation (Gen 1‐2) with
Christ involved (see above). He does not answer the questions we do about science, evolution, big
bangs etc. For him, God created the heavens and the earth. The Fall (Gen 3) is critical in Paul’s
thinking. Due to the Fall, all humanity are ‘in Adam’ (Rom 5:14‐21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45‐49) and so lost in
sin, trapped in a fallen world in need of redemption, and so in need of salvation (further below). Eve
is also mentioned by Paul in two passages (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13‐14). Abraham is a key figure, he
devoting a full chapter in Rom 4 demonstrating how he was saved by faith and is the father of both
the uncircumcised and the circumcised. He mentions Jesus Davidic descent (Rom 1:32 Tim 2:8), and
calls him ‘Christ’ (Messiah) (391x). He quotes the OT regularly (97x directly) in his letters. 2

1
See Rom 1:5, 6, 7; 8:28, 30; 9:12, 24; 11:29; 1 Cor 1:2, 9, 24‐26; 7:17‐24; Gal 1:6; Eph 4:1, 4; Col 3:15; 1 Thess
2:12; 4:7; 5:24; 2 Thess 1:11; 2:14; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 1:9.
2
DPL, 630 notes there are 97 OT direct quotes in Paul (with another ten debated): 1) Romans: 1:17 (Hab 2:4);
2:6 (Ps 62:12); 2:24 (Is 52:5); 3:4 (Ps 51:4); 3:10‐12 (Ps 14:1‐3 cf. 53:1‐3); 3:13a (Ps 5:9); 3:13b (Ps 140:3); 3:14
(Ps 10:7 [LXX 9:28]); 3:15‐17 (Is 59:7‐8); 3:18 (Ps 36:1); 4:3/9/22 (Gen 15:5); 4:7‐8 (Ps 32:1‐2); 4:17 (Gen 17:5);
4:18 (Gen 15:5); 7:7 (Ex 20:17/Deut 5:21); 8:36 (Ps 44:22); 9:7 (Gen 21:12); 9:9 (Gen 18:10, 14); 9:12 (Gen
25:23); 9:13 (Mal 1:2–3); 9:15 (Ex 33:19); 9:17 (Ex 9:16); 9:25 (Hos 2:23/25); 9:26 (Hos 1:10/2:1); 9:29 (Is 1:9);
9:27‐28 (Is 10:22‐23 + 29:10); 9:33 (Is 8:14 + 29:16); 10:5 (Lev 18:5); 10:6‐8 (Deut 9:4 + 30:12‐14 cf. Ps 107: 26);
10:11 (Is 28:16); 10:13 (Joel 2:32/3:5); 10:15 (Is 52:7); 10:16 (Is 53:1); 10:18 (Ps 19:4); 10:19; (Deut 32:21);
10:20‐21 (Is 65:1‐2); 11:3 (1 Kgs 19:10 cf. 19:14); 11:4 (1 Kgs 19:18); 11:8 (Deut 9:4 + 29:10); 11:9‐10 (Ps 69:22‐
23); 11:26‐27a (Is 59:20‐21); 11:27b (Is 27:9); 11:34 (Is 40:13); 11:35 (Job 41:11); 12:19 (Deut 32:35); 12:20
(Prov 25:21‐22); 13:9a (Deut 5:17–21 cf. Ex 20:13–17); 13:9b (Lev 19:18); 14:11 (Is 45:23/49:18?); 15:3 (Ps
69:9); 15:9 (sic) (Ps 18:49/2 Sam 22:50); 15:10 (Deut 32:43); 15:11 (Ps 117:1); 15:12 (Is 11:10); 15:21 (Is 52:15);
1 Cor 3:20 (Ps 94:11). Debated in Romans: 3:20 (Ps 143:2); 9:20 (Is 29:16/45:9); 11:1–2 (Ps 94:14); 12:16–17
(Prov 3:7); 2) 1 Corinthians: 1:19 (Is 29:14); 1:31 (Jer 9:24 cf. v.23); 2:16 (Is 40:13); 3:19 (Job 5:13); 5:13 (Deut
17:7 et al.); 6:16 (Gen 2:24); 9:9 (Deut 25:4); 10:7 (Ex 32:6); 10:26 (Ps 24:1); 14:31 (Is 28:11‐12); 15:27 (Ps 8:6);
15:32 (Is 22:13); 1 Cor 15:45 (Gen 2:7); 15:54 (Is 25:8); 15:55 (Hos 13:14); Debated in 1 Corinthians: 2:9 (Is 64:4
+ 65:16?); 15:25 (Ps 110:1); 3) 2 Corinthians: 3:16 (Exod 34:34); 4:13 (Ps 116:10 [LXX 115:1]); 6:2 (Is 49:8); 6:16
390

Paul also regularly refers to the Law (121x) seeing Jesus as the end, fulfilment, completion (telos) of
the Law (Rom 10:4), with Christians saved not through the Law, but through Christ and Christ alone.
He sees the church as standing in continuity with Israel, the righteous in Christ grafted into the
remnant that is true Israel drawn from Israel’s history (see Rom 9:6; 11:5‐6).

For Paul, the critical point in his message of Christ is his crucifixion and resurrection (esp. 1 Cor 2:1‐5;
15; see below). This is the culmination of history and salvation is found in participation in this
historical event through faith. Paul sees the church, impelled by the Spirit ethically and
charismatically, as the body of Christ (e.g. 1 Cor 12) continuing the work in the world today. This
work is the mission of the spread of the Gospel throughout the world. As such, life in the present is
extremely important; we are to live the gospel by the Spirit, in fellowship, seeking to see others
drawn into the people of God through faith in Christ.

He has a strong sense of the future often speaking of ‘the day’ referring to the return of Christ which
will set in motion a nexus of events including judgement and eternal destiny (see below).

So Paul has a strong sense of history in his theological construct. God is a God who formed the
world, set it in motion, and works in and through history, with all under his sovereign control.
However, there is an enemy of God, Satan and the forces of sin and death which are at work and are
overcome through the cross of Christ. There is a real ‘already‐not yet’ tension in Paul; he speaks at
times in highly realised terms, it is done! At other times he is futuristic in his thinking; it is yet to
come!

All Lost in Sin
For Paul, although Paul does not really expound it at all, the Fall (Gen 3) is the critical moment of
failure (see esp. Rom 5:12). Adam and Eve’s sin, which he prefers to speak of in terms of Adam,
caused sin, death and decay to enter the world. Paul carefully balances the notion of the inevitability
of sin (original sin) with responsibility. In Rom 5:12 are in sin and death because of Adam’s in; but
‘because all sinned’ indicates their individual responsibility. This sin then, is like a virus downloaded
into the cosmic mainframe that has invaded and infected God’s world. So, all creation is held in
bondage to death and decay and yearns for release (Rom 8:19‐22).

(Lev 26:12 cf. Ezek 20:37); 6:17 (Is 52:11 + Ezek 20:34); 6:18 (2 Sam 7:14 + 7:8 cf. 1 Chron 17:13); 8:15 (Ex
16:18); 9:7 (Prov 22:8 [LXX]); 9:9 (Ps 112:9); 10:17 (Jer 9:24); 13:1 (Deut 19:15); Debated in 2 Corinthians: 8:21
(Prov 3:4); 2 Cor 9:10 (Is 55:10 + Hos 10:12); 4) Galatians: 3:6 (Deut 25:4); 3:8 (Gen 12:3 + 18:18); 3:10 (Deut
27:26); 3:11 (Lev 19:18); 3:12 (Lev 18:5); 3:13 (Deut 21:23); 3:16 (Gen 13:15 cf. Gen 12:7; 17:7; 22:18); 4:27 (Is
54:1); 4:30 (Gen 21:10); 5:14 (Lev 19:18); Debated in Galatians: Gal 2:16 (Ps 143:2); 5) Ephesians: 4:8 (Ps
68:18); 5:31 (Gen 2:24); 6:2–3 (Ex 20:12 cf. Deut 5:16); 5) 1 Timothy: 5:18a (Deut 25:4); Debated in 1 Tim 5:18b
(= Mt 10:10?); 6) 2 Timothy: 2:19a (Num 16:5); Debated in 2 Tim 2:19b (Is 26:13? + Sir 35:3?). There are also a
huge number of allusions e.g. 2 Cor 4:13 (Ps 116:10 [LXX 115:10]); Phil 1:19 (Job 13:16); 2:7a (Is 53:12); 2:9‐11
(Is 45:23); 2:14 (Deut 32:5); 4:18 (Exod 29:18/20:41). Assuming the references in DPL above (including
multiples and not debated texts), these break down as such: Pentateuch (47x); including Genesis 18x mainly
related to Abraham from Romans and Galatians (15x); Exodus 18x; Leviticus 5x; Numbers 4x; Deuteronomy
12x. There are only 5x references from the historical books Sam, Kings, Chronicles. There are 26x in the
Wisdom literature including mainly the Psalms (22x), 2x Job, 2x Proverbs. There are 37x refs in the Prophets
especially from Isaiah (27x); 2x from Jeremiah, 1x from Ezekiel, 3x from Hosea, 2x from Habakkuk and 1x from
Malachi. So, Paul’s favorites are Genesis, Exodus, Psalms and Isaiah.

391

The consequences of sin (see esp. Rom 6:23) are physical death, separation from relationship with
God (enemies with God), the fragmentation of human relationships and ultimately, eternal
destruction. God’s wrath is upon sin and he will move to saved and redeem (Rom 1:18f).

Paul as a Jew knew all this, but now he sees salvation through Jesus Messiah’s death and
resurrection and not through accepting the Covenant relationship with God through adherence to
the requirements of the Law. He no longer awaits the coming of the Messiah, he has come and will
come again, and the problem of sin has been dealt with. For Paul, ‘Christ died for our sins’ and broke
the power of sin (Gal 6:11; Gal 3:15‐25). He thus broke the power of death and salvation from
eternal destruction has been freely given.

The Centrality of the Crucifixion and Resurrection
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that the centre of Paul’s thinking is the death and
resurrection of Christ. While there is enough in Paul to recognise that he is fully conversant with the
life and teaching of Jesus, he mentions virtually nothing of Jesus’ life, his birth, life, ministry,
parables, miracles, teaching, disciples and teaching in his letters. However, he repeatedly mentions
Jesus’ death 3 , resurrection, 4 his salvation in a number of ways, 5 and his return. 6

For Paul the resurrection of Christ is clearly what switched him from antagonist to believer. He
realised on the Damascus Road that the Christians were not barking up the wrong tree, and that
Jesus was the Messiah. For Paul too, this resurrection is bodily; he resisted accommodating the
resurrection to the Greco‐Roman distaste for bodily resurrection (see 1 Cor 15). Jesus had a spiritual
body, utterly transformed by the Spirit, yet utterly bodily (see 1 Cor 15:44).

This resurrection experience caused him to rethink the crucifixion. As a good Jew he would have
seen the crucifixion as the proof that Jesus was NOT Messiah! He would have believed that ‘cursed is
anyone who is hung on a tree’ (Gal 3:13 cf. Deut 21:23) that Jesus was false Messiah, pretender to
the throne, the one who did not subdue the Gentiles but was vanquished by them. When he met
Jesus on the road, he realised that he had read his Jewish Scriptures in a distorted way. He went
back and realised that Jesus WAS Messiah, a crucified one. He rethought things, going over the
Scriptures and realised that Jesus was the Servant Messiah and that God had always planned to save
his world through the death and resurrection of his Son (see esp. Is 53; Ps 22). He realised that the
cross was God’s vicarious sacrifice to save the world. All that was required now, was faith, the
acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord for salvation.

The cross for Paul then was the moment when God dealt with the problem of sin completely and
utterly. It was more than that for Paul. It was also a paradigm of life for the church who are now the
body of Christ. As Christ’s body in a fallen world, God’s people would experience what Christ did,
suffering before the hostility of a broken and sinful world, as it sought to bring salvation (e.g. 2 Cor
1:5; Phil 3:10; Col 1:24). Suffering for the Christian, for Paul, was the norm (Phil 1:29; 1 Thess 3:4; 2
Tim 3:12), part of being a son and heir of God (Rom 8:17). Suffering is for Paul redemptive, serving
the purpose of transforming the believer (e.g. Rom 5:3‐5), and through which God works out his
purposes (e.g. Phil 1:12‐14, 28‐30). Paul was no triumphalist with an over‐realised eschatology,
unlike so many blessing preachers today; knowing that anyone who sought to live out their faith

3
See e.g. Rom 6:3; 8:24; 1 Cor 2:2; 11:26; 2 Cor 4:10; Gal 3:1; 3:13‐14; 6:14; Phil 2:8; Col 2:11‐15.
4
See e.g. Rom 1:4; 4:24; 8:11, 24; 1 Cor 15:1‐11; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10.
5
See e.g. Rom 3:24 (redemption); 5:1 (peace); 5:21 (eternal life); 1 Cor 1:30 (wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification); 1 Thess 5:9 (salvation).
6
See e.g. 1 Cor 1:7; Phil 3:20; 1 Thess 3:13; 4:13‐18; 5:23; 2 Thess 1:7, 8; 2:1.
392

authentically would be challenged by the forces of darkness working through the fallen structures
and powers of the world (see 2 Tim 3:12 especially: ‘… everyone who wants to live a godly life in
Christ Jesus will be persecuted).

He was no fatalist however, he knew that God was at work in and through the suffering, not causing
it, but working in the believer to transform them, and into the situation to bring salvation. He was
aware that God could intervene and relieve suffering, as seen in his statements of trust in the
prayers of his recipients to see him delivered from dangerous situations (cf. Phil 1:19; Phm 22).
However, Paul was deeply annoyed with Christians with and over‐realised eschatology who believed
too much in the already; they fail to see that we live in the ‘not yet’ and that suffering is a reality for
the believer (e.g. 1 Cor 4:8‐13; 2 Cor 11:16‐12:10). We are to live a cruciform life not just relying on
the cross for our salvation, but experiencing the cross as our reality.
Jesus Lord
While the cross and resurrection are central, Paul also has a high view of Jesus’ exaltation. He does
not mention his ascension, but speaks of Jesus as Lord (276x). This is the primary basic confession of
the first Christians which marked them as God’s people (cf. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 12:3). This implies Jesus
ascended, exalted and given the name above every name (Phil 2:9‐11), and reigning at the right
hand of God (his session). He is above all other powers, whether they are spiritual or political, Satan
and his realm, political forces (Col 1:15‐20). He is the exalted Lord, seated at the right hand of God
(Rom 8:24; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1), who in this age is bringing all things under subjection to his reign. This
will be complete at the end of time, his return, and the last enemy to be destroyed will be death,
and he will hand over to the Father all that there is, and God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:24‐28). For the
Jew, this lordship of Jesus means that he is in some sense YHWH among us. Paul is very careful in
how he speaks about the Trinity. He never merges the three persons of the godhead (e.g. 1 Cor 8:5‐
6); neither does he turn the one God into three. He is careful to state that Jesus is God (e.g. Rom 9:5;
Phil 2:6‐11; Col 1:15‐20); and equally careful to say that the Father is supreme, preeminent over all
(e.g. 1 Cor 3:23; 11:3; 15:24). For the Gentile this means that Jesus is Lord above all political forces,
and in this day, supremely, Caesar. Thus, Christianity as Paul presents it is extremely politically
charged. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is subordinate and the gods of the Greco‐Roman pantheons are
subordinate, and in fact nothing and demonic! Yet how can this be, because the Romans killed
Jesus? Surely their gods and Caesar are supreme! It was these gods and Caesar who kept pax
Romana. So it was dangerous stuff; so much so, that over the next 300 years it led to persecutions as
Christians refused to relent in declaring Jesus as Lord before the brutality of the Empire. This notion
of Jesus as Lord, in my view, is Paul’s primary way of picking up the idea of the Kingdom of God.
Jesus is Lord, he is King, he is enthroned on YHWH’s behalf over all political forces. This is why the
central confession of the early church is ‘Jesus is Lord’; it is a declaration of Jesus as the boss, the
CEO, the President, the Caesar, the Fuhrer, the King, the PM over all! This leads to Christian life for
Paul, how can we live in any other way but voluntary submission to this Lord, total obedience of his
will and ways. He uses the language of slavery and servanthood here. Although we have the status of
children of God, heirs of the world, we voluntarily bow the knee and serve this Lord for that is the
only way to live!
In Christ
Paul’s favourite way of describing being a Christian is ‘in Christ’ (221x) or ‘in him’. As noted above,
believers participate in Christ through faith. This notion includes salvation, we are in him and thus
our old life is dead, is hidden in him, we are raised in him and will be raised. This notion includes the
church; we are now in his body, we are a part of his people, we are not there alone, along with us,
millions of others are ‘in Christ’, ‘in his body’; thus, we are part of the people of God on earth. This
notion includes the notion of suffering and hope; we are in Christ experiencing the cruciform life. As
393

we do, we experience God’s touch, his healing, his power in our lives; inwardly renewed as we waste
away still subject to death. We experience at times moments of his intervention, signs and wonders;
and we will experience the fullness of his resurrection on his return. This notion includes the notion
of eschatology, we are in Christ now, in the realm of the saved, with eternal life now, saved now,
restored now, justified now, part of God’s new creation. This notion includes the notion of mission;
we are in Christ and so engifted with the gifts the Spirit chooses to impart and ministering and
serving, doing our small bit in the cosmic work of the body of Christ. For Paul to be a Christian is to
have the Spirit, and to have the Spirit is to be gifted by that Spirit, and to be gifted by the Spirit
means to serve for the common good, doing God’s work in the world and in building up the church.
This notion is mystical; it is something invisible yet experienced, felt but not seen, sensed but not
fully explainable. This notion is Spiritual; it is the Spirit that imparts this salvation to us, who unites
us with Christ, and who works this out in our lives.

Righteousness of God/Justification
Paul loves using the notion of righteousness and justification. In English these two ideas do not
appear linked. In the Greek they come from the same dik‐ set of Greek words which cover the range
of notions of righteousness, justice, justified and declared righteous. The meaning of these words is
highly debated. In simple terms ‘righteousness’ refers to God’s character (Rom 1:17; 3:5 ,21) as
righteous and just and especially in terms of God dealing rightly with humanity through the covenant
(Rom 3:4, 25); his mission to see righteousness and justice established on earth; to make right
relationships with humanity through the work of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1:30) i.e. justified by faith =
‘righteous by faith’ (Rom 8:30, 33; 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Cor 5:21); a declaration of a free righteousness by
grace through Christ’s redeeming and atoning work (Rom 3:24‐25; 5:9, 17, 21; Gal 2:21); a
righteousness that is not by law or any human work, but by faith (Rom 2:13; 3:20‐30; 4:2‐13; 5:1;
9:31; 10:3‐10; Gal 2:16; 3:6‐24; 5:4; Phil 3:6‐9); his righteous judgement of all humanity (Rom 2:5;
3:5; 5:18‐19) who are all unrighteous, sinners (Rom 3:10); humanity living righteously by the Spirit
out of grace (Rom 6:13‐20; 8:4‐17; 14:17; 2 Cor 9:10; Eph 4:24; Phil 1:11; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22;
3:16); Christian minister work in a ministry of righteousness (2 Cor 3:9; 6:7; 11:15). Not that the Law
is ‘unrighteous’ (Rom 7:12); it is ‘righteous, but through human desire brings sin and death. All these
notions are found in Paul. The work of Christ is an expression of God’s character, his acting
righteously to save humanity, declaring them righteous by faith. It has a forensic idea, as in the sense
of a law court, humanity declared righteous before God the judge because of the work of Christ. It is
covenantal and relational; God acting rightly toward humanity and saving them into righteous living
(Rom 3:24).

Reconciliation
Another important term for Paul is reconciliation (katallassō, katallagē, apokatallassō).
Reconciliation can suggest the restoration of a relationship; in this case between God and humanity
and within human relationships. It can also have the sense of restoration in terms of all of creation.
Reconciliation suggests a previous point of enmity. For example, in 1 Cor 7:11 the word katallassō is
used of the restoration of a marriage relationship. For Paul, humanity is alienated from God through
sin; through Christ, humanity is reconciled to God (Rom 5:10‐11; 11:15; 2 Cor 5:18‐19). They are no
longer ‘in Adam’ but corporately in the ‘new Adam’, Christ. This is a beautiful picture of restored
relationship, humanity in Christ restored to the original God‐human relationship found pre‐Fall. This
reconciliation concerns the uniting of humanity together, unity within Christ, whether Jew or Gentile
etc (Eph 2:16). Believers who minister in the gospel are ‘ministers of reconciliation’ (2 Cor 5:18‐20),
bringing God’s message of a world reconciled to God, to each other, and restored to the world; and
urging people to accept this and be reconciled to God.
394


Reconciliation is sometimes used by Paul in a fully realised sense of all of the cosmos; through Christ,
all has been reconciled to God (Col 1:20). This is a beautiful picture of what has been achieved
through the cross, the new creation begun, reconciled to God. Yet, this is balanced with the reality
that while all is reconciled in an eschatological sense, some do not acknowledge this and remain in
enmity. This reconciliation will not be fully accomplished until the consummation. This leads some to
think Paul is a universalist. However, this is not so, for Paul makes no bones about the fact that while
all is reconciled, not all will be saved. Reconciliation then, at times in Paul, parallels salvation; at
others, it includes the notion of those reconciled voluntarily by faith, and those who will be subdued
and reconciled despite resisting, by eternal destruction.

The picture ofcosmic reconciliation however, is the glorious goal of God in this age and the purpose
of the work of Christ. As ministers of reconciliation we work for the reconciliation of the world to
God, to each other in Christ, and the restoration of the world to God’s original purposes.

Redemption
Another neat way Paul speaks of salvation is through the language of redemption (apolutrōsis,
lutrōsētai, exagorazō). He uses these ideas a number of times in terms of the redemption that came
(past tense) through the death of Christ and justified believers, setting them free (Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7
[‘redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins’[; Col 1:14; Tit 2:14). It is linked to grace, free
salvation in Christ (Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7). It involves being liberated from the power of the law (Gal
3:13) into sonship (Gal 4:5). At times, it is a future hope, the redemption of humanity from its
bondage to decay and death, the full transformation at the consummation (Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14;
4:30). Jesus is the one who achieves this, ‘our righteousness, holiness and redemption’ (1 Cor 1:30).
To be redeemed is to be purchased out of slavery (manumission). Slavery of course was a part of the
world of Paul with a third of the Roman world slaves. It is thus a vivid metaphor of freedom in Christ.
The work of Christ redeems the believer. They are bought out of sin, death and destruction into life.
Paul does not speculate on the notion of literal payment, it is really a metaphor for salvation;
brought out of slavery into the family (note: slaves were part of the family, but not with full
privilege).

Sanctification
Paul refers to holiness a lot in his letters (107x words hag‐). It is a highly religious term which carries
the sense of cultic purity, consecration, of being set apart, of otherness. Paul applies it to the
Scriptures, God’s set apart and unique perfect word (Rom 1:2 cf. Ps 119). The Law too is holy,
righteous and good, but because of sinful lusts, leads to sin and death (Rom 7:12). Believers are to
greet each other with a holy kiss, one that is pure and without guile ([unlike Judas] cf. Rom 16:16; 1
Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26). Christian children and unbelieving spouses are in some sense,
made holy by believers in the home (1 Cor 7:14 cf. Eph 5:26, 27). Hands lifted in prayer are holy
hands (1 Tim 2:8), food is holy when blessed (1 Tim 4:5). It is his favourite adjective to define the
Spirit, the ‘Holy Spirit,’ suggesting the perfection, purity, otherness of the God’s spiritual presence in
his world (17x). 7

7
See Rom 1:4; 5:5; 11:16; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Cor 6:19; 12:3; 6:6; 13:14; Eph 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess 1:5, 6; 4:8; 2
Tim 1:14; Tit 3:5 17.
395

Believers are ‘holy ones’ or ‘saints’ (39x), 8 meaning that in Christ due to the purifying and saving
work of the cross through the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:16; 2 Thess 2:13); they are set apart from the
world for salvation and pure in a status sense (Eph 1:4; Col 3:12; 1 Cor 6:11). They are thus
sanctified, through Christ and his work, for he is ‘our holiness’ (1 Cor 1:30 cf. Col 1:22). The church
then is holy, the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:17; Eph 2:21 cf. Eph 5:27). They offer themselves
to God, as holy sacrifices (Rom 12:1). Paul speaks of sanctification in two senses. It can mean the
sense above, ‘declared holy’ through the work of Christ i.e. ‘holy ones’ or ‘saints’. This is the status of
all believers whether holy apostles (Eph 3:5), or holy people. It can mean the process of living out
holiness, sanctification; that is, seeking to live out the ethical commands of God into the Spirit to be
holy. 9 Both dimensions are in Paul. The Holy Spirit is the empowering presence of God in the
believer to bring about the fruit of righteousness.

Grace and not Law
Paul is strong on the doctrine of grace. Grace (charis) is found 100x in his letters, along with other
variants, are a favourite of Paul. Charis can mean ‘thanks be’ in the sense of gratitude. 10 At other
times it is a blessing, a prayer asking the Lord’s favour on recipients, usually at the beginning and end
of letters, often in the form of ‘grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus
Christ.’ 11 Sometimes it is used of concrete expressions of generosity, such as material gifts. 12 Charis
and charismata 13 are used of spiritual gifts from God toward humanity such as ministry gifts. 14
Supremely, it or it can mean the favour, beneficence, mercy of God toward humanity through which
the gift of salvation of God comes because of Christ’s work. 15 As such, grace is the favour of God,
especially through Christ. Grace is opposed to living by the requirements of the Law. As a Jew, living
in the covenant, in general terms, meant abiding by the law. There were different understandings of
the Law and what was required; in general, Jews sought to live by the principles of both the written
and oral law in everyday life. Not that Judaism was necessarily graceless. This is a false view of
Judaism. The covenant was a relationship of grace with sacrifice restoring the relationship with God
and Israel chosen by grace. However, this grace was read through the lens of obedience to the law.
In Christ, however, Paul found salvation to be purely by grace and not law. That is, the work of Christ
is sufficient in and of itself for salvation; the only human requirement is faith, the acceptance of the
work of Christ. This is not a work, but a volitional response.

8
See Rom 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25, 16, 31; 16:2, 15; 1 Cor 1:12; 6:1, 2; 14:33; 16:1, 15; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:4; 9:1, 12;
13:13; Eph 1:1, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:8, 18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18; Phil 1:1; 4:21, 22; Col 1:2, 4, 12, 26; 2 Thess 1:10; 1 Tim
5:10; Phlm 5, 7 39.
9
See e.g. Rom 6:19, 22; 1 Cor 7:34; 2 Cor 7:1; Eph 4:24 5; 1 Thess 2:10; 3:13; 4:3, 4, 7; 5:23; 1 Tim 2:15; 2 Tim
1:9; 2:20; Tit 1:8.
10
See Rom 6:17; 7:25; 1 Cor 10:30; 15:57; 2 Cor 2:14; 8:16; Col 3:16; 2 Tim 1:3.
11
See Rom 1:7; 16:20; 1 Cor 1:3; 16:23; 2 Cor 1:2; 13:13; Gal 1:3; 6:18; Eph 1:2; 6:24; Phil 1:2; 4:23; Col 1:2;
4:18; 1 Thess 1:1; 5:28; 2 Thess 1:2; 3:18; 1 Tim 1:2; 6:21; 2 Tim 1:2; 4:22; Tit 1:4; 3:15; Phm 3, 25.
12
See Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 16:3; 2 Cor 1:15; 2 Cor 8:1, 4, 6, 7, 19; Eph 4:29.
13
As spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11; 12:6; 1 Cor 1:7; 12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6), salvation itself (5:15,
16; 6:23), God’s gifts to Israel (11:29), marital status (1 Cor 7:7), or answered prayer (2 Cor 1:11).
14
See Rom 1:5; 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10; 15:10; Gal 1:15; 2:9; Eph 3:7, 8; 4:7; Phil 1:7; 1 Tim 1:12, 14.
15
See Rom 3:24; 4:16; 5:2, 15, 17, 20, 21; 6:1, 14, 15; 11:5, 6; 12:3, 6; 15:15; 1 Cor 1:4; 2 Cor 1:12; 2 Cor 4:15;
6:1; 2 Cor 8:9; 9:14, 15; 12:9; Gal 1:6; 2:21; 5:4; Eph 1:6, 7; 2:5, 7, 8; 3:2; Col 1:6; 4:6; 2 Thess 1:12; 2:16; 2 Tim
1:9; 2:1; Tit 2:11; 3:7; Eph 1:6.
396

Faith
As mentioned above, for Paul, salvation is by faith and faith alone (177x). 16 He sometimes couches
this in antithesis to the law i.e. no one is saved by law or works of the law, referring to obedience to
the law of Israel (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16). At other times he speaks of it in general terms, no one is saved
by works (Rom 9:32; Eph 2:8‐9). The classic statement of this is Eph 2:8: ‘For it is by grace you have
been saved, through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works,
so that no one may boast.’ Faith is not a work, but the acceptance of Jesus salvation and Lordship.
Inclusion in the people of God is by faith, and, according to Paul, always has been (Rom 4).
Adoption
Paul loves to speak of God as Father, Jesus as Son, believers as brothers and sisters; all part of God’s
family. Several times he refers to this entry into salvation as adoption (Rom 8:15, 23; Gal 4:5; Eph
1:5). The Greek huiothesia suggests ‘to formally and legally declare that someone who is not one’s
own child is henceforth to be treated and cared for as one’s own child, including complete rights of
inheritance.’ 17 Believers who were once alienated from God, are thus included into the family of God
through adoption by God cf. Israel (Rom 9:4). They can now call God ‘Abba, Father’ (Rom 8:15; Gal
4:5). In Rom 8:23 this adoption, which is usually stated in the present realised sense, has a future
sense i.e. adoption into the consummated full redemption (Rom 8:23). This gives them full legal,
familial and inheritance rights. In Tit 3:5 similarly he speaks of this as ‘the washing of rebirth and
renewal by the Holy Spirit.’
The Spirit
The Spirit (111x) is critical to Paul’s understanding of Christian life. The Spirit is received at
conversion (Eph 1:13‐14; 1 Cor 12:13). This Spirit seals the believer for salvation, it is a deposit
guaranteeing eternal life (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14). The individual believer is the temple of the Spirit (1
Cor 6:19), a basis for personal holiness. The Spirit empowers the believer for ministry and mission
through gifts imparted by the Spirit’s will (see esp. Rom 12:4‐8; 1 Cor 12; 13:1‐3; 14:26; Eph 4:11).
These gifts are for the common good (1 Cor 12:7), to equip the saints to build the church (Eph 4:11‐
16), and see the world transformed. The Spirit transforms the believer inwardly through the fruit of
the Spirit (esp. Gal 5:22‐24), ethical attributes which grow in the life of the maturing believer; most
importantly, love (Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:31‐13:13). Supremely, the Spirit marks the believer with love
which should be the foundation of every element of Christian life (Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 13). The Spirit
forms the corporate life of the believers, the ekklesia being the ‘temple of the God (1 Cor 3:16).
Christians are to be led by the Spirit, conducting their whole lives under his leading and empowering
(cf. Rom 8:14, 16).
The Church of God, Christ and Spirit
Paul is deeply concerned with the church, mentioning the ekklesia 62 times. He formed churches in
his missionary journeys, leaving them behind to form communities of heaven on earth and to
continue the work of Christ. These seemed to meet in the homes of believers (e.g. Rom 16:5; 16:19;
Col 4:15; Phm 2). He writes most of his letters to churches expressing a deep concern for unity, love,
the truth of the gospel and mission. He saw the church as the people of God, in continuity with true
Israel, the coming together of social groups, male and female, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor in the
one people (Rom 11:24; Gal 3:28); a people from all nations without rank and status and exhibiting
the life of the Kingdom. He saw the church as the ‘body of Christ’ (Rom 12:4‐5; 1 Cor 12:12‐27; Eph

16
The noun pistis occurs 142x; the verb pisteuō occurs 54x in Paul.
17
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek‐English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic
Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:463‐464.
397

1:23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:12‐16; 5:23; Col 1:18, 24) with Christ as the head (Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18;
2:10, 19), and the people held together as one, working together, continuing the ministry of Christ to
the world. The church is also the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 3:16), the locus of God’s presence in the
world no longer in the Jewish temple or the many pagan temples which were found all over the
pagan and pantheistic Greco‐Roman world, but in the people of God. The church was held together
and empowered by this Spirit, full of the ethics of the Christ (fruit) and the gifts of God.
Worship
Paul was a man of worship. The means of God’s communication was Word and Spirit. He saw the
Scriptures as ‘God‐breathed,’ inspired by the Spirit (2 Tim 3:16). He believed God spoke in and
through them. 18 He believed that God spoke through the preached word and through him, in his
letters (e.g. 1 Cor 7:10‐11; 14:37; Phil 3:15). He believed in prayer, his letters saturated with his
prayers especially in the introductory thanksgivings, 19 general prayer requests, 20 personal prayer
requests, 21 and other prayer references. 22 His prayers were almost always based around
thanksgiving, whereby he gave God the glory for his work in redemption, church, creation and the
world. 23 He spoke of believers gathering to worship, sing songs, share communion, baptise the new
believers, experience the gifts of the Spirit (see 1 Cor 11; 12‐14; Eph 5:16‐20). He was strong on
charismatic worship, people prophesying, speaking in tongues, bringing revelation and words of
wisdom and knowledge (e.g. 1 Cor 12:4‐8; 14:1‐40 esp. v.26). However, he balanced that with a deep
concern for others in worship; ensuring that the worship edified and did not alienate the unbelievers
and outsiders (esp. 1 Cor 14:1‐25). He encouraged singing in a wide array of styles in worship,
praising God; signing with mind and Spirit (1 Cor 14:14; Col 3:16; Eph 5:18‐20). He was concerned for
justice and unity in worship, concerned that the Corinthian worship had become divided at the
Lord’s table (1 Cor 11:17‐34). He was concerned for cultural appropriateness in worship, warning the
Corinthian women to ensure that they did not violate norms in their worship (1 Cor 11:1‐16). He was
concerned for order in worship, ensuring that charismatic chaos did not cause offence (1 Cor 14:26‐
40). Baptism was clearly a basic part of worship, the baptism visually demonstrating the death and
resurrection of the believer in Christ (Rom 6:1‐4).

Worship was not merely vertical for Paul, but involved fellowship. The ‘one anothers’ of Paul speak
of Paul wanting believers to engage in deep, real and authentic fellowship with each other in the
community of faith. 24 He also believed worship was a whole life given over to God (Rom 12:1).

18
See above on Paul’s use of the OT with 97 quotes and a huge number of allusions.
19
Introductory Intercessions and other prayer references: e.g. Rom 1:8‐10; 10:1; 1 Cor 1:4‐9; 2 Cor 1:3‐7; 13:7,
9; Eph 1:3‐10, 16‐23; 3:16‐20; Phil 1:3‐11; Col 1:3‐14; 1 Thess 1:2‐10; 3:10‐13; 5:23; 2 Thess 1:3, 11‐12; 2 Thess
2:16; 3:5, 16; 2 Tim 1:3, 16, 18; Phm 4, 6.
20
E.g. Rom 12:12; Eph 6:18; Phil 4:6‐7; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:17, 25; 1 Tim 2:1‐2, 8; 5:5.
21
E.g. Rom 15:30; 2 Cor 1:11; Eph 6:19‐20; Phil 1:19; Col 4:3‐4; 2 Thess 3:1‐2; Phm 22.
22
E.g. Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 11:4‐5, 13; 14:14‐17; 2 Cor 9:14; Col 4:12; 1 Tim 4:5.
23
On thanksgiving e.g. Rom 14:6; 1 Cor 14:16; 2 Cor 4:15; 9:11, 12; Eph 5:4; Phil 4:6; Col 2:7; 4:2; 1 Thess 3:9; 1
Tim 2:1; 4:3, 4. Paul demonstrates this with his thanksgivings (Rom 1:8; 6:17; 7:25; 1 Cor 1:4, 14; 14:18; 15:57;
2 Cor 2:14; 8:16; 9:15; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2; 2:13; 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 1:3;
Phm 4). A mark of idolatry is thanklessness (Rom 1:21). This dimension is mentioned of Jesus at the Last
Supper (1 Cor 11:24) and marks worship and authentic Christian life (1 Cor 10:30; 14:16, 17; 2 Cor 1:11; Eph
5:20; Col 1:12; 3:15‐17; 1 Thess 5:18).
24 See Romans 1:12 (‘mutually encourage one another’); 12:10 (‘be devoted to one another in love. Honour one
another above yourselves’); 12:16 (‘live in harmony with one another’); 13:8 (‘the continuing debt to love one
another’); 14:13 (‘let us stop passing judgement on one another’); Rom 15:7 (‘accept one another’); Rom 16:16;
1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12 (‘greet one another with a holy kiss’); 1 Cor 11:33 (‘wait for one another’ [when you
eat]); 1 Cor 12:25 (‘its parts should have equal concern for each other’); Gal 5:13 (‘serve one another humbly in
love’); Gal 5:26 (‘let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other’); Gal 6:2 (‘Carry one
398

Rather than go to temple and make sacrifices of lambs etc, one now gave oneself over to God’s
service as a spiritual act of worship.
Love
For Paul the bottom line in relationships was love. Paul mentions God’s love as the basis of the
gospel. God is ‘the God of love’ (2 Cor 13:11, 14). Jesus is loved by God (Eph 1:6; Col 1:13). Humanity
are loved by God (Rom 1:7; 11:28; Rom 5:5, 8; 8:28, 37; 9:13, 25; 1 Cor 2:9; 2 Cor 9:7; 13:11, 14; Eph
1:4; 2:4; 6:23; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Thess 2:16). Similarly, humanity is loved by Christ (Rom 8:35,
39; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20; Eph 3:17‐19; 5:2, 25; 6:23; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Tim 1:14; Tit 3:4).

While Paul does not speak often of the principle of loving God, he does mention Christians loving
God (1 Cor 8:3) and loving Christ (1 Cor 16:22; Eph 6:24; 2 Tim 4:8).

Paul’s concern in his letters is interpersonal relationships and Christians loving one another. Paul
speaks regularly of his deep love for his recipients and others (Beloved [agapētos] Rom 12:19; 16:5,
8, 9, 12; 1 Cor 4:14, 17, 21; 10:14; 15:58; 16:14, 24; 2 Cor 2:4; 5:14; 6:6; 7:1; 8:7; 11:11; 12:15, 19;
Eph 5:1; 6:21; Phil 2:12; 4:1; 1:7; 4:7, 9, 14; 1 Thess 2:8; 2 Tim 1:2; 3:10; Phm 1, 9, 16). He calls for
believers to love each other (Rom 12:9, 10; 13:8‐10; 14:15; 1 Cor 13:1‐13; 14:1; 2 Cor 2:8; 8:8, 24;
Gal 5:6, 13‐14, 22; Eph 1:15; 4:2, 15‐16; 5:2; Phil 1:9, 16; 2:1‐2; Col 1:4; 2:2; 3:14; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:6;
3:12; 4:9; 5:8, 13; 2 Thess 1:3; 3:5; 1 Tim 1:5; 2:15; 4:12; 6:1, 11; 2 Tim 1:7, 13; 2:22; Tit 2:2; Phm 5,
7). Husbands are to love their wives, a radical command in a first century patriarchal context (Eph
5:22, 28, 33; Col 3:19). In 1 Corinthians, a whole chapter is devoted to love to address the rampant
lovelessness of the Corinthians (13:1‐13 cf. 1 Cor 8:1). This chapters states that every spiritual gift
and ministry must be based on love or it is worthless. Love is defined in verbal form, through a series
of attributes that should characterise Christians.

It has to be remembered that love was not a virtue for a Greco‐Roman man, but for Paul it should
mark every aspect of life, every act of service and the family. For Paul to love is the sum of all the
law, it is the most excellent way, it is above the law. Indeed, the new law is Paul, love. For Paul, the
Spirit empowers love (Rom 5:5; 15:30; Gal 5:22; 2 Cor 5:14; 2 Tim 1:7). His mission is driven by love
(2 Cor 5:14: Christ’s love compels us’). Paul summarises his attitude in 1 Cor 16:14: ‘Do everything in
love.’
The Culmination
As noted above, Paul had a strong sense of the culmination of salvation history. The critical point for
Paul is the return of Christ. He speaks of this as ‘the day’, 25 less often the end (1 Cor 1:8; 15:24) or

another’s burdens’); Eph 4:2 (‘Bearing with one another in love’ cf. Col 3:13); Eph 4:32 (‘be kind and
compassionate to one another, forgiving each other’); Eph 5:21 (‘Submit to one another’); Phil 2:3 (‘look to the
interests of one another’); Col 3:9 (‘Do not lie to each other’); 1 Thess 3:12 (‘May the Lord make your love
increase and overflow for one another’); 1 Thess 4:9 (‘Love for one another… love each other’); 1 Thess 4:18
(‘Encourage one another’); 1 Thess 5:11 (‘Encourage one another, and build one another up’); 1 Thess 5:15
(‘Always strive to do what is good for one another’); 2 Thess 1:3 (‘the love all of you have for one another is
increasing’).
25
He uses a number of constructions based around ‘the day’: ‘The day of God’s wrath’ (Rom 2:5); ‘the day
when God judges…’ (Rom 2:16); ‘the day is almost here’ (Rom 13:12); ‘the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor
1:8); ‘the day’ (1 Cor 3:13); ‘the day of the Lord’ (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2); ‘the day of the Lord Jesus’
(2 Cor 1:14); ‘the day of redemption’ (Eph 4:30); ‘the day of Christ Jesus’ (Phil 1:6); ‘the day of Christ’ (Phil
1:10; 2:16); ‘this day’ (1 Thess 5:4); ‘the day he comes to be glorified… (2 Thess 2:10); ‘that day’ (2 Thess 2:3; 2
Tim 1:18; 4:8)

399

‘the last trumpet’ (1 Thess 4:16; 1 Cor 15:52). Paul does not give us a timetable with millenniums,
tribulations, raptures (although see 1 Thess 4:16 below), and other ‘signs’ as we get in the Synoptics
and Revelation (cf. Mk 13; Mt 24; Lk 21). He almost speaks of these things in passing.

What we can piece together is that there will be a time of crisis on earth preceding the return,
centred around a critical figure (‘man of rebellion’) who will deceive the world. In 2 Thess 2:1‐10 Paul
appears to say that there will be a time of great rebellion (2 Thess 2:3) centred around an individual,
‘the man of lawlessness’ (2 Thess 2:3), who opposes all religion and takes up a position of religious
precedence and pseudo‐divinity (2 Thess 2:4), leading into this point of history.

The return itself is not fully expounded but he gives some indications. In 1 Thess 4:16 the Lord will
return with a loud cry and trumpet sounds. In 1 Thess 5:1‐3 the return will occur surprisingly, like a
thief in the night when not expected. In 2 Thess 1:7 Jesus will be revealed from heaven with angels
and in fire. In 2 Thess 2:1‐3 he urges the Thessalonians not to be deceived by false claims of Christ’s
return, which cannot precede the final rebellion (above).

The events at and immediately after the return are not spelt out in detail, but again we can grasp the
main contours. At his return, Christian deceased believers will rise (1 Thess 4:16) and, those who are
alive will meet Christ ‘in the air’ (1 Thess 4:17). What this means is debated. ‘Meet’ (apantēsis) can
mean to meet Christ and return to earth with him in triumph to live forever with him in a renewed
and redeemed earth. It can mean to go with the Lord to be with him forever in a heavenly
environment, perhaps returning to a new earth.

2 Thess 1:6‐10 confirms that there will be a time of judgement on those who do not walk in
relationship with God and who have not obeyed the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 1:8). Such people will
experience ‘eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might’ i.e.
separated from him forever. At his return, the ‘man of lawlessness’ will be destroyed along with
those who ‘are perishing’ i.e. reject God and his gospel.

1 Cor 15:20‐28 tells us of a resurrection of all believers (1 Cor 15:23) and the end, confirming the
sequence of 1 Thess 4:16‐17. At this point, all enemies will be destroyed, as above in 2 Thess 1,
including death itself, the final enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). After this Jesus will hand the
Kingdom over to his Father, and God will reign in and over all (1 Cor 15:28).

Phil 3:20 gives some insight into the resurrection, with Christ returning from heaven and
transforming believers mortal and destructible bodies (‘lowly bodies’) to be like his glorious body. 1
Cor 15:35‐56 discusses the resurrection of the body. Paul emphasises that it will have be
imperishable, immortal, raised in glory and power, a spiritual body. This does not mean a spiritual
‘resurrection,’ but an indestructible body empowered by the Spirit. This will be an instant
transformation at the return of Christ, ‘the last trumpet’. The struggle of being human, subject to
decay and suffering will be over (cf. 2 Cor 5:1‐5, 8; Rom 8:19‐23).

Subsequent events are not developed fully by Paul. Paul believes in judgement, a day of reckoning
where all humanity will stand before God and be judged on the basis of their works. In Rom 2:6 Paul
states that ‘he will render to each one according to his works.’ This will include a day of wrath and
righteous judgement (Rom 2:5). Those who have persisted in goodness, eternal life; those who have
persisted in sin and evil, wrath and God’s fury (Rom 2:7‐11). In a much disputed section of Romans,
Paul appears to argue that all will fall short on this basis, and so be saved on the basis of faith and
faith alone (Rom 2:12‐3:30). For example, ‘all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from
the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law;’ i.e. all will fall short whether Jew or
Gentile (Rom 3:23) and are saved through Christ alone. There are a number of references to
400

judgement for all (Rom 2:16 [‘everyone’s secrets’]; 3:6 [‘the world’]; 14:10 [‘we will all stand’]; 1 Cor
4:5 [‘each’]; 5:13 [‘those outside’]; 2 Tim 4:1 [‘the living and the dead’]). There is also indication of a
judgement for believers on the basis of their works, those whose work is built on the authentic
gospel and is out of right motive will bring reward (1 Cor 3:10‐15; 4:4‐5 cf. Rom 14:10; 2 Tim 4:8).
Those who fail the judgement will experience wrath (Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; Eph 2:3;
5:6; Col 3:6; 1 Thess 1:10; 2:16; 5:9).

Eternal existence remains somewhat ambiguous. Clearly, it is eternal and so never‐ending. Eternal
destruction can be either being destroyed for all eternity or the more traditional view of eternal
separation from God either in fiery torment or in some existence aside from God. In that almost all
Jews believed in the latter, it is probable that Paul held to the notion of experiencing eternal
torment in Gehenna. Similarly, although Paul does not spell it out, eternal life would probably be in a
new heaven and earth. As noted above, there is ambiguity. 1 Thess 4:16 Paul is ambiguous and
scholars debate his intent. Believers meet Christ in the air and go to be with Christ forever. This
could mean with Christ in heaven (cf. Jn 14:3), that they return with Christ triumphant and live on a
renewed earth eternally, perhaps with a millennial reign initially; or that they go to be with Christ for
an intermediate period. After this intermediate state they live on with God on a new heaven and
earth eternally. Rom 8:19‐22 would suggest that this world will be renewed, set free from its
bondage, and that life on earth would have some degree of continuity. However, equally, it is
possible, that Paul has in mind, that the earth goes through some purging with ‘fire’, either literally,
or symbolically and then humanity live on. What is clear is that for Paul, believers live eternally in a
life of extraordinary quality, with God in a bodily existence. They are indestructible, imperishable.
Their earthly bodies are replaced with a spiritual eternal body.
Mission
Paul was a man of mission, his theology is worked through in the crucible of mission. Some
missiologists and theologians debate which came first, mission or theology, but this is a chicken and
egg question. Paul’s conversion was co‐terminus with his commission, so the two were worked
through together. What is evident is that Paul’s theology is a mission theology. He was driven
himself with a mission imperative, a determination to live in such a way that saw people brought
into salvation and God’s people (see above on strategy). He preached the gospel of Christ centred on
the death and resurrection of the Messiah‐Lord‐Son of God. He was charismatic in his mission,
moving in signs and wonders alongside his proclamation, which too, was empowered by the Spirit.
He had a huge passion for the poor, remembering them as the Jerusalem Twelve had asked (Gal
2:10). He wanted the church to continue this mission, urging them to pray, materially support,
proclaim, heal, minister and witness through individual and corporate life as they defended and
confirmed the gospel (see above on strategy). His letters are grounded in his strongly Jewish
Christian theology, yet full of matters relevant to the life and world of his readers. One of the
reasons his letters look different, is that Paul adapts his message to the language and ideas of his
readers and syncretistic heresies that they encountered.
401

402

Chapter Twenty One
PAUL'S LETTERS
Contents
Occasion and Context ......................................................................................................................... 404
Definition ............................................................................................................................................ 404
Delivery ............................................................................................................................................... 405
Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 405
Rhetorical Devices ............................................................................................................................... 405
Parallelism ....................................................................................................................................... 405
Chiastic Structures .......................................................................................................................... 406
Diatribe ........................................................................................................................................... 406
Midrash exegesis ............................................................................................................................. 407
Hymnic material .............................................................................................................................. 407
Confessional/creedal formulas ....................................................................................................... 407
Metaphor ........................................................................................................................................ 407
Hyperbole ........................................................................................................................................ 407
Antitheses ....................................................................................................................................... 408
Rhetorical questions ....................................................................................................................... 408
Form of letters .................................................................................................................................... 408
The Authorship of Paul’s Letters ......................................................................................................... 409
The Undisputed Paulines ................................................................................................................ 409
The Disputed Paulines ..................................................................................................................... 410
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 411

403

Paul's letter
Occasion and Context
Paul’s letters are like one end of a telephone conversation or like reading an email without being
sure of the point of reference. As such, they are challenging to interpret. To do so, we use the
concept of ‘mirror reading,’ seeking to read off the written text the situation of the letter i.e. finding
the story behind the letter. For example, in Philemon, exploring the situation in the lives of Paul,
Onesimus, Philemon, Colossae and slavery and the connections hinted at in the letter and associated
passages of Scripture like Acts 28:30‐31; Colossians. This requires then a sort of reading between the
lines, seeking to put together the situation to which Paul writes. This means there is a certain degree
of subjectivity in any interpretation of Paul’s thought.

In addition, in that the letters are written as letters, putting together Paul’s theology and praxis from
the letters is also to a certain degree, open to interpretation. It must be remembered that the letters
are not theology in a direct sense. They are applied theology or mission‐theology; Paul bringing his
theology of Christ and the cross to specific issues in specific situations. The letters then are
theological without being theologies. However, assuming that Paul was a coherent thinker, we can
still put together Paul’s thought from the letters. This requires drawing from the letters theological
principles and ideas whether it be Christology (who is Christ?), soteriology (what is salvation?),
pneumatology (who is the Spirit?), ecclesiology (what is the church?), missiology (what is mission?),
anthropology (what is humanity?) etc.

What is most important to remember is that the letters were not written to us directly. Rather, they
were written from a certain situation in Paul’s life and ministry and in the life of his recipients,
written for a specific first century purpose. This means we need to unlock the letter in its context
before applying it to our own. A lot of the information in the letters is also preceded by a common
understanding of language and concepts that are now clouded in a degree of historical uncertainty
and possibilities. Hence, we must be as sensitive as possible to context and occasion. The letters of
Paul are occasional correspondence which needs first to be interpreted in its own context in its own
right. At times, the material is highly influenced by first century Greco‐Roman and/or Jewish culture
(e.g. 1 Cor 11:1‐16).

Application of Paul’s letters is best achieved by careful analysis of the original intent of the author in
light of the occasion to which he writes; along with analysis of the situation of the readers. Then
from this analysis we can draw principles. We then carefully examine our own situation and look for
analogous situations. We then apply the principles to the situation and make theological application.
Definition
The term epistolē (‘epistle, letter’) originally meant an oral communication sent by a messenger. Just
as we have a variety of letter forms in more traditional English language, 1 in the ancient world a
great variety of letters were found. Some include commercial, governmental, legal, military and
political alongside personal forms of letters. The letters of Paul suggest that he adapted
contemporaneous Greco‐Roman forms of letters for his purposes. 2 On the whole they are closest to
Hellenistic letters, but he adds Hellenistic Jewish aspects with wholly Christian content.

1
I vividly recall being asked to write different types of letters whilst at school e.g. friendly, formal etc.
2
J.M. O’Connor, Paul the Letter‐Writer. His World, His Options, His Skills. GNS 41. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical
Press, 1995, 1‐6 notes that he probably wrote with a reed pen (calamus) using soot and glue based ink on
papyrus (cf. ‘paper’) made from Egyptian reeds.
404

Delivery
Paul’s letters were written to be delivered and read by an emissary who would stand in Paul’s place
and deliver the message. The person was a surrogate for his personal presence (cf. 1 Cor 5:3). One
example is Epaphroditus in Phil 2:25‐30. It is possible that Timothy delivered a number of Paul’s
letters. The group Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus may have delivered 1 Corinthians (1 Cor
16:17); alternatively, Sosthenes (1:1). Tychicus may have delivered Ephesians (Eph 6:21) and
Colossians (Col 4:7).
Structure
The form of Paul’s letters was an adaptation of the typical Hellenistic letter form which typically had
a three‐part structure: an opening, a body and a closing. Paul on the other hand, had four elements:

1. Letter opening: ‘Paul… to the church of God in Corinth… grace and peace to you …’ He
invests these openings with information which is relevant to the letter and his intention.
2. Introductory thanksgiving or blessing:
a. A Thanksgiving: I thank my God… (cf. Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4‐9; Phil 1:3‐11; Col 1:3‐14; 1
Thess 1:3‐10; 2 Thess 1:3‐10; Phm 4‐7) cf. ‘I am grateful’ (1 and 2 Timothy). Often
these include assurances and intercessory prayers. These sections are not merely to
express gratitude, assure and pray but often subtly anticipate the content of the
letter body. So for example Phil 1:3‐11 includes references to ‘participation in the
gospel’ which runs through the letter including prayer, proclamation, suffering and
financial support (1:5 cf. 1:19; 27‐30; 2:14‐16; 4:2‐3, 10‐14); prayer for ‘abounding
love’ and ‘fruit of righteousness’ (1:9‐11) which calls to mind resolving the clash
between leaders in the church (4:2‐3 cf. 1:28‐2:11; 2:14‐16).
b. A Blessing: ‘Praise be to the God …’ (cf. 2 Cor 1:3‐9; Eph 1:1‐14). Only Galatians has
neither because of the negative situation in the Galatian church.
3. The Letter Body: It is difficult to generalise; but these sections of the letter include the crux
of Paul’s intended message. In these parts of the letters we have information about Paul’s
situation (e.g. Phil 1:12‐26); exhortation (e.g. 1 Cor 1:10f; Phil 1:27f); theology (e.g. Rom
1:16f); travel information (e.g. 1 Cor 4:15; 16K5f; Phil 2:19f; 1 Thess 3:2f); ethical exhortation
(e.g. Rom 12‐13; Gal 5‐6; Col 3‐4; Eph 4‐5; 1 Thess 4; Rom 12‐13); prayers (2 Thess 3:1f; Eph
3:14‐19); Col 4:2‐4; vice lists (Rom 1:29‐31; 1 Cor 6:9; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:19‐22) and more.
4. Closing: Paul uses the typical Hellenistic closing with greetings to people (2 Cor 13:12‐13; Col
4:10‐17). He does not use the customary health wish or Greek word for farewell, but
includes a benediction (1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 6:16, 18; Eph 6:23‐24; 2 Thess 3:16) or
doxologies (Rom 16:25‐27; Phil 4:20). He often includes references to writing a phrase in his
own hand (1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17); 3 a reference to a secretary (Rom
16:22) and a holy kiss (e.g. Rom 16:16).
Rhetorical Devices
Paul also uses a variety of forms familiar to Greek letter forms. Some of these include:
Parallelism
Parallelism uses the structure A1‐B1 A2‐B2. A clear example is 1 Cor 15:55:

‘O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?’

3
Possibly indicating that he did not pen the letter.
405

Paul's letter
Chiastic Structures 4
A chiasm is named after the Greek letter chi (C) where a passage has an A1 – B1 – C1 – C2 – B2 –
A2 structure.

Sometimes these are large, spanning whole chapters e.g. 1 Cor 12–14 (cf. 1 Cor 8‐10):

A Spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:1–31a).
B Love, the greatest gift (1 Cor 12:31b–13:13).
A’ Spiritual gifts: prophecy and tongues (1 Cor 14:1–40). 5

Sometimes these are small, in one or two verses e.g. Gal 4:4‐5

A God sent forth his Son,
B Born of woman, born under the law,
B’ To redeem those who were under the law,
A’ so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Another is Rom 10:9‐10. Note in this one which can be seen in two forms and is a beautiful example
of chiasm, that the emphasis lies in the centre (saved!). For it to truly be a chiasm it should match up
like this with a centre that makes sense. This is a really good example: 6

A Confess with your mouth
B Believe in your heart
C You will be saved
B’ By the heart, one believes
A’ By the mouth, one confesses.

OR 7
A Confess
B Mouth
C Believe
D Heart
E Saved
D’ Heart
C’ Believes
B Mouth
A’ Confesses

Diatribe
A Diatribe is a notion that comes from the Socratic tradition in which a teacher uses dialogue and
question and answer to lead a student from error to truth. Romans 1‐11 is full of examples including
rhetorical questions, personification, comparisons, and vice lists. Two key sub‐forms are found. First,
the use of an imaginary interlocutor (debater), an imaginary opponent who anticipates argument
and with whom Paul debates (e.g. Rom 2:1‐5, 17‐24; 9:19‐21; 11:17‐24; 14:4, 10). He uses a Jewish
interlocutor who boasts over Gentiles (Rom 2:17‐29) and dialogues with the interlocutor (Rom 3:1‐9,

4
Based on the Greek letter chi (C) so is an hour glass shape.
5
See S. Greidanus, ‘Preaching from Paul Today,’ in DPL, 739.
6
E.R. Richards, Paul and First Century Letter Writing, 133.
7
E.R. Richards, Paul and First Century Letter Writing, 134.
406

27‐4:2) and a Gentile interlocutor who boasts over Jews (Rom 11:17‐24). The second is objections
and false conclusions from Paul’s argument drawn from an imaginary interlocutor. They often bring
out possible false misinterpretations of a point, correct them and lead to another point. Often here
Paul will use ‘by no means’ (mē genoito) and supplies reasons for the rejection (so Rom 3:1–9, 31;
6:1–3, 15–16; 7:7, 13; 9:14, 19–20; 11:1, 11, 19–20). 8

Midrash exegesis
Midrash exegesis (using the OT in a living an active way, linking terms and thoughts). An example is 1
Cor 10:1‐4. 9

Hymnic material
While every one of these is debated some believe that such passages as Phil 2:5‐11; Col 1:15‐20; Eph
1:13‐14; 5:14; 1 Tim 3:16 were initially pre‐existing hymns or portions of hymns from the life of the
early church which Paul has utilised or adapted. 10 These sections tend to have the highest
Christology in the NT pointing to the divinity of Christ cf. Jn 1:1‐17; Heb 1:3‐4.

Confessional/creedal formulas
Confessional/creedal formulas which may have originated from early Christian confessions perhaps
used in baptismal contexts e.g. Rom 1:3‐4 (the gospel); 10:9‐10 (lordship); 1 Cor 12:3 (lordship);
15:3‐5 (gospel/resurrection); 1 Tim 3:16 (Christ). 11

Metaphor
Metaphor used to illustrate his thought e.g. the word of God is a ‘sword’ (Eph 6:17 cf. Heb 4:11‐12);
the law is a ‘jailor’ holding people prisoner (Gal 3:23) or a ‘tutor’ supervising humanity (Gal 3:24‐25).
These are not literal but describe the function of the word and law.

Hyperbole
E.g. ‘the gospel has been preached to every creature under heaven’ (Col 3:23 cf. Rom 10:18). Paul is
really saying in the Col text that now that Jesus has come, the ultimate word has been proclaimed to
all humanity in Christ (cf. Heb 1:1‐4).

8
See D. Watson, ‘Diatribe’ in DPL, 213.
9
‘I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same
spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them,
and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in
the wilderness.’ Here Paul links NT baptism to OT experiences in the cloud and sea; he links communion to the
spiritual food in the wilderness; he links drinking water from the rock to the Spirit and the rock to Christ. These
links are typical of midrashic exegetical technique.
10
See R.P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, 48‐52.
11
J.L. Wu, “Liturgical Elements,” in DPL, 557.
407

Paul's letter
Antitheses
E.g. ‘hate what is evil, cling to what is good’ (Rom 12:9). Others include being ‘in Adam/in Christ’;
destined for eternal life/destruction. These strongly contrast Christian and non‐Christian life and
destiny.
Rhetorical questions
Rhetorical questions are often used in the context of diatribe (see above) e.g. ‘should we continue
in sin in order that grace may abound?’ (Rom 6:1). See also the series of rhetorical questions in Rom
10:14‐15; 1 Cor 1:20.

There are a number of other such devices in Paul’s letters.
Form of letters
A lot of work is also done on assessing the form of Paul’s letters and their similarities to letter and
speech forms from his time. Some look for epistolary categories i.e. standard letter forms. For
example Fee thinks Philippians is a ‘friendship letter’ (a standard form of letter between friends)
whereas Loveday Alexander thinks it is a ‘family letter’ (a standard form of letter between family
members). Stowers too believers that 1 Thessalonians is an exhortatory or paraenetic letter.
Sometimes types of letter forms are found within letters such as letters or recommendation (e.g.
Phil 2:19‐30).

The methodology of Rhetorical Criticism studies the letters as speeches believing that the letters are
very much like Greco‐Roman speeches. There were three main forms:

1. Forensic: ‘defends or accuses someone regarding past actions.’ Audience response:
‘is it just?’ 12 Galatians can be seen in this way, Paul challenging them regarding their
actions in relation to the Judaisers. The Galatians have to respond by assessing the
rightness of the accusation.

2. Deliberative: ‘exhorts or dissuades the audience regarding future actions.’ Audience
response: ‘is it expedient?’ 13 Philippians can be seen in this way, Paul exhorting
them to desist from arguing and dissension and become united in the cause of the
Gospel. The Philippians have to assess whether Paul’s approach is reasonable to
achieve the result in question i.e. unity.

3. Epideictic: ‘affirms communal values by praise or blame in order to affect a present
evaluation.’ Audience response: ‘is it praiseworthy?’ 14

These forms have been applied to Paul’s letters and different scholars see the letters in these terms.
For example Betz sees Galatians as forensic rhetoric; Kennedy sees it as deliberative while
Longenecker sees it as a blend of the two. Another example is 1 Thessalonians which Kennedy thinks
is deliberative and Jewett sees as epideictic.

I believe that these are valuable in helping us see Paul’s intent in his letters. However, we should be
cautious in such approaches. It is difficult to force the letters into any scheme. As Longenecker says
in the case of Galatians: ‘Paul seems to have availed himself almost unconsciously of the rhetorical

12
G.W. Hansen, ‘Rhetorical Criticism,’ in DPL, 822.
13
14
408

forms at hand, fitting them into his inherited epistolary structures and filling them out with such
Jewish theological motifs and exegetical methods as would be particularly significant in countering
what the Judaisers were telling his converts.’ 15
The Authorship of Paul’s Letters
Before looking at the vexed authorship question it is worth noting that Paul names others in his
prescripts who must have participated in the authorship/sending process. These include 1
Corinthians (Sosthenes cf. Acts 18:17]); 2 Corinthians (Timothy); Galatians (‘all the brothers with
me’); Philippians (Timothy); Colossians (Timothy); 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Silvanus [Silas] and
Timothy); Philemon (Timothy). The extent of their role is disputed. It is generally agreed that the
letters are primarily from Paul himself and that these co‐senders have been mentioned due to their
relationship with the recipients. However, it is possible that their role may have been more
extensive. 16

Until the mid‐19th century the Pauline authorship of the thirteen letters in the Pauline corpus was
rarely questioned. However, F.C. Baur and others put this to the test. All letters have been rigorously
critiqued and now NT scholarship is thoroughly divided on the authorship of some of the letters.
Scholars divide the letters of the Pauline Corpus into two sections, the undisputed and disputed
Pauline epistles.
The Undisputed Paulines
There are seven letters of Paul which are almost universally considered to be Pauline and are called
the ‘undisputed Pauline epistles’. These include Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1
Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. Generally speaking, this is because they are sufficiently
similar in language, themes and theological perspective to be written from the same person.
Galatians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon are considered unquestionably Pauline.

Romans is considered Pauline, penned by a secretary Tertius on his behalf (Rom 16:22). A small
portion of scholars consider that chapter 16 was a separate letter to Ephesians or alternatively, an
ending to the same letter sent to Ephesus. This is due to some textual support to its addition and the
number of people mentioned in the letter which some find difficult to reconcile with a non‐Pauline
church. The mention of Prisca and Aquila suggests to most from this camp, Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19).
However, few contemporary scholars take this seriously.

The authorship of 1 and 2 Corinthians is generally accepted. However, the integrity of 2 Corinthians
is disputed (integrity relates to the unity of the letter, some think it is a composite letter). Many
consider that 2 Corinthians a composite letter, made up of more than one letter, all by Paul, but
written at different times and put together as a unit. Some consider that 2 Cor 6:14‐7:1 is a portion
or all of the earlier letter encouraging disassociation with sin referred to in 1 Cor 5:9. It also
considered that 2 Cor 10‐13:10 is a separate letter, on the basis of the sharp shift in tone at 2 Cor
10:1. However, there is no textual evidence that the letters existed independently and there are
adequate explanations which can be given to explain the letter in its canonical form.

Philippians is also considered unquestionably Pauline. However, a number of scholars consider that
Philippians is a composite of three Pauline letters based in part on a supposed reference from
Polycarp of Smyrna to ‘letters’ and in part because of shifts in thought through the letter especially

15
Longenecker, Galatians, cxix.
16
See J.M. O’Connor, Letter‐Writer, 16‐34 for a discussion of their role. He is optimistic of greater involvement
than some.
409

Paul's letter
at 3:1‐2 and 4:10. The three letters include (A = 1:3‐3:1a; B = 3:1b‐4:3; C = 4:10‐19). Again, almost all
evangelicals do not take this seriously for lack of textual evidence and rhetorical relationships within
the letter.
The Disputed Paulines
The remaining epistles of Paul are to some degree or another disputed. 17 Since the mid 19th century
the authorship of Ephesians and Colossians has been questioned. This is based on some unique
language, differences in style, theology (esp. a cosmic Christology, 18 a realized eschatology, 19 an
advanced ecclesiology 20 ) and similarities between the two epistles. This latter point leads some to
see Ephesians as being dependent on Colossians; both being the product of the same non‐Paul
author; probably a colleague of Paul. Hence they are seen as Pauline without being from Paul.

However, in recent times, strong arguments have been brought to bear giving a sound base to
Pauline authorship of these letters especially the unanimous acceptance of Pauline authorship in the
early church and recognition that these theological developments are logical extensions of Paul’s
thought. We will discuss this below in our look at Ephesians.

2 Thessalonians has also been seen as non‐Pauline because of both its similarities and differences.
Similarities in structure 21 and thought along with supposed differences in theology (e.g. eschatology)
and tone (2 Thess supposedly being colder and more formal) lead some to believe it is non‐Pauline.
Hence it is suggested that another writer took 1 Thessalonians as a kind of template for 2
Thessalonians and infused his own ideas.

However, as in the case of Ephesians and Colossians, strong arguments have been brought
supporting Pauline authorship including chronological, theological (eschatology) and situational
correlation between the two epistles (e.g. idleness in 1 Thess 5:14 cf. 2 Thess 3:7‐12).

Many scholars then now accept at least a 10‐letter Pauline corpus, accepting the undisputed
Paulines, Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, while doubting the authorship of the Pastorals.

The Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is more widely disputed. Perhaps a majority of scholars,
including many evangelicals, see them as pseudonymous works of a post‐Paul writer who wrote in
the name of Paul either to Timothy and Titus, or to unknown recipients using Timothy and Titus as
representative names. The reason for this assessment is the supposed dissimilarities in vocabulary
(e.g. epipaphaneia [‘appearance’] 22 instead of parousia [‘coming’] or the coming of Christ; eusebeia

17
Students who want to understand the details of these complex debates are encouraged to read the relevant
articles and sections on authorship in the DPL and Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction on Ephesians, Colossians,
2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles. In addition, the introductions to the commentaries to Ephesians
(O’Brien), Colossians (O’Brien), 2 Thessalonians (Wanamaker, Morris, Bruce) and the Pastorals (Fee, Towner)
give cogent explanations of the debates and defend strongly Pauline authorship.
18
Christ as “Lord” of the whole universe.
19
More present eschatological concepts like “seated in the heavenlies” in the present rather than a future
hope.
20
More development of church structure and life. These could all suggest a later date and a different author.
21
They are very similar in structure leading some to see 2 Thessalonians as a poor imitation of 1 Thessalonians.
22
See 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Tit 2:13. Only in 2 Thess 2:8 in the other Paulines.
410

[‘godliness’] as a key term), 23 church organization [more developed and ‘catholic’] which appears to
suggest a significant development in organizational terms from the earlier Paulines. 24

In recent times there have been a number of responses to these widely held views which strongly
challenge the notion of non‐Pauline authorship. An increasing number of scholars are positive to
Paul’s authorship and present a number of arguments that I find convincing. Some of the key
arguments include:

1. The ascriptions to these letters which includes Paul as author and recipients. The Marcion
Canon (AD140) indicates that these letters circulated early with Paul’s signature.
2. The general acceptance of Pauline authorship and acceptance into the canon of these works
in the early church.
3. Question marks over the acceptance of pseudonymous works in the early church. 25
4. The use of secretaries (amanuensis) and even editors with more freedom being sufficient
explanation for the differences between Pauline letters. 26
5. The ability of Paul to write differently to different audiences. In the case of the Pastorals,
he is writing a personal letter rather than a letter to a church which could account for the
difference in tone and style.
6. The brilliance of Paul which enable him to utilize different language including the language
of his recipients and opponents which explains differences across the letters. So for
example, the letter to Colossians is directed toward heresy, Paul utilizing the language of the
Colossian context in his response.
7. The autobiographical information in all the disputed letters which is more likely to indicate
Pauline authorship than the intention to gain apostolic authority for a pseudonymous letter.

The great similarity in the ideas expressed across the Pauline epistles which outweigh the supposed
differences.
Conclusion
It is the opinion of this writer that it is almost certain that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and
Ephesians. These three letters have a very strong Pauline feel and theology in all senses, despite it
being clear that there are emphasis differences in Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology in
Colossians and Ephesians. The cross referencing of Philemon and the people of Ephesians and
especially Colossians strongly supports a common source.

In the case of the Pastorals it is more possible that another writer wrote these letters. However, I
consider it more likely that we have here Paul giving more freedom to an editor rather than a

23
See 1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 6:3, 5, 6:6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5; Tit 1:1. Not elsewhere in Paul at all.
24
See especially references to elders and deacons (1 Tim 3:1‐13; Tit 1:5‐9. These are mentioned often in Acts,
but only in Phil 1:1 in the Paulines. Often you will read that these are more catholic. Some see Acts in the same
light and the Pastorals and Acts from a later stage of the church when church structure was more based on the
three‐tier leadership model i.e. Bishop, elder, deacon.
25
There is strong evidence that where the Early Church recognised pseudonymity they rejected the letter e.g.
Gnostic gospels such as Thomas, Philip, Mary Magdalene, Judas etc. See the discussion in Carson, Moo,
Introduction, 337‐350.
26
See Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 234 who give good explanation to the differences in freedom given in
different circumstances. In the case of the Pastorals, Luke is the most likely figure. J.M. O’Connor, Letter‐
Writer, 8‐16 notes the range of options including recorder (dictation using shorthand [tachyography]); editor
with more freedom; substitute author. These options surely explain the differences in the Paulines.
411

Paul's letter
secretary who wrote more freely on his behalf (perhaps Luke). 27 This is especially likely if the
situation of Paul’s incarceration had become more desperate and writing or dictating was more
difficult. That being the case the Pastorals are in all probability Pauline. As renowned Pentecostal
scholar Gordon Fee puts it, ‘when all has been said, the traditional solution, despite the difficulties,
still seems to be the best one.’ 28

One may ask the question of how significant the issue of authorship is. In general terms for those
who accept biblical authority and inspiration it is not significant. However, for seeking to understand
Paul and the development of the early church it is important to know whether these letters
represent Pauline thought or a post‐Pauline phase of development. It is also important for
apologetic purposes as those of us from an evangelical pro‐biblical stance seek to defend the
authenticity and historicity of the Scriptures.

27
Luke was with Paul in Rome and it is feasible that Paul was heavily incarcerated and Luke may have had
substantial freedom on the production of the letters?
28
Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. NIBC. Peabody. Mass: Hendrickson, 1984,88, 25. He accounts for the differences
in that Paul used a different amanuensis (p.26).
412


Chapter Twenty Two
Galatians

Contents
Galatians ............................................................................................................................................. 413
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 414
Authorship .......................................................................................................................................... 414
Setting and Date ................................................................................................................................. 414
The North and South Galatian Theories ......................................................................................... 414
Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem ............................................................................................................ 416
The Veracity of Acts .................................................................................................................... 417
Resolution ................................................................................................................................... 417
Purpose and Sequence........................................................................................................................ 417
Through the Letter .............................................................................................................................. 418
Greeting (1:1‐4) ............................................................................................................................... 418
The Absence of a Thanksgiving, Prayer and Blessing ...................................................................... 418
The Problem: Some are Deserting the One True Gospel of Grace (1:6‐9) ..................................... 418
Paul Defends His Gospel and His Apostolicity (1:10‐2:140) ............................................................ 418
Justified By Faith and Not by The Law and its Works (2:15‐21) ...................................................... 420
Why are you being deceived Galatians? (3:1‐6) ............................................................................. 421
Abraham Saved By Faith (3:6‐9)...................................................................................................... 421
The Curse of the Law and Righteousness by Faith (3:10‐14) .......................................................... 422
The Abrahamic Covenant, by Promise and Not Law (3:15‐19) ....................................................... 422
The Function of the Law: To Prepare the Way for Justification By Faith (3:19‐29). ....................... 422
A Shift of Status from Slaves to Children of God (4:1‐6) ................................................................. 424
Paul Appeals to the Galatians (4:8‐20) ........................................................................................... 425
A Final Analogy from the Law: Hagar and Sarah, symbols of a enslavement and freedom (4:21‐31)
........................................................................................................................................................ 426
Paul Appeals Again to the Galatians; You are free, do not submit again to enslavement to Law (5:1‐
12) ................................................................................................................................................... 427
Live in Freedom, the Freedom of Love and the Fruit of the Spirit (5:13‐6:10) ............................... 428
Final Warnings and Benediction ..................................................................................................... 430

413

Galations
Introduction
The Epistle to the Galatians is an important book in terms of understanding Paul’s Gospel, especially
set against the backdrop of the theology of Judaism and the Judaisers. It is important too, in
understanding the situation of the Jerusalem Council (above), it part of jigsawing together the
situation at the momentous debate. Galatians gives us real insight into Paul’s change of thinking
from his Jewish heritage. It gives important biographical and chronological data concerning his
movements early in his Christian career. It also includes the famous ‘fruit of the Spirit’ section, giving
some important insight into ethics and Christian living. In what follows, we will discuss the hot
argument concerning dating and setting, other critical issues, and the text of Galatians in summary
terms.
Authorship
Although there have been questions raised in the past from highly skeptical scholars, Galatians is
one of the undisputed Pauline epistles and there is little doubt that Paul is behind it..
Setting and Date
The same cannot be said of setting and date. There is great debate concerning when Galatians was
written and the situation at the time. This is based on debates about a few things in particular. First,
who are the ‘Galatians’ Paul writes to? Secondly, how do the visits to Jerusalem of Acts line up with
Galatians? Thirdly, how does the theological situation in Galatians relate to Acts and Romans in
particular? We will very briefly look at each of these in turn.
The North and South Galatian Theories
The English ‘Galatians’ comes from the Latin Galatae and refers to the Celts and Gauls. The Celts
come from the Germanic area of the Danube in central Europe around 500 BC. They spread out with
some settling in France (Gaul), some in Britain (Ireland and Scots), some to the Balkans and onto Asia
Minor. In the 3rd century BC some took control of central Asia Minor and eventually were contained
in the region of the Anatolian plain around Ancyra, the modern capital of Turkey. When Rome took
over they allowed the Galatians to remain a client‐kingdom under their own king (Amyntas) until 25
BC when Caesar reorganized it into a Roman province including the original Galatian territory around
Ancyra (‘North Galatia’) but the southern regions of Phygia and Lycaonia (‘South Galatia’).

As the map below shows, 1 Galatia at the time of Paul was a Roman province stretching all the way
across the centre of Asia Minor from Pontus in the north on the Black Sea, to Pamphylia on the
Mediterranean (where Paul started his missionary journey in Acts 13).

1
From George, Galatians, 19.
414


Map of Galatia

It is debated who the letter was written to. It could be that the letter is addressed to Christian
churches throughout this whole region (the Pan‐Galatian Theory, popular in the 19th century).
However, this is unlikely in that Galatians addresses specific issues with some people Paul has
engaged in mission among. 2

Until the late 19th century, it was believed by most including Luther and Calvin that Galatians was
written to north the ancient Celts in north Galatia (the ‘North Galatia Theory’). This is due to political
changes after the time of the NT when Provincio Galatia was confined mainly to the north. These
changes included Vespasian expelling almost all of Psidia from Galatia in AD 74 and in AD 137
Lycaonia Galatia being taken out of Galatia joined to the province of Cilicia. In AD 297 southern
Galatia was joined to a new province of Psidia. 3 Christianity also thrived in that area in the 4th and 5th
centuries and. Lightfoot in particular took this perspective (1865) as did Moffatt (1911) and modern
commentators Betz, Lührmann and others. They believed this was so because it was felt that the
people in the letter of ‘Galatians’ resembled the features of Celts such as fickleness, superstition,
licentiousness. It was felt that Galatians represented the same thinking as Romans and so was a
work from late in his apostolic mission (mid 50’s). It was felt that Luke’s use of Galatia in Acts 16:6
and 18:23 at the beginning of his 2nd and 3rd journeys suggested that Paul visited these areas on
these journeys. If so, it was written to the cities of Ancyra, Pessinus and Tavium.

2
George, Galatians, 40.
3
Longenecker, Galatians, lxiii.
415

Galations
Ramsay and Bruce have argued against this view, arguing that Galatians was written to the Southern
Galatian region, to the churches of South Galatia, those churches which Paul evangelised on his first
missionary journey i.e. Perga, Psidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe (Acts 13‐14) (the ‘South
Galatia Theory’). Ramsay believed Paul intended to go to Ephesus but was forced to head inland to
Psidian Antioch to find relief for malaria. Whether or not it was malaria, it could be that illness did
cause Paul to head to get medical help in this city (Gal 4:13). In addition, the cities of Paul’s first
journey were undoubtedly considered part of the Roman Galatian province at the time. These cities
lay on the major trade route west from Syria and Cilicia to Ephesus, the Sabastian Way. Psidian
Antioch was the base for the Roman governor of the province. George has noticed a number of
parallels between the themes of Galatians and Paul’s initial evangelisation in Acts 13‐14: 1) The
Theme of Justification (cf. Acts 13:38‐39); 2) The Gentile Nature of the Churches (cf. Acts 13:46, 48
where Jews reject the message and Gentiles accept it); 3) Signs and Wonders (Gal 3:5 cf. Acts 14:3,
8‐10); 4) An Angel of God (Gal 4:14 cf. Acts 14:12: Paul as Hermes?); 5) Persecution of Paul (Gal 6:17;
cf. Acts 13:45, 50‐52; 14:5‐6, 19‐20). The reference in Acts 16:6 and 18:23 do not refer to
evangelisation of the north, but trips to strengthen these first Christians (cf. 1 Cor 16:1 [the same
churches]; 2 Tim 4:10; 1 Pet 1:1) [the province in general].

All things considered, ‘the weight of evidence falls strongly in support of the view that Paul
addressed his letter to the congregations in South Galatia that he and Barnabas established on their
first missionary journey.’4
Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem
There is some difficulty in lining up the visits of Paul to Jerusalem from Acts and Galatians and
Romans.

The visits in Acts are:
1. Visit 1 (Acts 9:26‐29): After Paul’s conversion and escape from Damascus.
2. Visit 2 (Acts 11:27‐30): The Antiochian Collection Visit.
3. Visit 3 (Acts 15:1‐19): The Jerusalem Council Visit.
4. Visit 4 (Acts 18:23): The 2nd Missionary Journey Visit.
5. Visit 5 (Acts 21:17f): The Jerusalem Collection and 3rd Missionary Journey Visit
(imprisonment).
The visits in Galatians and Romans are:
1. Visit 1 (Gal 1:18‐19): 3 years after conversion, Arabia, Damascus.
2. Visit 2 (Gal 2:1‐10): 14 years later to discuss the gospel he proclaimed (the poor also
mentioned cf. Gal 2:10).
3. Visit 3 (Rom 15:25‐33): The Jerusalem Collection and 3rd Missionary Journey Visit
(imprisonment)
Most likely, Acts visit 1 is Epistles visit 1. Acts visit 4 is mentioned in passing by Luke and so is
probably not mentioned by Paul at all because it is not of great significance. Acts visit 5 is clearly
Epistles visit 3. So the question is, is Epistles Visit 2, Acts Visit 2 or 3 i.e. is it the Antiochian Collection
visit or the Jerusalem Council Visit. In favour of the Jerusalem Collection visit is that Gal 2 refers to
the gospel, circumcision (v3), Judaisers (esp. v4) and mentions James and Cephas. Another additional
factor is the dating of the Galatian material in Gal 1:15‐2:10. If we take the crucifixion at AD33, Paul’s
conversion in AD33‐35, the 3 years in Damascus/Arabia taking it through to AD36‐38; then another

4
Timothy George, vol. 30, Galatians, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary
416

14 years takes us through to AD50‐52 which would fit nicely with the Jerusalem Council visit which
was at the end of missionary journey one and from which Paul launched missionary journey two.

In favour of the Antiochian collection is the reference to the poor in Gal 2:10 which could refer to
the Acts 11 situation. In addition, if this was that same collection journey, then it fits that Paul would
make this visit early, to test his gospel out. Further, the acceptance of his ministry and the splitting
up of the mission between Peter and Paul fits a setting before the first missionary journey (Acts 13).
The chronological question which appears at first hand insurmountable, can be resolved if the 14
years is taken as inclusive of the 3 years and not consecutively i.e. 11 years after the first visit. This is
a fair reading of the text and so would mean that the visit to Jerusalem was AD47‐49 which fits with
the Antiochian Collection visit and the date of the Jerusalem Council.
The Veracity of Acts
The resolution of this most interesting dilemma often depends on scholars attitudes to Acts and the
way they view Galatia. Those who are skeptical usually take this Gal 2 visit as the Jerusalem Council
and pay little attention to trying to reconcile Galatians and Acts. They argue for an evangelization of
Paul in the second missionary journey. They tend to date Galatians after the Council and the clash
with Peter in Antioch, so a date during Paul’s third missionary journey AD 52‐57. 5 Those who have a
more positive view of Acts tend to harmonise the accounts and come up with the solution that Gal 2
is the visit of Acts 11 and this resolves the dilemma and allows for an Acts chronology to stand.
Resolution
All in all, I suggest that the latter view is better. There is no reason to discredit Luke’s account and
good reason to align Gal 2 with Acts 11 rather than Acts 15. However, it is a split decision. This
means Galatians was written from Antioch in AD47‐48 and is probably the first of Paul’s letters.
Purpose and Sequence
If this is so, we can construct the situation and see the purpose of Galatians clearly. Paul has been on
his first missionary journey, taking the Gospel to the area of South Galatia (Acts 13‐14). After this
journey, Judaisers from Jerusalem have gone to Antioch and the new churches and have challenged
Paul’s gospel, telling the new Gentile converts that they needed to adhere to the Law of Moses to be
Christian and included in God’s people. These Judaisers (‘false brothers’) have also visited Antioch
and Paul has resisted them (Gal 2:4‐5). Paul has also had a clash over table fellowship in Antioch with
Peter and James who have, on concern to offend Jews, withdrawn from table fellowship with new
Gentile converts in Antioch (Gal 2:11‐14). Paul has written the letter before the Jerusalem Council in
AD48 telling his new converts to resist these Judaisers. In the letter he refers to an earlier discussion
with the Apostles in Jerusalem on his famine visit over the gospel, at which time he was set apart to
take the gospel to the Gentiles and that this gospel did not require circumcision and adherence to
the Law. Later on some of these same Judaising preachers will travel to Antioch again and will clash
even more dramatically with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:1‐2). Paul and Barnabas would meet in
Jerusalem with the leaders of the church and it will be formerly agreed that new Gentile converts
will not need to be circumcised or adhere to the Law of Moses to be part of God’s saved people. He
will he then travel back through these Galatian churches on his second missionary journey with the
Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:23‐29) with Judas and Silas to reinforce that this is the decision of the
whole church.

The purpose of the letter then is clear: it is written to reinforce that the gospel is a gospel of grace
and new Gentile converts do not need to adhere to the Law of Moses and be circumcised to be
saved and included in God’s people. It is an appeal to resist and reject the teaching of the Judaisers.

5
For example, D. Lührmann, Galatians. A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
417

Galations
It also reasserts Paul’s apostolic authority. Paul does not mess around in this letter, he is deeply
concerned at the consequences of Gentile believers being forced to adhere to the Law of Moses. It
will curtail dramatically the spread of the gospel among Gentiles, placing too great a burden on new
believers.

Through the Letter
Greeting (1:1‐4)
In Gal 1:1‐4 Paul greets them. The detail he adds reasserts that he is an apostle and that this
apostleship is of divine origin from Jesus and God. He notes ‘all the brothers who are with me’
adding authority i.e. the letter is from the apostle and others who are in agreement.

He addresses the churches of Galatia (South Galatia, see above).

He pronounces use usual blessing asking for grace and peace from God and Christ. Galatians is
unique adding reference to Jesus’ sacrifice to deliver all from sin and this evil age as God willed. This
reasserts that the heart of the Gospel is complete deliverance without any works of Law.
The Absence of a Thanksgiving, Prayer and Blessing
It is significant that Galatians alone of all Paul’s letters lacks any reference to thanksgiving, blessing
or intercession. This is remarkable and gives insight into the depth of Paul’s concern.
The Problem: Some are Deserting the One True Gospel of Grace (1:6‐9)
Paul expresses his deep concern than some are turning away from the gospel of grace to something
different. He reasserts that there is only one gospel and that these false teachers distort the gospel.
He pronounces an imprecation on anyone who preaches a different gospel, whether they are a
supernatural being or a person. The reference to ‘angel’ calls to mind the giving of the Law to Moses
and is a subtle challenge to the Judaisers (cf. 3:19). ‘Let him be accursed’ is a proclamation that they
experience eternal torment. He repeats if for emphasis (v9).
Paul Defends His Gospel and His Apostolicity (1:10‐2:140)
In this section, Paul defends both his Gospel and his authority as an apostle in claiming that his
gospel is the one that they should listen to. Most scholars include 1:10 in the previous section, but
this is an important text leading into the discussion which will follow. He asserts in this verse that he
seeks only the approval of God and to serve Christ and his gospel is not framed to please anyone
except God.

In 1:11‐12 he tells his readers that the gospel he preaches is not derived from any person through
the passing on of a tradition (paralambanō) 6 or through teaching, but through a revelation of Jesus
Christ. As noted above, this does not refer to a visionary exposition of the gospel from Christ, but his
Damascus Road experience. In that moment Paul saw Jesus, recognised that he was Messiah and
Lord, and the Gospel was revealed. Over deep reflection of his Jewish heritage he reconstructed his
theology around this central premise.

In 1:13‐14 he fills this story out with autobiographical detail from his pre‐Christian life, all designed
to paint a picture of him as a brilliant Jew (like his opponents the Judaisers). He lived as Jew, but not

6
The Greek paralambanō indicates the passing on of a tradition e.g. 1 Cor 11:23 (the tradition of the Last
Supper); 1 Cor 15:1 (the tradition of the Resurrection).
418

just any Jew, he was a zealot for the faith, a persecutor of the church of God, seeking to destroy it.
Paul does not mince his words here, the Greek for destroy portheō means to annihilate and was
used of the sacking of cities by invading forces. 7 Not only was he a zealot and prepared to destroy
for his faith, he was a brilliant Jew, advanced in learning for his age, absolutely sold out to the
traditions of Israel.

In 1:15‐16b he speaks of his conversion that moment of revelation referred to above in 1:11. He
emphasises his pre‐birth call, stressing the sovereignty of God, recalling the calls of Jeremiah and the
Servant cf. Jer 1:5; Is 49:5. He stresses his call is by grace, as is the gospel itself (and not by works of
law). He emphasises God’s good pleasure, the revelation of Christ (God’s Son) on the road. The
purpose of this (hina), that he might preach the Son to the Gentiles.

In 1:16c‐24 Paul stresses that he did not glean this gospel from anyone, but it came through
revelation. He did not consult flesh or blood (1:16c); did not go to Jerusalem but instead to Arabia
(perhaps to Mt Sinai cf. 4:24) and Damascus (1:17). He admits he went to Jerusalem then, but only
for fifteen days and spent time with Peter and James alone (1:18‐19). He then left Jerusalem and
went into Syria and Cilicia remaining generally unknown throughout Judea (1:21‐24). The point is
that his gospel is not defined by others, but by God and the revelation of Christ.

In 2:1‐10 Paul then speaks of how his gospel was approved by the Jerusalem Twelve. As noted
above, this is probably the trip referred to in Acts 11:27‐30 (cf. Gal 2:10). He, Barnabas and Titus, a
Gentile uncircumcised convert, went together to Jerusalem. Paul states that this was due to a
revelation, which may be a subtle reference to Agabus’ prophetic word concerning the famine; or, as
is more likely, is reference to another visionary experience (cf. 2 Cor 12:1‐10; Acts 22:17‐20). Paul
tells the Galatians of how he laid out the gospel he preached throughout the churches of Galatia,
Cilicia, Syria and Arabia. His purpose, to assure himself that he was not preaching a false gospel and
so ‘running in vain.’ In v3 he assures them that circumcision is not necessary, for even the Gentile
Titus, was not required to be circumcised by the Jerusalem leaders (2:3).

In 2:4 Paul speaks of the Judaisers who had come to Antioch. Note how he describes them as ‘false
brothers’ who has slipped in secretly to ‘spy’ on this ‘law‐free’ faith (‘our freedom’). Their purpose in
2:4 (hina), to enslave them again to slavery to the law. Paul gives himself as an example in v.5,
stating how he refused to yield to them for a moment! His purpose, ‘so that’ (hina), the truth of the
gospel may be preserved for ‘you’ i.e. for the Galatians and the teeming masses of Gentiles
throughout the world. In 2:6 he notes how the Jerusalem leaders who are deemed to be of great
importance, ‘added nothing’ to Paul and his gospel. Thus, he affirms that this gospel which has saved
them is approved by the Jerusalem Twelve.

In 2:7‐9 he furthers this thought by telling the Galatians that, rather than reject his gospel, the
Jerusalem Twelve confirmed his status as the one to lead the mission to the Gentiles, while Peter
would continue leading the mission to the Jews. He notes that the three ‘pillars’ James, Peter and
John offered Paul and Barnabas the ‘right hand of fellowship’; indicating their full acceptance of their
status and gospel. Paul mentions the only qualification in 2:10, that they continue to remember the
poor. This passage is important in showing how important concern for the poor is in Christian
mission. In addition, it is the earliest evidence we have of the Great Commission, the division of the
mission indicating that they recognised the need for mission to Jew and Gentile i.e. the whole world.

The purpose of 2:11‐14 is not to demean Peter or James, but to illustrate that the gospel comes free
of the Law and this cannot be compromised. While Peter and James accept Paul and his gospel, on
this occasion in Antioch, emissaries from James in Jerusalem withdrew from table fellowship with

7
T. George, Galatians, 114.
419

Galations
the Gentile converts and Peter, Barnabas and other Jews joined them. They did so for fear of ‘the
circumcision party’ (v.12). This is a clear reference to Judaisers and is evidence of a split in
understanding in the Christian church at the time over Law and circumcision. This for Paul was a
breaking of the fundamental unity of the gospel and God’s people in Christ, where there is no Jew
nor Greek (cf. Gal 3:28). Paul speaks in v.14 of his determination to stand up against this anti‐gospel
behaviour and fronted Peter and challenged him on the implications of his position. On the one hand
he lives like a Gentile and not like a Jew (freely having table fellowship with Gentile converts). Why,
on the other hand, are you now forcing Gentiles to take on Jewish customs? He exposed the fraud of
Peter’s position.

The point of this is to encourage the Galatians to, like Paul, stand up for the gospel in the face of
Judaisers.
Justified By Faith and Not by The Law and its Works (2:15‐21)
Paul now switches to talk theologically about justification by grace through faith and not through the
works of the Law. 2:15‐21 in a sense is the central passage of the letter; the propositional statement
around which his argument is built. 8

In 2:15‐16 Paul reminds the Galatians that he is a Jew by birth and not a sinner, yet even as a Jew he
knows now that justification is through faith in Jesus Christ (or the faithfulness of Jesus Christ) 9 and
not in works of the law. The notion ‘works of the law’ is debated. Some like Dunn believe them to be
boundary markers of Jewish identity and covenantal nomism. Thus, one can be saved by works of
the law if they are accompanied with faith in Christ; but as Longenecker notes, this is contrary to
Paul’s whole attitude through his letters. 10 Others see them as general works. Either way, Paul’s
point is clear, being counted righteous before God is by faith and not law. Note here that Paul
chiasmically reinforces the point. 11

In 2:17‐19, a highly difficult text to grasp, Paul utilises diatribe raising a possible objection against
salvation by grace through faith in Christ and not law. He asks, if a person seeks to be justified in
Christ yet is revealed to be a sinner (as we all are), then does this make Christ a servant of sin? That
is, is Christ serving the spreading of sin unwittingly? He answers with mē genoito (‘absolutely not!’).
In v18, to return to legalism and the Law is to rebuild what was torn down in Christ, the Law.
Ironically, to do so, makes one a sinner or transgressor of the law. Note in v.18 Paul speaks in the
first person, giving himself as an example (cf. in 3:1 he will address the Galatians). This is Paul saying,
‘don’t go back!’ Why? Because in v.19, a believer has died to the Law to live to God. Christ Jesus was
sufficient to overcome all sin, the Law was not, it reveals sin.

In v.20 (Greek: v.19b‐20) Paul states emphatically the core of the gospel as it applies to humanity.
That is, in Christ, we (‘I’) have been crucified with Christ. ‘Crucified’ is perfect tense, meaning that it
is past with present consequences i.e. Christ was crucified and remains crucified and its effect is felt
into the present. As such, a believer no longer lives, but is alive through the power of Christ who
lives within (Spirit implied here). Current life in this new creation (‘I now live in the flesh) is lived by

8
Longenecker, Galatians, 83.
9
This is a debated issue. The traditional view is ‘faith in Jesus Christ’; however, the more natural reading of the
genitive favours ‘faithfulness of Jesus Christ.’ If ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ is implied, this does not reduce ‘faith’ as
the means of salvation as we see in what follows ‘we also have believed in Christ Jesus.’
10
See R. Longenecker, Galatians, 83.
11
A Knowing that no‐one is justified from works of the law
B Except through faith in Christ Jesus
B’ And we believe in Christ Jesus
A’ So that we might be justified from faith in/of Christ and not from works of the Law…
420

faith in the Son of God (or the faithfulness of the Son of God). Christ is further defined as the one
who loves the believer, and sacrificed himself for him.

In v.21 Paul continuing in the first person declares that he does not nullify the grace of God in this;
on the other hand, if righteousness (justification and acquittal before God) could be achieved
through law, Christ died to no avail. Paul is urging the Galatians to do the same.
Why are you being deceived Galatians? (3:1‐6)
In contrast to his own attitude of dying to the law and placing his complete hope in the grace of
Christ seen in his death for sin, Paul in 3:1‐6 utilises a series of rhetorical questions to challenge the
Galatians. He does not mince his words declaring the Galatians foolish (‘O foolish Galatians’).
1) He asks first, ‘who has bewitched you?’ The Greek baskainō suggests being spellbound, deceived
as if by black magic or the evil eye; 12 perhaps then with a sense of demonic blinding. Paul answers
metaphorically, that Christ crucified was preached to them (cf. 1 Cor 2:3‐5).

2) Paul then moves to pneumatology in his second question: ‘did you receive the Spirit by works of
the law or by hearing with faith?’ (cf. Rom 10:14‐17). That is, did they receive the Spirit through
adherence to the law, or hearing the gospel and believing? The aorist tense refers to initial reception
of the Spirit at conversion; Paul linking Spirit‐reception with faith throughout his letters (e.g. 1 Cor
12:13; 2 Cor 1:21‐22; Eph 1:13‐14). This illustrates that the powerful experience of the Spirit at
conversion constituted evidence of the authenticity of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 2:4‐5; 1 Thess 1:3‐4 cf.
Acts 11:15‐18; 15:8).

3) The third question (in Greek one question) in v.3 asks them ‘are you so foolish, having begun in/by
the Spirit, are you now being completed by the flesh?’ This is Paul’s customary Spirit‐flesh antithesis
(cf. Rom 8:4‐10; Gal 6:6‐9). To turn from faith to law, is to trust in one’s own self sufficiency for
salvation. The Galatians must return to trust in Christ and not law for salvation. To not do so, means
living in the flesh and not Spirit.

4) The fourth question asks why they suffered so much in their stand for faith, if they were only to
return to law. This calls to mind the repeated persecution of the first Christians by Jews (cf. Acts
13:45, 50; 14:2, 5‐7, 19‐20). To return to the Law was to concede to these Jews and so their suffering
was futile.

5) The final question returns to the matter of the Spirit, not only reception, but in the present
continuous tense of God continuing to pour out his Spirit upon them and continuing to do miracles
by the Spirit among them (3:5). This recalls Paul’s ministry in the power of the Spirit in his initial visit
(Acts 13:8‐12; 14:3, 8‐10). These works are the result of faith and not adherence to Jewish law.
Abraham Saved By Faith (3:6‐9)
In v.6 Paul transitions from the questions to Abraham, giving him as an example of faith, quoting
Gen 15:6 cf. Rom 4:3. This is a critical part of his argument against the Judaisers and his appeal to
the Galatians. He is arguing from the Law itself that even within the Law, faith is credited as
righteousness to the father of the Jewish faith. By implication, the Judaisers have it wrong on both
counts i.e. salvation in the Jewish system was by faith and it remains so in Christ.
In v.7 Paul shifts to ram this home by stating that the true children of Abraham are so by faith, and
thus not law. This would have been highly challenging to the Judaisers and Jews who argued that it is
by acceptance of the terms of the covenant in the Mosaic law that one is marked as one of God’s
people. Paul is stating from their own Scriptures, one is a child of Abraham by faith, and always has

12
See BDAG, 171; Swanson, Lexicon, GGK1001.
421

Galations
been. He then in v.8 appeals to the promise of Abraham in Gen 12:1‐3, that the Gentiles will be
blessed through him by faith. He sees this as a proto‐gospel, the gospel foreshadowed in this
promise. In v.9 he summarises for the Gentiles including the Galatians, those who believe are
blessed along with Abraham by faith.
The Curse of the Law and Righteousness by Faith (3:10‐14)
Paul continues in 3:10 utilising the Mosaic Law itself in his argument. He states that those who rely
on the Law are under a curse based on Deut 27:26: cursed is everyone who does not abide in doing
everything written in the Book of the Law.’ This verse encapsulates Paul’s view of the Law, now that
he is a Christian. Essentially he is stating that salvation through the law comes through flawless and
complete obedience to the Law. The New Perspective of Paul challenges this view arguing that Jews
did not hold this view of the Law. However, whether or not this is true, Paul certainly did. Looking
back he realised what salvation by the Law (works) meant, flawless and complete obedience.

He goes on, in v.11 to state that it is thus evident that no‐one can be justified by the Law! (cf. Rom
3:23). Quoting the prophet Habbakuk he states ‘the righteous shall live by faith’ (cf. Rom 1:17). In
v.12 he reinforces this with another Torah quote, this time, Lev 18:5: ‘the one who does them shall
live by them’ i.e. one must do the Law to be saved by the Law. Again using the Torah in v.13 Paul
quotes Deut 21:23 effectively stating that Jesus took the curse of the Law upon, saving humanity
through living the Law, and dying on humanities behalf i.e. ‘cursed is everyone who is hanged on a
tree.’ The scandal of the cross saved humanity by taking the curse of the law, sin, death and
destruction.

The result in 3:14 (hina) is that ‘in Christ Jesus’ this blessing promised in the Torah has come to the
Gentiles (i.e. you Galatians!), so that they might receive the promised Holy Spirit (see esp. Ezek
36:26‐27; Joel 2:28‐29 cf. Is 11:2; 32:15; 42:1, 59:21; 61:1; 63:11; Ezek 11:19; 36:26‐27; 37:14;
39:29). ‘Through faith’ reinforces the earlier reference to the link of faith in Christ and receiving the
Spirit (cf. 3:3, 5).
The Abrahamic Covenant, by Promise and Not Law (3:15‐19)
Continuing on with the Abrahamic theme, in v.15 Paul refers to covenantal protocol. He states that
even a personal covenantal agreement cannot be added to, it stands as it is, it is a legally binding
document. Paul enjoys this strategy of giving arguments from a human perspective and then
applying them in Galatians (cf. 4:1). In v.16 he applies this to the Abrahamic covenant with some
Jewish exegesis noting that the promise was made to Abraham and his seed, singular (Gen 12:7;
13:15; 17:4; 24:7). Paul then reads this singular reference as not referring to Isaac, but as referring to
Christ, the fulfilment of the promise of a seed. In v.17 Paul continues his application of v.15; the Law
came 430 years subsequent to this Abrahamic blessing. As such, it does not negate or change the
previous agreement which cannot be so annulled; especially in that it has been ratified by God. Thus
the promise of a seed is not void but remains despite the coming of the Law. As such, the
inheritance of Abraham to inherit to see the nations of the world blessed does not come through
Law as the Jews and Judaisers claim, but through Christ (v. 18).
The Function of the Law: To Prepare the Way for Justification By Faith (3:19‐
29).
This section in diatribe style is launched by a rhetorical question that anticipates the question of the
Jews, Judaisers and bewitched Galatians; if so, why the Law? (3:19). Paul then answers in v.20. It was
added because sin (transgressions) until the revelation of the descendent of Abraham promised.
‘Because of transgressions’ probably means ‘to bring about a consciousness of sin in sin‐hardened
422

humanity.’ 13 In 3:19b ‘the law is given (or ordained, ordered) through angels’ refers not to Exod
19:18 where no angels are mentioned, but to OT texts which state that the giving of the Law
involved angels (e.g. Deut 33:2 [esp. LXX: ‘angels from his right hand were with him’]; Ps 68:18 [LXX
67:18]). The latter text in rabbinic tradition associated angels with the giving of the law and
dominated tradition in Paul’s time in Judaism (see Jub. 1:27‐28; Philo, Somn. 1.140‐44; Jos. Ant.
15.136) and in the NT (Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2). 14 It recalls Gal 1:8 and suggests that the Law is inferior
to Christ; another critique of the Judaisers. ‘Entrusted to a mediator’ no doubt refers to Moses.

In v20 the involvement of a mediator in the giving of the Law means more than one party or persons
are involved in the giving of the Law, whereas God, the giver of salvation in Christ, is one. 15 Thus he
addresses the Judaisers telling them that the Law is inferior to the promise.

In v21 Paul then asks another question (diatribe); is the law contrary to the promise? His answer is
the emphatic mē genoito (‘absolutely not’). In v21b Paul states that if it were possible to bring a law
that could deal with the problem of sin and so overcome death and give life, then righteousness or
the salvation of humanity would be by law.

But in v22 Paul explains that the law could not do this; rather, it imprisons all the world under sin.
The law then is not redemptive, nor can it bring redemption. Rather, it prepares the way for the
promise which comes through faith in Jesus Christ (or the faithfulness of Jesus Christ) and is given to
believers. That is, the law prepares the way for salvation by faith. V23 restates this, ‘we’ referring to
Jews especially, important in his critique of Judaisers. The Law held captive Jews, imprisoning them
until faith is revealed.

In v24, the Law functions as a paidagōgos until Christ came so that Jews (‘we’) might be justified by
faith, and so not by the Law. The paidagōgos is ‘one who has responsibility for someone who needs
guidance, guardian, leader, guide.’ 16 As such, the law is personified as a guide or guide leading a
person to realise their need for faith.

In v25 Paul continues, now that faith has come (in Christ) to the world, the Jews and to the
Galatians, all have no need of the Law (a paidagōgos). This is critical; Paul is stating that the
Judaisers and bewitched Galatians are barking completely up the wrong tree, the Law is no longer
needed, because salvation by faith is here.

In v26 Paul gives the reason, ‘for (gar), ‘in Christ Jesus you are all sons [and daughters] of God,
through faith.’ Salvation is achieved through faith; so much so, that believers are in Christ and so his
children. Nothing more is needed. Note the shift from the 3rd person to the 2nd person, moving away
from Jewish concern to general.

In v27 Paul introduces a new concept for Galatians, baptism. This is suggestive of the theology of
Rom 6:1‐4 where baptism is identification in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The
believers of Galatia are baptised into Christ. Paul introduces a second new idea, ‘have put on Christ’;
in the sense of being clothed in him (cf. Rom 13:14; Eph 4:22‐24). In v28 Paul applies this new
identity to the great social groupings of the day, declaring that in Christ these are shattered;
whether it be race (‘neither Jew nor Greek’); rank and status (‘slave nor free’) or gender (‘male nor

13
14
See Longenecker, Galatians, 139‐140.
15
This is a hugely disputed text with literally hundreds of interpretations. The general thrust is clear, the detail
is rather murky!
16
BDAG, 748.
423

Galations
female’). All are brought together as one in Christ. No law is required. A new humanity has been
formed on faith and faith alone.

In v29, Paul brings it back to Abraham; stating that if you belong to Christ, the seed of Abraham, are
clothed with him, are in him; you are too a child of Abraham according to the promise of Gen 12, 17.
Thus the people of God are not those who live by Law whether with or without faith in Christ, but
who live by faith in Christ and Christ alone. Thus the Judaisers, by their own tradition, are leading
them astray.
A Shift of Status from Slaves to Children of God (4:1‐6)
As Paul utilised common thinking about covenants earlier, now he turns to the distinction in status
between a child and a slave. He has just stated that all believers are children of God by faith. Now,
Paul draws a different contrast between the status of people before Christ and now. In 4:1 he
contrasts a son/heir with a slave, effectively saying that for the heir’s childhood, he is no different in
status to the slave despite the heir being the owner of everything. This draws on common Greco‐
Roman families which include slaves. Like a slave, the heir is under the tutelage of a ‘guardian,
leader, guide’ (epitropos) and a household manager (oikonomos), and so subject to authority (4:2).
This picture is of a boy (nepios) in a wealthy gentile home who is heir but is a minor living under
rules, so like a slave. 17

In 4:3 Paul applies this idea to faith and law. By analogy (‘in the same way’), believers (Jew and
Gentile) were children, enslaved to the stoicheia tou kosmos. The meaning of the term stoicheia (cf.
Gal 4:9; Col 2:8, 20) is debated meaning either 1) ‘The elements of basic principles’ in line with its
root stoichos which means basic components like degrees on a sundial or letters of the alphabet.
That is, like basic philosophical or religious principles e.g. law. Thus, it is like returning to childhood,
learning their ABC’s; 2) The Elemental Components of the Universe, earth, wind, air and fire, central
to Greek thinking. This does not fit the context. 3) Spiritual Powers. This fits 4:9 where Paul speaks of
being enslaved by those who are not gods (i.e. demonic forces and their religious systems cf. 1 Cor
10:20). Thus to return to the law is to fall subject to demonic forces. This would be highly offensive
to Judaisers and Jews alike. The law is good, but its force becomes demonic alongside the futility of
Greco‐Roman philosophy and any other religious system when it enslaves. Paul is placing captivity to
law and Jewish systems of thought alongside being enslaved to pagan religion, a radical rethinking of
his Jewish heritage.

In 4:4‐5 Paul speaks chiasmically 18 of the redemption which came in the ‘fullness of time’ (God’s
sovereignty). God sent his son (Jesus, incarnation). ‘Born of a woman’ emphasises Jesus’ birth by
Mary, a unique reference to Jesus’ birth in Paul (note there is no detail given). He was born under
the law, i.e. subject to it. Why? In v.5: to redeem those under the law. Purpose (hina – ‘so that’):
humanity might be adopted as God’s children.

In 4:6 Paul goes on to pneumatology. Because believers are children, God sent his empowering
presence (‘the Spirit of his Son’) into the hearts of believers. This Spirit cries ‘Abba! Father!’ Thus, the
Spirit brings the believer into the most intimate of relationships with the creator of the universe,
God.

In 4:7 Paul rounds off the section summarising his point: you are no longer a slave, but a child and so
a heir. The shift of status is complete; no longer slaves, but children of God.

17
See George, Galatians, 294; Longenecker, Galatians, 162. This much is clear, scholars debate the detail.
18
See above in notes on Paul’s letters to see this chiasm outlined (Son… born …law… born… law… sons).
424

Paul Appeals to the Galatians (4:8‐20)
Having laid out emphatically that justification is by faith and not law and so demolishing the
theology of the Judaisers, Paul here gets personal with the Galatians, as he did in 3:1‐6; but this time
with a sense of deep personal concern.

In 4:8 he reminds them of their former captivity to pagan ‘gods.’ As in 1 Cor 8:5 he writes of these
gods. In 4:9 he asks them how, now they are in relationship with God, they can turn back to the
stoicheia tou kosmou. Thus, turning to Jewish law for salvation and not just faith in Christ, is
effectively the same as turning back to paganism. Note here that Paul speaks of relationship with
God emphasizing the Godward dimension of this knowing i.e. ‘now that you have come to know
God, or rather to be known by God.’ For similar ideas see 1 Cor 13:12; Phil 3:12. Biblical ‘knowing’ of
course is a deep intimacy of relationship. So, now that they are in this wonderful depth of Abba –
child relationship, how can they turn back to captivity, enslavement?

In 4:9 he specifies one dimension of this enslavement, a concern (present tense) for a religious
calendar imposed by the Judaisers. ‘Days’ here are probably Sabbath days and perhaps the ‘day of
atonement’, which of course would cut across the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. The ‘month’s
could refer to new moon rituals (cf. Numb 10:10). Seasons would refer to the feasts of Judaism such
as Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles (cf. 2 Chron 8:13; Zech 8:19). The years could be the Year of
Jubilee, Sabbatical Year, New Year festivals. These are not problematic in and of themselves, unless
they are imposed legalistically, which no doubt they were here. Elsewhere, Paul takes a rather
flippant attitude to such rituals seeing them as of little value but allowing those who are concerned
for these things to do them as part of their devotion (cf. Rom 14:5; Col 2:16‐17, 20‐23).19 In v.11 Paul
sadly states his concern that his work among them has been in vain for they are turning away from
faith to law.

In v.12 Paul appeals to them in the imperative to ‘become as I am’ i.e. law‐free. This is another
example of Paul’s imitation appeal language (cf. 1 Cor 4:14‐16; 1 Cor 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess 1:6;
Eph 5:1‐2). ‘For I became like you’ shifts sense to Paul’s approach of cultural accommodation (1 Cor
9:19‐23); Paul, in bringing the gospel to them, became as a Gentile to win them i.e. he set aside his
cultural heritage and his adherence to the Law. They do not need to take on the Law as the Judaisers
are urging.

In v.12c‐16 Paul contrasts the way they treated him with the present problem. In v.12c, he
remembers them fondly; namely, that when he was with them they did him no wrong, theologically
or personally. In v.13 he recalls that he preached to them on account of a sickness (astheneia). This
is interesting in terms of Paul’s strategy. Perhaps he had not intended initially to go to these places
but stopped among the Galatians because of illness (see above). Scholars debate the illness with 3
main views: 1) Malaria (Ramsey): contracted in the swamps of Pamphyila, led to Mark’s
disillusionment, went inland to higher terrain (Psidian Antioch) rather than head west as planned;
recuperated and preached; 2) Epilepsy (Wrede): ‘you did not scorn’ in v.14 = ‘you did not spit out’
(ekptuō) related to the common idea that a demon caused epilepsy and could be exorcised through
spitting; 3) Ophthalmia (sight problems): see v.15 cf. 6:11 (‘such large letters’). The final view seems
best. However, all is speculation as is the thorn in the flesh. 20

In v.14 Paul notes how, though his problem was a great challenge to the Galatians, they did not
reject him, but received him as an angel (cf. the giving of the law), and as Messiah Jesus himself. In
v.15 Paul asks them what has become of this former attitude which was so supportive, even to the

19
See the comments of George, Galatians, 316‐317.
20
See Longenecker, Galatians, 323; Bruce, Galatians, 209.
425

Galations
point of being prepared to give him their eyes. In v.16 Paul contrasts this former friendship and
acceptance with their new‐found enmity to Paul for speaking the truth based on their acceptance of
the Judaisers deceit.

In v.17 he refers impersonally to the Judaisers ‘they.’ Paul uses the Greek zēloō three times (‘to be
zealous, jealous’). The Judaisers are zealous for the Galatians i.e. to win them over to their gospel of
Law i.e. as in Rom 10:2, a false Jewish zeal. They are trying to alienate the Galatians from Paul and
his law‐free colleagues so that (hina = purpose) the Galatians will be full of the same zeal, for them
and their ideas. In v.18 Paul states the zeal is a good thing at all times (‘always… not just when I am
with you’), but the purpose must be good; implied, the Judaisers zeal is false, don’t be caught in it.

In v19 he turns back to them calling them ‘my children’. ‘My’ emphasises that Paul is their father in
the faith (cf. 1 Cor 4:14‐16). He states how he is back where he was when he was with them as new
converts, ‘in the pains of childbirth.’ He is now concerned for their now precarious state, ‘until Christ
is formed in you.’ This indicates their very relationship with God is challenged and he is now, like a
mother in pregnancy or labour, longing for them to come to full maturity. Note that Paul’s use of
maternal imagery here (cf. 1 Cor 3:1‐2; 1 Thess 2:7‐8); he is mother to his children. In v20 he
concludes the section stating his longing to be with them, and change his mode of speaking which is
strong because he is at a loss, perplexed, anxious, full of consternation (aporeō).
A Final Analogy from the Law: Hagar and Sarah, symbols of a enslavement
and freedom (4:21‐31)
Paul in 4:21 turns back to the Law to make his final theological point. He asks another question
based on the Law challenging the Galatians: ‘if you desire to be under the law, do you not listen to
it?’ Critically, in v.22 they are mothers to Abraham’s sons. Hagar is a slave woman, Sarah a free
woman; Abraham’s wife. In v23 Paul explains that the son of Hagar (Ishmael) was born as a result of
natural processes of procreation (‘according to the flesh’). Whereas, Isaac was born of Sarah to fulfill
divine promise (see Gen 15:4‐6; 17:15‐21).

George notes that there is a set of antitheses here: 21

HAGAR SARAH
Ishmael, the son of slavery Isaac, the son of freedom
Birth “according to the flesh” Birth “through the promise”
Old Covenant New Covenant
Mount Sinai [Mount Zion]
Present Jerusalem Heavenly Jerusalem

In 4:24‐27 Paul interprets this allegorically (Gk: allēgoreō). Hagar represents the Sinai Covenant and
her children are slaves. She also corresponds to the present Jerusalem (vv.24‐25). Paul shifts in v.26
to contrast the earthly Jerusalem (so Sinai covenant, slavery) to the heavenly Jerusalem who is
mother to believers (‘our’). This idea of a heavenly or new Jerusalem is found in the OT and Jewish
apocalyptic writings (e.g. Ezek 40‐48). Thus, believers are children of heaven, the new creation
(cf.Phil 1:27; 3:20). ‘Our mother’ recalls 4 Ezra 10:7, where Zion is called ‘the mother of us all.’ 22

In 4:27 Paul quotes Is 54:1 from a section on the future glory of Zion which will be renewed never
again to be destroyed and enlarged to include the nations (cf. Is 54:3).

21
22
426


In v.28 Paul applies this to the Galatians telling them that they (‘you’) are, like Isaac, the children of
promise i.e. the promise of Abraham that all nations will be blessed through him and his seed
(Christ).

In v29, Paul draws another comparison. Just as Ishmael (‘he who was born according to the flesh)
persecuted Isaac (‘him who was born according to the Spirit’), so the Judaisers (and Jews) persecute
the true people of God. The notion of Ishmael persecuting Isaac is not really in the OT except
Ishamel mocking Isaac (Gen 21:9). It is however strong in the Rabbinic tradition (e.g. Tg. Os.‐J Gen
22:1). 23 The Judaisers are thus similarly, persecuting the true people of faith.

In v.30 Paul quotes Gen 21:10 which follows the reference to persecution, clearly intending that the
Galatians cast out of their midst the Judaisers. 1:31 summarises Paul’s point, believers in Christ are
children of Sarah and not Hagar. This appeal to the Law undercuts the Judaisers claim on the Law as
a means of salvation.
Paul Appeals Again to the Galatians; You are free, do not submit again to
enslavement to Law (5:1‐12)
In 5:1 Paul states his appeal: Christ has set believers free to stay free, so, persevere in that freedom
and refuse to submit again to a yoke of slavery.

In 5:2‐4 Paul warns them of the consequence of submission to circumcision. Acceptance of
circumcision as the Judaisers demand in effect means submitting oneself to the Law and all its
requirements; one is thus obligated to keep the whole law. In 5:4 this means the believer is
‘discharged, released’ (katargeō) from Christ 24 and fallen from the grace that saves. If so, then the
person who does so will be justified on the basis of law and not grace. The implication is clear, that
person will no longer be saved through Christ. As an aside, this surely indicates that a believer can
fall away, one of these ways of doing so is through becoming a Jew and submitting to the Mosaic
Law.

In 5:5 Paul hammers this home emphasising faith and Spirit. Believers through the personal internal
empowerment of the Spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of righteousness i.e. vindication before God
in Christ, and so, eternal life. In 5:6 Paul continues this on (gar – ‘for’); ‘in Christ Jesus,’ whether one
is circumcised is neither here nor there. All that matters is faith. Not only ‘faith’ but ‘faith operating
through love.’ Paul will pick this latter point up in detail in what is to come, love empowered by the
Spirit being the heart of Christian ethics, and NOT LAW!

In 5:7 using an athletic metaphor (cf. Gal 2:2; 1 Cor 9:24‐27; Phil 1:16; 3:12‐14 cf. Heb 12:1‐2), Paul
states that they were running so well. That being so, he asks who it is that hindered the Galatians
from continuing the race and not obeying the truth. Clearly the answer is the Judaisers. He carries it
on in v.8, certainly not Jesus (‘him who calls you’). Paul shifts from the athletic metaphor to the
metaphor from baking warning that ‘a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.’ This is
used in 1 Cor 5:9 concerning sexual immorality. Here it refers to false teaching. This is probably a
saying utilised by Paul concerning the maintaining of purity in the church. Here the issue is, remove
the Judaisers from the Galatian churches.

23
See Longenecker, Galatians, 217 who notes Tg. Ps.‐J. Gen 21:9–11; Tg. Onq. Gen 21:9; t Sota 6.6;
Pesiq. R. 48.2; Pirqe R. El. 30; Jos, Ant. 1.215; b. Sanh. 89b)
24
BDAG, 526.
427

Galations
In 5:10 Paul expresses his confidence that the Galatians will do as he has asked, and that the
Judaisers will be dealt with. 25

In 5:11 Paul states that he does not preach circumcision. ‘Still’ indicates that he once did, as a Jew.
However, now he does not. This probably answers a false charge from the Judaisers that Paul did
preach circumcision. Some think here they are using Paul’s circumcision of Timothy as evidence (cf.
Acts 16:1‐3). However, this is unlikely, that being a special case, Timothy being a Jew and Paul
wanting him to be acceptable in Jewish circles. Paul gives as evidence that he does not preach
circumcision that he is persecuted, by Jews cf. 2 Cor 11:24, 26; Acts 13:45, 50; 14:2, 5‐7, 19‐20). In
the final clause of 5:11 Paul states that if he preached circumcision, then the skandalon (offence) of
the cross is removed. This calls to mind 1 Cor 1:23 where Paul states that the cross of Christ is a
stumbling block to the Jews i.e. a crucified Messiah (cf. Gal 3:13; Deut 27:26).

In 5:12 Paul states strongly that he wishes that those who are preaching circumcision and falsely
accusing him of preaching circumcision would not just circumcise themselves, but emasculate
themselves. Alternatively, it can mean the softer notion of ‘cut themselves off’ i.e. from the
fellowship of the Galatians. 26
Live in Freedom, the Freedom of Love and the Fruit of the Spirit (5:13‐6:10)
In this section Paul turns to speak of how to live in the light of the freedom of Christ. This passage is
critical for helping us understand ethics in light of the gospel of grace and faith. Christians are
entirely free in Christ, free to live by the Spirit, in love, service and the fruit of the Spirit. Christian life
is one of complete submission to Christ’s Spirit and not adherence to external imposed law. This is
an important section, because although Paul states believers are free of the Law, they are not free to
sin, they are free to live by the Spirit in love and goodness. Hence, he is not advocating
licentiousness.

In 5:13 Paul restates that believers (‘you’) were called to freedom. However, this freedom is not
antinomian or a license for sin or vice (‘an opportunity for the flesh’). That is, once saved, believers
are not saved into ‘whatever feels good, do it.’ This is a misunderstanding of grace (cf. Rom 6:15f).
Rather, believers are through love to serve one another; Paul here picking up his earlier note ‘faith
operating through love [5:6]).

In 5:14 Paul states the second great commandment as a sum of the whole law; ‘love your neighbor
as yourself’ (Lev 19:18 cf. Mk 12:31 and pars; Rom 13:8‐10). This shows that Paul accepts a
continuity between Law and this command; the Law being good and holy. For him, the key is the
Spirit within the believer which empowers.

In 5:15 warns against internal fighting (‘if you bite and devour each other…’). This Greek construct
suggests that this is really happening in Galatia, and so Paul’s warning, while hyperbolic and
figurative, is real. The implication is that not only is there a Judaising threat in Galatia, but there is a
problem of libertinism and infighting.27

Paul’s response in 5:16‐26 is to renounce the flesh and its desires, and walk by the Spirit. That is, live
in submission to the inward ethical impulse of the Spirit of God. Paul here uses his characteristic
Spirit‐flesh antithesis (cf. Rom 8:5‐9; Gal 6:8). The flesh in this sense speaks of the fallen human
nature with distorted desire and lust. It stands opposed to the Spirit. These two principles oppose

25
See Longenecker, Galatians, 231 notes that this is a generic singular, whoever from the group it is.
26
See the discussion in Longenecker, Galatians, 234.
27
428

each other (5:17). In 5:18 Paul contrasts Spirit and law. Being led by the Spirit is not being under the
law. Thus he is proposing a different ethic to the rigid adherence to Jewish law; rather, it is a grace‐
filled submission to the internal work of the Spirit.

In 5:19‐24 Paul gives two lists; one a vice list indicating the sins of the flesh; the other a list of
attributes which mark the Spirit‐led person of God. The first list is a ‘vice list’ commonly used in the
Hellenistic world. The second list is a ‘virtue’ list which are found in Plato (427‐342 BC), 28 Aristotle
(384‐322BC), 29 Zeno founder of the Stoics (c. 308 BC) and a number of others. 30 They were also
common in the OT and Jewish writings 31 esp. the two‐way tradition; 32 and in the NT (e.g. Mk 7:21‐
22; Rom 1:29‐31; 1 Cor 6:9‐10; 2 Cor 12:20‐21; Col 3:5‐8 etc).

The vice list includes 15 negative attributes along with ‘and the like’ suggesting that more could be
added. They include: 1) 3 sexual terms: sexual immorality, sexual impurity, debauchery; 2) 2
Religious terms: idolatry; sorcery (using drugs/witchcraft/abortion); 3) 8 Relational Terms: Hatred,
discord, jealousy, rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factionalism, envy; 4) 2 Terms of Debauchery:
Drunkeness, orgies. In v21b Paul warns them as he has before (cf. 1 Thess 4:6), that those who
continually do (present continuous sense) these things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. That is,
they will not receive salvation cf. 1 Cor 6:10. These loveless activities are antithetical to the Kingdom
and one cannot claim to be a Christian and persist in them. If one does, one faces the wrath of God.

This list is contrasted with a virtue list, the fruit of the Spirit. Paul lists 9 attributes with love as the
head, it being the supreme attribute. Paul uses ‘fruit’ of ethical attributes commonly (e.g. Rom 6:22;
Eph 5:9; Phil 1:11; Col 1:10). They are not works, but ‘fruits’, virtues which grow imperceptibly in the
believer who submits to the urgings of the Spirit. It is possible that Paul groups them in three lists: 1)
Dispositions of the Mind: Love, joy, peace; 2) Relational Attributes: patience, kindness, goodness; 3)
Principles that Guide Conduct: faithfulness, gentleness, self‐control. 33 Paul adds, ‘against such things
there is no law.’ The same words are found in Aristotle (Pol. 3.13.1284A) and this saying may have
become proverbial. The point is, that these sum up the law and stand above the law; it also indicates
that Christian ethics is not legalism, but Spirit‐impelled relationality.

V.24 places alongside that believers have crucified the flesh with the passion and desires mentioned
above. This is a status statement, the aorist stating that they have been and are crucified in Christ.
As such, they live by the Spirit, and so should ‘conduct their lives by the Spirit’ (v.25).

6:1 continues this train of thought but moves to general instruction, Paul directly addressing the
Galatians. ‘Brothers’ indicates intimacy. Paul states that when one of them is caught in a sin (i.e.
commit a sin of the flesh [above]), those who are ‘spiritual’ (i.e. those who walk in the Spirit [above])

28
Longenecker, Galatians, 249 notes that Plato argued for four forms of virtue (Laws 12.963C), the ideal
society was ‘wise, brave, sober, and just’ (Republic 4.427E); the ideal citizen showed ‘sobriety, and bravery,
and loftiness of soul, and all the parts of virtue’ (Republic 7.536A).
29
See Longenecker, Galatians, 249‐250 e.g. in Rhetoric 1.6.1362b (LCL: 1.6.8); 1.9.1366b (LCL: 1.9.4ff.) he
speaks of happiness, justice, courage, self‐control, magnanimity, magnificence, liberality, gentleness, practical
and speculative wisdom. In Nicomachean Ethics he speaks of a middle way between extremes noting the
virtues of courage (andreia), temperance (sōphrosunē), liberality (eleutheristēs), magnificence (megaloprereia),
greatness of soul (megalopsuchia), gentleness (praotēs), and justice (dikaiosunē) (see 3.5.23–5.11.10).
30
See Longenecker, Galatians 250 for a list of references including Seneca (4 BC‐AD65), Cicero (106–43 BC),
Dio Chrysostom (AD 40–120), and Plutarch (AD 46–120).
31
See Longenecker, Galatians, 250‐251 for references. OT ones include Ps 15:1–5; Prov 6:16–19; 8:13–14; Jer
7:5–9; Ezek 18:5–17; Hos 4:1–2). Those writings influenced by Greek thinking in particular included these
Philo, Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Maccabees, Sibylline Oracles etc.
32
See Longenecker, Galatians, 251‐252 for detail e.g. 1QS 3.25–4.11.
33
See Lightfoot, Galatians, 212. Note however, that many modern scholars reject this.
429

Galations
should gently restore him. The Greek for restore here is katartizō used of mending nets (Mt 4:21)
and is restore to original condition. It is also used of setting a fractured bone in medical language. 34
They too should watch that they too are not tempted in the same way. In 6:2 Paul urges them to
bear each others’ burdens and so fulfill the Law (cf. 5:14, 24). ‘Burdens’ here is baros and means
literally a ‘heavy weight or stone’ and figuratively a terrible ordeal or hardship. Thus, it means to
help one another in times of extreme ordeal. 35 6:3 is an appeal for humility cf. Rom 12:3; Phil 2:3‐8.
In 6:4 Paul urges them to test their own work, not to compare with others i.e. self examination and
non competitiveness in ministry (cf. 1 Cor 3:10‐15; 2 Cor 13:5). In 6:5 Paul appeals to believers to
carry their own burdens. The Greek for burden here is different to v.2; here phortion which is used
of ‘a ship’s cargo (cf. Acts 27:10, a soldier’s day pack, a pilgrims backpack.’ 36 Thus, it means to bear
one’s own daily load. That is, believers should take care of their own needs, but at times, will step in
and support each other when the load is too great (v.2). 6:6 urges the Galatians to share their
material blessings with their teachers, not of course the Judaisers! This is a biblical principle cf. Lk
10:7; 1 Cor 9:1‐14; 1 Tim 5:19.

In v7‐9 Paul returns to the Spirit‐flesh antithesis, warning the Galatians using his familiar ‘do not be
deceived’ (1 Cor 3:18; 6:9 cf. Eph 5:6; 2 Thess 2:3). He warns them that God cannot be mocked. The
Greek muktērizō is from muktēr meaning ‘nostril, nose’ and suggests ‘turn up the nose at, treat with
contempt.’ 37 The sense is supplied by the following which is introduced by gap (‘for’); meaning that
a person will reap what they sow. This proverbial statement 38 suggests a reciprocity in life, God will
pay back to each according to what they do (cf. Rom 2:6). Thus God cannot be mocked. In v.8 Paul
develops this notion in terms of a correlation between sowing in this life and eternal destiny. Those
who live (sow) by the flesh (i.e. live by the vices of Gal 5:19‐21), will reap destruction. The Greek
phthora can mean ‘corruption’ (ESV), the destruction of a fetus (abortion) or ruination; here it
undoubtedly means eternal destruction. 39 On the other hand, those who live by the Spirit (sow = are
led by the Spirit, walk in the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit), will reap eternal life. To return to the Law is
to trust in the flesh and not the Spirit, hence there is here a warning to all believers and in particular,
those who wish to live under the law. It will end in destruction.

So, in light of this, in v9‐10 Paul urges the Galatians not to weary of doing good because they will be
rewarded if they persevere. ‘So then’, they should do good to all people, especially believers.
Final Warnings and Benediction
6:11 refers to Paul writing large letters with his own hand. The reference to his own hand suggests a
secretary. The reference to large letters perhaps indicates an eye problem (cf. 4:14‐14). However,
some suggest it emphasises what follows. 40 In 6:12 he returns directly to the main issue of the
letter, circumcision and law. He gives insight into his perception of the Judaisers. They wish to make
a good impression in the flesh, perhaps before other Jews; so that they are not persecuted for the
cross of Christ. In v.13 he states that they themselves do not keep the law. This refers to their ethical
failure, and perhaps that they fail to read the law correctly, for the Law reveals justification is by
faith. Paul suggests that they wish to see the Galatians circumcised so that they can boast in their

34
35
36
37
BDAG, 660.
38
See Longenecker, Galatians, 280 who notes that this sow‐reap notion was common in Greco‐Roman thinking
(e.g. Plato, Phaedr. 260C; Aristotle, Rhet. 3.3.4 [1406B]; Cicero, Orat. 2.65) and in, in the LXX (cf. Job 4:8; Ps
126:5; Prov 22:8; Hos 8:7; 10:12–13), in Jewish Greek writings of the Second Temple Period (e.g. Sir 7:3; T. Levi
13.6; 4 Ezra 4:28–30) and in the NT (cf. 1 Cor 9:11; 2 Cor 9:6; see also Luke 19:21–22; John 4:35–36).
39
BDAG, 1054.
40
So e.g. Lightfoot, Galatians, 221.
430

circumcision. Paul in v14 states that for him, there is only one thing to boast in, the cross of Christ
(cf. 1 Cor 1:29‐31; Phil 3:1‐13). For by the cross, the world was crucified to him and he to the world
i.e. set free from sin and enslavement to the corruption which has invaded the world through the
Fall.

V15 states again that circumcision is without meaning; but what matters is a new creation i.e. faith
in Christ seeing the believer recreated in Christ (cf. 2 Cor 5:17). In v17 he prays a blessing upon all
who do not put their trust in circumcision and law, but put their faith in Christ. ‘The Israel of God’ is a
unique phrase and is highly disputed. It can be historic Israel and this is possible (cf. Rom 9:1‐6; 10:1‐
2). The appeal for peace and mercy may make this a kind of prayer for the salvation of historic Israel
(cf. Rom 10:1). Another possibility is that it means all the Jews who will saved, i.e. ‘all Israel’ (Rom
11:26‐27). 41 The traditional view is that Paul means here the church, true spiritual Israel (e.g. Justin
Martyr, John Chrysostom). Another possibility is that Paul means the non‐judaising Jewish Christians
in Galatia. Alternatively, it is those of the new creation, those in Christ, who are truly Israel by faith.
George sees the Israel of God as ‘an eschatological reference to the whole people of God… including
both converted Gentiles… and completed Jews.’ 42 Longenecker sees this as a term Paul picks up off
his opponents and turns on them; inclusive of all legitimate children of Abraham, Jew and Gentile. 43

V17 is a final appeal for the Galatians to defend him before those who demean him; his suffering for
Christ indicating his commitment to the cause of Christ. V18 ends with a final benediction appealing
for the grace of Jesus to be with them. This is a prayer for blessing and perseverance in the grace
that saves.

• Why does Paul not include a thanksgiving or blessing in Galatians as in his other letters? Is
this justified?
• What are the implications of 1:6‐10 for today’s church? What heresies or distortions of the
gospel frequent the Christian scene today that concern you?
• What does it mean to you that Paul received his gospel by revelation? 1:12
• What did Paul do in Arabia do you think (1:17)
• Do you think that Gal 2 = Acts 11 or 15? Why? Why not?
• Was Paul right to take on Peter and others in Antioch, why, why not? Acts 2:11‐14
• Do you agree that 2:16 is the crunch text for understanding Galatians? What is its point?
• Who were the Judaisers and what did they believe?
• What does it meant be crucified with Christ and live on by faith in him (2:20)
• What does God attribute as evidence of faith in 3:1‐5?
• Why is Paul so hung up on believers being circumcised? What is the problem? (Read ch3)
• What is the function of the law in the light of the coming of Christ? (esp. 4:20‐25)
• What does it mean to believe in Christ?
• Does Gal 3:28 include matters like who leads in church e.g. women?
• If Paul only stopped in Galatia on his first missionary journey because of sickness, what does
this say for his missionary strategy? (4:17)
• Explain in your own words the Hagar and Sarah contrast of 4:21‐31?
• What does it mean to be free in Christ (read 5:1, 13‐14)
• In what ways has works theology crept into contemporary Christian life?

41
Bruce, Galatians, 275.
42
43
Longenecker, Galatians, 298‐299.
431

Galations
• In light of the circumcision debate, should Christians tithe?
• What does it mean to live by the Spirit/led by the Spirt/keep in step with the Spirit in
Galatians? How does that differ from ideas on this today?
• Look at the works of the flesh and fruit of the Spirit. What needs to change in your life? In
your church (5:19‐25)
• How do you reconcile 6:2 and 6:5?
• Who is the Israel of God in 6:16?
• What is the abiding truth of Galatians for you?

432

Chapter Twenty Three
EPHESIANS
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 434
Authorship and its Implications .......................................................................................................... 434
The Problem .................................................................................................................................... 434
Differences in theology ............................................................................................................... 434
Differences in language............................................................................................................... 435
Differences in style ...................................................................................................................... 435
Similarity to Colossians ............................................................................................................... 435
Response ......................................................................................................................................... 435
General factors ............................................................................................................................ 435
Specific Issues ............................................................................................................................. 436
Date, provenance ................................................................................................................................ 437
Destination .......................................................................................................................................... 438
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 438
The Ephesian Church in Context ......................................................................................................... 439
The City in Brief ............................................................................................................................... 439
Recipients: The Church in Ephesus and Asia ................................................................................... 440
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 442
The Flow of the Text ........................................................................................................................... 442
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 442
Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 443
Prescript (1:1‐3). ......................................................................................................................... 443
Blessing (1:3‐14). ......................................................................................................................... 443
Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:15‐23). ............................................................................................ 444
The Salvation of the Ephesians and Other Recipients (2:1‐10). ................................................. 445
A New Creation of God Involving both Jew and Gentile (2:11‐22). ............................................ 448
Paul’s Commission to Incorporate the Gentiles into this New People of God (3:1‐13). ............ 451
Paul’s Prayer for the Ephesians and others (3:13‐20). ............................................................... 452
Live Lives Worthy of Your Call in Unity (4:1‐6). ........................................................................... 453
Within this Unity there is Great Diversity through the En‐Gifting of God (4:7‐16). ................... 454
Living as God’s People not as Gentiles but as people who please God (4:17‐5:20). .................. 456
A Code for Christian Family Life (5:21‐6:9 cf. Col 3:18‐4:1; 1 Pet 2:17‐3:9) ............................... 465
Submit to One Another (5:21). ................................................................................................... 466
Living as soldiers of Christ and defeating evil (6:10‐17). ............................................................ 473
The Priority of Prayer. Paul Appeals for the Believers to Pray (Eph 6:18‐20) ............................. 475
Final words .................................................................................................................................. 475
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 476

433

Ephesians

Introduction
Ephesians is on the face of it, a wonderful letter with glorious insights into God’s cosmic plan, the
wonder of Jesus who is the cosmic ruler of the universe, salvation by grace and not works, the unity
of Jew and Gentile, Paul’s ministry, God’s love, unity, Christian living, the church and spiritual
warfare. However, in the last couple of hundred years the brilliance of Ephesians has been obscured
by discussions of authorship and the so‐called inconsistency of its theology with that of the so‐called
Paul of the undisputed letters. In this section we will briefly introduce the critical issues surrounding
Ephesians and then go through its content in brief. It is worth doing, because once past those issues,
Ephesians is an awesome letter full of the richest theological fare!

Authorship and its Implications
Since the mid‐19th century the Pauline authorship of Ephesians has been questioned by many NT
scholars. It is probably true that through 19th to the mid 20th century, non‐Pauline authorship of
Ephesians became the dominant view in NT scholarship. In recent years however, this dominance
has become eroded and now far more people take Paul’s authorship of Ephesians seriously.
The Problem
The reasons for some arguing against Pauline authorship are as follows:
Differences in theology
There are several key points of supposed theological difference to the undisputed Paulines.
1. Eschatology: In the undisputed Pauline’s Paul more often speaks of personal resurrection and
exaltation as a future event (e.g. Rom 6:5; Phil 3:21; 1 Thess 4:17), the believer having died with
Christ, lives in the present age to death, and then awaiting resurrection at the consummation. In
Ephesians however, Paul speaks of resurrection and exaltation as a present event (e.g. Eph 2:6).
This represents for some the writing a person other than Paul, but familiar with his thinking who
has developed Paul’s theology emphasising the realised dimensions of Paul’s theology.

2. Ecclesiology: In the undisputed Pauline’s there is a lack of the developed ecclesiology of
Ephesians. 1 In the undisputed Pauline’s for example it is the local church in a geographical
setting that is the predominant reference point for the gathered people of God (e.g. Rom 16:1,
4, 5, 16, 23; 1 Cor 1:2; 4:17; 14:19, 23, 26; 16:1, 19; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:1; Gal 1:2; Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 1:1;
Phm 2). However, in Ephesians the universal or heavenly cosmic gathered community with the
cosmic Christ at its head that is dominant (see Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 27, 29, 32). Some see
this as a development of Paul’s thought after his death as the church expanded across
geographical boundaries. It is thus seen as an ‘early catholic writing’ with orders of ministry (Eph
4:11) etc.

3. Christology: In the undisputed Pauline’s Paul’s Christology sees Jesus as one who died and rose
to save humanity and is now exalted to the right hand of God (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3, 5‐9, 20‐28). The
latter point is not developed and the emphasis is on the cross (e.g. 1 Cor 2:3‐5); Paul’s
Christology is cruciform. However in the Ephesians there is a move to emphasise the cosmic
Christ who is Lord of all, exalted to the heavenlies; the whole of the world being reconciled in
this cosmic glorious figure (Eph 1:20‐23; 4:12‐16).

1
By this I mean, a developed understanding of the nature of the church.
434

4. Demonology: Many note that Eph 6:10‐17 in particular expresses a strong view of Satan and his
opposition whereas in the undisputed Pauline’s the enemy is not so much Satan but the powers
of sin, law, flesh and death. Some see here a heightened demonology developed by a Pauline
student in line with apocalyptic speculation.

Differences in language
There are a number of terms and concepts that are not found in the undisputed Paulines. Some of
these include ajswtia = asōtia (wantonness [Eph 5:18]); politeia = politeia (citizenship,
commonwealth [Eph 2:12]). Similarly different expressions are used for some other more common
undisputed Pauline concepts. For example oiJ oujranoi = hoi ouranoi (‘the heavens’ [Eph 3:15;
4:10]) in Ephesians for ejn toi~ ejpouranioi~ = en tois epouraniois (‘in the heavens’)
Differences in style
Of particular note here is the length of the sentences in Ephesians which are much longer than in the
undisputed Paulines. For example 1:3‐14; 1:15‐23 and 3:1‐7 are all one sentence each. The English
versions break them up and obscure this issue.
Similarity to Colossians
The supposed closeness of Ephesians to Colossians has led some to argue both were written by the
same non‐Pauline writer and others to argue Ephesians is written by a non‐Pauline writer who
imitated Paul’s thinking in Colossians. There are certainly similarities in ecclesiology, in Christology
and in language to support this (e.g. the cosmic Christ [e.g. Col 1:15‐20]; the church as the heavenly
body of Christ [e.g. Col 1:18] etc; similar household codes [e.g. Col 3:18‐4:1]).

It is concluded by some then that Ephesians was not written but was written by a student of Paul
after his death. It is thus a pseudonymous work written akin to other pseudonymous works from the
time. As such, this does not necessarily threaten biblical inspiration or authority as pseudonymity did
not necessarily mean dishonesty. That is, the books as they stand are in the Scriptures and are seen
as inspired. Hence it is very Pauline in many respects, but it develops Paul’s thought. Some scholars
then limit their discussions of Paul’s thinking to the seven undisputed Pauline letters and ignore
Ephesians and Colossians or only refer to them to support their view of Paul. Some use Ephesians
and Colossians as indicative of how the churches thinking developed and how they used Paul.
Response
If we are being completely fair we have to admit that this is one explanation for the differences in
Ephesians. However strong arguments have been made that convince me that we do not have to
resort to this solution.
General factors
a. The Introduction: ‘Paul’ (Eph 1:1).
As noted above on Pauline authorship, on the whole the early church did not accept
pseudonymous works. They rejected some that are clearly pseudonymous such as ‘the
Gospel of Philip’ etc; many of these so‐called gospels originated not from the apostles in
question, but from the Gnostic movement. We know that Ephesians was attributed to
Paul by the mid‐2nd century when Marcion created his canon indicating that the Pauline
letters were put together before this time. Hence, to argue against Pauline authorship of
Ephesians (or any other Pauline letter) is to state that we know more about Pauline
authorship from 1900 years distance than those in the first century after his death.

435

Ephesians
b. The Biographical Details
Eph 3 in particular has details of Paul’s call to ministry and his role. If we accept
pseudonymity, then we have to assume that the author has created this account to
legitimise his work. This is less likely than Paul himself wrote this section. In addition,
there are many thematic links to Paul’s other letters in this section. For example: it
mentions Paul’s imprisonment for the Gospel (3:1 cf. Phil 1:7 ,13‐14); his experience of
grace (3:2 cf. 1 Cor 15:10); the gospel as a mystery revealed (3:4‐5 cf. 1 Cor 2:6‐10; Rom
16:25‐27); emphasis on unity of Jew and Gentile (3:6 cf. Rom 9‐11; 14‐15); emphasis on
Paul’s servanthood of the gospel (3:7 cf. Rom 1:1‐4; Phil 1:1); his commission to the
Gentiles (3:1, 8 cf. Rom 1:13‐14; 11:13); his sufferings (3:12 cf. Phil 1:28‐30). This great
degree of consistency suggests Pauline authorship.

c. The Use of Secretaries (Amanuensis)
We know that Paul was in prison at the point of writing Ephesians. We also know that
the use of secretaries was wide‐spread and that their responsibility varied. The
differences could be explained by the writer being given a little more freedom than in
the other letters. The stylistic similarities with Colossians could be explained by a
common amanuensis. This could be Tychicus who probably delivered both letters and
who is mentioned in both postscripts may have penned it on Paul’s behalf (cf. Eph 6:21;
Col 4:7). Thus, Ephesians may reflect something of the style of the secretary who was
given a different level of freedom to other Pauline epistles.

d. The Occasion of the letter
Paul’s letters were not theological presentations but responses to living situations. As
such, one would expect a certain degree of difference across each letter. The differences
between Ephesians and Romans are no greater than the differences between 1‐2
Corinthians; Galatians and Philippians and 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. The emphasis
on the church, demonology and other motifs can be explained because of contextual
requirements.
Specific Issues
1. The theological differences are overstated
The first thing to note is that, while there are differences, many standard Pauline theological
themes are found in Ephesians including: salvation by grace and not works through faith (Eph
2:8‐9 cf. Rom; Gal); salvation notions like adoption (Eph 1:5 cf. Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal 4:5);
redemption (Eph 1:7, 14; 4:30 cf. Rom 3:24; 8:23; 1 Cor 1:30; Gal 3:13, 14; 4:5); election and
predestination (esp. Eph 1:4, 5 cf. Rom 8:29, 30; 9:11‐22); the Spirit as a seal and deposit (Eph
1:14 cf. 2 Cor 1:21‐22), God’s love (Eph 1:4 cf. Rom 5:6, 8), grace (Eph 1:2, 6, 7; 2:6, 7, 8 cf. Rom
3:24); the church as temple (Eph 2:19‐22 cf. 1 Cor 3:10‐17); the biographical info (above);
powers of darkness inimical to God and his people (Eph 6:10‐17 cf. Rom 8:23; 16:20; 1 Cor
10:20‐21; 15:24; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18); the dominance of the flesh (Eph 2:3 cf. Rom
8:3‐13; Gal 5:13‐6:8); the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:11‐22 cf. Rom 1:16; 9‐11;
3:29); spiritual gifts (Eph 4:11 cf. 1 Cor 12:28‐30); exhortation for ethics (Eph 4:17‐5:20 cf. Rom
12‐14). Thus, the similarities between the theology of Ephesians and the so‐called ‘undisputed
Paulines’ are far greater than the differences.

While the theological differences that do exist can be seen as suggesting another author, equally
they could be read as natural developments of Paul’s thought. For example, Paul’s familiar ‘in
Christ’ thinking leads naturally to the idea that we have died with Christ and have risen with
Christ and are exalted with Christ. The idea of the local church and their connectedness leads
naturally to the idea of a cosmic, universal, heavenly community of all God’s people across all
436

locations. The idea of Christ as the exalted Lord of all creation emphasises the cosmic dimension
of exaltation. Similarly the references to the devil, demons and principalities and powers are not
in contradiction to other powers like law, sin, flesh and death, which are also mentioned (2:1‐3,
15). The emphasis on spiritual forces of darkness is logical considering the importance of magic
and the occult to the life of Asians in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19:11‐18). There is no contradiction of
thought, simply some shifts in emphasis.

Some like C.H. Dodd have proposed that Ephesians presents a development of Paul’s thinking
from earlier letters; the mature Paul late in ministry whose thinking has moved on. This is not a
view to be discarded too quickly and there is probably some truth in it. Against this idea
however, is that Ephesians is written about the same time as Philemon and just before
Philippians. These letters from the same period are theologically very similar to earlier Pauline
letters. What may account for the differences with Ephesians and Colossians is that this
development then is not so much a theological chronological development driven by
developments over time in Paul’s thinking, but a theological contextual development whereby
Paul’s thinking is developed in Ephesians and Colossians by the context he is writing to. This is
the hallmark of Paul’s writing across all his letters in fact. He crafts his letters against his
knowledge of the backdrop of his recipients. For example, Galatians is set against the Judaising
heresy; 1 Corinthians against the conflict and issues in Corinth; Philemon is set against the issue
of slavery; Philippians against the problem of the issue of disunity; Colossians against the heresy
etc.

2. The linguistic and stylistic differences are overstated
Researchers have explored the differences in language between Ephesians and other letters and
have found that the differences in language are no greater than between other undisputed
Paulines.2 As many have noted, Pauline expressions abound e.g. the common prescript (Eph 1:1‐
3); ‘in Christ’ (7x in Eph 1 alone), ‘the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13; Gal 3:14). An age‐old
question asked by H. Cadbury is worth re‐asking: ‘which is more likely – that an imitator of Paul
in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety‐five percent in accordance with Paul’s
style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five to ten per cent from usual style?’ 3 The
latter is most likely.

3. The Relationship to Colossians Can be Seen to Argue for Pauline Authorship
The argument from similarity to Colossians points surely to the same author rather than a
copyist of some sort. Again it is more likely that we have Paul at work in both. This argument
appears rather forced.

4. Conclusion
While it remains a possibility that Ephesians is not Pauline, it is less likely than it is genuine;
although, perhaps with a common amanuensis with Colossians.
Date, provenance
It is generally agreed that it cannot have been written later than AD96 as it is referred to in the letter
of Clement of Rome which is dated c. AD 96. Non‐Pauline proponents argue that Ephesians was
written in the period AD 70‐90 after Paul’s death. Those who accept Pauline authorship usually date
it in the early 60’s in Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome before his release and 5th missionary journey.
It is probably written during AD 60‐61 when Paul was in his own rented accommodation (Acts 28:30‐

2
See Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 308.
3
H. Cadbury, “The Dilemma of Ephesians,” NTS 5 (1958‐59): 101.
437

Ephesians
31) before his situation deteriorated and he faced possible death (cf. Phil 1:19‐24). It was probably
written around the same time as Philemon and Colossians and before Philippians and the Pastorals.
Destination
The letter itself appears to answer this question: ‘to the holy ones who are in Ephesus and are
faithful in Christ Jesus’ (Eph 1:1). On face value then, it is written to the Christians in Ephesus.

However there are several problems with this view. First, a number of important early witnesses
(ρ46‫*א‬ B* 424 c 1739) do not include ‘in Ephesus.’ Secondly, Marcion writing in the mid second
F
century stated that the letter was written not to the Ephesians, but ‘to the Laodiceans.’ This has led
some to conclude that the letter was a general letter which was sent not only to Ephesus, but to a
number of churches including Laodicea. Several features of the letter could support this idea. These
include the impersonal tone of the letter, the generalizing of the church in universal and heavenly
terms and Christ as the cosmic Lord of all. Furthermore, there are few greetings to individuals in
Ephesus which is surprising in that Paul had such a strong positive relationship with the Ephesus
church (cf. Acts 20).

It is supposed then that Ephesians is a general encyclical sent to a number of churches perhaps
delivered by Tychicus; see Eph 6:21‐22: ‘Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord,
will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am doing and what I am doing (implied: in
prison). I am sending to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may
encourage you (NIV).’ Some, including Goodspeed, considered that the letter was originally written
as an introduction to the whole Pauline Corpus. However, in no codex is Ephesians placed first,
which probably rules this out.

Other thinkers retain the view that the church in Ephesus is the destination for the letter for these
reasons:
1. Lack of evidence: There are no other manuscripts with ‘in Laodicea’; ‘in Thessalonica’ etc.
This raises the question of whether it was sent to other churches. It also raises a question as
to why there are some with ‘in Ephesus’; why would only one destination be named if it was
general?
2. Specific Interest in Spiritual Powers: The theology of spiritual warfare which emphasizes the
demonic accords with our knowledge of a great deal of interest in magic and the occult in
Ephesus (Eph 6:10‐18 cf. Acts 19:12‐20). The cosmic Christ too, could be partly due to a
desire to encourage Ephesians that Christ is above all (see esp. Eph 1:20‐23). However, the
letter may address these issues in the whole Asian region.
3. The ascription itself: The ascription ‘in Ephesus,’ in the vast majority of extant copies of the
letter indicates that many in the early church took it this way.
Conclusion
It is not hugely important whether or not Ephesians is a general letter, some of which were sent to
Ephesus; or a letter sent to Ephesus which was passed onto others i.e. this explains why ‘in Ephesus’
is dropped off. In a split decision, the traditional view is probably to be preferred i.e. that Ephesians
is Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church in about AD60 from prison in Rome. 4 However, the letter was
probably directed not only to the Ephesus church, but to the churches of Asia Minor (cf. 1 Cor 16:19;

c Or been made a heritage
4
For further detail see Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 305‐312.
438

Rev 1:4), 5 which had grown through the work of Paul and others during his two year period in
Ephesus (cf. Acts 19:10‐11). This accounts for ‘in Ephesus,’ Marcion’s belief that it was sent to
Laodicea and its general tone. However, it is fair to say, if the Pastoral’s are authentically Pauline and
written not long after Ephesians as is probable, it increases greatly the likelihood of Ephesians being
a general letter. This is due to the clear reference to false teachers in Ephesus in 1 Timothy and the
lack of any indication of such in Ephesians.
The Ephesian Church in Context
If the Ephesian church is the recipient of the letter then it is good to pause and consider the
Ephesian church as a background to the letter.
The City in Brief 6

The city of Ephesus lies near the nexus of the Aegean Sea and Cayster River. It can be dated back to
1400BC (cf. the time of Moses). It is also a hilly city with three distinctive small hills. Being on the
sea, the harbours of the town were critical for its life. According to Greek and Roman writers,
Ephesus was the largest and best resourced Asian town at the time. It lay on the key route across
Anatolia to the east and as such was a critical junction point for trade and merchants. It was also the
hub of the development of the Asia Minor. During the Greek period the town was greatly revitalised.
By the time of Augustus the city flourished until the mid 2nd century AD and was entitled ‘First and
Greatest Metropolis in Asia.’

There was a great deal of impressive architecture built including monuments celebrating Roman
leaders and warriors, a Roman Basilica, the temple of Roma and Julius Caesar, the temple of the
Flavians and the temple of Augustus. The city centre was Romanised to align with the ‘strategy of
incorporating the emperor into the public space.’ Evidence suggests that the imperial cult was
especially strong in Asia Minor where the Emperor was highly venerated. This made following Jesus
in this context highly dangerous!

Archaeological evidence also points to other temples including Artemis (cf. Acts 19:24‐35), the Greek
moon, hill and forest goddess, often portrayed as a virgin huntress; Hestia, the Greek goddess of the
hearth and chief goddess of domestic activity; Serapis, an Egyptian god who was both bull and god

5
John in Revelation mentions the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and
Laodicea.
6
Map from Nelson’s, Maps and Charts.
439

Ephesians
of the underworld; Zeus and the mother goddess. In addition they have found a theatre, a great
library of Celsus, gymnasia and baths.

The importance of religion to the city cannot be underestimated as indicated by the temples.
Artemis in particular was the guardian deity of the city. The cult was an internationally known
religious concept, was not based on sexuality and permeated all aspects of city life. The temple of
Artemis was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Study of inscriptions, coins, monuments
etc has also revealed the whole range of eastern gods were ‘alive’ and well in the life of pagan
Ephesians. In addition a range of heroes were venerated including Augustus, Alexander the Great,
Androclus (the Greek founder of Ephesus), Apollonius of Tyana a neo‐pythagorean preacher and
thaumaturgist (miracle worker) who it is said exorcised the city of a plague, Pixodarus Evangelus who
discovered the marble quarry which supplied the marble for the temple of Artemis and Publius
Servilius Isauricus, a first century BC Roman proconsul who was greatly admired in the city. This gives
an insight into the pantheistic mindset of first century people.

There was also a strong Jewish presence in Asia as Josephus and Luke record (Acts 19), although
scholars have been unable to gauge its size and role. No synagogue remains or other physical
evidence have been found.7
Recipients: The Church in Ephesus and Asia
The first reference to Asian Christianity is at Pentecost where Asian pilgrims witnessed the tongues‐
filled Christians and heard Peter’s sermon (Acts 2:9). It is possible then that Christianity found its way
to Asia very early indeed. There is also evidence of Asian Christians in the Diaspora Christian
synagogues of the early Christian church. It could be that some from this group formed the group of
disciples who met Paul when he arrived in Ephesus (Acts 19:1‐6).

Paul may have planned to evangelise Ephesus and Asia on his first missionary journey, but due to an
illness, ended up in Psidia where he established churches in the main centres (Gal 4:13). Again on his
second missionary journey he intended to evangelise Asia Minor, but was instead directed by God to
Macedonia (Acts 16:6‐9). At the end of that same journey en‐route to Antioch, he stopped over at
Ephesus with Prisca (or Priscilla) and Aquila. He engaged in evangelisation at the synagogue but only
for a short time, leaving for Caesarea, Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 18:19‐21). Whilst Paul was away
Aquila and Prisca continued the work. Apollos, a Jew from Alexandria, emerged on the scene
debating with the Jews in the synagogue. His understanding of the faith was limited, knowing only
the baptism of John. Aquila and Prisca took him home and further educated him in the faith (Acts
18:24‐28). He then moved onto Corinth to minister there (Acts 18:27‐19:1), returning to Ephesus (1
Cor 16:12).

After a period of time in Antioch, Paul left to join the team working in Ephesus, travelling through
the hinterlands. On arrival he found 12 others like Apollos who did not fully understand the faith,
limited in their knowledge to John’s baptism. He baptised them in water, they received the Holy
Spirit, and there began one of the most remarkable moves of God in the early church. Paul first
spent three months engaging in debate with Jews in the synagogue which ended with his usual
rupture with the Jews (cf. 20:19) and he established a base for daily instruction of both Jew and
Gentile for two years in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. During this time, an extensive period of
evangelization ensued (see also Acts 20:20‐21),8 presumably through the work of Paul and
particularly his disciples (Acts 19:8‐10). For example, the Colossian church was established by
Epaphras, a native of Colossae. He was probably converted and instructed ‘in the way’ by Paul in

7
For more details see the article on Ephesus in Anchor Bible Dictionary.
8
Including house to house evangelism and teaching; proclamation to both Jew and Gentile.
440

Ephesus, and as one of the disciples in the lecture hall, travelled to his home town to establish the
church there (cf. Col 1:7; 4:12; Phm 23). He may have evangelised other places like Laodicea. There
may also have been missions to the Seven Churches of Revelation (Ephesus, Laodicea, Smyrna,
Philadelphia, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis) and the Churches mentioned in 1 Peter 1:1 in the wider
areas of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. This period of expansion of the faith in
Ephesus included conversion, remarkable healings and exorcisms (with handkerchiefs, aprons! [Acts
19:12]), Jewish exorcists invoking the name of Jesus (Acts 19:13‐17), converts destroying their pagan
occult and magic literature (Acts 19:18‐20).

This inevitably led to a clash with the locals whose idol business was threatened by the number of
people who came to Christ and renounced idolatry, especially from the popular cult of Artemis.
Demetrius and others from the silversmith ekklēsia stirred up a riot in response to the downturn in
their trade as people no longer wanted to purchase idols (Acts 19:23‐41 cf. 1 Cor 15:32; 2 Cor 1:8; 2
Tim 1:18). This indicates that the spread of the faith impacted the social and economic context in
Ephesus to a significant extent. By the time of Paul’s departure (Acts 20:1; 1 Cor 16:8), the church in
Ephesus was well established. Paul’s next contact was en‐route to Jerusalem with the Jerusalem
Collection at the end of Missionary Journey Three. He met the elders of the Ephesian church in
Miletus and encouraged them (20:17‐38). Paul’s warning of false teachers who will ravage the flock
(Acts 20:29) anticipated the problem encountered by Timothy in 1‐2 Timothy (1 Tim 1:3). Paul’s
problems with the Jews of Ephesus continued in Jerusalem, some Jewish pilgrims from Ephesus
recognizing Paul and Trophimus, an Ephesian Gentile convert in the region of the temple, and so
stirring up accusations against Paul (Acts 21:29; 24:19).

We have a certain degree of knowledge of people in the Ephesus church. Apart from Prisca and
Aquila who continued to move between Rome and Ephesus and may have resided in Ephesus at the
time of Paul’s death (2 Tim 4:19 cf. Rom 16:3‐5),9 those named appear to be all Gentile indicating
that despite his best efforts in the synagogue, it was among the Gentiles of Asia that Paul’s ministry
was most successful. This is confirmed by the specific references in the letter to the Gentile nature of
the recipients before their conversion (cf. Eph 2:1‐11; 4:17). This is also confirmed by the
comparative lack of OT references (although allusions are numerous).

These people include Epaenatus (‘praiseworthy), the first Gentile convert in Asia (Rom 16:5),
Trophimus (‘nutritious’) (Acts 20:4; 21:29; 2 Tim 4:20 [sick in Miletus at the time of writing 2
Timothy]), Phygelus (‘the fugitive’) and Hermogenes (‘lucky born’ or ‘born of Mercury’), who
deserted Paul in Asia at some earlier point (2 Tim 1:15), Tychicus (‘fateful’) one of Paul’s most
trusted colleagues (Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12). 10 Trophimus and Tychicus were
part of the Jerusalem Collection delegation that travelled with Paul to Jerusalem. Tychicus appears
to have stayed with Paul until Rome and may have delivered the letters of Ephesians and Colossians
from Rome (Eph 6:17; Col 4:12). In the Pastorals we also read of others including Hymenaeus
(‘belonging to marriage’) and Alexander (‘man defender’) (1 Tim 1:20 cf. 2 Tim 2:17) who were false
teachers that Paul excommunicated from the church in Ephesus. Alexander is also singled out in 2
Tim 4:14‐15 as one who caused Paul great harm during the crisis and appears to be still and active
threat to the Ephesians. He also mentions the family of Onesiphorus (‘bringing profit’), who was one
of Paul’s regular supporters who also brought him refreshment whilst in Roman prison (2 Tim 1:16‐
18; 4:19). Another false teacher is Philetus (‘beloved’) (2 Tim 2:17). He also mentions others who are
probably native to Ephesus including Erastus (‘beloved’) (2 Tim 4:20) and possibly Eubulus
(‘prudent’), Pudens (‘modest’), Linus (‘a net’), a woman Claudia (‘lame’) and others unspecified (2
Tim 4:21).

9
They may simply have been in Ephesus for a short period of time.
10
Described in Col 4:7 as ‘a beloved brother, a faithful minister, and a fellow servant in the Lord.’

441

Ephesians

In 1‐2 Timothy towards the end of Paul’s life and not long after the writing of Ephesians, we read of
a serious problem of false teachers including women (1 Tim 2:9‐15; 5:12‐15) in Ephesus who were
distorting the faith, concerned for myths, genealogies, false understandings of the law, malicious
talk, debate (1 Tim 1:3‐11 cf. 1 Tim 4:7; 6:3‐5; 2 Tim 2:23‐26), have seared consciences, forbid
marriage, enforce food laws (1 Tim 4:3‐5) and concern for material gain (1 Tim 6:5‐10, 17‐19 cf. 2
Tim 3:1‐9).

In Revelation, some thirty years after Paul’s death, John gives more insight into the churches of Asia
including Ephesus after Paul’s death. He mentions the faithfulness and perseverance of the Ephesus
church, but criticized their loss of passion (2:3‐7); the suffering of the church in Smyrna at the hands
of Jews (2:9‐10), the faithfulness and endurance of the church in Pergamum, but their enticement
from Jewish false teachers and the Nicolatians; the good works of the church in Thyatira, but their
sexual immorality and idolatry (2:18‐24); apart from a few, the lack of life in the church in Sardis
(3:2‐4); the good deeds and faithfulness of the church in Philadelphia (3:8‐10); the flaccid faith of
the church in Laodicea . These combine to paint a picture of a church which is struggling to remain
passionate for the faith under tremendous threat from false teachers; in particular, Jewish heretics.
Purpose
Some look for specific issues based on the content of the letter including relationships between Jew
and Gentile (cf. 2:11‐22); general instruction of Gentile converts; an attempt to lay out the great
truths of Christianity. Those who date it later see it as an attempt to further the ecclesiastical
interests of early Catholicism.

In light of the unlikelihood of a later date, it is probably better to take the letter as a general pastoral
letter seeking to encourage and teach the Ephesian and Asian Christians some of the basics of the
faith generally relevant across the Asian context and generally. Hence, the purpose of Ephesians
appears to be pastoral and didactic. It broaches a series of general concerns reminding the
Ephesians of their status in God; their salvation; the role and place of the church the glory of Christ;
the unity of Jew and Gentile; Paul’s own commission; the importance of love; unity; spiritual gifts;
Christian living; family; marriage and social relationships; overcoming spiritual forces of darkness and
prayer. As such it is highly relevant as a summary of Pauline theology for the contemporary church.
Of all the letters of Paul, it is the letter least concerned for specific issues and which speaks generally
of God and Christian life.
The Flow of the Text
Summary
1. Prescript (1:1‐3).
2. Blessing (1:3‐14).
3. Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:15‐23).
4. The salvation of the Ephesians and other recipients (2:1—10).
5. A new people of God involving both Jew and Gentile (2:11‐22).
6. Paul’s commission to incorporate the Gentiles into this new pople of God (3:1‐13).
7. Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians and others (3:14‐21).
8. Live lives worthy of your call in unity (4:1‐6).
9. Within this unity there is great diversity through the engifting of God (4:7‐16).
10. Living as God’s people not as Gentiles but as people who please God (4:17‐5:20).
11. A code for Christian family/social living (5:21‐6:9 cf. Col 3:18‐4:1).
a. Marriage (5:21‐33) i.e. wives submit to your husbands; husbands love your wives.
442

b. Children and Parents (6:1‐4) i.e. children obey your parents; fathers do not anger
your children but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of Christ.
c. Slaves and Masters (6:5‐9) i.e. slaves obey your masters as if obeying the Lord;
masters treat your slaves kindly and serve them!
12. Live as soldiers of Christ and resist the forces of evil (6:10‐17).
13. Final words: Tychicus is coming (6:18‐22).
14. Final greetings (6:23‐24).

Analysis.
Prescript (1:1‐3).
The letters starts with reasonably standard Pauline greeting including:
1. Statement of author: Including ‘Paul’s name and that he is an apostle of Christ Jesus by the
will of God’.
2. Statement of recipients: ‘To the holy ones (‘saints’) in Ephesus who are faithful in Christ
Jesus.’ It is thus written to existing Christians in Ephesus and wider Asia (see above).
3. Greeting: ‘Grace to you and peace (shalom) from God… Christ.’
Blessing (1:3‐14).
In Ephesians Paul gives an elongated beautiful blessing, which is Jewish in form, to God for the
wonders of salvation. In Greek it is one long sentence and is loaded with rich theology expressing the
marvels of Christian salvation. It includes first, a statement of praise of God and Christ for the
blessings of salvation (‘every spiritual blessing’) in the present i.e. because the believer has received
the Spirit (1:3). In 1:4‐8 Paul develops this with a long developed statement of the blessings
bestowed upon believers (‘us’) ‘in Christ.’ These blessings are in the ‘heavenly places’ not as stored
there, but received from heaven in the present because of the one who came from the heavens.
These include: 1) Pre‐creation election to holiness because of God’s love (1:4). This emphasises
God’s sovereignty over creation and history. ‘Holy and Blameless’ indicates status, chosen to be set
apart for God and pure in Christ because of his work. This will be completed at the eschaton; 2)
Predestined God‐willed adoption of God’s children (1:5). This can go in the direction of personal
individual predestination or a corporate predestination. Either way, it does not rule out human
volition in salvation. Adoption indicates incorporation into the family of God. Thus, believers are
predestined to be part of God’s family. This is according to God’s purpose, to bring all of creation
together in Christ and so in God, restoring the original intention of God in creation; 3) Grace
bestowed in Christ (1:6), is full of riches i.e. salvation blessings (1:7), and is granted by God lavishly
(1:8). For this glorious free mercy and love, God is to praised. Christ here is termed ‘the beloved,’ a
lovely term of affection showing that God loves his Son; 4) Redemption through the death of Christ
in Christ (1:7). That is, believers are purchased out of slavery by the death of Christ and in Christ are
thus saved. 5) Forgiveness of sin (1:7). Paul does not mention this often elsewhere. The sins of
believers are dealt with at the cross.

In 1:8b‐10 the sentence continues shifting from the blessings bestowed on believers by Christ to the
purpose and plan of God in redemption. This glorious lavish grace was granted in God wisdom and
perception. It includes the revelation of God’s will which is expressed in Christ (1:9). This is to see all
of creation included in Christ at the fullness of time (1:10). 1:10 is one of the clearest expressions of
God’s purposes for humanity and God’s world, to bring all of creation together in Christ, under his
lordship.

In 1:11‐12 Paul turns back to believers (‘we’) inclusive of his recipients. He speaks of their status and
blessing in this overall purpose of God in Christ. They have in Christ obtained an inheritance. This
443

Ephesians
inheritance is eternal life and the creation itself cf. Gen 1:28; Ps 8:6. Believers have been chosen by
the predestination of God (see above) according to God’s purposes and plan for his world. Again,
this can be corporate and general, or specific and individual. The response of faith is required cf. Eph
2:8‐9. The purpose for this in v12 (hina = ‘so that’) is that the believers of Asia and Paul himself who
are the ‘first’ generation of the fulfilment of God’s purpose in v10, will live to demonstrate by their
unified Christian lives and worship, praise and glory of this wonderful God.

In 1:13‐14 Paul continues this glorious sentence by reminding them of the moment of their
salvation. They became ‘in Christ’ when they heard the word of truth i.e. the gospel proclaimed.
They not only heard it, but believed it (‘in him’). At this reception, they were then sealed with the
Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing their future inheritance and ultimate redemption (cf. 2 Cor 1:21‐22).
We have here Paul’s theology of the receipt of the Spirit at the point of faith.

This section is of great comfort to believers, richly explaining the depth of the blessings we have in
Christ and God’s purposes in Christ.
Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:15‐23).
It is unusual for Paul to place a thanksgiving after a blessing in this way; in most letters he has either
a blessing (2 Cor) or a thanksgiving (all others except Ephesians and Galatians). Because of the
blessings of God and the acceptance of Christ by Paul’s recipients (‘for this reason’), Paul prays for
them expressing his thanksgiving. He thanks God first for their faith in Jesus as Lord. ‘Lord’ implies
his supremacy, a feature of Jesus as cosmic Christ. He is over all demonic and political forces
including the gods and magic powers the Ephesians are into, and Caesar; remembering that the
Emperor Cult was strongest in Asia Minor. He thanks God for their ‘love for all the saints’ indicating
that these Christians have responded to God with generosity (e.g. Philemon from Colossae; see Phm
2, 7, 20‐21). In v.16 Paul speaks of his ceaseless prayer, a feature of many of his thanksgivings and
intercessions. This could reflect continuity with his Jewish prayer practice of praying 3 times a day,
dawn, 3pm, 6m. In v.17 he gives content to his prayer. He prays that (hina = content of the prayer)
God, who is defined as ‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and ‘the Father of Glory,’ will grant to his
readers ‘a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him.’ That is, not just a human
Spirit as some scholars believe, but from the Spirit who is already in them (1:14), God will deepen
their spiritual insight, wisdom and knowledge. This is interesting, because here is a prayer for a fresh
experience of the Spirit to those who have received it (cf. Eph 5:18).

In v18 the thought goes on with Paul praying that the ‘eyes of your hearts be enlightened.’ This is
not literal and is another expression of internal spiritual insight. See a similar prayer in 1QS 2.3, ‘May
He lighten your heart with life‐giving wisdom and grant you eternal knowledge!’ (cf. also 1 QS 11.3–
6). 11 The purpose; first, that they may have a deeper understanding of the hope for which they have
been called. That is, the riches of the blessings he has just outlined for present earthly and future
eternal life. Secondly, that they may know what are the riches of their inheritance in Christ. Note
how ‘riches’ recurs through Ephesians (1:7 ‘riches of God’s grace; 1:18 ‘the riches of his glorious
inheritance in the saints; 2:7 ‘the incomparable riches of his grace’; 3:8: ‘the unsearchable riches of
Christ’; 3:16 ‘his glorious riches’). ‘In the saints’ can mean God’s inheritance of people; however, it is
equally likely to refer to the eternal blessings believers have in Christ. Again, this has future and
present dimensions.

V.19 continues his prayer. He prays that the believers will know God’s power for them as believers
(‘for us who believe’). He defines his power as ‘unsurpassable greatness’ (huperballon megathos)

11
Andrew T. Lincoln, vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word,
Incorporated, 2002), 58.
444

seen in the working of ‘his might (kratos) and strength (ischuos).’ The laying up of these terms
emphasises the greatness of God’s power. The one who creates, predestines, redeems, brings all
things together in Christ, is gloriously mighty and his power is at work for and in believers!

Some see v20‐23 as separate to the prayer, but there is no indication of a halt in the prayer. Paul
continues on the thought of God’s power. This power worked in Christ’s resurrection and exaltation
(v.20).

In v.21 Paul states that this exaltation is above all authorities. In Ephesians these are demon forces
as is clear from 6:12. However, many scholars believe there is a double meaning here in that Paul
uses these terms of both demonic and human authorities cf. archē (demons: Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24;
Eph 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15; Human Authorities: Tit 3:1), exousias (demons: 1 Cor 15:24; Eph
2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:13, 16; 2:10, 15; Human authorities: Rom 13:1, 2, 3; Tit 3:1); Dunameōs used in
this way only here; kuriotētos is used here and in Col 1:16. This is possible, the cosmic Christ above
all powers, spiritual and human. Whatever, ‘every name that is named, not only in this age, but also
in the one to come’ is inclusive of Caesar along with every god, demon or human authority. The
point is, that Christ is supreme.

In v.22 Paul cites Ps 8:6 of Christ, he fulfilling this Psalm, Jesus the supreme head of all that exists.
This includes his church. Paul states this rather unusually, ‘head over all things for the church.’
‘Head’ (kephale) is used in the LXX it often translates the Heb. rōš of a ‘ruler’ or ‘leader’ (e.g. Deut
28:13; Jud 10:18; 11:11; 2 Sam 22:44; Is 7:8, 9). It here definitely implies authority over all of
creation (cf. Col 2:10), a great comfort for the Asians under Caesar and where superstition and magic
caused great fear. Note here that Paul does not here actually say that Christ is head of the church (as
he does in Col 1:18 and later in 4:15; 5:23), but is head over all things for the church. ‘For the church’
is dative, and can be ‘to the church’ or ‘for the church’ and Paul’s sense is not completely clear.
Probably, it states that he reigns on behalf of God’s people for their blessing and benefit. Of course,
the later references 4:15; 5:23 state that Christ is head over the church as part of ‘all things.’ Church
here can be the church universal throughout the world or the heavenly gathering around Christ i.e.
the heavenly church, in which believers participate. Both may be in mind. ‘To the church’ can be ‘for
the church’ i.e. he is head over all things for the church i.e. he reigns on behalf of the church.

In v23 his church is his ‘body, the fullness of him, who fills everything in everyway.’ This is the notion
of the church universal and heavenly rather than the local. The second part of the verse is hugely
debated.12 O’Brien suggests that it implies the church is his body and not the cosmos and that Christ
is ‘head over all things for the benefit of his people.’ The church is Christ’s fullness, Christ fills the
universe but only his church as his body with gifts and graces. The church has pride of place in God’s
purposes but not with grounds for boasting. 13
The Salvation of the Ephesians and Other Recipients (2:1‐10).
The Plight of the Lost
Here Paul, having spoken of the church, the body of Christ, Paul reminds the recipients of their
salvation in strongly realised terms. He loads together a rich array of metaphors and concepts that
describe their former lives of sin and their new life in Christ. The emphasis lies on God’s mercy; grace
and a renunciation of any concept of works or pride at ones own salvation. The shift comes at 2:4
with the powerful ‘but God!’ The overriding concept is: ‘it is by grace that we have been saved.’ Note

12
If you are interested read P.T. O’Brien, Ephesians, 149‐152 who outlines the questions nicely.
13
O’Brien, Ephesians, 152.
445

Ephesians
salvation is predominately past tense; ‘have been saved’ in line with the realised eschatology of the
letter.

In 2:1‐3 Paul speaks of their former lives as Gentiles (‘among them’ cf. 2:11) before their conversion
(see also 4:17). This indicates that the majority of the recipients are Gentiles (‘in which you once
lived’). Note how Paul loads up the full range of the forces inimical to God and life in Christ here. He
catalogues the reality of the life of the lost.

First, unbelievers are ‘dead in sin’ (2:1). This is classic Paul, sin leads to death and all are held captive;
physically alive, but spiritually dead (cf. Rom 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor 15:56; Col 2:13).

Second, unbelievers ‘walked in the ages of this world’ (2:2). The NIV ‘ways of this world’ loses the
eschatological force here; they lived in the aeon of futility, sin, death which characterised
unbelieving Gentile life. ‘World’ here is the corporate power of sinful humanity and forces garnished
in a system of life.

Third,’ the ruler of the dominion of the air’ (2:3) i.e. Satan. ‘The dominion of the air’ is the heavenly
realms whereby the lower reaches of that realm affect earth (cf. Eph 6:12).14 While Paul does
emphasise the power of sin, Satan is the ultimate force working to destroy humanity and enslave
them to sin, death and destruction (cf. Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; Eph 4:27;
6:11, 16; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 3:3; 1 Tim 1:20; 3:6, 7; 5:15; 2 Tim 2:26).

Fourth, ‘we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the
mind’ (ESV). Here Paul brings himself and the Jews into the discussion along with the Gentiles (‘we’).
Elsewhere Paul speaks of himself as living by the impulses of the flesh despite the law (cf. Rom 7:5,
14, 18, 25). This is humanities fallen corrupt nature, which rules life and which stands opposed to
God and the way of the Spirit (cf. Rom 8:4‐17).

Fifth, destined for wrath; lit ‘children of wrath.’ ‘Wrath’ here is orgē which speaks of the ‘wrath, fury,
punishment’ of God 15 (see Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4, 5; 5:6; Col 3:6; 1 Thess
1:10; 2:16; 5:9 cf. Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; 1 Tim 2:8). That is, eternal destruction and judgement. For Paul,
all humanity, due to sin and corruption of the flesh, will suffer the fate of eternal destruction unless
saved.
God’s Glorious Salvation
V4‐10 speak of the marvellous salvation of God for the Ephesians and any other readers. The
emphasis is the mercy, grace and sovereignty of God.

V.4 begins with de which here is the adversative ‘but’ rather than the consecutive ‘and’. This
emphasises the shift from the plight of the lost to the glories of salvation. The verse begins with, and
so emphasises God’s gracious character: ‘rich in mercy’, ‘his great love with which he loved us.’ The
heart of the gospel is relationship, God’s yearning to save his people into a relationship of love.
Mercy is eleos, meaning to ‘show kindness or concern for someone in serious need.’ 16 The idea of
God’s love, mercy and kindness for humanity, while not found frequently in Paul (e.g. Rom 2:4; 5:5,
8; 11:22; Rom 12:1; Eph 1:4; Phil 2:1; Tit 3:4, 5), undergirds his theology of salvation. The Missio Dei
is motivated by his love. The past tense of ‘loved us’ refers specifically to Christ, but covers all that
God has done in creation and history for humanity.

14
15
Swanson, Lexicon, GGK, 3973.
16
Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 1:750.
446


In v.5 Paul further emphasizes this love; God loves despite humanities sin i.e. ‘even when we were
dead in our trespasses’ (cf. v.1). V.5b states the reversal that comes through the Christ; once dead,
now alive in Christ. ‘Made us alive’ is one Greek word (‘suzōopoieō). The su prefix indicates
sun meaning ‘with’ and through this passage we have a recurrence of compound words indicating
‘with Christ’. Here is aorist tense indicating that it relates the moment of salvation whereby at the
point of faith, the Asian believers were instantly made alive. This is realized eschatology, spiritually
alive with eternal life. It is ‘in Christ’ i.e. not on the basis of any merit or human goodness, but in
Christ’s death and resurrection. There is a subtle difference from other letters where Paul speaks of
resurrection and salvation as a future event (e.g. Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:22, 35‐52; 2 Cor 4:14; 1
Thess 4:15). However, this is a natural development of Paul’s thinking where, while bodily
resurrection and complete restoration is future, spiritual resurrection (both as a status and as a
process), is a present reality (see e.g. Rom 6:11, 22‐23; 8:2; 2 Cor 4:10‐12). V.5b states ‘it is by grace
you have been saved.’ This is repeated in v.8 and sums up what Paul is saying. Grace of course is
God’s favour and beneficence toward humanity and reiterates v.4. ‘Have been’ again is realized
eschatology; our status as believers is SAVED (cf. Rom 8:24; 1 Cor 1:21; 15:2; Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 1:9;
Tit 3:5)! Yet we are being saved (1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15; Phil 2:12) and will be saved (Rom 5:9, 10;
10:9, 13; 11:26; 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5; Phil 1:28; 1 Thess 5:8‐9) (the three tenses of salvation in Paul,
past, present and future). Here it is a past event we live in, a realm of eternal security.

V.6 carries on the notion of realized eschatology and the glorious status of the believer. God has
raised believers (‘us’) up with Christ (compound sun + egeirō); i.e. present spiritual resurrection in
and with Christ. He has ‘seated us with him (compound sun + kathizō) in the heavenly places.’ This is
the language of present status, believers are brothers and co‐heirs with and in Christ. ‘In Christ’
ensures believers do not consider this to lead to their divinization as if we are now divine; rather, it is
‘in Christ’ we are granted this status. However, it speaks of the glory of salvation, saved to be seated
at the right hand of God. This is a tremendous honour and privilege. And it is now!

V.7 is a hina purpose clause: God’s purpose is that in the ages to come he might pour out the
immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness on believers. This is glorious stuff. The whole purpose
of God is to bless those who accept his free offer of merciful salvation. This will include an
inheritance of the new heavens and earth, to enjoy his presence, to experience his creativity
unbounded by the limitations of our corruptible present existence. Note again the use of ‘in Christ’
language, all this is ‘in Christ’, not through our own glory or achievements.

V8‐9 is the quintessential statement of Paul’s salvation theology. ‘For it is by grace’ indicates that
salvation is the gift of God only, because of his love and mercy (v4‐5). ‘Have been saved’ is a status
spiritual statement, past experience, present reality. ‘Through faith’ speaks of the human response
to this salvation, the first reference to human response in this section after 3 verses emphasizing
God’s action. Note it is ‘by grace’ and ‘through faith’; it is the grace of God that saves not the faith,
the faith places one in the sphere and position of salvation, but we do not save ourselves. ‘Faith’ is
not any act as the next verse will make clear, it is an acceptance of the grace and salvation of God.
‘Faith’ is pistis and is feminine in gender. ‘And this not from yourself, the gift of God’ reiterates that
it is God’s work and his work alone that saves. Note ‘this’ is touto which is neuter in gender so Greek
101 tells us that ‘this’ here does not refer to faith and so ‘faith’ is not the gift in the text. This is vital
to avoid hyper‐Calvinism which argues that even faith itself is a gift. Other verses used to argue this
are 1 Cor 12:9 and Phil 1:29. However in 1 Cor 12:9, faith is most likely not salvation faith, but the
specific extraordinary gift of faith some believers have (cf. 1 Cor 13:2). In Phil 1:29 the suffering has
human causation from opponents, so that it is a gift does not preclude human involvement; so it is
with the faith (cf. 1:28‐30). The gift here then is the salvation, which from 2:4‐9 is the work of God
through Christ.
447

Ephesians

2:9 further emphasizes the point of God’s sovereignty, ‘not by works, so that no one may boast.’ This
enforces that salvation is not through any work, but through grace and by faith. In Paul as in the
whole NT, humanity is judged on the basis of works (e.g. Rom 2:6; 1 Cor 3:10‐15), but is not saved
through them i.e. all fail on the basis of works or law (e.g. Rom 3:19‐20; 8:3; Gal 2:16; 2 Cor 5:10) but
are saved by Christ’s complete work (Rom 3:21‐26, 28; 4:2; 8:2; Gal 2:16). Note here to Gentiles not
prone to Judaisers Paul does not mention ‘law’ but broadens law out to works to emphasise that
there are no works, whether the law or anything else that saves. ‘So that no one may boast’ picks up
a classic Pauline notion of glorying or boasting over self achievement. ‘Boasting’ was an art form in
the Greco‐Roman world, and so Paul emphasizes this point, reluctantly boasting in 2 Cor 10‐12 (cf.
Rom 5:3), but only of his sufferings! For Paul, there is only one basis for boasting, Christ and his work
(cf. Rom 5:2, 11; 1 Cor 1:29‐31; 3:21; 4:7; 2 Cor 10:17; Gal 6:14; Phil 3:3).

2:10 speaks of this saved by grace humanity as a new creation. Believers in Christ are the ‘work of
God’ (poiema; cf. Rom 1:21). They are ‘created in Christ Jesus.’ The notion of a new humanity is
found also in Eph 2:15, God’s purpose to create in himself one new man out of reconciled Jew and
Gentile. In Eph 4:24 each person is a new creation, created to reflect God’s character (Eph 4:24 cf.
Col 3:10). This is another status statement, this time created through the work of Christ and the
power of the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). ‘For good works’ gives the reason God has recreated
believers. This is important as it rules out a libertine Christianity, as if we are saved by grace and can
now live as we please. As Eph 4‐6 will demonstrate, the Christian life is one of good works, reflecting
God’s character. Through these good works the kingdom is extended and the world is recreated
according to the purposes of God (see 2 Cor 9:8; Col 1:10; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17). These good works too
are under God’s sovereignty; God has prepared these in advance. This implies some degree of
predestination and foreknowledge, God working in history. It also indicates the leading of the Spirit,
although not specifically mentioned. ‘That we should walk in them’ brings the human side of them;
we are to be led by God to live out the life he has prepared for us, a life of good works which will be
transformative.
A New Creation of God Involving both Jew and Gentile (2:11‐22).
Paul continues on moving from the salvation of the Gentile converts to the big picture of what the
Gospel is all about and what has been achieved in ethnic terms in a first century Jew‐Gentile context
through Christ. He reminds them that previously it was not even a possibility to the Jews that the
Gentiles would be included in the people of God unless they converted fully to Judaism. Yet now, in
Christ, peace has been preached and so all peoples who believe are reconciled to God and together
into one people in Christ. All boundaries have been removed and now Jew and Gentile together are
one holy people, the household of God, the temple of God; founded on Christ and his pioneer
ministers, the apostles and prophets.

Having addressed the state of his readers in terms of personal salvation in 2:1‐10, in 2:11 Paul turns
to address the Gentiles and speaks of their former state in terms of the ‘people of God.’ They were
once ‘Gentiles in the flesh’ i.e. Gentiles who were under the power of sin and fallenness.17 Now they
are Gentiles, but ‘in Christ. They were labelled ‘the uncircumcision’ by the circumcision, i.e. the Jews
who saw circumcision as the critical boundary marker and derided the uncircumcised. ‘Made by
hands’ is a subtle gibe against circumcision it being cheiropoiētos, the second half of which poiētos
contrasting with God’s work (poiema) of a new creation. It thus reflects the “external material

17
Lincoln, Ephesians, 135 sees this as an ethnic statement. However, Barth, Ephesians I, 254 notes that this is
ethical.
448

aspects of the old order of Judaism and the spiritual efficacy of the new order… ;‘ it is thus, ‘no
longer the real circumcision.’ 18

In v.12 he reminds them of their previous separation from Christ and alienation from God, his
people, the covenants of Abraham, Moses and David, from Israel and from hope. This indicates the
hopelessness of the unbelievers’ state in Paul’s mind.

In v.13 Paul introduces another turning point (cf. 2:4 above); ‘but now’ (nuni de [cf. Rom 3:21; 7:6;
Col 1:22]). ‘In Christ Jesus’ is used again indicating, in this new era and status of salvation within
which you now stand. ‘You who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ’
points to the new status of believers. ‘Far off’ and ‘near’ has no object. ‘Far off’ indicates being
separated from God and his people. ‘Near’ indicates the shift, brought near to God and to his
authentic people. ‘By the blood of Christ’ indicates the means, the cross, the death of Christ.

In v.14 the reason is Christ, who ‘is our peace.’ This has cosmic notions of Shalom, vertical relational
notions of being reconciled to God, and horizontal notions of being brought together with the
people of God and faith into one new creation, a new people. The emphasis here is race, however
this people are without boundaries on the basis of gender and social status (cf. Gal 3:28). Christ is
the one ‘who has made us both one and broken down in the flesh the dividing wall of hostility.’ The
wall of hostility could relate to the walls of the temple between the Court of the Gentiles and the
Court of the Women and the temple proper (below). This reinforces the new unity of a new people
of God. ‘In the flesh’ refers to Christ’s death again. In v.15 the means of breaking down this wall, is
the setting aside of the law. ‘Setting aside’ is katargeō which can mean ‘abolish’ and refers to the
end of the era of the law as the means by which relationship with God is measured; now it is faith in
Christ and faith alone.

In 2:15b‐16 the purpose (hina) is that ‘he might create in himself one new man in place of the two.’
‘Create’ here recalls 2:10, a new creation, a new people of God. ‘In himself’ and ‘one new man’
illustrate the cosmic Christ in whom is the sum of God’s people; ‘one new man’ here is clearly a
metaphor for ‘one new people.’ Now there is one people, no longer Jew and Gentile separated. ‘So
making peace’ reinforces 2:14. We work for all of the above. In 2:16 this thought is built on with the
notion of reconciliation; Christ’s purpose, to ‘reconcile’ both Jew and Gentile to God in one people
(one body). Note reconciliation here is vertical and horizontal, the purpose of God not merely
relationship with him (‘to God’), but the restoration of right human interpersonal relationships (‘in
one body’) in God’s world. This latter point is reinforced with ‘thereby killing the enmity.’ ‘Killing’ is a
vivid metaphor of ending decisively barriers between race. This has implications for relationships
across culture in all churches, there should be no enmity or hostility.

In 2:17 recalls Jesus’ earthly ministry, one of the few references to this in Paul’s letters. ‘He came’
recalls the coming of Christ from God. ‘Preached peace’ refers to the proclamation of this new
creation, new humanity, restoration, salvation with God; wholeness for people and the world. ‘To
you who were far off’ is not literal; through his Spirit, through believers like Paul (3:7‐8), Christ
continues to preach. ‘To those who were near’ refers to the Jews, Jesus literally preaching through
the nations of Israel; his ministry extended through his people to the Diaspora.

In 2:18 Paul speaks of how now ‘both’ have access in one Spirit to the Father.’ This is dramatic news
and leads into the notion of the temple to follow. Whereas before, only the High Priest of Israel,
once a year (Exod 30:10) with the right sacrifices, clothing, after cleansing, incense, (Lev 16; 23:27‐

18
See Lincoln, Ephesians, 136 who notes Col 2:11; Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; Heb 9:11, 24; Rom 2:28, 29; Phil 3:2,
3; Col 2:11.
449

Ephesians
28; 25:9), could approach the God enthroned in the Temple’s Holy of Holies, 19 now, through Christ
all Jews and all Gentiles can now approach him. The Gentiles are not confined to the literal physical
‘court of the Gentiles’ but can enter the inner sanctuary. 20

Paul in v.19 carries on (‘so then’) Gentiles (‘you’) are no longer foreigners and aliens to God’s people,
as Gentiles once were. Now they are fellow citizens of this commonwealth of God’s people. ‘Saints’
here (hagiois) have been argued to mean: 1) Israel or the Jews (e.g. M. Barth); 2) Jewish Christians
(e.g. Caird); 3) First generation Christians (e.g. Houlden); 4) Angels (e.g. Gnilka); 5) All believers (e.g.
Mitton). The latter is almost certain. 21 These believers are ‘members of God’s household (oikos). This
brings to mind the image of family, God has called people into a new creation, a humanity is now his
family under his paterfamilias’ rule.

V20 speaks of this household as founded on the apostles and prophets. In 1 Cor 3:11 Christ is the
foundation of the church. Here it is built (aorist) on the apostles and prophets. Scholars debate
whether the apostles and prophets are the foundation or that they laid the foundation. The vast
majority accept the former, they are the foundation. 22 Apostle here is used in the wide sense than
the Twelve, Paul, and others commissioned for the task of founding churches (cf. Acts 14:4; 1 Thess
2:6; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 1 Cor 15:7; Rom 16:7; Eph 4:11). While a few argue that the prophets are
OT prophets, the order suggests NT prophets as in Eph 3:5; 4:11 (cf. 1 Cor 12:28, 29; Acts 11:27;
13:1; 15:32; 21:9‐11 cf. Did 11‐13). 23 Paul does not neglect Christ here; he is the akrogōniaios which
can mean the final crowning stone (cf. the head) or as is more likely because of what follows, the
foundation cornerstone (a stone forming a corner or angle in a wall). 24

In v21‐22 in Jesus the building is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. The term
‘join together’ is found in 4:16 of the body of Christ. Here it is a living building made of people. It
grows, suggesting both qualitative (conversions) and quantitative (maturation) growth. ‘Temple’
shows that in Christ, the temple is no longer the geographically centred Jerusalem temple, but the
cosmic people of God in Christ. In v22 it is the believing recipients in Asia, Jew and Gentile, who are
being built together into this temple, in which God dwells by his Spirit. Thus the church is the temple
of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 3:16).

19
DJG, 813 notes, that the sanctuary (héḵāl) was marked by a golden lamp donated by Queen Helena of
Adiabene a Jewish convert, two tables one of marble and the other of gold, then a veil woven of scarlet, light
brown, blue and purple; from Babylon (see Jos, Jew War. 5.4.212‐214). The sanctuary and Holy of Holies was
one big room about 30x10m with a roof about 20m. There was a beautiful curtain with embroidered lions and
eagles. The sanctuary was gold plated with a seven‐branched (7 planets) lampstand, tables for 12 loaves of
bread and the altar of incense all made from gold. The high priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies,
workers and others were lowered in from the roof in cages closed in so that they could not look in or touch
anything.
20
See DJG, 812 describes the experience of entering the physical Jerusalem temple. The Court of the Gentiles
is where Jesus healed the blind and lame (Mt 21:14), was greeted by children (Mt 21:15) and where he drove
out the traders (Mk 11:15 and pars). Further in another stairway, a barricade and walls were the inner courts;
firstly the Court of the Women (˓ezrat hannašîm), where all Jews including women could enter. It was off‐
limit to the Gentiles on pain of death. Here Anna prayed (Lk 2:37), the widow put her offering (Mk 12:44 and
par). Then there was the Court of the Israelites for ritually pure men only. It was where the sacrificial altar
stood ; where the Pharisee prayed in the story (Lk 18:11), the disciples prayed (Lk 24:53).
21
See Lincoln, Ephesians, 150.
22
E.g. Lincoln, Ephesians, 152.
23
Lincoln, Ephesians, 153.
24
Lincoln, Ephesians, 153‐156.
450

Paul’s Commission to Incorporate the Gentiles into this New People of God (3:1‐13).
Here Paul moves from the big picture to his own role in the formation of this new people, as one of
the apostles thus referenced as a foundation for this new temple of God, God’s new creation by the
Spirit. He who used to persecute the church (implied) has received a commission from God by God’s
grace to herald this new message of the reconciliation of all peoples in God’s people through Christ.
He is a servant of this purpose, to call people into one new community. This community now reveals
this plan of God and confounds the forces of darkness that simply did not see it coming. Now this
amazing plan of salvation has been revealed and all humanity, whether Jew or Gentile, can boldly
approach God by faith.

In 3:1 ‘for this reason’ refers probably to the goal expressed in the previous, to see the temple of
God, the new creation grow. Paul refers to himself as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. He is in Rome, under
Roman guard in his home, yet he is not imprisoned by the Romans, but by Christ. As in Phm 1, 9 this
again expresses Paul’s view of God’s sovereignty and who his allegiance is to; Christ, not Caesar. ‘On
behalf of you Gentiles’ speaks of his call to minister to Gentiles for their salvation (esp. Rom 1:13‐15;
Gal 1:15; 2:7‐10). Paul had a tremendous self‐awareness in Christ of his call, something that
sustained him.

In 3:2 he speaks of his stewardship granted by God’s grace for the Gentiles (‘you’). Paul applies the
notion of oikonomia to his ministry (1 Cor 4:1‐2; 9:17; Col 1:25). It is derived from the notion of a
household manager and refers back to the previous reference to the household of God. Thus, he is a
steward of God’s grace, seen in the gospel of salvation (cf. 2:5, 8). ‘For you’ means that his ministry
and God’s grace is for his recipients.

In 3:3 he continues the thought, referring to his former conversion and the revelation of the gospel
(cf. Gal 1:12). Paul elsewhere speaks of the gospel of a crucified Messiah as a mystery i.e. something
hidden that has now been revealed (Rom 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor 2:1, 7; 4:1; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 6:19; Col
1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3); to him on the Damascus Road. ‘As I have written briefly’ refers perhaps to the
earlier parts of the same letter.25 Some think it relates to Galatians or even Rom 16. I prefer that
idea that Paul is referring to a lost short letter to these same churches; another indication that there
are letters of Paul we do not have access to (cf. 1 Cor 5:9; Rom 15:4; Jude 4).

In v.4‐6 he carries on the notion of ‘mystery’ speaking of his insight into the mystery of Christ, which
has been hidden from people until its present revelation, but has now been revealed through to
God’s apostles and prophets through the Spirit. The mystery is outline in 3:6 in terms of the unity of
Jew and Gentile in the one body. They are ‘fellow heirs’ indicating their equal status as those who
will inherit the blessings of God. They are members of one body, on the same footing. They are all
partakers of Christ together. This all reinforces their oneness and equal status in Christ.

In 3:7‐10 Paul speaks further of his own call and commission. He recalls his call to ministry in the
gospel, a product of God’s power and grace, a common theme in Paul (Rom 1:5; 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10;
15:10; Gal 1:15; 2:9; 3:7‐8; Phil 1:7; 1 Tim 1:14). V8 elaborates including his self‐perception as the
‘very least of all the saints’, no doubt due to his failure to recognise Jesus as Messiah and his
persecution of the fledgling Christian church in Judea and Samaria before his conversion cf. 1 Cor
15:9; 1 Tim 1:13. His commission, to ‘preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.’ As
noted above, riches are a common theme in Ephesians, related to the glories of God’s blessings.
Here they are unsearchable and found in Christ; a glorious expression of the wealth of blessings that
come to saved humanity. In v.9 his mission is to bring to light God’s mystery which was hidden. Note
that it is brought to light ‘for everyone’, the universal scope of the gospel. Note too that it was

25
BDAG, 867.
451

Ephesians
‘hidden in God who created all things’ i.e. within his mind and being since and through creation. V10
introduces the church into Paul’s biography. Now, rather than historic Israel, it is through the church
that God’s wisdom is known. Interestingly, it is to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places
i.e. the spiritual forces of darkness. The church then, is the revelation of God’s purposes to the evil
one. V11 reinforces the notion of God’s eternal purpose, and reveals again the high degree of trust
in the sovereignty of God in Ephesians. In v12 Paul refers again to the access to the presence of God
found in him (see earlier on 2:18). Now he refers to the believers boldness and confidence in
entering the presence of God. Faith is the only criteria, not priests or religious ritual.

Because of this freedom and confidence in prayer, in v13 Paul urges his recipients not to lose heart
over his sufferings in Roman prison. Why? Because they can go direct to God with confidence for he
and for them (cf. Phil 1:19; Phlm 22).
Paul’s Prayer for the Ephesians and others (3:13‐20).
Here after his reference to confidence Paul moves into prayer, transitioning from his own situation
to prayer that they will not be discouraged by his suffering and then praying a beautiful prayer that
his recipients may be strengthened and know God’s love and filled with all the fullness of God.

In v.14 Paul introduces the prayer. ‘For this reason’ can point back to the statement of confidence in
3:12‐13 or what will follow, the former is more likely i.e. in light of being free and confident to enter
God’s presence I bow…’ ‘Bow my knees’ is a Jewish mode of prayer rather than a Greco‐Roman one
(standing), an act of humility and homage (cf. Gen 41:43; 1 Kgs 19:18 [Rom 11:4]; 2 Kgs 1:13; 2 Chron
6:13; Ezra 9:5; Is 45:23 [Rom 14:11; Phil 2:9‐11]; Dan 6:10 [‘three times a day he got down on his
knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before’]; Lk 5:8; Acts 7:60).

‘Before the Father’ indicates he prays to God the Father, the head of the household of God (above).

In v.15 he continues on, the pronoun referring God the Father. He is the one from ‘whom every
family in heaven and on earth is named.’ ‘Family’ is not oikos the normal word for household, but
patria i.e. ‘fatherhood’ i.e. patriarchal lineage i.e. tribe, nation, line. ‘In heaven’ refers to all angelic
spiritual beings, whether good or bad. Note the magical world of the Ephesians, this is important, all
spiritual forces are under God’s sovereign control. ‘On earth’ refers to all human families whether
those descended from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael etc. ‘Derive their name speaks of the OT
notion of ‘naming’ as exercising dominion over something, or even bringing it into existence (see
Eccl 6:10; Ps 147:4; Is 40:26). 26 This speaks of God’s creation and his sovereignty over history, a
common theme in Ephesians. In the context of a prayer, this means all that exists is within the scope
of God’s control.

In v.16 Paul gives the content to the prayer expressed with the purposive (‘that’ = hina). ‘In
accordance with the riches of his glory’ speak again of the glorious rich blessings in Christ (esp. 1:3‐
10; 2:4‐9), out of which Paul prays God will move. First, he prays for their strengthening with God’s
power through the Spirit in their inner being (lit: ‘inner man’). While Ephesians has a strong realised
eschatology and the reception of the Spirit at conversion (Eph 1:13‐14), this does not preclude
prayer for further internal work from the Spirit.

V.17 can be a second grounds for prayer, ‘so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith’; or
alternatively, it can develop the previous i.e. that they would be strengthened by the power of the
Spirit so that Christ would dwell in their hearts through faith. It is probably the latter grammatically.
The prayer is not that Christ will dwell in them, for he dwells in them already and they in him, but

26
452

they would have a deeper sense through faith of Christ’s presence within them. ‘Heart’ is equivalent
here to ‘inner man’ and speaks of the inner part of our whole human life where the Spirit resides;
the notion is used interchangeably in this sense with ‘spirit’ and ‘soul.’ Note that Spirit in the
previous verse and Christ’s indwelling are used interchangeably; for Paul, to have the Spirit within is
to have Christ within. Interestingly, Lincoln notes this is the only place in the NT the notion of Christ
in the heart is found, despite its popularity as a way of describing Christian faith. 27 Far more
common is ‘us in Christ.’ What are the implications of this?

V.18 can be a continuation of the previous idea, a result of Christ’s indwelling, or it can be another
element in the prayer. The repeat of hina suggests the latter. So, secondly, Paul writes, ‘in love
(agape) having been rooted and grounded’ i.e. established in Christ at conversion; he prays that they
may have the strength to understand with all believers the enormity of the love of Christ. The
adjectives breadth, length, height, depth here speak of the immeasurable nature of the riches of
Christ’s love. Thus far, Paul has spoken in Ephesians of God’s love (Eph 1:4; 2:4 cf. 6:23). Here he
introduces Christ’s love (Eph 5:2, 25; 6:23, 24). This love of Christ is the love that loves believers so
that he died for them (Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25; Phil 2:1), from which believers can never be separated
(Rom 8:35‐39) and which compels mission (2 Cor 5:14).

In v.19 not only does Paul want believers to understand this love, he wants them to know it i.e.
experience it and be transformed by it. The love is further described as the love that surpasses all
knowledge. This is oxymoronic in that, Paul prays that they know it, yet it surpasses knowledge. This
is the mystery of knowing God and his love, we know and experience the unknowable.

A third hina introduces the third element of the prayer, ‘that you may be filled with the fullness of
God.’ Now the third person of the Trinity inhabits the believer, God; after the Spirit and Christ
(above v.16, 17). This is a prayer for the full riches of God’s blessings to fill the believer.

In v20‐21 Paul finishes with a glorious doxology, praising God and offering him glory. He begins as in
Rom 16:25 cf. Jude 24. He ascribes to God glory in the church and Christ Jesus forever. This is a
prayer for God to be glorified in his church and the work of Christ in believers throughout the ages.
V20 describes God as the one who is able to do superabundantly more than believers can ask or
think, because of his glorious power, which resides in believers by the Spirit. This is an immense
statement of confidence in the power of God to answer prayer and transcend it. For Paul, God is
totally awesome, supremely powerful, and unbelievably able. This glorious doxology ends the first
half of Ephesians. He now turns to paraenesis.
Live Lives Worthy of Your Call in Unity (4:1‐6).
As he does so often in his letters Paul then turns to exhorting his recipients, in the light of what has
gone before. He applies the implications of this wonderful salvation and gospel (‘therefore’) (cf. Rom
12:1), and appeals for the Ephesians and others to live lives worthy of the call they have received, be
full of the attributes of God and be unified in every way. So the emphasis here is unity whereas
below in v7f it will be diversity, within that unity.

In 4:1 Paul reminds them of his imprisonment for the Lord. Note he is a prisoner of Caesar, ‘Lord’;
here however he is Christ’s prisoner, again emphasising God’s sovereignty over his situation. Using
his characteristic word of appeal parakaleō (‘urge, encourage, exhort’; 54 x; in this sense e.g. Rom
12:1; 15:30; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 5:20; 6:1; 10:1; Phil 4:2; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:14; 1 Tim 2:1; Phm 9, 10), he
urges them to live (lit. walk = peripateō) a life worthy of this glorious calling from this all powerful
God i.e. worth of the great gospel he has outlined in the previous section (1:3‐3:20).

27
Lincoln, Ephesians,207.
453

Ephesians

In 4:2‐3 he appeals for five relational attributes all common in Paul’s thinking: 1) Humility: an
attitude which does not elevate oneself over others, is not arrogant (cf. 2 Cor 10:1; 11:7; Phil 2:3, 8;
Col 3:12 cf. Rom 12:3); 2) Gentleness: treating others without harshness, sternness or violence (1 Cor
4:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:23; 6:1; Phil 4:5; Col 3:12; 1 Tim 3:3; 6:11; 2 Tim 2:25; Tit 3:2); 3) Patience:
bearing trials calmly, showing forbearance under provocation, strain, while waiting, not hasty or
impetuous (cf. Rom 2:4; 9:22; 2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22; Eph 4:2; Col 1:11; 3:12; 1 Tim 1:16; 2 Tim 3:10; 2
Tim 4:2); 4) Love (‘bearing with one another with love’) i.e. showing tolerance and warmth to others
despite their weaknesses (e.g. Rom 13:8‐10; 1 Cor 13; Gal 5:14, 22; Phil 2:2; Col 3:14; 1 Thess 3:12;
4:10); 5) The unity of the Spirit and peace: an attitude of togetherness despite differences, dealing
with others with gentleness, patience and grace (e.g. Rom 12:18; 1 Cor 14:33; Gal 5:22; Col 3:15; 1
Thess 5:13). This is another ethical fruit list, a virtue list. This could suggest there are relational
problems in the churches. However, the general tone of Ephesians suggests that this is general
ethical teaching. There is a strong emphasis in Ephesians on peace and unity, God bringing Jew and
Gentile together in one, this reinforces that the church should reflect this oneness in attitude and
unity.

In v.4‐6 this unity is stressed with the recurring use of ‘one’ seven times: 1) One body (the
body of Christ, the church cosmic, inclusive of all including Jew and Gentile [note: this must guard us
against the denominationalism, elitism and parochialism that characterises many churches and
groups in every generation); 2) One Spirit (the Holy Spirit, above all other spiritual forces [good news
to the Ephesians in a context of spirits and forces]); 3) One hope to which the Ephesians are called
(the hope of eternal life, rich blessings of God); 4) One Lord (Christ, over all lords, including Caesar
and any other government); 5) One faith (can be objective, the one great faith [prob. as this is the
sense in 4:12; or can be subjective, one faith that saves); 6) One baptism (because Spirit has been
mentioned, it probably means one water baptism); 7) One God and Father of All, who is over all and
through all and in all: realised eschatology (cf. 1 Cor 15:28); creator, sovereign king, lord of history,
sustainer of the universe, power of life). These powerfully remind the Asian believers that they are
one, under one God, one with all the church, in a world which, while full of inimical forces,
fragmented and broken, is under one God who is restoring all things.

Within this Unity there is Great Diversity through the En‐Gifting of God (4:7‐16).
Paul moves from unity to diversity (cf. Rom 12:4‐6) explaining that there is a diversity of gifts. He
mentions five which are functionary leadership gifts (not offices). The role of these five so engifted is
to equip the others in the body for works of service so that the body grows both in the quality of its
life (qualitative or intensive growth) and in the incorporation of new believers bringing people into
the body so that it fills the cosmos (cf. 4:7). This will ensure the body reaches completion and to
safeguard those in it from false teaching that abounds throughout the church.

In v7 Paul reminds of them of the grace granted to each of them in Christ. ‘Each’ is emphatic, in the
first position, to make the point, we are one, but each is different within that oneness. ‘Grace’
emphasises the gift nature of what is given. ‘Was given’ is aorist, passive, i.e. given from someone
else in the past i.e. through the Spirit. ‘According to the measure of Christ’ states that this giving is
from Christ’s desire and each gets a different portion. The same thrust is found in other passages on
the gifts, the Triune God is the giver, each has been given a different manifestation of the same one
Spirit (Rom 12:4, 6; 1 Cor 12:4‐7).

In v.8 Paul then quotes Psalm 68:18 and applies David’s words to: 1) Christ’s ascension and so
exaltation (4:7); 2) Christ as ruling King taking captive his enemies (4:7) as in the case of victorious
ancient king; Christ has defeated his opponents including the devil and his angels (cf. 2:2; 3:10; 6:11‐
454

17) and human opposition; 3) Christ has given gifts to humanity (4:7); here, spiritual gifts from
Christ, as Paul will explain. In v.9 Paul explains his use of the Psalm 68:18. That Christ ascended,
implies that Christ descended. This is understood in three ways by scholars. First, Christ’s descent to
hell (e.g. J. Dunn). Secondly, the Spirit coming at Pentecost (e.g. M. Harris; Lincoln). Thirdly, Christ’s
descent in incarnation. There is nothing in the context to suggest the first idea. The same one who
went up is the one who went down; the one above all the heavens and who fills all things, is Christ
(cf. 1:20‐23). As such, this must indicate the incarnation. 28

In v.10 he is exalted far above all the heavens. His purpose (hina), ‘to fill all things.’ The purpose of
God is that all will be reconciled to him, all creation, all people, all enemies subdued (cf. 1:10, 20‐23).

In v.11 Paul moves to the gifts granted, God’s means of building his church within God’s world. He
speaks of ministry gifts. Some of these are mentioned in 1 Cor 12:28‐29 (apostles, prophets and
teachers). These are charismatic functions within the body of Christ rather than offices in the more
formal institutional sense. Here there are five: 1) Apostles: here Paul is using it more widely than the
12 of widely gifted founding ministers of the Gospel such as he himself (see Acts 14:4; Rom 16:7; 1
Cor 12:28, 29; 15:7; 2 Cor 8:23; 11:5, 13; 12:11; Eph 2:20; 3:5; Phil 2:25; 1 Thess 2:6); 2) Prophets:
those supernaturally gifted with the ability to proclaim dynamically the present word of God into the
present with consequence in the future (see Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9‐10; ; 3) Evangelists:
proclaimers of the gospel for the salvation of the lost probably who didn’t plant churches in the
same sort of way as the apostle (e.g. Philip [Acts 21:8 cf. Acts 8] cf. 2 Tim 4:5); 4) Pastors: shepherds
who watch over the flock of God, the church (Acts 20:38; 1 Pet 5:2‐4); 5) Teachers: those those who
have an extraordinary ability to pass on Christian truth and faith to believers (cf. Acts 13:1; 1 Cor
12:28, 29). The first three are linked with the same Greek construct whereas the final two are linked
by and (kai) which could mean that Paul actually is thinking here of four ministries, the final one
being ‘pastors who teach.’

A minority of scholars interpret v.12 as three elements of work for these five functionaries (‘for
bringing the saints to completion,29 for the work of service, for the building up of the body of
Christ’). 30 That is, these leaders do the work of ministry, maturing believers and building the church.
However, this does not fit with ‘each’ being gifted; see esp. v.16 where each part does it’s work. The
Greek does not fit this interpretation, there being a shift (pros… eis… eis) which most believe means
Paul has in mind that these five ministries equip the saints (God’s people) for works of
ministry/service. This passage is critical for understanding Paul’s ecclesiology; charismatically gifted
leaders equipping others for ministry sees the church continue to develop and grow. These five
should function in all churches and seminaries should be preparing people for all five roles.

The goal, ‘the building up of the body of Christ.’ Clearly, this is the church; growth here includes
extension through new churches, converts and impact in communities through apostles and
evangelists. It is also qualitative, believers brought to maturity, especially through the work of
Pastors and Teachers.

In v.13 this is the emphasis. The charismatically gifted leaders of the church equip the church and
lead to ensure that all believers are unified in the faith based around knowledge of Christ, the Son of
God. They work to see all believers grow to maturity, to the fullness of Christ.

28
See the discussion in Lincoln, Ephesians, 244‐247 who opts for Pentecost, but discusses the options
thoroughly.
29
The Greek katartismos can mean ‘equip’ or ‘complete’ in the sense of equipping completed. Most scholars
take it in the former way.
30
455

Ephesians
In v.14 the outcome of this will be that believers will no longer be infants (cf. 1 Cor 3:1‐3). They will
no longer be tossed to and fro by the chaotic waves of the sea through false teaching. It might be
that Paul has a specific teaching in mind, but the lack of specificity suggests this is a general warning.
We know that at the same time, Paul was writing Colossians to the nearby believers in Colossae who
were threatened by false teaching (see Col 2). However, the letters of 1 and 2 Timothy tell us that
the Ephesians were greatly disturbed by false teachers in the years after Ephesians.

In v.15, Paul states that, through speaking the truth in love, believers will grow up in every way to be
like Christ. ‘Speaking the truth in love’ here would naturally appear to be teaching according to the
truth, which in Ephesians is clearly the gospel and appropriate ethical conduct (cf. Eph 1:13; 4:21;
5:9; 6:14). This would include leaders teaching people of the church the fullness of the faith and
those ministering outside the church to the lost. In this way the church will grow up in fullness.

Specifically, the whole church (note the inclusive ‘we’) will grow up in all things i.e. in every
dimension of the faith. ‘Into him’ i.e. to be like Christ as they grow. ‘Who is the head’ recalls 1:22
and this time Christ is not just the head of all things, he is head of the Church. Kephalē here implies
complete authority and Jesus being the life power (source) of the church.
In v.16 Paul returns to Christ and the church. ‘From whom’ reflects that Jesus, through his Spirit, is
the church’s source and life. ‘The whole body’ emphasizes that every part of the body is sustained
through Christ, no part is self‐sufficient and not dependant.

This whole body is ‘joined together’ (sunapmologeō cf. 2:21) and united. ‘Every supporting ligament’
is another way of describing the component parts of the body; united and joined together through
Christ. Each of these parts works; equipped as it is by the leaders (v.12), mature and strong in the
gospel. This makes the body grow (qualitatively and quantitatively), built up in love. The reference to
love here is emphatic, the final statement. Thus, we have a similar thought to 1 Cor 12‐14 where
love fits chiasmically in the centre of chapters of spiritual gifts. Spiritual gifts MUST be expressed
through spiritual fruit, supremely love!

Living as God’s People not as Gentiles but as people who please God (4:17‐5:20).
Paul moves from his magnificent expression of the growth of the church to ethical conduct worthy of
the people of God. He devotes most of the remainder of the letter to injunctions for Christian living
covering a wide range of areas including a renunciation of idolatry and various sins typical of the
Gentile world, living for God like God and Christ. That is, in light of this glorious gospel and the
ministry of the Church, how should one who is ‘in Christ’ live? His reference point is pagan living
which his recipients experienced before coming to Christ.

1. Do Not Live Like the Gentiles (4:17‐20)
In 4:17‐19 he begins by telling them how not to live. He tells them with the authority of
Christ (the Lord) to no longer live as the Gentiles do. Paul paints a picture of Gentile life that
is immoral and decadent. ‘In this sort of characterization he is in line with traditional Jewish
apologetic (cf. Wis 12–15; 18:10–19; Ep. Arist. 140, 277; Sib. Or. 3.220–35), which was taken
over by other early Christians, including Paul himself in Rom 1.’ 31 They walk in ‘futility of
thinking;’ ‘they are darkened in their understanding’; ‘they are separated from the life of

31
Andrew T. Lincoln, vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary : Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary
(Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 277.
456

God (cf. 2:11‐14) because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their
hearts. These all reflect Paul’s disdain for their thought. This is ironical as the Greeks and
Romans were utterly enamoured with wisdom and philosophical brilliance. Yet, Paul will not
have a bar of it; their futility is demonstrated in their corruption. We get a similar sense of
Paul’s view of Gentile thinking, idolatry and corruption in Rom 1:18‐32. Their problem, ‘the
hardening of their hearts’. ‘Hearts’ represents not just the spiritual inner being in Paul’s
thought as we might think, but the whole inner being including the mind. Their minds and
inner beings are not open to the work of God. He goes on in v19 that due to this hardening,
they have lost all sensitivity, and indulge in continual impurity with an insatiable lust. He
uses the terms aselgeia (‘debauchery, licentiousness’ cf. Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19),
akatharsia (sexual impurity cf. Eph 5:3; Rom 1:24; 6:19; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col
3:5 ; 1 Thess 4:7) and pleonexia meaning ‘covetousness’ (cf. Rom 1:29; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5).
Greco‐Roman life was infamous for its depravity, particularly its drunkenness, its gluttony
and sexual immorality (cf. Rom 1:24‐32). Paul is exhorting his new creation to live
differently, and we should too.

2. Live In Accordance with Christ, Taking Off the Old and Putting on the New (4:20‐5:20)
a. Take of the Old, Put on the New (4:20‐24)
In 4:20‐24 Paul speaks in the past tense, reminding them of what they were taught
when they were converted. This sets the scene for the imperatives that follow. In
v.20 Paul with an adversative ‘but’ (de) turns to tell them how they should now live.
His readers did not learn Christ this way? ‘Christ’ here is used in the sense of a way
of life. ‘Learned’ refers to the teaching (cf. 4:11) they received as new believers in
the past through Paul and other workers (e.g. Epaphras cf. Col 1:6). In 4:21 he refers
back to their hearing the teaching concerning Christ and living in him. In 4:22‐24 he
reminds them of what they were taught; namely, to take off their former lives and
put on their new ones.

In v.22 they are to take off their old way of living, their ‘old man’ i.e. their life lived in
the flesh now crucified with Christ. This old way of living was ‘corrupted by deceitful
desires’ (cf. v.17‐19 above). The term (ananoeō) and the related cognate noun is
used of renewal in Col 3:10; 2 Cor 4:16 and Rom 12:2. Christian life is a continual
renewing process as we are transformed by the Spirit.

In v.23 they are to be ‘renewed’ literally ‘in the spirit of your minds.’ This blending of
spirit and mind leads some to think it means ‘by the Spirit in your minds.’ However,
this is forcing the Greek which says ‘of the mind’ and so it probably means ‘in the
spirit of your minds’ in the sense of the inner being i.e. attitude. In v.24, just as they
are to take off the ‘old man’ they are to ‘put on’ or be enclothed with the ‘new man’
i.e. be new people. They are to be ‘having been created like God (‘in accordance
with God) in true righteousness, holiness.’ This calls to mind the notion of a new
creation (cf. 2:10, 15). Ethical conduct here is imitation of God. It is God’s work, his
creative power by his Spirit renewing. ‘Righteousness and holiness’ suggest right and
pure living.

b. Speak the Truth (4:25)
In v.25 this idea of ‘taking off and putting on’ is given more specificity. Having taken
off falseness (past aorist) in their taking off of the ‘old man’, the believer must speak
truthfully to their neighbours. Thus, Paul is appealing them to be what they are. The
tense of ‘speak the truth’ is present, suggesting ongoing truthful speech. The words
457

Ephesians
are shaped by Zech 8:6 from the LXX in Zechariah’s injunction to Jerusalem renewed
by God after exile. Thus the renewed creation of God are to speak truthfully to one
another.

c. Deal with Anger (4:26‐27)
Paul turns to the issue of anger. Note again these are all present verbs exhorting the
believer to continue to behave in the manner proposed. They are also imperative,
commands, Paul being very directive. It begins with a quote from Ps 4:4: ‘be angry,
and do not sin’ (LXX). The statement recognises there is a time for anger, but this
must not lead to sin such as bitterness, hatred, emotion abuse, physical abuse or
violence (cf. Mt 5:21‐26). This is followed by a wisdom statement that reinforces it.
In Jewish (Deut 24:15; Qumran) and Greco‐Roman thought (Pythagoreans, Plutarch)
sunset was seen as the time to limit a number of activities and leave behind anger. 32

V.25 ‘do not give space for the devil’ ‘continues the thought and should be
interpreted in terms of the previous. Undealt with anger, gives the Devil an opening.
We must not interpret this only in individualistic terms. Sure, anger causes internal
problems, stress, bitterness, resentment and hatred. However, it is also exceedingly
destructive to relationships. It gives space for Satan to disrupt the new creation
formed in God’s image. It can be assumed other such sins also give room for him and
bring the believer under threat. Sin is Satan’s opening.

d. Do Not Steal But Provide For Yourselves and Others (4:28)
4:28 literally says ‘let the thief no longer steal.’ This again is present imperative
indicating a command that is ongoing, never steal! This probably implies that some
from the communities Paul is addressing had been thieves. This is not surprising, as
theft was common especially among slaves (cf. Phm 18). 33 They must no longer do
so (cf. Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19; Mk 10:19; Rom 13:9; 1 Cor 6:10). Rather, they must
work, continuing to labour (present imperative) in good work with their own hands.
It was not uncommon to find writings which made similar statements. 34 Paul of
course lived like this himself tentmaking (cf. Acts 18:2; 1 Cor 9:1‐15; 1 Thess 2; 2
Thess 3:6‐12). He elsewhere urges his convert to work in this way (1 Thess 4:11, 12;
2 Thess 3:6‐12). Here they are to do good work, work that is constructive. The
motivation is not purely personal, but in accord with the NT’s deep concern for the
needy, ‘so that (purpose hina) they he might have enough to continue to share
(present continuous) with the one having need.’ Thus, the motivation to work is not
merely self‐provision, but to provide for those in need (cf. Acts 2:45; 4:32‐37; Rom
12:13; 2 Cor 8‐9). Thus a motivation to work is to be in a position to help others.

e. Do Not Grieve the Spirit with Foul Speech (4:29‐30)
In v.29 Paul tells them not to let any foul speech depart from their mouths. As
through this section, the verb is present continuous meaning never speak in this
way. It is middle voice, emphasizing personal responsibility. ‘Unwholesome’ is
literally ‘rotten, putrid’ 35 and is used of trees (cf. Mt 7:17, 18) and fish (Mt 13:48).
Rather (strong adversative alla), let that which is good for the building up of the
needy, so that it will give grace to the hearer’ come from one’s mouth. This is classic

32
See Lincoln, Ephesians, 302 for detail.
33
34
See Lincoln, Ephesians, 303 for examples.
35
BDAG, 913.
458

‘take off – put on’ thinking (above). This is an appeal to desist from any talk that is
negative and destructive of others. Rather, they must speak in such a way that builds
people up at their points of need, and blesses them.

V.30 is linked with ‘and’ (kai) telling the believers not to grieve the Holy Spirit. This
implies that negative speech is offensive to the Spirit. ‘Grieve’ is lupeomai and has
the sense of ‘to be sad, distressed.’ 36 This differs from the notions of resist the Spirit
(Acts 7:51) or quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:18) and picks up Is 63:10 referring to
historic Israel grieving God through its rebellion. 37 It could be that Paul here sees
such talk as rebellion against God. It is present continuous, urging the believer never
to grieve the Spirit. If this kind of unwholesome talk grieves the Spirit, it can be
suggested that negative speech and attitudes has this effect. The relationship with
the Spirit is threatened, the Spirit saddened by our sin. Note the balance of the Devil
and Spirit in this passage; believers live to please the Spirit not grieving him; never
giving Satan a foothold. The Spirit is here the one who seals the believer for the day
of redemption (Christ’s return). The presence of the Spirit in the believer is a seal of
the believer’s future salvation. This does not answer the theological question, does
the Spirit ever leave us if we fall away?

f. Relationships Based on Love, Mercy and Kindness not Bitterness, Anger and
Slander (4:31‐32)
4:31 both continues the them of right speech and attitudes and should be taken as a
unit with 4:32, calling to mind Col 3:8, 12, 13. Believers are to rid themselves of
every aspect of 5 vices: 1) Bitterness, resentment or extreme envy (pikros cf. Acts
8:23 of Simon Magus; Rom 3:14 [Ps 10:7]; Heb 12:15); 2) Rage (thumos cf. Rom 2:8;
2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Col 3:8): 3) Anger (orgē cf. 21x in Paul sometimes of God’s
wrath e.g. Rom 1:18; 2:5; Eph 2:3 and negatively of human anger cf. above Eph 4:31;
Col 3:8); 4) Loud Shouting, here in the sense of conflict (kraugē cf. Acts 23:9); 5)
Slanderous Speech (Blasphēmia in the sense of denigrating others not God cf. Col
3:8; 1 Tim 6:4). These are representative of ‘every kind of evil;’ believers are to rid
themselves of all these negative attributes.

V.32 balances this with an appeal for a different kind of relationality among God’s
people, his new creation. They are to be: 1) ‘kind/good/loving/gracious to one
another’ (chrestos cf. Rom 2:4; 1 Cor 15:33); 2) Compassionate/tender‐hearted
(eusplagchnos cf. 1 Pet 3:8); 3) Forgiving as they have been forgiven by God in Christ.
These verbs are present; however, ‘just as God in Christ forgave you’ is past tense
speaking of salvation forgiveness which is complete. This is a segue into the appeal
of Rom 5:1‐2 for imitation of God and Christ. Foundational to Pauline and Christian
ethics then is imitation of the attitude of God and Christ. We are on the path being
Godly, Christlike. ‘Forgive’ is another ‘grace’ term; charizomai and one of Paul’s
many ‘one anothers’ (see above on Paul); we are to express grace to each other in
every way. Thus we have new way of living, the people of God full of grace, love and
compassion.

36
Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 25.274.
37
H.D.M. Spence‐Jones, Isaiah Vol. II, The Pulpit Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
2004), 443 notes this could refer to the golden calf (Exod 32); at Meribah (Numb. 20:24); at Shittim, (Numb.
25:6); rebellions under the Judges (Jud 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 8:33; 10:6; 13:1); in Samuel’s time (1 Sam 8:5, 19,
20); the north under Jeroboam and idolatry leading to exile (2 Kings 17:23); Judah under Manasseh, Jehoiakim,
Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah (2 Chron. 36:14).
.
459

Ephesians

g. Live in Imitation of God (5:1‐2)
Paul loves the idea of imitation. He speaks of imitation of himself (1 Cor 4:15; 11:1;
Gal 4:12; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:7), of others who live according to the
Pauline pattern (Phil 3:17), of churches that stand firm for the gospel in the face of
persecution (1 Thess 2:14‐14) and of God and Christ (1 Cor 11:1). Here it is God they
are to imitate. The notion of imitation is closely linked to parenthood, a son would
grow up in his father’s trade and lifestyle (cf. 1 Cor 4:15; Phil 2:19‐23). They are to
imitate their Father, as beloved children.

The verbs of the appeal shift; in 5:1a, b believers are to continue to be imitators of
God, continually walking in love. Then they shift to the past to speak of the way
Christ loved and gave himself in the cross; this is the believers’ point of reference.
We run forward looking over our shoulder seeking to be like Jesus continually.
Specifically, recalling 4:32 above, they are to live a life of love (cf. 1 Cor 16:14). How?
‘Just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice
to God.’ This indicates the nature of the cruciform life, one of love, service and
sacrifice, even to the point of death. The Christian life is one of self‐giving, our whole
lives being our spiritual act of sacrifice pleasing to God (cf. Rom 12:2).

h. Renounce Sin for its Consequence is God’s Wrath (5:3‐7)
Paul continues to hammer the ethics worthy of believers. In v.3 there should be no
porneia (in the emphatic first position). Porneia is used of generally of sexual
immorality including any relationship outside heterosexual, faithful, loving marriage
(cf. Mt 15:19; 19:9; Mk 7:21; Acts 15:20; 1 Cor 5:1; 6:13, 18; 7:2; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal
5:19; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3). Neither should there be any impurity, here probably used
to emphasise porneia of any (pas = every) hint of sexual or other crude lustful
behaviour (cf. 4:19 above). Paul repeats his repudiation of greed (pleonexia) above
in 4:19. The TNIV misses a crucial clause here: ‘let them not be named among you;’
in other words, these things should not even be on the radar, discussed, thought of,
contemplated; so far out of our orbit, that they are unknown among God’s people.
Note again this is present continuous; never named! The renunciation of these
things is ‘fitting among the saints.’ This is an appeal for the highest of standards in
terms of purity and resisting greed. As noted above in terms of earning a living
oneself so one can help others, greed is replaced by material generosity among the
people of God (cf. 4:28).

In 5:4 Paul picks up the idea of 4:29 and goes on giving his readers another list of
things, all terms unique in the NT (hapax legomena), that are not fitting for
believers: 1) Aischrotēs which means obscenity or ‘behavior that flouts social and
moral standards.’38 2) Mōrologia which is made up of two Greek words, mōro
indicating ‘foolish’ and logia ‘speech’ i.e. foolish talk. Lincoln notes that both these
first two terms relate to ‘foolish talk and coarse joking about sex.’ 39 3) Eutrapelia
meaning rude joking or indecent jesting. 40 Instead, there should be thanksgiving. In
an age like outs where sexual immorality is frequent and the popular media is
positively full of such things, this is a profound challenge, as it was in the Greco‐
Roman world which was full of such things. Indeed, Aristotle considered eutrapelia a

38
BDAG, 29.
39
40
Swanson, Lexicon, GGK 2365.
460

virtue as such a wit was important for social interaction: ‘the witty man as midway
between the boorish or stiff man and buffoon’ (Eth Eud. 3.7.1234a. 4‐23). 41 This
here in Ephesians does not preclude wit, it refers to that humorous wit full of sexual
innuendo. Rather than such talk, believers are to use their mouths to give thanks,
gratitude driving all of conversation rather than filth.

In 5:5 Paul issues a warning concerning those who live like this. ‘For of this you can
be sure’ is literally ‘for this you know knowing’, the double ‘know’ illustrating the
certainty. He lists the cognate nouns of some of the previously listed sins: pornos
(one who engages in sexual immorality); akathartos (one who is sexually impure and
driven by lust); pleonektēs (one who is greedy). He tags on after ‘one who is greedy’
that this is idolatry, illustrating that greed represents a lust for something other than
God, usually money, and thus is idolatry as it takes ones heart from affection for God
and God alone (cf. Mt 6:24 cf. Col 3:5). None of these people, the sexually immoral,
the impure, the greedy ‘have an inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God.’
Inheritance has come up in 1:14 where it is the future hope for believers are sealed
by God’s Spirit. Here it is used in the same sense (cf. Col 3:24; Heb 9:15; 1 Pet 1:4).
The associated verb is used in 1 Cor 6:9‐10 and Gal 5:19‐21 with a similar warning to
this (cf. 1 Cor 15:50). Clearly, those who are outside of Christ in this lifestyle are
condemned. However, Paul’s warning in the context of this list to Christians suggests
that he is warning believers that the ultimate end of a choice to live in this way will
ultimately lead to one who claims Christian faith being excluded in that their sinful
works render their claims to faith empty and void. Note that the tense of ‘have’ is
present; that is, they do not have this inheritance now. It could be that Paul is saying
that those who claim the name of Christ but live like this are not believers at all,
their behavior betraying them (cf. 1 Cor 5:9‐13). However, Paul does not state this
but leaves it open focusing in the next verse on those who live like this in the world
and not believers.

In 5:6, as he often does (cf. 1 Cor 3:18; 1 Cor 6:19; 15:33; Gal 6:7; 2 Thess 2:3), Paul
warns them not to be deceived by ‘empty words’; no doubt, to the contrary. This is
present imperative, a command stating, let no one ever deceive you. This is a
warning against false teachers, a problem in Colossae at the time and an ever
present issue which Paul warned them years before (cf. Acts 20:29‐31 [‘be on your
guard!’]). It is because of these sins that the wrath (orgē) of God is coming upon the
sons of disobedience i.e. eternal destruction. That is, God is bringing eternal
destruction because of human sin and which corrupts the beauty of God’s creation
and intended life. In 5:7 he drives his appeal home; in light of this (‘therefore’), ‘do
not be partners with them…’ in this lifestyle. Again, this is present continuous, never
join such people!

i. Live as Children of Light and Not Darkness
V.8 builds on this driving a contrast between the former life of the converts of Asia
(‘you were once…’) to now (‘but now you are…’). The contrast is the familiar
religious apocalyptic duality, light and darkness, found in Jewish (e.g. OT, Qumran;
Philo; T. Levi 19.1), Greco‐Roman and Christian thought including Paul (see e.g. Mt
4:16 [Is 9:1‐2]; 5:16; Lk 11:35‐36; Jn 1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35‐36; Acts 26:18; Rom 2:19;
13:12; 2 Cor 4:4‐6; 6:14; Col 1:12; 1 Thess 5:5; 1 Pet 2:9; 1 Jn 1:5; 2:8‐10), not to
mention almost all religious thinking. He does not say, they were ‘in darkness’, but

41
See the whole discussion in Lincoln, Ephesians, 322‐324.
461

Ephesians
that they were darkness! Thus, their whole existences were in lostness and
corruption. Now, however, ‘in the Lord’, they are ‘light!’ This is the language of
status.

In 5:8c, Paul moves from status (indicative), to the imperative; ‘live as children of
light’ (cf. 1 Thess 5:5). ‘Live’ is present continuous again, a whole lifestyle of walking
in the light. The idea ‘children of light’ was frequent in Qumran in particular with
two ways of life, sons of light and sons of darkness (e.g. 1 QM 1.1‐16; 3.6, 9; 13.16;
14.17). 42 ‘Live’ implies this is not status now, but the language of imperative. Thus,
Paul is working with an ethical dualism, two ways of living, light leading to life,
darkness leading to death. Believers are to live by the light.

In 5:9 the thought goes on with a parenthetical statement outlining what the ‘fruit
of the light’ is. It is all goodness, righteousness and truth. These should characterise
the lifestyle of the children of the light. The passage has defined what Paul means
here, ethical attributes such as love, peace, humility and more. This is another
example of Paul’s use of ‘fruit’ (karpos) for ethical attributes, his favourite way of
speaking of positive character traits, virtues, of the Christian. It implies the internal
work of the Spirit bringing growth of these in the believer (e.g. esp. Gal 5:22‐24;
Rom 6:21‐22; Phil 1:11; Col 1:10 cf. Mt 3:8, 10; 7:16‐20; 12:33; Lk 6:43‐44; Jn 15:2‐
16; Heb 12:11).

In 5:10 believers are to ‘find out what pleases the Lord’; an overall appeal to
continue (present) to seek his will in all circumstances. The means of doing this is
not specified but it is likely Paul has in mind prayer, contemplation on God’s word,
the teaching of apostles and the leading of the Spirit.

In 5:11 Paul balances the positive appeal with the negative; ‘have nothing to do with
the fruitless deeds of darkness.’ This summarises the previous appeals. ‘Rather, they
are to expose them. ‘Expose’ can mean ‘to convict’, ‘to reprove’, ‘to discipline’;
however, here as the text flows, ‘expose’ makes more sense 43 i.e. that is, to reveal
them for what they are, evil; and so, lead believers to identify them and resist their
seduction. However, this continuous (present) exposing is not speaking about them;
it is living in such a way that it is exposed through their goodness.

5:12 carries on the previous (‘for’ = gar); ‘for it is shameful to speak of what they
(the children of darkness) do in secret.’ So abhorrent are these to the purity of God
and his new creation, that believers should not discuss these sins; they are not to be
mentioned. Again, in an age of media licentiousness, internet porn and so easy
access to the most disgusting of sinful activities, believers must stand strong in
resisting such depravity.

5:13‐14a contrasts with the disgrace and shame of speaking of such things: rather,
let the light expose the darkness and it will become visible. Rather than allowing
these acts to be exposed by discussion about them, accentuating the positive of
Christ and the ethic he brings, exposes the depravity of sinful humanity without
going into the gory revolting details.

42
See the discussion in Lincoln, Ephesians, 326.
43
462

In the remainder of 5:14 we have a hymn fragment of the early church probably
from the context of baptism. Its background beyond this setting and the obvious
possibility of baptism is unclear. 44 We find these scattered through the NT (cf. Lk
1:46‐55, 68‐79; 2:14; Phil 2:5‐11; Col 1:15‐20; 1 Tim 3:16; the songs of Revelation).
‘Wake up’ is ‘rise up’ i.e. from the dead and out of darkness. Note that Paul uses ‘to
fall asleep’ as a metaphor for death (1 Cor 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess 4:13‐
15). ‘Sleeper’ has the sense of ‘dead one’ or ‘one in darkness;’ and so carries on the
light‐darkness duality in the text. ‘Rise from the dead’ illustrates arising from the
baptismal pool, having been crucified and buried with Christ under the waters of
baptism (cf. Rom 6:1‐4). Paul speaks of believers waking up in other contexts in
terms of rising out of sin into life (cf. 1 Thess 5:5‐8; Rom 13:11‐14). ‘Christ will shine
on you’ speaks of the light of life flowing into the new convert. One can easily
imagine this being sung as the new believers arose from the waters of baptism in the
early churches. This illustrates the point of being children of light; these believers
have left behind darkness and have been born again into light, hence they should
live this out.

j. Live Wisely and Not Foolishly
In 5:15 he continues (‘then/therefore’ [oun]); implying that ‘in light of what I have
just said…’ ‘Therefore, be very careful how you live (lit. ‘walk’). ‘Be very careful’ is
‘watch out’ (blepete), which Paul uses elsewhere to warn his readers to watch (e.g.
Phil 3:2). It is present and in the emphatic first position; a strong warning to
continue to watch out at all times. Christians must be alert to the tricks of Satan.
They are to live not as unwise, but wise. This is a duality that matches darkness and
light (cf. 1QS 3.19‐25). Wise living here is gospel‐ethical living as outlined from 4:20f.
Unwise living is living in darkness, and so facing the consequences of death and
destruction. They must choose the path of wisdom. This recalls the OT wisdom
tradition (cf. Prov 4:10‐14; 9; 10:8, 14); however, here it is the will of Christ (see
v.17) and not the Torah that gives wisdom.

In 5:16 the wise are the ones ‘redeeming the time.’ This could relate to the LXX of
Dan 2:8 ‘you are buying time’ in the sense of ‘you are attempting to gain time.’
Some seek to read here that believers actually save time from its bondage (e.g. M.
Barth). Clever though this is, it is unlikely in a cosmic sense. It could mean then that
believers should seek to buy their time in the last days in the sense of utilising the
time do what is good and not evil. In context this seems to imply not wasting time
on sinful wasteful behaviour and living contrary to the will of the Lord (v.17).
Growing out of this is the idea of using time to do good.45 ‘Because the days are evil’
suggests that their motivation to redeem the time is to use it for good rather than
evil. It is continuous, we are to utilise time effectively at all times. In Ephesians this
makes sense with the world under the power of Satan (2:2) and in a war against the
principalities and powers (6:10‐17); they must thus do the works prepared in
advance for them (2:10) as God brings all things together under Christ’s headship
(1:10).

In 5:17 Paul contrasts his appeal for wise living with ‘do not be foolish’. The path
away from foolishness is ‘understand what the Lord’s will is’ i.e. know and

44
Suggestions include a mystery cult initiation hymn; Gnostic hymns (this is unlikely as Gnosticism is a second
century phenomenon; Qumran. This is unknowable unless the hymn is discovered.
45
See the discussion in Lincoln, Ephesians, 341‐342.
463

Ephesians
understand the gospel and its implications for all of life. These are present
imperatives, living wisely according to God’s will at all times.

In 5:18 they are to reject the sins of their pagan past, specifically drunkenness which
is debauchery. Again this is present continuous, so the imperative is to never fall to
such behaviour. Debauchery is asōtia (Tit 1:6; 1 Pet 4:4) which implies ‘reckless
abandon, debauchery, dissipation, profligacy, esp. exhibited in convivial
gatherings.’ 46 Such behavior was common in the Greco‐Roman world and was a
problem in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 11:21). Drunkenness (methuskō) may have been a part
of their pre‐Christian religions experience in the mystery cult celebrations, temple
feasts, the Dionysian cult. Paul appeals elsewhere for Christians to reject
drunkenness (Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10; Gal 5:21 cf. 1 Thess 5:17 cf. 1 Tim 4:3).
The point here is related to the whole flow since 4:17; do not live as the Gentiles do,
live by the Spirit.

In 5:18 Paul contrasts this life of flesh, drunkenness and debauchery with another
contrast: ‘instead…’ (strong adversative alla). ‘Be filled with the Spirit!’ This is
present continuous, calling for believers to be full of the Spirit at all times. Here this
is ethical, live according to the Spirit at all times, living as children of the light, not
grieving the Spirit, not giving Satan a foothold, living in the righteousness, truth,
goodness of the gospel. It effectively, allow the Spirit to fill you up with good things
and live by the Spirit’s impulse at all times rejecting in totality the works of the flesh.

In 5:19 Paul takes this on into the notion of worship. While the NIV places a stop
before this verse, the TNIV, NRSV and ESV are right to continue the previous.
‘Speaking’ is laleō and can mean ‘speaking’; with ‘one another’ a number of
translations have something like ‘speaking to one another with…’ If so, we have a
unique idea in the NT of Christians singing praises to one another. This would
suggest an edificatory role for Christian sung worship. However, laleō can carry the
wider sense of sing or speak through song. It stands in parallel with ‘singing and
making music’ in what follows. ‘One another’ is dative case, so it can be ‘sing with
one another’ or ‘sing among yourselves’. This would make more sense of the
overwhelming evidence that Christian praise is addressed to God in the NT and not
to each other. Indeed in the text they are to sing ‘to the Lord’ in what follows. Hence
it is probable that Paul is appealing to them to be filled with the Spirit as they sing
together.47 This speaks of being filled with the Spirit as they gather, worshiping in
and by the Spirit (cf. Phil 3:3; Jn 4:24).

There is debate over the nature of the three types of song mentioned here and in
Col 3:16: psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (pneumatic odes). Some scholars seek to
delineate carefully between them; others take them loosely as they used fluidly
through the NT. 48 In that Paul chooses to speak of the three separately he probably

46
BDAG, 148.
47
Similarly, a cursory look at Col 3:16 can bring us to the same conclusion that we teach and admonish one
another as we sing. However, it is better to read the reference to singing as following but not dependent on
the teaching and admonishing. As the NRSV has it: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and
admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs
to God.’
48
Psalmos is used: 1) Of a specific OT Psalm (Lk 20:42; Acts 1:20; 13:33); 2) The Whole Psalter (Lk 24:44); 3) As
a general term for all worship songs probably inclusive of the 3 categories here (1 Cor 14:26); 4) One
dimension of NT worship (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). Hymnos is used only here in Eph and Col 3:16.
464

has some distinction in mind. Perhaps: 1) Psalms (psalmos): are songs from the
Jewish Psalm Collection; 2) Hymns (hymnos): Possibly songs not unlike the Psalms
written in the Christian era around Christ for Christian worship. These would include
the hymn fragments of the NT (see above on 5:14); 3) Spiritual Songs (pneumatic
odes) perhaps referring to Spirit‐led spontaneous songs sung perhaps by
prophetically inspired believers in the worship gathering; perhaps including singing
in tongues (cf. 1 Cor 14:14‐15).

They are to sing and make music to the Lord. ‘Sing’ here indicates that this is the
sense of laleō above. ‘Making music’ is psalō which originally meant to pluck a
string, but had become a term for singing. It probably here is distinctive in some way
to ‘sing’ and could refer to instrumentation. Some argue there is no instrumentation
in the NT sung worship and there is no direct evidence. However, the evidence of
Revelation (e.g. Rev 5:8; 14:2; 15:2) and perhaps 1 Cor 14:7 if it indicates the use of
these instruments in worship, indicates that Christian worship was accompanied
initially with music. However, over time, partly due to pagan worship association,
worship become based on antiphonal unaccompanied singing. Here though, it
appears that Paul is endorsing singing as part of Christian worship. This is important
to note in an age where there is a reaction against excessive singing in Christian
gathered worship. We must beware and overreaction the other way; singing is one
beautiful means of giving God glory and we should eagerly enjoy it. Indeed, the
Psalter is full of references to ‘singing’ to God. 49 For example Ps 98:4: ‘Shout for joy
to the LORD, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music.’ Similarly, although
there is only one reference to Jesus singing (only one see Mk 14:26 and pars), we
know that the synagogue worship involved singing the Psalms. Acts also records
Christian song (e.g. Acts 2:47; 16:25) and the hymn fragments through the NT
especially in Luke 1 and Revelation indicate it was normative. Paul speaks too of
Christians singing elsewhere including that the Gentiles will praise God through song
in fulfillment of the hope of the OT (Rom 15:9, 11 cf. 2 Sam 22:50; Ps 18:49; Ps
117:1; 1 Cor 15:14‐15; Col 3:16). As such, it would be a heinous error to argue that
we should desist from singing as a central component of praise. However, excessive
singing can become dull and worship can lose its vibrancy.
A Code for Christian Family Life (5:21‐6:9 cf. Col 3:18‐4:1; 1 Pet 2:17‐3:9)
Paul picks up a classic form of writing from Greco‐Roman ethics and found in Jewish writings called a
household code (haustefal) and infuses it with a Christian world‐view, encouraging the Ephesians
and others to live within their social networks in a culturally appropriate love‐based manner. These
codes are found in Colossians (which abbreviates this one in Ephesians), and in 1 Pet 2:17‐3:9. These
codes are of great importance illustrating the importance of family to human and Christian life. The
family is under threat in this age, and we need to work hard to have strong family relationships. The
principles in this passage will go a long way to ensuring that God’s people do so.

49
Psalm 5:1, 11; 7:17; 9:2, 11; 13:6; 18:49; 21:13; 27:6; 28:7; 30:4, 12; 33:3; 40:3; 42:4, 8; 47:6, 7; 51:14; 57:7,
9; 59:16, 17; 61:8; 63:7; 65:13; 66:2. 4; 67:4; 68:4, 32; 69:30; 71:22, 23; 75:9; 77:6; 81:1; 84:2, 4; 89:1; 92:1, 4;
95:1, 2; 96:1, 2, 12; 98:1, 4, 5; 98:8; 100:2; 101:1; 104:12, 33; 105:2, 43; 107:22; 108:1, 3; 118:4; 119:54, 172;
135:3, 137:3, 4; 138:1, 5; 144:9; 145:7, 2; 147:1, 7; 149:1, 5. On instruments see Psalm 33:2, 3; 49:4;
57:8; 68:25; 71:22; 81:2; 92:1, 3; 101:1; 108:1, 2; 144:9; 150:3‐5. Indeed, the whole Psalter is made up of 150
songs. The multiple references to ‘praise, extol’ and other attributions to God all point in the same direction;
God’s people sing!
465

Ephesians
The code addressed the key household relationships in the ancient world including husband‐wife,
father‐child and master‐slave. Each is balanced with a message for both parties. The ‘weaker
partner’ is named first (wives, children, slaves) and the ‘stronger partner’ named second (husbands,
fathers, children). The first parts addressed to the weaker partners are in accordance with the social
conventions of the day. Each states commonly agreed principles i.e. ‘wives submit to your
husbands’; ‘children obey your parents’; ‘slaves obey your masters’. The second half of each
however, is to varying degrees socially radical, calling for the stronger partner (except perhaps the
fathers) to live in a counter‐cultural manner. The first and last are the strongest in this regard:
‘husbands love your wives’; ‘masters, treat your slaves in the same way.’ These are counter‐cultural
calling for love and grace within the Christian family unit. The emphasis in each definitely falls on the
second parts of each section, the commands to the stronger being counter‐cultural.
Submit to One Another (5:21).
It must be remembered that the starting point for the whole section is 5:21: ‘submit to one another
out of reverence for Christ.’ ‘Submit to one another’ actually is a participle continuing the thought of
the previous. Thus, in a sense, any break here is artificial. However, there is definitely a shift from
general Christian living to the home. This then is a transition from the previous into the household
code. ‘Submitting to one another’ is present suggesting an ongoing attitude. ‘Submit’ is
hupotassō used 38 times in the NT. It is used of Jesus submitting to his parents (Lk 2:51); demons
submission to the 72 (Lk 10:17, 20); the flesh refusing to submit to God’s law (Rom 8:7); creation
subject to death (Rom 8:20); Jewish refusal to submit to the gospel (Rom 10:3); submission to
political powers (Rom 13:1, 5; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13, 18); prophets submission to other prophets (1 Cor
14:32); women in submission in worship (1 Cor 14:34); the submission of all things to Christ (1 Cor
15:27; Eph 1:22; Phil 3:21; Heb 2:8; 1 Pet 3:22 cf. Heb 2:5); Christ in submission to God (1 Cor 15:28);
submission to leaders (1 Cor 16:16); mutual submission (Eph 5:21); church submitting to Christ (Eph
5:24); wives submitting to husbands (Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; Tit 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1, 5); slaves submitting to
masters (Tit 2:9); Christian submission to God (Heb 12:9; Jas 4:7); young men submitting to older
men (1 Pet 5:5). The common thread her is being subject and obedience. Submission to God is the
first priority for all believers. However, the NT pictures an ordered world with believers in
submission to those placed over them. This is due to the providential view of history, where human
rulers are established by God albeit with human volition at work in history. Believers are to live
within the order of society. Submission to human authority of any sort whether political, within the
church, or within the home, is secondary to submission to God. There will be a time when the one
submitting will refuse to obey their human authority if it clashes with the ultimate authority of God.
Aside from this, the NT has a consistent picture of submission, obedience or subjection to those
placed over them. This section applies this to the home in which married partners, children and
slaves co‐exist. What must be remembered is that the emphasis falls on the stronger not the weaker
and it grows out of ‘submit to one another.’

‘Out of reverence for Jesus’ suggests that submission to each other is an act of worship and the
acknowledgement of his sovereignty in establishing the order that a believer finds themselves in. ‘As
the Lord’ in what follows suggests that ‘fear of the Lord’ here carries this sense. In 5:33 he will apply
the notion to wives showing reverence for their husbands.
Marriage (5:21‐33)
1. Wives (5:21‐24)
In 5:22 Paul continues the thought of the participle of 5:21 ‘submitting’ in terms of wives.
Gunē can be women, here it is clearly ‘wives.’ ‘To their own husbands as to the Lord’
emphasises that this submission is for their own husbands alone (and so not others), and it is
to be seen as an act of worship. This could suggest complete submission as in the sense of
servitude; however, this must be balanced against the supremacy of Christ whereby a
466

woman will not submit to her husband where it clashes with obedience to the Lord.
Similarly, where there is a greater need, say where abuse is in place, a women will take
herself out of the situation with her children for love’s and the Lord’s sake. To not do so
would be a failure of submission to Christ.

In v.23 this is reinforced by Paul stating that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is
head of the church. Head is kephalē (cf. 1:22; 4:15). Here it cannot be limited to ‘source’ or
‘prominent, preeminent’ but must be seen to include ‘ruler, authority’ as it is paralleled with
Christ’s headship over the church which is total. It may include the notion of source, as if Eve
came from Adam’; 50 however, exegetically it is a back‐reading of contemporary concern for
egalitarianism to read just ‘source’ here. 51 As such, the basis of wives submission is the
authority granted to husbands in the home by Christ. That this is in mind is reinforced in Col
3:18 from the same author where Paul unambiguously says, ‘Wives, submit to husbands as is
fitting in the Lord’ (cf. Tit 2:4 where younger wives are to love their husbands). The
reference to Christ here as ‘he is saviour of the body’ points to a role for husbands that
aligns with Christ, seeking the wholeness of their wives in every way (see below v.25, 28).

V.24 reinforces this: just as the church submits to Christ (i.e. total subjugation, obedience,
doing the will of Christ), wives similarly (houtōs) should also (kai) submit (not stated but
implied) to their husbands in everything. One can condition the latter phrase ‘in everything’
with ‘in everything as far as it does not clash with submission to Christ;’ however, this is a
strong statement. Note throughout this passage for both wives and husbands, Christ is the
reference point for the relationship (cf. 5:1‐2).

2. Husbands (5:25‐33)
So far so good for the complementarian position that, in contrast to the egalitarian position of
mutual submission, argues for the submission of wives to husbands and husband’s leadership in the
home. Now Paul turns to the husbands.

In v.25 with the imperative of agapaō he tells them to love your wives. This is a very rare statement
found in Hellenistic Judaism such as Ps.‐Phoclides 195‐197 (c. 50 BC – 100AD) using the verb stergō
(‘love, feeling, affection’) and rabbinic Judaism b. Yeb. 62b (;concerning a man who loves his wife as
himself’). However, the agap‐ terminology is never used in Greco‐Roman household codes for a
husband’s duties.52 This is thus an extremely radical counter‐cultural statement which modifies the
patriarchal code. 53

In v.25bc‐27 Paul then gives to the husbands Christ as a model of true love for one’s wife. The
emphasis here is the sacrifice of Christ in his death because of love for his people. The sacrifice of
Christ in laying himself down, emptying himself, is the model of love for the Christian husband. Paul
develops this in terms of purification of the church through Christ’s death, the church being
sanctified, cleansed through the word and presented in purity and holiness. The notion of the church
as the bride of Christ is implied.

In v.28 Paul builds on this ‘in the same way.’ He repeats the appeal that husbands should love their
wives as their own bodies. This suggests a relationship of care and concern. Exactly how ‘in the same

50
As Lincoln, Ephesians, 368 agrees.
51
This is a huge area of debate. See O’Brien, Ephesians, 413.
52
53
See E.S. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London:
SCM, 1983), 269‐270.
467

Ephesians
way’ relates to the previous is unclear. Certainly it says the husband is to lay down his life for his
wife, sacrificing himself as Christ did for the church. To me this effectively empties the notion of
leadership of any possible sense of domination. Rather, we have the true notion of Christian
leadership through service and not the exertion of authority (see esp. Mk 10:42‐45). So, the wife
submits to the husband, the husband serves the wife. It could be that Paul has in mind that the
husband will cherish the wife through the sharing of the word? ‘Their own bodies’ and ‘he who loves
his wife loves himself’ suggests the idea of loving one’s neighbor as oneself (cf. Lev 19:18; Mk 12:31;
Rom 13:8; Gal 5:14). It also illustrates the notion of oneness in the marriage relationship (5:31 cf.
Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 6:16; 7:4). Thus it speaks of a relationship of oneness bathed in love.

Paul’s comment in v.29, ‘for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as
Christ does the church’ must be read in the light of his context and not ours. ‘Self‐hate’ is a familiar
issue today, but Paul assumes from his setting that one will cherish one’s own body through feeding
it and caring for it. As such, his point is that the husband will take care to ensure that his wife is
nourished and cared for as he would for himself. This could be read to imply that the husband must
go out to work and be the only provider but that is pushing this too far. Paul does not specify roles
here, he speaks of principles of a relationship. Each marriage must work out how they work best to
ensure their potentiality is met.

V.30‐33 Paul moves back to Christ and the church as if married partners, to marriage in Genesis, to
Christ and the church as if married partners before his final summary statement. In v.30 he
illustrates this oneness with the oneness of church and Christ. Just as the people of God, the church,
is one with Christ, so is the husband one with his wife.

In v.31 Paul refers to the primary foundational text for understanding Christian marriage in the OT,
Gen 2:24, quoting it: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.’

In v.32 he speaks of ‘this mystery,’ referring to the relationship between Christ and church. In some
spiritual and unknowable way, the relationship of Christ and Church in their oneness is a marriage.
In v.33 he returns to the church, so, let each husband love his wife as he loves himself (see above),
and let the wife see that she reveres her husband. In this last clause Paul introduces the notion of
reverence (‘fear’) from 5:21‐22 which launched the passage. She is to honour her husband (phobeō =
‘fear’) him. This forms an inclusio with the above and so explains ‘out of reverence for Christ’; ‘as to
the Lord.’

Aside: What does this say about the role of husband and wife? If we take the wive’s role alone in this
passage it would appear to involve subjection and obedience to the husband as is expected of the
church in its relation to Christ. However, the role of the husband is radical in first century terms. Paul
is advocating a type of love from the husband that involves self‐sacrifice in line with the sacrifice of
Jesus in incarnation and crucifixion. That being the case, authoritarianism and submission in
obedience terms in my view effectively dissolves in the passage into a love‐based mutual
relationship.
Indeed it seems that it goes something like this. Paul begins by telling women as was traditional in
Jewish and Greek culture to submit to their husbands. He gives them no real room to evade this
truth, making their submission equivalent to the church’s submission to Christ which necessarily
involves obedience. But then he turns to the husbands and kind of says, ‘Hey don’t think that means
you can lord it over your wives and that they are to be your servants and doormats. You are to love
them. How? As Christ loved them and gave himself up for you.’ That being the case this is
revolutionary for men of that age. They were not to act like the Greco‐Roman paterfamilias who
owned his wife, could have sexual relationships with others, and had the power to divorce her at a
468

whim. No! He was to love her with a total self‐sacrificial love that dissolves any notion of
authoritarianism in the power of love. For me this takes me from a place of obedience of the wife to
a marriage of mutual servanthood, love and respect.
Furthermore, even if we take it in a traditional sense, it is debatable that this need be applied to
today on cultural grounds. Paul himself opened up the way for this in 1 Cor 9:19‐22 when he
advocated varying our mode of living according to culture. That being the case, in this age of
equality, it would be missiologically advisable to adopt an approach to marriage that involves mutual
servanthood, respect and love. Some are uncomfortable with such a ‘culture‐based approach’.
However we are already doing this in regards to head coverings (1 Cor 11) and OT practices (see
especially Leviticus).
It also must be clear to the reader that Paul speaks here only of attitudes not of roles. There is
nothing here to suggest who goes out to work; who does the washing; who organizes the finances;
who gives up their job to care for the kids. Aside from the obvious point that the wife is to bear the
children and, if possible, breastfeed them, nurturing them in their very earliest days; it is surely all up
to each marriage to work things through from here. Each marriage then in an atmosphere of mutual
servanthood and love is to work out how their marriage works best to ensure that the marriage is
nurtured, both spouses reach their full potential in Christ with the gifts they have been given and
most importantly, the children are loved and cared for. Neither does it say anything about who
makes the final decision which is the way in which this text is usually applied. Rather, it speaks to me
of a husband and wife loving and submitting to each other and making decisions in an egalitarian
and consensual manner.

Children and Parents (6:1‐4).
Paul now turns to the relationship of parents to children. He adopts the same pattern as above,
addressing the ‘weaker’ social partner then the ‘stronger.’

1. Children
In 6:1 he tells children to obey their parents in the Lord (cf. Col 3:20‐21; 1 Tim 3:4, 12; 5:4,
10, 14; Tit 1:6). A child was a person under the age of adulthood which was the stage of
marriage; for a girl under 12, a boy under 14.54 However, the command transcends age and
is more about relationship. 55 That children are addressed at all in a letter to the churches is
a positive thing and indicates that they were accepted as members of the people of God.
This notion of obedience to the parents is common in Greco‐Roman and Jewish thinking. 56
Children had a special relationship with Jesus (cf. Mt 18:2‐5; 19:13‐14; 21:15). In 2 Jn 1, 4
believing children are addressees of the letter. Most other references in Paul to children
speak of spiritual childhood (children of God) or use children in his theological discussions
(e.g. Gal 4; Eph 4:14). Paul considers Christian children in some sense holy through the
believing parent (1 Cor 7:14). The command of obedience is the standard NT term for ‘obey,’
huperkouō and means ‘do as they are told.’ ‘In the Lord’ suggests this is the command of
Christ himself. ‘For this is right’ emphasises that this is true to God’s righteous desires.

54
‘Children,’ in DLNTD (Libronix), no page.
55
56
See Lincoln, Ephesians, 401 who notes ‘honour’ was commonly used meaning ‘obey’ cf. Dionysius, Rom. Ant.
2.26.1–4; the fragment of Euripides preserved in Stobaeus, Anth. 3.1.80; Xenophon, Mem. 4.4.19, 20; Plato,
Resp. 4.425b); Hierocles in “How to Conduct Oneself towards Parents” in Stobaeus, Anth. 4.25.53; cf. also
Cicero, De Offic. 1.58; Diogenes Laertius 7.108, 120;Epictetus, Diss. 2.17.31; 3.7.26). Philo (De Spec. Leg. 2.236.
Within Judaism it is expected in line with the fifth commandment Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Prov 19:26; 20:20; Sir
3:1–16; 7:27, 28. See also Tob 4:3, 4; Ep. Arist. 228; Jub. 7.20; Philo, De Ebr. 17; De Mut. Nom. 40; De Vit. Mos.
2.198; De Post. Caini 181; Jos, Ap. 2.27. 206.
469

Ephesians

In 6:2 this is reinforced with the 5th commandment of the Decalogue, ‘honour your father
and mother ‘ (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). In an honour‐shame culture it was critical to honour
your elders and not bring shame upon them. The children are to ensure that their parents
are honoured in the eyes of others through their obedience and respect for them and their
authority. Paul then parenthetically notes that this is the first of the commandments with a
promise attached. His version is closer to Deut 5:16 in the LXX with a slight adaptation. The
key point is that the promise is that ‘land’ in the Heb. Has become gē which, as is
appropriate for Gentiles in Asia, Paul takes in its broadest sense of the world i.e. ‘that things
will go well with you and you might live long on the earth’ (and not the land). The point of
the promise is that obedience will lead to a long and positive life. This can be overplayed as a
formulaic statement. More it points to the general principle that obedience to parents
preserves society, ensures the passing of the tradition, and gives the likelihood of a good life
and the maintenance of the Christian faith and community. This does not preclude terrible
circumstances in a fallen world.

2. Fathers
In v.4 the scene shifts from children to fathers, the fathers urged not to exasperate their
children, but to bring them up in the instruction of the Lord. In the Greco‐Roman world the
mother had no legal power whereas father or paterfamilias had absolute legal power over
his children and grandchildren etc even able to imprison, beat him, put to work and even put
a son to death even if the son was of standing. He could decide on the life or death of a
newborn child, even leaving a child (e.g. the deformed or weak) to die (exposed) if desired
(or drowned). In Rome this power lasted to death; in Greece until 60. The children included
all including slaves and any from subsequent marriages. He had more power over his
children than a master over a slave. This is not to say that this legal power was applied and
in fact there was a distaste for excessive use of it. This power is also found in Philo and other
Hellenistic‐Jewish writings; parents were seen as gods to their children. The OT had the
death penalty for dishonouring parents (cf. Lev 20:9; Deut 21:18‐21) and strong punishment
was permitted even to the point of death in Philo and Josephus. It is not clear how far this
was applied and there are similar texts to this (e.g. Ps.‐Phocylides 207–9: ‘Do not be harsh
with your children, but be gentle. And if a child offends against you, let the mother cut her
son down to size, or else the elders of the family or the chiefs of the people.’ In Judaism
children were also valued and abortion and exposure rejected.57

In Roman society the mother raised the child for the first seven years and father became
teacher and mentor after this until the boy was 16 and then was placed under a trusted
friend for 1‐2 years. Over time the Greek influence introduced a pedagogue from age 7 tutor
the child; however, the father was the real influence for ethical and religious instruction.
There is evidence of lax parenting at the time. In Judaism the father was also primarily
responsible, the child going to school at the synagogue from 7 with the home as the true
centre for instruction around the Torah (Deut 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 32:46). The child was educated
in the Lord from a young age (Prov 22:6) with strong discipline including beatings with rods
especially seen in the LXX texts (e.g. Prov 13:24; Sir 30:1‐13). Plato and Josephus comment
on the importance of this education to Jews.

In light of all this, of the three family relationships, this is the least radical in that Father’s
were responsible for the raising of the children, at least from the age of 7 on. However,
there is a move away here from the harshness of the Greco‐Roman and Jewish approach to
fatherhood.

57
For more detail on this, see Lincoln, Ephesians, 399‐401.
470


In v.4 ‘do not exasperate’ uses parorgizō to cause someone to become provoked or quite
angry. 58 Fathers are to take the overall responsibility of bringing up their children as is
common in the culture (above), but do so without intimidation, harshness, unfairness,
inconsistency that causes their child to grow up exasperated or embittered (cf. Col 3:21).
This does not preclude discipline (see below), but does preclude excessive force (abuse).

‘Training and instruction of the Lord’ indicates the Father’s primary responsibility is to raise
their child in the Christian faith. ‘Training’ is paideia and suggests teaching and equipping (cf.
2 Tim 3:16) and the sense of punishment and discipline where appropriate (Heb 12:5, 7, 8,
11). ‘Instruction’ is nouthesia and carries the sense of instruction with ‘warning’ (cf. 1 Cor
10:11; Tit 3:10; Heb 12:11). As such, the father is to ensure the child is educated with
discipline but in the grace of the gospel.
Slaves and Masters (6:5‐9)
Paul then turns to the third relational group and gives instructions to slaves and masters. This has
important repercussions for slavery, Paul not challenging the system of slavery directly, but urging
for a love‐based grace relationship within it. The seeds of the end of slavery are found here. This
passage speaks to our attitude to work in today’s world. Although institutional slavery in NZ is
ended, there are many whose vocations are set in the context of difficult relationships with bosses.
This encourages us as to how to serve within them. It also encourages bosses to function as to the
Lord and not harshly.

1. Slaves
The institution of slavery was a totally basic part of Greco‐Roman life with few questioning
it. It was as basic as the family unit itself. The question of how masters should treat their
slaves was discussed. Most like Aristotle and Philodemus felt that a slave’s work, food, and
punishment should be kept moderate. Aristotle argued that there can be no injustice
between a master and slave because the slave was the property of the master with whom
he could do as he pleased. Stoics like Seneca had a more humanitarian perspective seeing
them as human beings who deserved to be treated one would want themselves to be
treated. Slavery was accepted as an institution in Palestinian Judaism except for the Qumran
community perhaps. Hellenistic Jewish writings reflect a concern to treat slaves reasonably.
Philo considered slaves indispensable but urged fairness.

As we read about slavery at the time of Paul, we need to realize that slavery differed from
later western slavery. There was not a wide separation of status in reality between the slave
and freedperson; neither were slave always badly treated; nor were all slaves seeking
freedom from bondage. While there was a legal status disparity, slaves were not all in the
same situation. Some owned property and even their own slaves and could gain other
employment. Even after manumission, slaves had responsibilities to their former masters
who often became patrons including services and payment. Manumission became easier
and more frequent in the first century usually after 10‐20 years hard work for city and
household slaves. It was actually cheaper to free a slave and utilize their services as a
freedperson. Such manumission was less frequent in Asia.

The paterfamilias (master) had complete control over the slave and families to the point of
whipping and death. The situation of the slave depended on the master who usually treated
them reasonably, although no doubt many were treated hasrshly. About 1/3 of the Greece

58
Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 1:760.
471

Ephesians
and Italy were slaves working across the whole of society from the emperor’s household to
daily life. In earlier times slaves came from war, but at the time of Paul through birth into a
slave family. For some it was a better option than freedom for employment and security.
One point of problem for believing slaves was the expectation that the slaves would adopt
the religion of the paterfamilias. 59 It is against this backdrop that this section must be read.

In 6:5 Paul addresses the slaves first, the weaker partner in the relationship, the slave. They
are to ‘obey’ (same word as above of children) their lords. Paul qualifies kurios here,
‘according to the flesh’; i.e. not ‘the Lord.’ They are to do so with an attitude of respect
(phobos) and tembling (tromos) indicating great loyalty and reverence; and an attitude of
‘sincerity of heart’ as if working for the Lord. Thus they are work with all their beings, with
purity and integrity, as if working for Christ (cf. Col 3:23).

In 6:6 Paul continues on with motivation. They are to work ‘by eye‐slavery as people
pleasers but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God from your soul.’ There is a contrast here
of motivation. They are not to work only when being watched by their masters to please
them and win their favour. Rather (strong adversative alla), they are to work for Christ as if
he is their master. By implication, he is always watching! They are to do his will. ‘From your
hearts’ in most translations is ‘from your soul’ used here in the same sense; from the inner
being. Similar to this is Col 3:22: ‘Slaves, obey your earthly mastersin everything, not only
while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.
Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters.’

In 6:7 they are to serve with eagerness, enthusiasm, the whole heart (eunoia). The second
part reinforces v.6 as if serving the Lord (i.e. Christ), and not people. There is a play here on
kurios; here Christ, not kurios ‘according to the flesh’ above i.e. their masters. This indicates
that our work, whatever it is, is for Christ and Christ alone; he is the Lord.

In v.8 Paul gives the reason. Because they know that they will be rewarded by Christ for their
work. This applies to all, slave and free. The notion of reward is found in Col 3:25.

2. Masters
In v9 Paul turns to Masters. He gives little space to discussion perhaps suggesting that there
were few masters in the Asian churches.

He urges masters to ‘do the same things (ta auta) to them.’ This would seem to indicate that
Paul is referring back to the previous injunctions to slaves. So what is it that he means?
Clearly he cannot mean ‘obey’ them. He probably means that they should do their work to
the Lord in his service and so in his manner, not seeking the honour of others but Christ’s
honour alone. They are to do the will of God from their soul. They are to work with
eagerness. They are to good knowing that they will be rewarded by God for doing so. This is
a radical injunction and places masters and slaves on the same footing. As such, it is counter‐
cultural, suggesting a near removal of slavery. Similar seeds are found in Philemon 16‐17
where Paul urges Philemon to take back the runaway slave Onesimus not as a slave but as a
brother and as Paul himself. True, elsewhere Paul does not advocate the end of slavery (cf. 1
Cor 7:17‐20; Col 3:22‐4:1); but within his teaching are the seeds of the breakdown of slavery
and patriarchy along with ethnic division (cf. Gal 3:28).
Paul goes on: ‘stop threatening them’ indicates dealing with slaves without coercive force
and aggression. The reason, because both they and their slaves are servants of Christ and he

59
See Lincoln, Ephesians, 415‐420.
472

shows no favouritism i.e. partiality (cf. Col 3:25). Again we see the seeds of the end of
slavery in Paul’s thought. Masters are to recognize that they work for the Lord and so should
emulate his approach of self‐sacrifice (5:1‐2) and love their slaves, for they are equally
human before him as they themselves are. In Colossians 4:1 the injunction is similar: ‘treat
your slaves justly and fairly for you know that you also have a Lord (kurios) in Heaven.’

Living as soldiers of Christ and defeating evil (6:10‐17).
Paul shifts from the Household code to a final section of general commands. To do so he picks up the
military metaphor of Christians as soldiers of Christ in conflict with the cosmic forces of evil. Paul
uses military imagery quite often, 60 giving a sense of the church as an army under the leadership of
military commanders battling the forces of darkness. This is highly appropriate in the ancient world
where military might (e.g. Rome) ruled, where invading forces were part of the landscape, where the
Asian Christians lived with Roman soldiers and authorities around them. He appeals to them to be
strong in the Lord and the strength of his power (6:10) (this undergirds what will follow; the source
of military strength is God, his weapons, not those of the world) cf. 2 Cor 10:3‐5.

‘Finally’ in 6:10 signals the beginning of the end of the letter. ‘Be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of his might’ loads up a number of terms of God’s strength cf. 1:19. The emphasis on his
strength indicates for the believer where their strength is, ‘in the Lord.’ In a context which was highly
influenced by magic, superstition, fear and bondages to spiritual forces this emphasises the
supremacy of Christ over all such powers; he is where the strength is. The imperative is present
continuous, Paul wanting them to stand and keep standing. The notion of standing is common
through Paul, 61 here against the forces of darkness; repeated three times (v.10, 13, 14).

In 6:11 they are to put the whole armour (panoplia) of God on. The purpose, that they can stand
against the schemes of the devil. The imagery is of the church as an army standing together as a
movie like Troy, facing the forces of darkness. ‘The schemes’ is methodeia (cf. Eng. Method) and
indicates scheming and craftiness. Thus, the Devil is akin to a brilliant military strategist like
Alexander the Great plotting the destruction of God’s people.

In 6:12 the nature of the enemy is established. The struggle is not against ‘flesh and blood’ indicating
that the real enemy is spiritual and not the material whether it be people, governments or
structures. There are a number of biblical scholars (e.g. Berkhof; Wink) and theologians who argue
that these are human institutional structures like the Nazism, the interior of such as these. However,
throughout the Scriptures there is the sense of inimical spiritual forces working at an individual and
corporate level (e.g. Dan 10) attacking God’s people. These forces work through institutional
structures but are not to be identified with them. God too is at work in all structures although at
times he can seem uninvolved, especially where evil is at its worst. However, the truth is he is in all
and over all. As such, these are demonic forces which express themselves in and through human
history seeking to wreak havoc.

These forces are 1) Archas (see 1:21); 2) Exousias (see 1:21); 3) Kosmokratoras (a hapax: cosmic
powers of this present darkness [see above for darkness on 5:8‐14]); This term is found in astrology

60
He mentions military notions in real terms (Rom 8:35; 13:4; 1 Cor 9:7). Metaphorically: 1) War between
flesh/law/sin and Spirit (Rom 7:6, 23; Gal 3:23); 2) Weapons of Christian action (2 Cor 6:7); 3) Christians in war
against the forces of darkness and world (2 Cor 10:3‐5) clothed in armour (Eph 6:11‐17; 1 Thess 5:8); 4)
Individual Christian workers as solders (Ephaphroditus in Phil 2:25; Timothy in 2 Tim 2:3; Archippus in Phm 2).
61
Standing in salvation through faith (Rom 5:2; 11:20; 1 Cor 10:12; 15:1; 16:13; 2 Cor 1:24; Gal 5:1;
Phil 1:27; 4:1; Col 4:12; 1 Thess 3:8; 2 Thess 2:15); before God’s judgement (Rom 14:10); standing
against evil forces (Eph 6:11, 13, 14).
473

Ephesians
and magic and are to be undersood against the magical background of Ephesus and so are deities
such as Artemis cf. 1 Cor 10:20; 62 4) Spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies: a summary term
indicating that these are supernatural powers as ‘in the heavenlies’ makes clear. The word for
‘struggle’ is palē and has the sense of wrestle; in a military context, it means to fight.

In v.13, because believers are in this war, they should take up the full armour of God so that they
can resist the attacks of Satan. ‘This evil day’ is not the climax of the world, but that moment when
Satan makes his move. The believer will, as Jesus did in the wilderness and in the Garden of
Gethsemane, stand firm. ‘Having done all’ indicates that the believer is not passive but active in the
battle (see below). However, if the believer has exhausted everything, they will stand firm if they
have the whole armour on.

In v.14 Paul now develops his notion of the armour.63

There are six elements listed with some detail in 6:14‐17. These represent central elements of the
Christian life, critical notions which will guard the believer. Note that these are for all believers, not
just some elite or super class of Christian. All are soldiers with different functions; yet all wear this
armour.

They are not so something to be put on each day in any literal sense, but are a way of life: 1) The
Belt of Truth: In Ephesians ‘truth’ is the gospel and in particular Christ, the only truth (1:13; 4:21), a
mode of speech to each other and the lost (4:15); a way of living involving honesty and integrity
(4:25). The belt held the sword and braced the armour to the body; locked together in Christ; 2) The
Breastplate of righteousness: Righteousness in Epheisans is ethical purity (Eph 4:24; 5:9) but more
broadly for Paul is the righteousness and justice of God which justifies. Both ideas are here. This

62
See C. Arnold, Ephesians, 65‐67; Lincoln, Ephesians, 444.
63
http://www.truthseek.net/files/wholearmor1.jpg.jpg;
http://www.victorynetwork.org/ArtFile/ArmourOfGod.JPG; Cited Dec 2008.
474

guards the heart from being led astray; 3) Shoes of the Gospel of Peace: This speaks not of merely
standing in defence as some scholars argue, but a readiness for movement with the gospel to share
it. In the armour this is the only element of movement. In Ephesians the Gospel is the proclaimed
word which saved them (1:13; 2:17; 3:6; 6:19) and peace relates to the message of Christ that brings
all, Jew and Gentile, together in Christ and his people (Eph 2:14‐17; 3:6) in unity (Eph 4:3). Thus the
believer is ready to move to share the gospel that brings peace; 4) The shield of faith: Faith recurs in
Ephesians as the human response to the gospel that saves (Eph 1:13; 2:8) and a way of life, trust in
God in all circumstances for he is in utter control (1:15; 3:12, 17; 4:5, 13). The shield of faith is a trust
that guards in all circumstances and defeats the attacks of Satan who wants to destroy believer’s
faith, for it is faith that saves; 5) The Helmet of Salvation: in Ephesians this is eternal life the
inheritance of the saints through grace by faith (Eph 1:13; 2:5, 8), Thus it is assurance, the mind
protected for any doubt of God’s grace cf. ‘the hope of salvation’ (1 Thess 5:8); 6) The Sword of the
Spirit which is the Word of God: This is the word written (at this point the OT) and proclaimed (the
teaching of apostles and prophets etc cf. 2:19:3:5; 4:11). This has a defensive notion of enabling the
believer to ward off false teaching (cf. 4:13‐15; Mt 4:1‐10) and the attacking notion of preaching the
gospel that others are saved. It is thus the only attacking weapon in the armour which combines
with the only weapon of movement in evangelism. Satan is defeated as the word is proclaimed and
people are won from darkness (cf. Lk 10:1‐21).
The Priority of Prayer. Paul Appeals for the Believers to Pray (Eph 6:18‐20)
The prayer in 6:18 could be a 7th element of the armour (cf. Fee), or as is more likely in terms of the
Greek, undergirds all the armour. Note as we look here the recurrence of ‘all’, Paul making the point
that a believers life is bathed in every way for every thing with prayer!

Here Paul urges all believers to add to this armour to pray at all times, as led and empowered by the
Spirit (‘in the Spirit’), with all kinds of prayers and requests. They are keep alert in prayer and with all
perseverance praying for all the saints. Paul was passionate about prayer, but along with Phil 4:6‐7,
this is his most comprehensive appeal for prayer from believers. Paul modelled continual prayer for
his congregations (Rom 1:10; 2 Cor 13:7, 9; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:4, 9; Col 1:3, 9; 1 Thess 1:2; 3:2; 2 Thess
1:11; 2 Tim 1:3; Phm 4, 6) and the lost (Rom 10:1); believed in the Spirit’s power to enable prayer
even when the going got tough (Rom 8:26); urged faithfulness and continuity in prayer (Rom 12:12;
Phil 4:6‐7; 1 Thess 5:17; 1 Tim 2:1, 8; 1 Tim 5:5 cf. 2 Cor 9:14); encouraged married couples to pray (1
Cor 7:5); encouraged men and women to pray in gathered worship (1 Cor 11:4‐5, 13; 14:13‐15);
knew prayers would work for his deliverance (2 Cor 1:11; Phil 1:19; Phm 22); commended others
who prayed (Col 4:12)

In v19‐20 he applies this to himself requesting that they pray for him as elsewhere (cf. Rom 15:30;
Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1‐2). Most of these prayers are concerned with enhancing the impact
of his gospel preaching ministry. Here is not exception. Here he prays for the right words to proclaim
and boldness. Note he calls himself an ambassador (cf. 2 Cor 5:20); the notion of a representative of
the true Emperor in his Empire spreading the euangelion of God (remember this term has roots in
the LXX of Second Isaiah of the good news of deliverance from exile and in the Greco Roman world,
esp. the Emperor cult). This is a remarkable prayer considering that Paul is in prison for his faith in
the heart of the empire, Rome, and faces potential death for declaring that the Roman‐crucified
criminal Jesus is Lord over all!
Final words
Paul then adds his final words. He reports he is sending Tychicus probably as the bearer of the letter.
Tycichus is known from Acts 20:4 as one who travelled with the Jerusalem Collection in Paul’s third
missionary journey; as such he is a representative of the Asians and perhaps and Ephesian. He is also
possibly bearing Colossians (Col 4:7). We read of him again in Tit 3:12 where Paul plans to send him
475

Ephesians
to Cyprus and in 2 Tim 4:12 where he has been sent again to Ephesus from Rome as Paul faces his
final moments. He speaks glowingly of him as a ‘beloved brother and minister in the Lord’ indicating
that is a genuine gospel worker, highly valued by Paul, a minister of the gospel. He is sent to tell
them of Paul’s situation and to encourage them.

Im v23‐24 Paul gives a final blessing to his recipients including peace, love, faith and grace. Note v.24
includes the beautiful construction: ‘all who have an undying love for our Lord Jesus Christ.’ This is
true faith, loving God with an undying love.
Conclusion
Ephesians is a great general book with comparatively few critical issues. By far the most difficult
passage for us today is the one that calls for the submission of wives. However, on the whole the
book gives some of the clearest teaching on who Christ is, salvation, the church, church leadership
and basic Christian living. It is highly positive and helps us realise that our salvation is already
achieved by grace and we are in one sense, already seated at the right hand of God. Yet the letter
balances this with clear teaching on Christian living. Of all Paul’s letters, it is perhaps the simplest to
understand being the quintessence of Paulinism (Bruce).

• Do you think Paul wrote Ephesians? Why? Why not?
• Who do you think it was addressed to? Ephesus? Asia?
• What do you make of the predestinationary tone of Ephesians? Does it support hyper‐
Calvinism?
• In the presentation of the blessings of the Gospel, what stands out to you (1:3‐14)?
• In your own words explain the plan of God in 1:10?
• Consider 1:13‐14; when is the Spirit received in Paul’s thinking? How does that reconcile
with other passages in Acts where there is a gap between faith and Spirit reception?
• What does it mean for you that Jesus is cosmic lord over every power in the universe? (1:20‐
23)
• Consider 2:1‐10; what is the relationship of works and faith?
• What are the implications of ethnic oneness in Christ outlined in Eph 2:11‐18?
• What are the implications of the people of God as the temple in Eph 2:19‐22?
What does it mean that the church makes known to the principalities and powers the
wisdom of God? (3:10)?
• Consider Paul’s prayer in 3:14‐20: what does it speak into your soul?
• Consider Paul’s stress on unity in 4:1‐6; what does it say about Christian fragmentation?
How does it get fixed?
• Consider Eph 4:11? What is your gifting vocationally in the Lord? How are you exercising it in
the equipping of others?
• What is the growth of the church in Eph 4:11‐16 cf. 2:21?
• What elements of your life need to change in light of Eph 4:17‐5:20?
• What needs to change in church music and singing? See Eph 5:19‐20?
• How do you understand the relationship of husbands and wives from Eph 5:22‐33?
• Do you see the seeds of the anti‐slavery movement in 6:1‐9? If so, how? What are the
implications of this for gender relationships?
• What does it mean to put on the armour of God? 6:10‐17?
• Are you living 6:17‐20?
• Are you loving Christ with an undying love? What needs to change?
476

Chapter Twenty Four
THE OTHER LETTERS OF PAUL, HEBREWS AND THE
GENERAL LETTERS
Contents
The Other Letters of Paul, Hebrews and the General Letters ............................................................ 477
The Other Paulines .............................................................................................................................. 478
Romans ........................................................................................................................................... 478
The Corinthian Correspondence ..................................................................................................... 479
1 Corinthians ............................................................................................................................... 479
2 Corinthians ............................................................................................................................... 479
Philippians ....................................................................................................................................... 480
Colossians ........................................................................................................................................ 481
The Thessalonian Correspondence ................................................................................................. 481
1 Thessalonians ........................................................................................................................... 481
2 Thessalonians ............................................................................................................................... 482
The Pastoral Epistles ....................................................................................................................... 483
The Letters to Timothy ................................................................................................................ 483
1 Timothy .................................................................................................................................... 484
2 Timothy .................................................................................................................................... 484
Titus ............................................................................................................................................. 485
Philemon ............................................................................................................................................. 485
Hebrews .............................................................................................................................................. 486
The General or Catholic Epistles ......................................................................................................... 487
James ............................................................................................................................................... 487
The Letters of Peter ........................................................................................................................ 488
1 Peter ......................................................................................................................................... 488
2 Peter ......................................................................................................................................... 489
The Letters of John .......................................................................................................................... 490
1 John .......................................................................................................................................... 490
2 John .......................................................................................................................................... 490
3 John .......................................................................................................................................... 491
Jude ................................................................................................................................................. 491

477

The Other Letters of Paul, Hebrews and the General Letters

As time precludes any detailed discussion of any more of the letters of the NT, This section includes
a brief mention of each of Paul’s other letters, their context, and main teaching. This is all very very
basic indeed, but gives a starting point for students who are interested in these letters. Carson and
Moo has detail to help students interested.
The Other Paulines
Romans
Romans is an undisputed letter of Paul with few challenging his authorship. He wrote it through a
secretary, Tertius (Rom 16:22). The setting is not really disputed, with Paul writing it from Corinth in
around 56‐57AD from Corinth as her prepared to head to Jerusalem with the Collection (1 Cor 16:1‐
4; 2 Cor 8‐9; Rom 15:24‐33). Some older sceptical scholars argued that Rom 16 was not authentic to
the text and there is some question of the relationship of the letter to Ephesus. He writes to a
church not his own, but was planted by unknown Christians perhaps pilgrims from Pentecost (Acts
2:10). The church in Rome was originally probably Jewish, perhaps with a Petrine perspective. It was
affected by the expulsion of Jews from the city in AD49 by Claudius (e.g. Acts 18:2) and the return of
the Jews from AD54 on. This could have affected Jew‐Gentile relationships and created tensions and
may lie behind the concern for relationships and eating, religious day issues in Rom 14‐15. The
thematic verse is probably 1:16‐17 concerning the gospel and especially the notion of
righteousness/justification. The key purposes of the letter appear to be: 1) Paul’s plans to come to
Rome to preach and then onto Spain for further mission (Rom 1:13‐16; 15:24‐33); 2) So Paul laying
out his gospel for their approval; 3) Paul addressing issues in the Roman church and generally
concerning Jew and Gentile (Rom 9‐11; 14‐15); 4) Paul requesting prayer support for his impending
trip to Jerusalem with the Collection (Rom 15:28‐33). Confusing interpretation of Romans now is the
New Perspective on Paul which since Sanders in 1978 has been critical to understanding Paul. It
concerns Paul’s and Judaism’s view of the law and depending on where you stand, affects how you
read Romans. J. Dunn and N.T. Wright in particular read Romans through the lens of the New
Perspective challenging traditional readings arguing that the issue is not so much personal sin and
salvation, but the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God and the status therefore of Jews. This
is a very difficult area which will be discussed in more depth in Romans from 2010 on. Romans is of
vital importance in that, though it is not a dogmatic theological textbook as some think, and its detail
concerning the law is debated, it is the clearest articulation of the gospel in the NT. It traces the
problem of sin (1:18‐3:20) which sees all people, Jew and Gentile in need of salvation. It articulates
the salvation of God through Christ’s death (3:21‐3:31). It gives Abraham as a model of faith showing
that it has been faith and faith alone through the OT Scriptures (Rom 4). It speaks of this salvation in
terms of the Spirit, Adam‐Christ Christology, reconciliation, law, freedom, flesh and the cosmic
implications of the gospel of righteousness by faith (Rom 5‐8). It addresses the vexed issue of the
place of Israel and Gentile in the purposes of God (Rom 9‐11). It discusses what Christian ethics looks
like without the governance of law and with the Spirit (Rom 12‐13). It discusses how to resolve non‐
essential issues of eating regulations and holy days (Rom 14‐15). It is full of Paul’s travel plans (Rom
1:11‐15; 15:19‐33). Chapter 16 is important to understanding the sort of people Paul worked with
including women, Jews and Gentiles; and gives insight into the sociological make up of both the
Roman, and Corinthian churches. It’s importance for Christian understanding and influence is
enormous.

478

The Corinthian Correspondence
1 Corinthians
Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians is not in dispute. He wrote it from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8)
somewhere between AD 53‐55 on his third missionary journey. Thus it was written 3‐5 years after
planting the Corinthian church on his second missionary journey (Acts 18). He writes this letter to
address specific issues namely: 1) Disunity in the Church Over Favoured Christian Leaders e.g.
Apollos (1:10‐4:20); 2) Sexual Immorality (5:1‐13; 6:9‐20); 3) Christian Litigation i.e. Christians taking
each other to court (6:1‐8); 4) Marriage and Singleness (7); 5) Freedom and Love Concerning Eating
Idolatrous Meat and Attending Temple Feasts (8, 10); 6) Paul’s Freedom concerning Material
Support and Apostleship (9); 7) Head Coverings or Loose Hair at Worship (11:1‐16); 8) Division at the
Lord’s Supper (11:17‐35); 9) Charismatic Gifts and the Priority of Love Not Tongues (12‐14); 10) The
Resurrection of the Body for Believers (15); 11) The Jerusalem Collection (16:1‐4). Note all of
chapters 11‐14 are dealing with gathered worship issues. 1 Corinthians is a letter that requires good
knowledge of the Greco‐Roman culture and Corinthians situation to fully understand it. As this is
understood it becomes clear that this church was struggling with the true meaning of what it means
to be in Christ, enamoured with the culture of Rome upon which New Corinth (rebuilt in 44BC) was
based including: elitism, material oppression, sexual immorality and libertinism, asceticism, a
rejection of bodily resurrection. Paul’s letter calls them back to the true meaning of being in Christ
which rejects all elitism, spiritual arrogance, sexual immorality, material oppression of rich over
poor, false asceticism, disunity to radical love egalitarianism and a complete confidence in the
resurrection of the body. 1 Corinthians is of massive importance in today’s church world where we
in the west are making many of the same mistakes of the Corinthian church.
2 Corinthians
In my view, 2 Corinthians is the most difficult letter of Paul to interpret. It is fragmented. It assumes
knowledge of events and connections that are very tricky. The opponents are difficult to be sure of.
Paul’s argumentation is his most complex and challenging.

The authorship of 2 Corinthians is not in dispute. However, interpretation of the letter and its date is
strongly disputed for several reasons: 1) Reconstruction of the events concerning the situation after
1 Corinthians; 2) The shifts of thought in 2 Corinthians which suggests to many it is three letters of
Paul put together (below). If it is three letters, then dating becomes based around dating the three
letters which is very confusing. Those who believe Paul wrote it as a unity, generally agree that Paul
wrote it about a year after 1 Corinthians, hence AD 54‐56 from Ephesus. The question of the order of
events is challenging. Here is a possible reconstruction: 1) Paul plants the church (AD 50‐52); 2) The
Lost Previous Letter addressing relationships with the immoral (1 Cor 5:9 AD 51‐54); 3) 1 Corinthians
(53‐55); 4) A Second Painful Visit after Timothy’s bad news where Paul was humiliated and return to
Ephesus (55); 5) A Severe Letter calling for action against the sinful man (either a lost letter or 2 Cor
10‐13); 6) 2 Corinthians (or 1 Cor 1‐9 AD 56); 7) Possibly, 2 Cor 10‐13 after this; 8) Final Visit (Acts
20:1‐3).

The integrity of 2 Corinthians is debated due to: 1) Reference to the earlier list letter (1 Cor 5:9); 2)
The sharp shifts at 2 Cor 6:14‐7:1; 3) Reference to another letter in 2 Cor 2:3‐4; 4) The sharp shift at
10:1. Some believe it is three Pauline letters put together. There are huge discussions here which
make interpretation of 2 Corinthians challenging. There is a good case to argue that 2 Corinthians is
a unity however (see Carson and Moo for their discussion).

Leaving aside all this, 2 Corinthians contains much that is of interest: 1) It begins with a blessing
rather than a thanksgiving (2 Cor 1:3‐7); 2) It speaks powerfully of Paul’s sufferings as an apostle
(1:8‐10; 4:7‐11; 6:3‐10; 11:25‐12:10; 3) It shows that life in the church was not rosey! 4) It is very
479


personal and gives a lot of insight into Paul; 5) It gives a long discussion of the gospel against the
background of Jewish thinking, suffering and reconciliation (2 Cor 2:14‐6:13); 6) It speaks of purity
and rejection of evil (2 Cor 6:14‐7:1); 7) Repentance (7:2‐16); 8) The Jerusalem Collection and
Principles of Christian Giving (2 Cor 8‐9); 9) False Teaching from Jewish Pneumatics, Paul’s Defence,
and Boasting over Suffering (2 Cor 10‐12:21); 10) Self examination (13).
Philippians
Philippians is a delightful letter. Unlike the Corinthian and Galatian churches, apart from one central
issue, it speaks of a wonderful church and the letter has a number of insights important for living as
the people of God today. The authorship is not disputed, Paul is the writer. Where it is written from
is disputed with Corinth, Caesarea, Ephesus and Rome the main possibilities. This is because Paul is
in prison and it is unclear where. It is most likely Rome however, as it makes most sense of the data
(esp. Phil 1:13; 4:22) whereas Ephesus and Corinth have no known imprisonments which fit,
Caesarea is too small and far from Philippi. It seems Paul’s situation in Roman prison has become
critical and he faces potential death (Phil 1:19‐23). Some scholars see awkward shifts in the letter at
3:1 and 4:10 and argue that Philippians is 3 letters of Paul (1:1‐3:1 + 4:1‐9; 3:1‐20; 4:10‐19). This is
almost universally rejected now, with most seeing it as one letter.

The main issues are five: 1) Disunity and related issues; 2) Suffering; 3) The Threat of Judaisers; 4)
Fellowship in the Gospel; 5) Material Support for Mission.

The first is the problem of conflict between two groups based around two leading women Euodia
and Syntyche. The conflict is explicitly mentioned in 4:2‐3 but glimpses of a concern for unity, peace
and love are found through the letter (1:11, 12‐18, 27; 2:1‐11, 14‐16). This is having the effect of
causing a lack of unity and joy in the letter (joy is a recurring theme), causing the gospel mission to
be thwarted and a lack of hope. Paul addresses all issues in the letter calling for unity (esp. 1:27; 2:1‐
11; 4:2‐3), preaching the gospel in love and word (1:12‐18, 27‐30; 2:15‐16) and joy (esp. 3:1; 4:4‐5)
and speaking of hope.

The problem of suffering he deals with briefly by giving his own example of continuing to preach the
gospel in Roman prison despite danger from the Romans and opposition from Roman Christians
(1:12‐18) and explicitly in Phil 1:27‐30 telling them to continue to preach the gospel despite their
suffering similarly (see also 3:10).

The third issue of the Judaisers he deals with in 3:1‐20 where he tells them to watch out for them,
refutes their theology with his own autobiography in which he writes off his claims to legal
righteousness in favour of knowing Christ.

The fourth issue running through the letter is involvement in the gospel. Paul speaks of his own
mission and the wonderful way that the Philippians have been involved in material support,
preaching and suffering for the cause.

The final issue is the positive model the Philippians are to support mission. They are unique in their
support for Paul from the beginning and now in Rome with Epaphroditus bringing their gifts and
nearly dying on the way (Phil 4:10‐14; 2:25‐30). He loves them for this.

One other thing to note in Philippians is the use of examples through the letter to make Paul’s point.
These include: 1) Paul himself (see ch 1, 3); 2) Falsely and Positively Motivated Romans Christians
(Phil 1:12‐18); 3) Christ the supreme example (a glorious hymn of praise 2:5‐11); 4) Timothy (2:19‐
24); 5) Epaphroditus (2:25‐30); 5) The Judaisers (negative) (3:1‐20). These all exemplify positively or
480

negatively Christian ethics and commitment to mission. The key example of course is Christ and this
passage is one of the most glorious in the NT with a high view of Christ as exalted Lord.
Colossians
The authorship of Colossians is disputed, however, there are good reasons to accept Pauline
authorship. It is written around the same time as Ephesians while Paul is in his rented
accommodation under guard in Rome (60‐61 AD). The Colossian church was not planted by Paul but
by one of his co‐workers Epaphras, probably during his time of ministry in Ephesus when the whole
of Asia Minor heard the gospel in 2 years (Acts 19:9‐10; Col 1:6). The main issue it deals with is a
heresy which has is outlined in Colossians 2:8‐23 and involves some of these things: 1) Philosophical
thought (some Greek influence); 2) Human tradition and elemental spiritual forces (perhaps magical
ideas and a mix with other religious ideas); 3) A diminishing of the lordship of Christ perhaps with an
elevation of interest in angels; 4) Asceticism concerning eating and drinking, special days and
festivals. This could be a syncretistic mix of Jewish, Greco‐Roman and eastern ideas.

Paul addresses these matters focussing on the supremacy of Christ as the cosmic Lord (similar to
Ephesians). The key points to note in this regard are: 1)The Hymn of Praise to Christ as Lord of the
Cosmos and Church so don’t diminish him (Col 1:15‐20); 2) A realised eschatology emphasising their
status now; don’t fall away! 3) Paul’s Commitment to Proclaiming Christ to the Point of Suffering
greatly; you should continue to remain in him as well (Col 1:21‐2:5); 4) How Christ Destroyed all Sin,
False Ideas and Demon Deception in His Saving Death (Col 2:6‐15) .

In Chapter 3 Paul, having rejected the idea of a false legalistic asceticism, gives them the basis of
ethics. They are now in Christ (look at the beauty of ch3). As such, they must put off all sin, and live
in Christ by his power putting to death their sins and living the ethics of the gospel (3:5‐4:1). Paul
includes in this a short haustefal (household code) summarising the essence of Ephesians above for
household relationships.

Finally, he requests their prayer (4:2‐4); encourages them to share the gospel in grace and flavour
(4:5‐6); and gives final greetings. These final greetings are interesting because of the people
mentioned including Onesimus (Philemon), John Mark (now reunited with Paul) and Luke.
The Thessalonian Correspondence
1 Thessalonians
1 Thessalonians is agreed to be by Paul. The role of Silas and Timothy is that of co‐senders rather
than co‐authors. There are not a great many critical issues although some parts are considered
interpolations (e.g. 2:13‐16) and some consider that 2 Thessalonians was written before 1
Thessalonians (e.g. Wanamaker). 1 Thessalonians is probably second of Paul’s letters written very
soon after Paul left Thessalonica from Corinth after passing through Berea and Athens and settling
for an extending period in Corinth (Acts 18). He planted the church on his second missionary
journey, spending at least 3 weeks preaching there. The majority of the church were probably
pagans (1:9‐10).

In its short life, the church was growing nicely but experiencing persecution (cf. 1 Thess 1:6; 2:13‐
16). There is evidence that this was a highly active and loving church. Paul commends them for their
love and the proclamation of the gospel; so much so, that they are a role model to all believers and
they are extending the faith throughout the region and beyond (1 Thess 1:3‐8).

There was also a concern in the church over the death of believers, they unsure of their fate and
when Christ would return. As such, Paul deals extensively in 1 Thess 4:13‐5:11 with eschatology. 1
481


Thessalonians is thus one of the most important NT books for the study of eschatology; namely, the
return of Christ and the resurrection of believers. It speaks of the return of Christ, the resurrection of
deceased believers, all believers meeting Paul in the air. It is unclear whether this means they then
are whisked off to heaven, or return then to earth to live on in a millennial kingdom or whatever (1
Thess 4:16‐17). Paul explains that this day will come very surprisingly like a thief in the night and
believers should be ready at all times for it. The key here is ‘to encourage one another’ with this stuff
(see 4:18; 5:11), not to get bogged down in theological dispute over it.

Another issue in the book is the issue of laziness in the church (1 Thess 5:14). This is a greater issue
in the following letter (below). It could be related to eschatology, some of the Thessalonians
believing that as Jesus was returning, they needn’t work (cf. 4:11‐12). Paul makes a lot of his own
ministry among them in which he worked hard as a tentmaker, providing for himself while he did the
work of the gospel; they should do the same (1 Thess 2:1‐12). Whatever the cause Paul deals with it
telling them to warn these believers not to do what they are doing.

The letter does not have an extended paraenetic section in which Paul gives exhortations on
Christian living (e.g. Col 3; Eph 4‐5; Rom 12‐15; Gal 4‐6). However, in ch’s 4‐5 he addresses ethics
exhorting them to be full of love for each other and all people (3:11‐12); to withstand pagan revelry
and sexually immorality (4:1‐7); to be full of joy, pray continually, be thankful at all times, be fervent
in the Spirit and open to prophetic words while testing them (5:14‐20).
2 Thessalonians
The authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been disputed on the basis of its similarity to 1 Thessalonians
in structure and supposed clashes with 1 Thessalonians. This is now falling out of favour among
many scholars who see it as sequential to 1 Thessalonians (see above on Pauline authorship). A
minority of scholars think it was written before 1 Thessalonians; however, one can see a nice track
from one letter to the other: 1) There is reference to past suffering; it seems that the problems
challenges the Thessalonians faced in Paul’s earlier letter are over; 2) There remain issues over the
return of Christ in the community, now with people falsely claiming that Jesus has already returned
in some way. Paul deals with this in chapter 2; 3) The issue of laziness has continued to be a
problem, perhaps connected with the previous issue. Paul takes a stronger line this time; 4) Their
increased love can be seen as a direct result of Paul’s prayers for them in this (2 Thess 1:4 cf. 1 Thess
3:12). The letter was probably written within a year of 1 Thessalonians, so is Paul’s third letter,
sometime during his stay in Corinth.

In this thanksgiving and prayer Paul commends them for their increasing faith, love and endurance in
the face of sufferings. There is a great emphasis on the judgement of God on their opponents,
further filling out the eschatological emphasis in 1 Thessalonians (2 Thess 1:5‐2:17). In 1:5‐10 Paul
gives a good lead into his understanding of the sequence on Christ’s return filling out the picture of 1
Thess 4. He will bring judgement on their opponents and those who do not walk in faith and
relationship with God. Their punishment will be everlasting destruction and this will occur at the
return of Christ in a blaze of glory. He then prays for them as believers that they will stand the test,
and glorify God in what they do (2:11‐12). The eschatological them continues in ch2 with Paul
stating emphatically that they should not be deceived into thinking Christ has come, he has not! He
then gives more detail on the events leading to that glorious day; namely, a rebellion spearheaded
by an evil charismatically gifted leader who will reject all religions other than himself cf. the emperor
cult. Jesus will destroy him at his coming.

In light of this Paul prays for them giving thanks to God for their salvation and work, encouraging
them to continue in the faith and conferring a blessing on them (2:11‐17). He requests their prayer
482

for the extension of the gospel (3:1‐2) and expresses confidence in God to protect them and lead
them on (3:3‐5).

In 3:6‐15 he deals more extensively with the continuing problem of idleness among them. He
reminds them of his teaching and example, whereby he worked as a gospel preacher and tentmaker
and was not idle or a burden. He urges them to do the same stating that if a person does not work,
they must not eat. Perhaps some were refusing to work either because they believed Christ had
come or was coming; because they presumed on the generosity of others; or were preaching the
gospel expecting to be supported. He urges them to reject such people and work hard for the Lord.
The Pastoral Epistles
The Pastoral Epistles are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. They are considered by many to be
pseudonymous written by someone with links to Paul in his name sometime after his death (see the
discussion above). However, it is most likely that the differences that exist are due to their being
personal letters and the use of amanuensis rather than a different author; Paul being in terrible
conditions in Roman prison awaiting death and so unable to write with the freedom he had
previously. They are personal letters from Paul to his co‐workers on assignment in the Pauline
churches (Titus in Crete; Timothy in Ephesus) seeking to resolve the issues of false teaching. They are
especially helpful to Pastors who lead churches and give insight into church government structures
(esp. elders and deacons).
The Letters to Timothy
Timothy of course was Paul’s right hand man. He picked him up on his second missionary journey
and he worked faithfully with Paul to the end. There is no hint of a negative attitude to Timothy
other than as possible timidity, although that is disputable. He was a preacher, a letter writer, an
emissary, a support in many ways. 1

Both the letters to Timothy speak of a heresy which is challenging the church in Ephesus. There is no
reference to this in Ephesians, which supports that being a circular letter, but there are warnings in
Acts to the Ephesian elders of false teachers (Acts 20:24‐28). Some are named including Hymenaeus
and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 4:14‐15 cf. Acts 19:33). Some of the features of the heresy include:
1) A Concern for Myth and Genealogies (1 Tim 1:3‐4); 2) A Distorted View of the Law (1 Tim 1:6‐10);
3) Some who have rejected the Christian faith and perhaps returned to Judaism or a variant thereof
(1 Tim 1:18‐20; 2 Tim 1:17); 4) Forbidding marriage, food regulations (1 Tim 4:1‐5); 5) Dogmatic
Argumentation (1 Tim 1:4; 6:3‐6; 2 Tim 2:16); 6) Concern for financial gain (1 Tim 6:5‐10 cf. 5:17‐21;
6:17‐19); 7) That the Resurrection Has Already Taken Place (2 Tim 2:17); 8) Take Advantage of
Women and Deceiving Them (2 Tim 3:6 cf 1 Tim 2:11‐15); 9) A concern for physical health over
spiritual (Greco Roman concern for the body) (cf. 1 Tim 4:8). Thus there heresy is a complex
interplay of Jewish ideas blended with false ideas of resurrection and prosperity teaching. There is a
great concern for the love of money among the elders and this is a sober warning to us today in an
age of prosperity teaching. There is a sense of an over‐realised eschatology, the resurrection has
occurred, we can live in wealth!

Paul’s letters are not exclusively about this false teaching, but are personal letters encouraging
Timothy as a leader against this backdrop and generally.

1
See Acts 16:1; 17:14, 15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4; Rom 16:2; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor 1:1, 19; Phil 1:1; 2:19, 22; Col
1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 3:2‐6; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Tim 1:2, 18; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:2
483


1 Timothy
1 Timothy deals directly with the issue of the teachers encouraging Timothy to deal with them, how
to lead, and how to be an example to others. It includes detail of these teachers (see above). It
speaks of Paul’s own life and ministry including detail of himself as a terrible sinner, his call
encouraging Timothy to do the same (1:12‐18). In chapter 2 it has instructions of prayer and Christ
as mediator (2:1‐10). This is followed by instructions limiting the leadership role of women (2:11‐15).
Some take these as universal, others as specific to the situation where women who were less
educated were being led astray by false teaching and perhaps taking a leading role in it. Paul urges
that they continue in faith, love and holiness and parenthood. Perhaps due to false teachers invading
the church leadership,
Paul encourages Timothy to establish elders (overseers) and deacons (servant ministry) who were
men of good character, good fathers and strong in the faith (3:1‐13). This lays the platform for
church government (cf. Acts 20:20‐28; 1 Pet 5:1‐4; Phil 1:1). Some believe that this precludes
females in church leadership but this is not specifically stated as a universal command.
Chapter four includes further warnings against false teachers (above). Paul urges Timothy, although
relatively young, to be an example in his commitment to the Scriptures, living in his spiritual
giftedness, and persevering in the gospel (4:9‐16). In Chapter Five he gives him instructions on
relating to younger and older men in the church, and caring for widows, a passage that reflects the
early church’s concern for those in need (5:1‐16). He then gives instructions on elders including
material support, perhaps indicating that there have been some who have been abusing this (5:17‐
21 cf. 6:6‐10, 17). There are other personal comments, instructions to slaves and warning against the
dangers of a love of money (5:22‐6:10). It finishes with a final charge to Timothy to persevere in the
faith (6:11‐16) and how to command those who are rich to be generous (6:17‐21).
2 Timothy
2 Timothy has the hallmarks of Paul’s last letter. It is like a final charge to Timothy. It begins with
Paul reminiscing over Timothy’s faith and an encouragement to live full on for Christ (2 Tim 1:3‐7).
Timothy is a neat example of a boy who received the faith through his family. 1:6‐7 is a great
injunction to us all. Some see here Timothy’s timidity, however it is equally possibly an
encouragement from his father in Christ who is about to die, to live full on for Christ.

Paul goes onto urge Timothy to live without shame of the gospel as he has in Roman prison (cf. Rom
1:16) and speaks of the Gospel and his own call to it (2 Tim 1:8‐14). He mentions others who have
deserted him, but speaks positively of Onesiphorus who has cared for him in Rome (2 Tim 2:15‐18).

He encourages Timothy to be strong in the faith, pass it onto reliable men, and endure hardship
seeking to please God like a good soldier, committed athlete or hard working farmer (2:1‐7). He
reminds him of Christ and the gospel using a hymn fragment (2:8‐13). He urges him to warn the
believers under his care, resisting false teaching and setting an example to believers (2:14‐26). He
warns him of terrible sin in the last days and false teachers (3:1‐9).

In 3:10‐4:8 he gives a magnificent final charge to Timothy to recall Paul’s example of perseverance,
faith and love, warns him of the certainty of struggle in his ministry. He urges him to continue in the
Scriptures, proclaiming them to believers, and doing the work of proclaiming the gospel to the lost
(3:10‐4:5). Paul then speaks of his impending death at the hands of the Roman (4:6‐8).

The letter includes final instructions to come to Rome quickly, no doubt because Paul senses the end
is near. These details are important for piecing together a possible fourth missionary journey of Paul
after his release from the imprisonment of Acts (cf. Philippians). It finishes with greetings.
484

Titus
Titus was a Gentile (Gal 2:3) co‐worker of Paul perhaps from Antioch who worked with Paul from
early days (Gal 2:1 cf. Acts 11:27‐30) features in 2 Corinthians as Paul gathers money for the
Jerusalem Collection and is in Dalmatia at the end of Paul’s life (cf. 2 Tim 4:10).

Pauline authorship of Titus is disputed, but as with the other Pastorals is probably the work of an
amanuensis while Paul is in prison. The letter like the two to Timothy, is written with a concern for
false teachers in the church in Crete. Paul of course had visited Crete on his way to Rome (Acts 27:8‐
12). There is also suggestion that he travelled again to Crete after release from Rome later at which
time he left Titus there, sometime around AD62‐64 (Tit 1:5). The reason he was left is to ‘set
straight’ the church and appoint elders to oversee the church. The nature of the problem includes: 1)
Proneness to rebellion, talk and deception, controversy, argumentation, quarrels (1:10; 3:9); 2)
Aligning with the Judaisers (1:10); 3) Financial Exploitation (1:11); 4) Concern for Jewish ‘myth’ i.e.
aspects of a Jewish perspective on faith (1:14); 5) A Concern for genealogies and law (3:9); 6)
Proneness to anger, sin, violence, deceit, immorality and drunkenness (1:6‐9, 12).

Paul’s response is to send Titus. Through the letter he instructs him with this as his backdrop. He
tells him to appoint elders in each town, suggesting either that the elders needing replacing,
augmenting or that there was no leadership in these churches. He tells him that they must be of
good character, good fathers and husbands and hold to the authentic gospel (1:6‐9). The details
there could suggest that some of the Cretans were subject to violence, drunkenness, quick‐
temperedness. This is supported by the proverb in 1:12: ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy
gluttons.’ Paul, as in Galatians, is concerned about the Judaisers (‘the circumcision group’) (1:12‐13)
and calls on Titus to silence them.

In Chapter 2 Paul gives instruction to teach the different groups in the church carefully, including
older men, older women, young men and slaves (2:1‐10). He should teach according to grace and
renunciation of sin (2:11‐15).

In Chapter 3 he urges submission to the governing authorities (cf. Rom 13:1‐3; 1 Pet 2:13f). He
follows this with a glorious statement of the grace and salvation of Christ (3:4‐8). The letter ends
with final commands concerning workers.
Philemon
Philemon is the shortest of Paul’s letters. It is accepted as an authentic Pauline letter. It is written at
the same time as Colossians and Ephesians and delivered by the same deliver Tychicus to Philemon,
a church leader in Colossae (and Apphia perhaps his wife; and Archippus). We know that this is so,
because of the common names in the conclusions of both letters including Epaphras, Luke, Mark,
Aristachus and Demas. Philemon is clearly a wealthy Christian as he hosts a church in his home and
shows hospitality to Paul and other Christians (Phm 6‐7, 22). He is a convert of Paul although we are
not sure when this would have occurred as Paul did not plant the Colossian church (cf. Col 1:6; Acts
19:9‐10).

The purpose of the letter is to plead to Philemon on behalf of a runaway slave Onesimus (Phm 10)
who has come to Roman prison and met Paul and come to the Lord through Paul (Phm 10). As a
runaway slave he faces severe punishment. In addition, he may have robbed Philemon (Phm 19).
Paul pleads for Philemon to take him back not as a slave, but as a brother, welcoming him as if
welcoming Paul (Phm 16, 17). He resolves to pay any debt for him, recalling Jesus paying our debt
and buying us out of slavery i.e. redemption/manumission (Phm 19). Paul is confident that this will
be so. We have no idea of the outcome but it is likely that this was resolved. News of Onesimus’
return is noted in Col 4:9.
485


The letter is a beautiful letter full of reference to generosity, love and holds within it the seeds of the
end of slavery. There is a lovely play on the notion of ‘useful/useless’ with Onesimus meaing
‘useless’ and Paul in v.11 noting that ‘he was useless to you, but now he has become useful to both
you and to me.’ It has resonances with Christ’s sacrifice for humanity, purchasing them out of slavery
(redemption). It recalls the Prodigal Son (Lk 15), Philemon taking back his runaway slave. It recalls
the Good Samaritan, Paul prepared to pay the bill (Lk 10:25‐40). The letter provides further evidence
of Paul’s links with Luke (Phm 25).
Hebrews
The letter to the Hebrews was considered among many in the early church to be a letter of Paul.
There are few if any scholars who hold this today on the basis of differences to the Pauline letters,
the lack of an ascription and 2:3 which clearly states that the writer was converted through first
generation preachers of the gospel. As such, the authorship is hotly disputed with options including
Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Clement of Rome and even Priscilla. Origen said ‘God alone knows’ and that
is the truth.

The main clues to setting and date are: 1) 13:24: ‘Those from Italy send you their greetings;’ 2) The
reference to Timothy being with the writer (13:23). This suggests that it was written with Timothy
was in Rome with Paul, before or after he left for Philippi (Phil 2:19) and Ephesus (1 and 2 Tim). The
most likely date then is AD 60‐62 (cf. Acts 28:30‐31; Phil 1:12‐13). Alternatively it was written when
Timothy returned to Rome with Paul’s parchments (2 Tim 4:9, 21).

The problem in the letter is identified in 10:32‐39 where the writer refers to their falling away from
their initial faith in the face of persecution. They appear to be Jewish Christians abandoning
Christianity for some form of the Jewish faith. The writer writes seeking to convince them not to fall
away by presenting Christ as ‘better by far’ and warning of harsh consequences if they fall away.

The key theme in Hebrews is the superiority of Christ. It begins with a wonderful hymnic statement
of the divine Christ as God’s final word to the world who saves and who now reigns (1:1‐4). This is
followed by two main threads: 1) The Superiority of Christ over Judaism; 2) Warnings Not to Fall
Away and Encouragements to Persevere. These warnings and encouragements include constant
references to OT examples of believers who struggled.

In terms of the superiority of Christ we have a very high Christology. Jesus is seen as: 1) Superior to
the angels as God the Son (1:5‐14); 2) Jesus the Fulfilment of Humanity’s Role to Rule over Creation
i.e. Greater than Adam (2:5‐18); 3) Jesus Greater than Moses (3:1‐6); 4) Jesus the Greatest High
Priest in the Order of Melchizedek (4:14‐5:10); 5) The Certainty of God’s Promise because Jesus is
the Great High Priest (6:13‐20); 6) Jesus a Superior High Priest to the Levitical Priests (7:1‐28); 7)
Jesus High Priest of a Superior Covenant (8:1‐13); 8) Jesus High Priest of the Heavenly Sanctuary (9:1‐
28); 9) Jesus the Supreme Once For All Sacrifice Superior to the Jewish Sacrifices (10:1‐19).

There are a series of warnings not to fall away through Hebrews along with encouragements to
persevere. These punctuate the teaching on the superiority of Christ: 1)First Warning: do not drift
away from the (2:1‐4); 2) Second Warning and encouragement: Against Unbelief as did Israel in the
Wilderness (3:7‐4:13); 3) Third warning, against falling away (5:11‐6:12); 4) Fourth Warning against
falling away, an encouragement to persevere and a reminder of past commitment (10:19‐39).

After Heb 11 there is a shift away from a concern for the superiority of Christ to strong
encouragements to persevere. These include: 1) The Nature of True Faith (11:1‐40); 2) The Supreme
Example of Jesus (12:1‐4); 3) Endure hardship as the discipline of the Lord (12:5‐11); 4) A Fifth
486

Warning Against Rejecting God’s Grace (12:14‐29); 5) Exhortations to right living (13:1‐19); 6)
Benediction, final exhortations and greetings (13:20‐25).

Some of the theological controversies around Hebrews relate to whether or not a believer can fall
away. The majority of contemporary scholars argue that the writer is warning against genuine
believers falling away as they return to Judaism or some variant thereof. These warnings should
serve as a reminder of the dangers of turning from Christ. However, some seek to continue to find
creative exegetical ways of getting around this. Chapter Eleven is one of the great chapters in the
bible in terms of the role of faith.
The General or Catholic Epistles
The General Epistles is a term generally used of a collection of seven letters after the Paulines
including James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John and Jude. The General Epistles are also called the
‘catholic’ epistles; catholic (katholikē) meaning universal or worldwide, i.e. general. They are termed
this because they are seen as being written for a wider audience, rather than one specific church or
individual, unlike Paul’s letters. The notion catholic originated in the latter part of the second
century by Apollonius (d. c. 185) of a letter by a Montanist Themiso (see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.18.5).
Clement used the term of the letter found in Acts 15:22‐29 from the Jerusalem Collection, written by
all the apostles for all the Gentile churches. Origen used it of the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 140) (Contra
Celsus, 1.63). Thus the idea is related to their general appeal. Eusebius used it of these seven letters
(see Hist. Eccl. 2.23.24‐25; 6.14.1) followed by Athanasius (Festal Letter, 39.5). 2

James
The authorship of James is highly disputed. However, as is the case with the letters of Peter, Jude
and John, it is extremely unlikely that the early church would have accepted a pseudonymous work
from these writers who were brothers of Jesus, and the leading apostles. He had been converted
after a personal resurrection appearance from Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) and became leader of the
Jerusalem Church in the early 40’s (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; cf. Acts 1:13; Gal 2:12). Later church
tradition says a huge amount about him as James the Just in Gnostic and other writings. The letter
must be dated before AD62 when James was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin (see Jos. Ant.
20.200). Some date it before the Jerusalem Council (mid 40’s); however it is more likely it was
written anytime between this time and 62. It probably originated from Jerusalem, written to
scattered Jewish Christians throughout the Empire. It is written with excellent Greek with a huge
number of imperatives (59), massive use of analogy (e.g. tongues like ships rudders/fire sparks). It is
reads like a series of sermonettes and has no one clear issue. It is jam packed with links to the OT
(e.g. the royal law [2:8]) and the Synoptic Gospels and especially the Sermon on the Mount e.g. Jas
5:8 cf. Mt 5:8. There are also heaps of links to 1 Jn e.g. Jas 1:17 cf. 1 Jn 1:5.

Its main purpose is to encourage Diaspora Jewish Christians in their faith with general instruction: 1)
Encouragement in the face of trials and persecutions e.g. 1:2‐3, 12; 5:7‐12; 2) God, the Path to
Wisdom (see 1:5‐8; 3:13‐18); 3) Problems Concerning a Theology of Wealth (1:9‐11; 2:1‐12; 5:1‐6; 4)
Believers falling into sin and temptation through desire which they must withstand (1:13‐16); 5)
Contention, Anger, Slander and Poor Speech: 3:1‐6; 4:1‐2; 6) Nominalism and Antinomianism of faith
i.e. a workless faith: 1:22‐27; 2:14‐26; 7) Submission to God, Repentance and Contrition and
renunciation of pride, greed, covetousness and the world (4:1‐12; 8) Reliance on God’s Will and not
Human Plans: (4:13‐17); 9) Vows without Swearing (5:12); 10) Faithful Prayer (5:13‐18); 11) Bring
Back Those Who Stray (5:19‐20).

2
See ‘Canonization’ in DLNTD, no page.
487


One issue is the supposed clash with Paul over works and faith. This cannot be discussed in full here.
Luther had little time for James believing it should be removed from the Canon. The problem is that
Paul appears to preach a gospel of salvation by grace without works (Eph 2:8‐9; Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16)
with Abraham as the role model of faith (Rom 4:1‐3). James on the other hand argues for a faith
accompanied by works and gives Abraham as example (Jas 2:14‐26). However, this is not such an
issue when we realise that Paul is speaking of faith for entry into salvation and James is speaking of
what authentic faith looks like, something that Paul agrees with (e.g. Eph 2:10; Rom 6:14‐23; Phil
2:12‐13). The greatest value of James is that it teaches us that authentic faith has content and is not
just intellectual assent; it is a life lived in obedience to God and in particular, care for the poor.

The Letters of Peter
There are two letters attributed to Peter in the NT. They are both highly contentious in terms of
authorship, especially 2 Peter. We will look briefly at each in turn:
1 Peter
The authorship of 1 Peter is strongly challenged. However, these arguments are no strong and there
is little reason to believe that the early church would accept a pseudonymous letter from the one
who was viewed as ‘the rock of the church.’ The letter was in all likelihood written in Rome toward
the end of Peter’s life. It is possible that Silas penned it for him, although this is disputed. It is written
to churches in the northern part of Asia Minor, the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia
and Bithynia. These are areas which Paul did not personally evangelise and were either evangelised
by Peter, or others unknown. It is possible that Peter had travelled through this area and had
developed a bond with the churches. He writes to encourage them under persecution and gives
direction as to how to live in this world. He calls believers foreigners and aliens, using the language
of exile of believers. There is a strong emphasis on living in relation to governing authorities
throughout, Peter encouraging them to submit to them in as much they are able without violating
their allegiance to Christ and to give witness through their lives and words.

The letter begins with a glorious doxology outlining, in a manner similar to Ephesians 1:3‐14, the
benefits of salvation including eternal inheritance (1:3‐0). There is a strong emphasis on suffering
through the letter exhorting them to stand firm in them (1:6). Their great salvation is their hope in
the face of their opponents (1:6). There is a strong call to holiness and obedience and refusing to fall
prey to pagan loose licentious living (1:13‐15). There is a strong emphasis on their redemption
through Christ and through the word which saved them (1:17‐2:3).

Believers are being built into a spiritual house and priesthood who offer sacrifices to God through
Christ (2:4‐8). Believers are the fulfilment of the hope of the OT, a chosen people, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, God’s people, whose role is to declare the wonderful deeds of God and his salvation
(2:9‐10). They are to be different to pagans, living good lives that glorify God (2:11‐12).

In 2:13‐17 they are to submit to the governing authorities, the emperor, living freely but as servants
of God. In 2:18‐3:7 Peter gives a household code with a strong emphasis on witness. He tells
household slaves to submit to their masters even when they are harsh. They are to follow in the
footsteps of the example of Christ who never cried out despite his suffering on the cross. He appeals
to wives to submit to their unbelieving husbands who have rejected the word, seeking to win them
without preaching at them but by the quality of their lives. Husbands are to care for their wives with
gentleness.

In 3:8‐13 he urges them to do good even then they are treated poorly by others. In 3:13‐16 he
carries this thought on urging them when facing questions from enquirers, to always be ready to
488

answer them with a reason for their faith. In this way they will be shamed. He urges them to do good
rather than evil. In 3:18‐22 he speaks of Christ’s death for sins and the unrighteous. He speaks of
Christ going to Hades to preach to the spiritual forces of evil (not human spirits) of the victory of
God.

In chapter 4 he urges the believers of north Asia not to live as the pagans live, but to leave behind
debauchery, drunkenness, sexual immorality and idolatry or face judgement (4:1‐6). He urges them
to pray, show love, offer hospitality, serve with their gifts and speak graciously (4:7‐11). In 4:12‐19
Peter encourages them in suffering. They should not be surprised but rejoice for they participate in
the sufferings of Christ.

In Chapter 5 Peter gives guidance to shepherds to willingly watch over the flock without exploitation
and await his reward (5:1‐4). He urges for humility and submission (5:5‐6) and resistance of the devil
(5:7‐11).
2 Peter
The authorship of 2 Peter is hugely challenged; so much so, that the majority of scholars consider
that 2 Peter is not the work of Peter. Although there are significant differences to 1 Peter, and
similarities to Jude’s work, it is improbable that the early church would accept a work in Peter’s
name (see Carson and Moo for a defence of this position). The date is hard to ascertain. Those who
maintain it is pseudonymous argue that it must be later than Peter’s death, in the 70’s to 90’s. Most
who accept Petrine authorship date it before AD65 and Peter’s death, from Rome. That he is
approaching death is clear in 1:12‐13. It is written to ‘those who through the righteousness of our
God and Savour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as theirs’ (1:1). In 3:1 he mentions that
this is his second letter to his recipients. As such, it is probably written to the same churches as 1
Peter. This time there is evidence of false teaching. Some of the features of these false teachers and
prophets from Chapter 2 include: 1) Denying Christ (2:1); 2) Sexual Immorality (2:2, 7, 13); 3) Greed
and exploitation (2:3, 14); 4) Slandering Celestial Beings and Angels (2:10‐11); 5) Sinful, seductive
(2:14); 6) Boasting and empty words (2:18); 7) Previous Believers who Have Turned to Heresy (2:20).
These sounds like a Greco‐Roman syncretistic heresy rather than a Jewish one.

Peter’s letter encourages them to trust in God’s promises and add to their faith other character
attributes including self‐control, perseverance and love which will cause them to be effective for
Christ (1:3‐9). Knowing he will die soon (1:12‐13), he writes to encourage them, reminding them that
he is an eye‐witness to Christ at his transfiguration (1:16‐17) and the inspired prophets have been
fulfilled (1:19‐21).

His rebuke of the false teachers is powerful with the strongest language to describe them and their
judgement pronounced in 2:4‐9. He recalls the judgement on the ungodly at the flood (Gen 6); on
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18); on Balaam (cf. Numb 22). These teachers will experience terrible
suffering (2:17).

In chapter 3 he speaks of the coming judgement on the scoffers of the last days. Just as the world
was purged with the flood at the time of Noah, like a thief Christ will come and it will be purged with
fire (3:3‐13) to be superseded by a new heaven and earth. God wants all people however, to be
saved from this (2 Pet 3:9).

So believers should live holy and good lives awaiting this day (2 Pet 3:11, 14). He mentions the
letters of his dear brother Paul which some distort but which are Scriptures i.e. a high place for
them. He finishes with a warning to not be deceived by the false teachers and fall from grace but
rather, grow in grace and knowledge in Christ (3:15‐18).
489


The Letters of John
The authorship of the three letters attributed to John is highly disputed. Many scholars see them as
productions not from John but from the Johannine school centred around the apostle John but not
necessarily from his pen. Again we have to ask why the early church would have attributed them to
such a person without good reason. They are probably from Ephesus and around the late 70’s to 80’s
after John’s Gospel. 2, 3 John each have their own addressee, while 1 John does not have a specific
recipient or recipients.

1 John then is written by John toward the end of his life. That he is an eye‐witness is found in 1:1‐4
where he recalls walking with Christ, the Word of life. 1 John focuses around a heresy. The letter
suggests these features of the problem: 1) Some have left the community (2:18‐19); 2) They deny
Jesus is the Christ (2:22) and is God’s Son (2:23; 4:14‐15); 3) They are trying to lead the Christians
recipients astray (2:26; 3:7); 4) They are false prophets (4:1) who do not acknowledge that Jesus
came in the flesh (4:2 cf. 4:6; 2 Jn 7); 5) They denied their sin (1:6‐10); 6) The Emphasis on Love could
imply that they were showing hate? Putting it together you have false teachers/prophets who are
seeking to teach that Jesus is not truly the Messiah in the sense of a real man (not of flesh) and they
have broken away. There are different ideas of this: 1) Gnosticism: a movement based around secret
knowledge and a duality between matter and Spirit. Jesus only appeared in Gnostic thought to be
human as in Docetism; 2) Docetism: where Jesus appears to be a man but was not; 3) The Heresy of
Cerinthus: He severed Jesus from the divine Christ. The Spirit/Christ came on Jesus at his baptism,
and left him to suffer on the cross. The most likely is the first seeds of the Gnostic movement, a
proto‐gnosticism which flowered half a century later.
1 John
The letter has the heresy in the background. It starts by emphasizing the reality of Jesus’ incarnation
which the author John saw, heard and who he touched (1:1‐4). He introduces the theme of light and
darkness; true believers walk in the light forgiven by sin. False believers claim to be without sin. They
should confess and be forgiven (1:5‐10).

In Chapter 2 he continues the theme of sin, urging them not to, but telling them that Jesus’ death
deals with sins (2:1‐2). He urges obedience, perhaps challenging the false teachers (2:3‐6). He states
that this is not new but the truth that they originally heard (2:7‐8). In 2:9‐11 he introduces the idea
of love, which is essential to the light. 2:12‐14 is a poem urging all in the church to stay true to the
truth. This love cannot be directed to the world, lust and boasting must be left behind for it is
passing away (2:15‐17).

2:18‐27 warns against the false teachers who are antichrists (see above). The believers know the
truth and must not be deceived by these liars who deny the incarnation of Christ (2:20‐27). As
children they must carry on in him, experiencing the love of God and not be led astray (2:28‐3:10).
The letter strongly emphasizes love for one another as Christ loved the world and be obedient (3:11‐
24). In Chapter 4 John again warns of false spirits and prophets warning them to listen to them and
not the false teachers (4:1‐6). He again emphasizes love for God is love (4:7‐21).

In the final chapter he urges faith and love, obedience, and the reality of Christ’s incarnation (5:1‐
12). He concludes the letter with a statement of confidence in prayer (5:13‐15), renunciation of sin
(5:16‐17), that Satan rules the world (5:19) and that Jesus is the true Son of God who has come and
is God and eternal life. They must avoid idolatry.
2 John
The letter is written from the ‘elder’ who is probably John, but may be someone from the Johannine
community. It is written to an unknown lady and her children. The letter expresses joy at their
490

walking in the truth; reiterates the importance of love and obedience; warns against antichrists and
false prophets who deny the reality of Christ’s incarnation (above); warns of the consequences of
such denial, rupture in the relationship with God; that they should not welcome such false teachers;
and speaks of a shortage of paper and ink and a desire to visit.
3 John
This is also from ‘the elder’ this time to Gaius who is not likely to be the Gaius of Macedonia or
Corinth (cf. Acts 19:29; 20:4; Rom 16:23; 1 Cor1:14). He is clearly a believer. He prays for blessings.
He commends his faith and walking in the truth. He is showing hospitality to visitors and he is
commended for it. He speaks of Diotrephes who is not commended for he is a gossip and will not
welcome the brothers. He urges him to do good. He commends Demetrius. He speaks of a shortage
of pen and ink and his hope to come.
Jude
The authorship of Jude is disputed. There are 8 Jude’s (Judah, Judas, Jude) in the NT. Different
scholars have argued that this Jude is Judas son of James (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13), Thomas
(known as Judas Thomas or Didymus Judas Thomas in eastern tradition), Judas Barsabbas the
spiritual ‘brother’ of James of Jerusalem (Acts 15:22). The author describes himself as a brother of
James (Jude 1); as such, most likely this is the brother of Jesus (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.19.1‐20). Many
though think it is pseudepigraphical because it is dated late by many (esp. Jude 17) and the Greek is
very good. However, Jude 17 can be read not as a late date, but as calling people back to the
apostle’s faith. The argument from the Greek doesn’t stand up, Jude was surely bilingual as were
most in Galilee. Jude is also an obscure choice for a pseudonym and it is also unlikely the church
would have accepted it if it was not the real Jude. There are a wide range of dates from the 50’s
even to the second century. A good case can be made for an early date in that it reads like Jewish‐
Christian apocalypticism and that the opponents during the 50s. We know nothing of Jude’s death
but it may have been the late 80’s. 1 Cor 9:5 mentions brothers of the Lord active preaching, Jude is
probably one of these. It is probably 50’s‐70’s. It is unclear who it is written to. Some argue the
Jewish traditions suggest Jewish Christians and this may be so, although Gentiles acquainted with
them may also fit. These recipients could be in Palestine, Syria, Egypt or anywhere where Jewish
Christians lived in Hellenistic environment.

There are clear links between Jude and 2 Peter (see Jude 4‐13, 16‐18 and 2 Pet 2:1‐18; 3:1‐3). The
older view was that Jude used 2 Peter but most now believe 2 Peter used Jude. Some argue they are
from a common source or that the same author wrote them both.

The letter includes opponents who appear similar to 2 Peter. They are mentioned in 1:4. The letter
reveals that they are facing condemnation and: 1) Have secretly infiltrated the recipients churches
(Jude 4) and have been accepted (Jude 12); 2) Engaged in debauchery (Jude 4, 8); 3) Deny Jesus
Christ as sovereign Lord (Jude 4 cf. Jude 7); 4) Reject authority (Jude 8); 5) Slander celestial beings
(Jude 8); 6) Are abusive (Jude 10); 7) Eating food at the Church Supper Gatherings without the
church, gluttony, not waiting (Jude 12); 8) They boast, follow their lusts, use flatter, grumble, find
fault (Jude 16); 9) They fulfil the predictions of the apostles of false teachers (Jude 17‐18); 10) They
claim authority from their own visions (Jude 8). This has the hall marks of a heresy with some
affinities to Corinth but more extreme. Perhaps Greco‐Roman dualism. It could include a docetic
view of Christ or an Arian diminishing of his status. They clearly lack the agapē of Christ. As in
Corinth, they are abusing the community meals, gorging themselves and not waiting for others. It
could be they are itinerant prophets practicing proto‐gnosticism or more likely, Pauline
antinomianism rejecting authority, being sexually free.

To deal with these false teachers Jude urges them to struggle or contend for the authentic faith
491


which has been passed down and entrusted to them (Jude 3). He emphatically endorses their eternal
destruction which carries a warning to his readers not to join them, or they too will go down with
them (e.g. Jude 4). In Jude 5‐7 he develops this idea of destruction with three examples (cf. v.7): 1)
Reminders of the Lord’s judgement on the people of Israel after his deliverance of them at the
Exodus (i.e. the wilderness (e.g. Numbers 14; 26:64‐65); 2) The rebellion of angels against God,
bound for everlasting destruction. This refers to 1 Enoch 6‐19 which reflects Gen 6:1‐4 which was
understood in Judaism as the point at which the angels rebelled against God and intermarried with
humans; not the origin of evil (Adam). (NOTE: the myth was that 200 angels descended, took human
wives, ravaged the earth, taught humanity forbidden knowledge and sin; hence the flood which
wiped out the total corruption of the earth. The angels (‘watchers’) were bound until judgement in
Gehenna. Evil spirits are the spirits of their children). This warns the readers of the eternal
destruction of these false teachers who are akin to demons; 3) The destruction Sodom and
Gomorrah for sexual immorality and perversion (Gen 18).
In v8‐10 he deals with the problem of slandering celestial beings with the example of Michael
refusing to slander Satan when disputing over Moses’ body. This comes from the lost ending of the
Testament of Moses which has a legend of the death of Moses (Deut 34:1‐6) where Michael came to
remove the body for burial but had a legal dispute with Satan over the body. Satan charged him with
murder (Exod 2:12). Michael responded, ‘may the Lord rebuke you, devil!’ He left, and Michael took
the body for burial. As such, believers should not join the reckless attitude to demonic forces like the
false teachers.

In v.11 he rebukes them referring to three more OT examples of judgment: 1) To their following the
‘way of Cain’ (Gen 4); 2) The error of Balaam (cf. Numb 25; 2 Pet 2:15; Rev 2:14); 3) Korah’s rebellion
(Num 16). In v12‐13 he further rebukes them stating that they are blemishes at their church
gatherings. He uses a string of similes to note that they are empty and wavering lacking substance.
They will suffer darkness forever.

In v.14 Jude quotes 1 Enoch using ‘prophesied’ suggesting Jude had a high view of the book (note
above): 1) Seventh in descent from Adam (1 En 60:8; 93:3); 2) ‘With his tens of thousands of holy
ones’ (1 En 1:9 cf. Deut 33:2). This points to the judgement when Christ comes with his angels for
judgement.

In v.17‐19 he recalls an otherwise unknown saying from the apostles concerning false teachers.

In v20‐23 he urges them to: 1) Take personal responsibility to grow in their faith; 2) Pray in the Spirit;
3) Remain in God’s love (and so not follow the false teachers); 4) Be merciful to those who are being
pulled aside by the heretics; 5) Snatch others from the fire and save them if they have fallen; 6)
Show mercy to others.

It finishes with one of the great doxologies in the NT expressing confidence in God to enable them to
persevere and giving God glory.

Jude is unique in its use of 1 Enoch and T. Moses showing it is in the apocalyptic line of thought.
These references do not endorse their canonisation but reflect that these writings are of value.

492

Chapter Twenty Five
Revelation
Contents
Revelation ...................................................................................................................................................... 493
Revelation in the Canon ................................................................................................................................ 494
Authorship ..................................................................................................................................................... 495
External Evidence: The evidence of the early church. .............................................................................. 495
Internal Evidence: ‘John’. .......................................................................................................................... 495
Additional Contemporary Arguments against Johannine authorship. ...................................................... 496
The Lack of Explicit Apostolic Claims ..................................................................................................... 496
Theological Differences ......................................................................................................................... 496
Conclusion on Authorship ......................................................................................................................... 497
Provenance and Recipients ....................................................................................................................... 497
Date ........................................................................................................................................................... 499
Persecution ............................................................................................................................................ 499
Emperor Worship .................................................................................................................................. 499
The State of the Churches ..................................................................................................................... 499
The temple in 11:1‐2 ............................................................................................................................. 499
The Nero Myth ...................................................................................................................................... 499
The Seven Kings of Rev 17:9‐11. ............................................................................................................ 500
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 500
The Genre of Revelation ................................................................................................................................ 500
Revelation as Apocalyptic .......................................................................................................................... 500
Revelation as Prophecy ............................................................................................................................. 500
Revelation as a Letter ................................................................................................................................ 501
Revelation as Liturgy ................................................................................................................................. 501
Revelation as Drama .................................................................................................................................. 501
Conclusion to Genre .................................................................................................................................. 501
Use of OT and Christian Tradition ................................................................................................................. 501
The imminent return of Christ ....................................................................................................................... 501
Important theological contribution of Revelation ........................................................................................ 501
Millenial Views ............................................................................................................................................... 502
The Postmillennial View ............................................................................................................................ 502
The Premillennial View .............................................................................................................................. 502
The Premillennial/Posttribulational View ................................................................................................. 503
The Amillennial View ................................................................................................................................. 504
Methods of interpretation ............................................................................................................................ 504
The Historical Approach: the Symbolism Speaks to Human History Past. ................................................ 505
The Idealist Approach: the Symbolism is General not Specific. ................................................................ 505
The Extreme Futurist Approach i.e. Dispensationalism: The Symbolism Speaks of Israel, the Church and
the End ....................................................................................................................................................... 505
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 506
Revelation Exercises ...................................................................................................................................... 506
The Mark of the Beast (Rev 13:11‐18) ........................................................................................................... 506
493

The Second Beast: Revelation 13:11–15 ................................................................................................... 507
Historicist ............................................................................................................................................... 507
Preterist ................................................................................................................................................. 507
Futurist .................................................................................................................................................. 509
Spiritual .................................................................................................................................................. 510
The Mark of the Beast: Revelation 13:16–18 ............................................................................................ 511
Historicist ............................................................................................................................................... 511
Preterist ................................................................................................................................................. 513
Futurist .................................................................................................................................................. 513
Spiritual .................................................................................................................................................. 514
The Millenium (Rev 20:1‐6) ........................................................................................................................... 515
The Binding of the Dragon: Revelation 20:1–3 ......................................................................................... 515
Premillennial .......................................................................................................................................... 515
Amillennial ............................................................................................................................................. 516
Postmillennial ........................................................................................................................................ 517
The Thousand‐Year Reign: Revelation 20:4–6 ........................................................................................... 518
Premillennial .......................................................................................................................................... 518
Amillennial ............................................................................................................................................. 519
Postmillennial ........................................................................................................................................ 521
Questions to consider .................................................................................................................................... 522

The Book of Revelation is one of the most fascinating books in Scripture for Christian and non‐Christian
alike. It is perhaps the most disputed and difficult NT book to interpret fuelling a wide range of
interpretative viewpoints and theories revolving around the date of the return of Christ. This is due to its
symbolism with visions of heaven; symbols of beast, dragons, prostitutes and more; not to mention, the
final view of hell and heaven towards its climax. In these notes we will simply peruse the main questions of
interpretation and tentatively posit a view of its meaning.
Revelation in the Canon
Not everyone in the early church wanted to see Revelation included in Scripture. In the west it was
excluded by Marcion who rejected any NT book with strong allusions to the OT. It was also rejected by
Gaius (Rome at beginning of the 2nd Century) and the Alogoi. 1 In the east the Egyptian Bishop Dionysius
questioned its apostolic authorship to minimise its authority. A number of other Eastern thinkers were
influenced by this and the Council of Laodicea (360) did not recognise it as canonical.

However there are also significant voices in the west and east that did support its authority. In the west, it
is possible that it was known to Ignatius (AD 110‐117), Barnabas (AD 135) and it was quite probably used by
the author of the Shepherd of Hermas (c. AD 150). It was accepted as authoritative by Papias (d. 130),
Justin Martyr (mid 2nd Century) and Ireneaus (180). It is found in the Muratorian Canon at the end of the 2nd
Century. In the east Clement of Alexandria and Origen supported its authority.

1
The existence of the Alogoi or Alogi is disputed (see Many contemporary scholars reject that this group existed
completely; see R. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 122.).
Some believe they were a small splinter group from Rome who were an extreme reaction to Montanism. The Alogoi
(‘those who refuse the Logos’) rejected the authenticity and authority of the Gospel of John, Letters and Revelation of
the Apostle Johndue to some of the obscurities which still surround some aspects of its background, origin and earliest
circulation. They attributed it to Cerinthus who was born in Egypt, raised a Jew and a leader of a proto‐Gnostic group
and who believed that the world was not created by God but an inferior being (Demiurge) or an angel who gave the
law to the Jews. He believed Jesus was an ordinary man upon whom ‘the Christ’ ascended at baptism and who
revealed the unkown God. ‘The Christ’ abandoned Jesus before his crucifixion. It is possible that John’s writings were
directed against Cerinthus.
494

However, as Carson, Moo and Morris suggest, the criticisms were in the main based on theological
prejudice it being ‘too earth focussed, too materialistic’ in its view of the last things (eschatology) (see
below for more). As such, we should not take too seriously their rejection of Revelation. 2
Authorship
The traditional view is that Revelation was authored by John the Apostle who was also responsible for the
Gospel of John and the Epistles of 1, 2, 3 John.

External Evidence: The evidence of the early church.
A number of writers in the early church considered John the Apostle to be the author of Revelation. These
included Justin Martyr (mid 2nd Century; Justin, Dial. 81); Melito (c. AD. 165); Ireneaus (c. 180; Adv Haer,
3.11.1, 4.20.11, 4.35.2); the Muratorian Canon (late 2nd century) and probably Papias (c. 130). This evidence
is strengthened when one considers that Melito was Bishop of Smyrna and Ireneaus was from Smyrna;
Smyrna being one of the addressees of the seven letters. Tradition has it that Papias knew John personally;
a tradition confirmed by Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen from the 3rd century. Interestingly these writers
attribute Revelation to the Apostle John without reference to alternative views. Indeed, the early church
confidence in John’s authorship of Revelation when compared to other NT books is one of the strongest
attestations. Hence any theory of non‐Johannine authorship requires a satisfactory alternative and
explanation denying these traditions.

That being the case there are a number of early church writers who disputed John’s authorship. These
included Marcion (see above for his reasons); the Alogoi who believed it was written by Cerinthus and
Dionysius, a third century bishop of Alexandria. There were three reasons for his rejection: 1) The author of
Revelation does not claim to be an eye‐witness or apostle cf. John: ‘the beloved apostle;’ 2) The
conceptions and arrangement of Revelation differ greatly from the epistles and gospel of John; 3) The
Greek of Revelation is very different from that of John and the Epistles (see more below).

In reality Dionysius was reacting to a theological distaste. More particularly, he and a number of other early
church thinkers did not like the concept of chiliasm (cf. premillenialism) which was held by Tertullian, Justin
and Ireneaus) which taught that Christ would establish a literal 1000yr reign on earth. Dionysius’ dislike for
Revelation was due to his desire to discredit this teaching.

That being the case, the weight of external evidence is that John the apostle wrote Revelation.
Internal Evidence: ‘John’.
Revelation refers to John as the author on 4 occasions Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8. These four ascriptions indicate
that a John was the author of Revelation. Unless this is another John outside the NT story, this leads us to
consider John the brother of James the Apostle, John the Baptist, John Mark or another John. Clearly the
most likely candidate is John the Apostle. Various attempts have been made to associate Revelation with
John the Baptist (would you believe it!), John Mark and other Johns such as a John the elder from Ephesus.
However, these have all failed to convince most scholars. 3

Another possibility is that the Book of Revelation is written pseudonymously in John’s name. This is not a
view that can be written off without thought in that it is very like apocalyptic literature (see below) and
often these were pseudonymous. This is made less likely due to the external acceptance that John the

2
For detail on these matters see Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 480‐81.
3
John the Baptist is ruled out in that he died before Christ’s death and resurrection and could hardly have written a
book which constantly referred to the lamb that was slain. If John Mark wrote Mark’s Gospel it is unlikely he would
have written this one. The evidence that there was another John the Elder is now considered to be weak.
495

Apostle wrote Revelation (see above). In addition, there is good evidence that on the whole, the early
church rejected pseudonymous works as reflected in the rejection of Gnostic Gospels (see above).

In addition, the manner in which the writer speaks in authoritative terms leads a number to believe that it
is more likely that Revelation is from an apostle with an authoritative standing in the early church (cf. 22:9,
18‐19).
Additional Contemporary Arguments against Johannine authorship.
In addition and in support of Dionysius, there are a number of arguments brought to bear including:
The Lack of Explicit Apostolic Claims
It is noted that there is no explicit claim to apostolic authorship. In addition, Rev 18:20; 21:14 suggest to
some that the author was not one of the twelve. However, Rev 18:20 speaks of apostles in more general
terms and would include more than that twelve. Neither does it or Rev 21:14 give any indication as to
whether the author was one of those so listed.
Theological Differences
The issue of whether John wrote Revelation is compounded by the lack of confidence that John wrote the
Gospels or the epistles anyway. Assuming John did write the Gospels and the epistles, some note significant
theological differences with Revelation. In particular in 4 areas:

1. God: It is argued that God in John and epistle is a God of love whereas in Revelation he is a God of
majesty and judgement. However, while it is true that God is a God of love in John and Epistle, the
concept of God as majestic ruler (Jn 5:44; 6:46; 9:31; 11:4; 20:17) and judge (Jn 3:36; 4:24; 5:25, 27
cf. 14:1‐6) is also present. The difference is more one of emphasis and perspective. The Gospel
focuses on Jesus as the one sent by God who reveals God and who dies to save humanity while
prefiguring the notions of his majesty and judgement. The epistles are pastoral written to sustain
believers and due to their context do not discuss matters of eschatology but emphasise love and
refuting heresy. Revelation is present‐future orientated and anticipates Christ’s return and the
events surrounding this. Hence, the reason for this difference is context and purpose rather than
necessarily a different author.

2. Christ: It is argued that the Christ of John and Epistles is revealer and redeemer, whereas the Christ
of Revelation pictures Christ as conquering warrior and ruler. Again the perspectives from which
the books are written dictates the picture of Christ. Christ is the revealed Son of God who came
from God to redeem his world in John climaxing in his resurrection. In Revelation, he has
completed his work and is now enthroned as resurrected King and returns to John to give him a
vision of the future in which he will return as conquering warrior and ruler. This is then a matter of
emphasis and perspective and is consistent with the already‐not yet picture of Christ throughout
the NT.

3. Eschatology: It is argued that the eschatology of John and the epistles is realized (present) whereas
the eschatology of Revelation is highly futurist. Again it is a matter of emphasis. The eschatology of
John is too a large degree realized, John accentuating the present effects of the coming of Christ.
However, John does not preclude the future and anticipates a return and judgement (see esp. Jn
5:19‐30); the very concepts Revelation highlights. There are also points of connection between
John and Revelation including Jesus as logos (Jn 1:1; Rev 19:13), ‘lamb’ (Jn 1:29; Rev 5:6), shepherd
(Jn 4:21; Rev 21:22), the light‐darkness/truth‐falsehood motifs. In addition, although Revelation is
future orientated, depending on your approach to interpretation, it speaks into the present and so
its eschatology is not necessarily as futuristic as some argue.
496


4. Stylistic Differences: The strongest argument against the authorship of Revelation is the distinct
difference between the Greek of Revelation and that of John and the Epistles. Revelation is ‘unlike
any Greek that was ever penned by mortal man’. 4 It is full of grammatical irregularities (solecisms)
reflecting the Greek of one who was thinking in biblical Hebrew (or Aramaic) while writing in
Greek. 5 The Greek of John on the other hand, is simple and relatively clear. As a result many deny
that the same writer could have written both books.

How can we respond to this? First, it is possible that the differences are due to John being exiled
and unable to use an amanuensis as he may have done for John and the Epistles. Secondly, a
number of scholars have noted that behind Revelation is the mind of a Semitic thinker, thinking in
Hebrew or Aramaic. For example, a number of scholars think that John’s first thought language was
Hebrew or Aramaic and this is expressed through his Greek.6 Charles also noted that, while there
are a number of irregularities, these are not random, and it seems the writer is deliberately using
them. One possibility is that he wrote in this way due to the immediacy of the vision. In addition, it
cannot be arbitrarily ruled out that one person was capable of writing in two different styles.
Beasley‐Murray notes that the differences between John’s Gospel and Revelation are overstated;
for example they both use logos, both see the Lamb of God as apocalyptic Warrior Lamb and
Passover Lamb, both use terms like witness, life, death, thirst, hunger and conquer in a spiritual
sense. 7
Conclusion on Authorship
While it is clear that there are distinct differences especially in the Greek of Revelation and John/Epistles,
the best solution in the absence of any other real candidate, is to take the word of the majority of the early
church that John the Apostle is the author of Revelation. The best alternative view is that it is
pseudonymous but few adhere to this today. The other possibility is that Revelation like the other
Johannine works is the product of the so‐called Johannine ‘school’ or ‘circle’, written by a student or
disciple of John. However, the existence of such a school or circle is assumptive and less likely than the
given alternative i.e. that John the apostle wrote it. We will assume this in this lecture.
Provenance and Recipients
John writes from Patmos to seven churches in Asia. This map below gives some indication of where he was
and to whom he wrote.

The Seven Churches of Revelation

4
From Charles, Revelation, 1:xliv quoted in Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction, 470.
5
While not being a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic.
6
See R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1920), 1.cxliii who argues for a Hebrew thought and language base. Rowley and Torrey preferred an Aramaic
base. C. C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church (New York and London: Harper, 1941), 158 argues that John
wrote in Aramaic and someone else translated it. However, C. F. Burney argues in The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth
Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922) that this was the case with John.
7
See G. Beasley‐Murray, ‘John’ in DLNTD, no page.
497

The island of Patmos was about 10km wide and 16km long, 70km southwest of Ephesus in the Aegean Sea.
It was used as a place of exile by the Romans (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 4.23). John was imprisoned there for his
faith: ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ (1:9). We are not sure who or what
specifically put him there. Tradition suggests the Emperor himself, but it is also possible that the local
Ephesian authorities placed him there to remove his influence.

The recipients of the letters are seven churches in the Asia Minor region, about 80km apart; probably
postal centres.
1. Ephesus: well established in the early 50’s. We know of it through Acts 18, 19; Ephesians and the
letters of 1‐2 Timothy.
2. Smyrna: We know little of its origin; only in Revelation (Rev 1:11; 2:8). Possibly planted by planted
out of the two years of lecturing at the hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus (Acts 19:10 cf. Col 1:6).
3. Pergamum: We know little of its origin; only in Revelation (Rev 1:11; 2:12). Perhaps Acts 19:10.
4. Thyatira: The hometown of Lydia (Acts 16:14). She may have been responsible for the gospel
spreading there? Perhaps Acts 19:10.
5. Sardis: We know little of its origin; only in Revelation (Rev 1:11; 3:1, 4). Perhaps Acts 19:10.
6. Philadelphia: We know little of its origin; on in Revelation (Rev 1:11; 3:7). Perhaps Acts 19:10.
7. Laodicea: We know there was a church meeting there in the 60’s. It was probably planted by
Epaphras as was the Colossian church (Col 2:1; 4:13‐16 cf. Acts 19:10).

While we know little of some of these churches it is probable that the churches were established during
Paul’s Ephesus’ ministry in which time the whole of the province of Asia was evangelised from his base at
the lecture hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9‐11) through the likes of locals like Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12‐13). We
think John was a resident in Ephesus from where he probably wrote the Gospel of John (Ireneaus, Adv.
Haer. 2.1.2). In that time before his exile he may have travelled throughout Asia and was familiar to them.
As the map shows, a messenger took Revelation from Patmos and delivered it to each church.

498

Date
It is clear from the context of Revelation that the church is under pressure at the time. This suggests a time
of intense persecution. In the early church four possibilities were circulated: Claudius (41‐54); 8 Nero (54‐
68); 9 Domitian (81‐96); 10 Trajan (98‐117). 11 Claudius and Trajan are least likely because of their early and
late dating respectively. Hence there are two main possibilities: Nero (AD68‐69) or Domitian (95‐96).

Assessing the evidence we note these points:

Persecution.
It is certain that Revelation was written to a group of churches who were experiencing persecution (e.g.
2:7, 11; 17, 26‐29; 3:5‐6, 12‐13, 21‐22). 12 We first note that there is no real evidence of persecution of
Asian Christians under either Nero or Domitian. We are unsure whether Nero’s persecution spread beyond
Rome nor whether there was a serious persecution of Christians under Domitian at all. 13
Emperor Worship
Secondly, it is probable that worship of the emperor was a serious matter for the Christians at the time, it
probably giving background to mentions of worship of the beast (13:4, 15‐16; 14:9‐11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20;
20:4). While since as early as Augustus (d. AD 14) the Emperor was worshiped and deified (especially in Asia
Minor), it is in Domitian’s reign that we have clear evidence of Domitian stressing his deity. He ordered that
he be addressed as dominus et deus (‘lord and god’) as a test of loyalty (cf. Jn 20:28). This may have led to
some Christians seeking to find refuge in synagogues where Jews were legally exempted. Thus, this may
give background to the tensions between Jews and Christians evidence in the letters to the seven churches
(e.g. Rev 2:9; 3:9).
The State of the Churches
The seven letters suggest a date later than the 60’s. There are a number of these indicators including the
stagnation of several of the churches; the wealth of the Laodicean Church which is unlikely in the 60’s
because the city was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 60‐61; the church in Smyrna which may not have
existed in AD60‐64; no reference to Paul or others such as Timothy.
The temple in 11:1‐2
Some argue that 11:1‐2 indicates that the temple was still standing at the time. However, this appears to be
metaphorical rather than actual.
The Nero Myth
After Nero’s death there were stories of his return. Some see in Revelation the return of Nero, the beast.
However, the details of the so‐called Nero‐redivivus myth do not coincide with Revelation. Having said this,
it might be a background idea that informs our reading of the text.

8
So Epiphanius, Haer, 51.12.
9
So Syriac versions of Revelation.
10
So Irenaeus (Adv Haer. 5.30.3) who wrote ‘toward the end of the reign of Domitian’; Victorinus, Apoc. 10:11;
Eusebius, H.E. 3.18; Clement of Alexandria (Quis div. 42) and Origen (Matt 16.6) who refer to ‘the tyrant’ which is
probably Domitian.
11
According to a synopsis of the life and death of the prophets probably by Dorotheus; Theophylact on Mt 20:22.
12
These verses speak of those who ‘overcome’ suggesting triumphing over challenge.
13
Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction, 474 note that Domitian’s persecution appears to have targeted Roman
aristocrats who might challenge his authority. This did include Flavius Clemens whose wife was a Christian but it is not
clear that Domitian singled out Christians in any particular way.
499

The Seven Kings of Rev 17:9‐11.
In the account there are seven kings mentioned and the 6th is in power. If we take Augusts as the first
Emperor this brings us to Galba who reigned briefly before Nero. If so, then we have a date of AD68‐69.
However we can equally date from Caesar (who first claimed imperial rights) or Caligula (the first
persecuting emperor); or these emperors may be referring to future kings.
Conclusion
The prevailing view is that, despite the possibility that Revelation is to be dated from the time of Nero, the
conditions which best explain the circumstances in the 7 churches and Revelation best fit a later date i.e.
Domitian. Irenaeus said in this regard, ‘That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our own day,
toward the end of Domitian’s reign’ (Irenaeus Haer, 5.30.3) a view upheld approvingly by Eusebius (Hist.
Eccl. 3.18‐20; 5.8.6).
The Genre of Revelation
Revelation as Apocalyptic
Revelation is defined in 1:1 as an apocalypse (apokalysis Iēsou Christou). This has led some to treat
Revelation as an apocalypse or an example of apocalyptic literature. Such literature was found between
200BC and AD200 and had a similar worldview known as apocalypticism. Some of the features of
apocalyptic literature include:

1. Cosmic Limited Dualism: God (and his angels) in cosmic conflict with Satan (and his demons). It is
limited because God wins the battle.
2. Ethical Dualism: Good vs. evil.
3. The triumph of God: The ultimate cosmic intervention of God to deliver the faithful.
4. Climactic end events: These include Messiah in many cases, the resurrection of the dead, final
judgment, eternal destiny; the ultimate vindication of the faithful.
5. First Person: First person prosaic style where a seer records visions, ecstatic experiences
6. Symbolism: including numbers, animals, other figures which must be interpreted by the seer
7. An angelic interpreter: the seer is often guided by a heavenly escort who interprets the visions and
experiences.
8. Pseudonymity: the apocalypses were often written in the name of a worthy historic figure such as
Adam, Abraham, Moses, Enoch etc. Some early Christian writings are also pseudonymous. This
enabled the writers to claim authority and write of contemporary events in the guise of prophecy.
Some take Revelation to be pseudonymous; however, as we have noted above, this is unlikely.

Some other examples of Apocalyptic Literature include 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, 1 Enoch from the Jewish tradition.
Christian apocalypses include the Ascension of Isaiah, The Shepherd of Hermas (from Rome; 1st half of 2nd
century) and the Apocalypse of Peter (2nd century: a journey to heaven and hell full of torment and blessing
cf. Dante’s Divine Comedy).

As such, it is fair to categorise Revelation as apocalyptic literature. However, it is also described in other
ways.
Revelation as Prophecy
While Revelation begins with an apocalyptic self‐reference it is also described as a prophecy (1:4; 22:7, 10,
18‐19). This leads some to identify it in a manner akin to the writings of the prophets in the OT. In that
these OT writings contain within them antecedents to apocalyptic and apocalyptic sections (cf. Daniel),
then this may be a more appropriate designation. However, the distinction between the two is often over‐
drawn, there being apocalyptic dimensions to prophetic writings. Some blend is probably in mind here too.
500

Revelation as a Letter
Revelation is also a letter. In 1:4 John introduces the letter in a standard way: ‘John, to the seven churches
in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him…’ In 1:9 he continues, ‘I, John, your brother and
companion in the suffering and kingdom… was on the island of Patmos…’ However, it is probably the letter
merely provides the framework for the apocalyptic‐prophetic senses.
Revelation as Liturgy
Some have suggested that Revelation, because of the many songs scattered through it, is a liturgical
document based on worship in the churches of Asia. Few have take this seriously, while acknowledging the
presence of songs that were probably sung in worship.
Revelation as Drama
Some have noticed that Revelation is not unlike a book of a drama of the end time. Some see in it seven
acts and scenes. They hymns supposedly are like choruses in a Greek drama, to reveal the visions of the
book. The hymns may have a dramatic function, however, it is unlikely that this is the best way to
understand Revelation. 14
Conclusion to Genre
In terms of genre then Revelation is an epistle containing an apocalyptic prophecy sent to seven churches
in Asia. Or as Carson, Moo and Morris put it, ‘we may best view Revelation, then, as a prophecy cast in an
apocalyptic mould and written down in a letter form.’ 15
Use of OT and Christian Tradition
Revelation is a literal goldmine of connections to the OT. As we go through the text we see connections to
Genesis and creation (e.g. tree of life), the revelation of the law on Sinai (e.g. theophany), Daniel (e.g. Son
of Man, beasts, 42 months, judgement scenes), Ezekiel (e.g. vision of beasts, a new temple, river of life),
Elijah and Moses (the two prophets). Almost every sentence of Revelation has antecedent in the OT
literature. In addition there are a number of connections to the teachings of Jesus and in particular, a great
correspondence between the events of Revelation and Mt 24; Mk 13; Lk 21; the so‐called ‘Olivet Discourse’
or ‘Little Apocalypse’ where Jesus answers the questions of the disciples concerning the end times (e.g.
wars and rumours of wars, earthquakes, a thief in the night, famines, anti‐Christs, persecution etc). These
passages are also much disputed between those who argue for a present‐day interpretation based around
the Roman Empire and the fall of Jerusalem and a futuristic interpretation. As in the case of Revelation
many seek to interpret them eclectically to bridge the two.
The imminent return of Christ
One of the features of Revelation is references of Jesus’ imminent return. In particular, ‘I am coming soon’
(2:16; 3:11; 22:7, 20). Similarly the book begins with ‘to show his servants what must soon take place.’ This
gives a great sense of urgency. This may help us in terms of interpretation; favouring a blend of the
preterist and futuristic interpretations (see below).

Important theological contribution of Revelation
Carson, Moo and Morris note a number of areas where Revelation contributes to NT theology. First, it gives
a sense of the sovereignty of God no other NT book gives with God enthrone on high, surrounded by
worshipers and conducting history. Secondly, it has a very high Christology with Jesus and God talked about
in similar terms throughout. For example both God and Christ are called ‘the alpha and the omega’ (1:8;

14
Beasley‐Murray, DLNTD, no page discusses these.
15
501

22:13). Thirdly, the emphasis on the cross stands strong throughout, he being the lamb that was
slaughtered and purifies his people through his blood. Fourthly, it is highly eschatological, giving the most
detailed information about the culmination of history. While it is difficult to interpret and to see where
symbolism ends and reality begins, it does give us a dramatic vision of the end times. Fifthly, Revelation
gives a powerful message of judgement and eternal destiny. Those who deny God will face great eternal
suffering and torment whereas those who believe in him will live forever with him in a glorious world of
blessing. Finally, we note the importance of worship in Revelation. No where in the NT is a vision of worship
given so clearly, the multitudes of humanity from all nations gathered before the throne of God singing and
worshiping God and the lamb that was slain. As the angel said, ‘worship God!’ (22:9).

Millenial Views
As we move into discussing different views of Revelation it is worth reviewing the different views held
theologically concerning the millennium. The Millennium, a term meaning ‘thousand,’ refers to the
thousand‐year reign of Christ (20:1–6). Some Christians believe the Millennium will be an age of
blessedness on the earth. Some believe the Millennium is the present church age—a period of indefinite
length, or that the Millennium is a way of referring to the eternal state.

The Bible’s only specific mention of the Millennium is in the book of Revelation (ch. 20). Interpreters differ
greatly in their understanding of the Millennium and how it will occur. There are in the main three:

The Postmillennial View
Postmillennialists expect Christ’s visible return after the Millennium. They look for God to use the Church’s
teaching and preaching to usher in a lengthy period (some interpret the thousand years literally, others
symbolically) of peace and righteousness before Christ’s return. Postmillennialists usually adopt either the
‘Historical’ or ‘Preterist’ view of Revelation as a whole.

The Premillennial View
Premillennialists believe that Christ will return before the Millennium. Interpreting Revelation 20 literally,
they hold that Christ will reign on earth for a literal thousand years. Within this basic area of agreement,
there are, nevertheless, a number of variant views—the most prevalent of which are the Premillennial‐
pretribulational and the Premillennial‐posttribulational views.
502

Premillennial‐pretribulational scholars argue that there are two different peoples of God—Israel and the
church—with two different prophetic programs (Dispensationalism). According to this view, the church will
be ‘raptured’ prior to a seven‐year Great Tribulation (or mid‐Tribulation i.e. 3 ½ years into the tribulation).
Following the tribulation, Christ will return to establish a thousand‐year millennial kingdom cantered in
Jerusalem and involving the reinstitution of the Old Testament sacrificial system. The millennial kingdom
will end with a futile rebellion by the forces of evil, after which will come the final judgment and beginning
of the eternal reign.
The Premillennial/Posttribulational View
Premillennial/posttribulational scholars assert that Christ will return at the end of a seven‐year Great
Tribulation to establish a millennial kingdom. This kingdom will end with a rebellion by the forces of evil and
the final judgment. This view often interprets prophecy in a non‐literal way and does not usually view Israel
and the church as the objects of completely different divine historical plans. Rather, Israel and the church
ultimately form one people of God. Premillennialists of both types adopt the ‘Futurist’ approach to the
book of Revelation.
503

The Amillennial View
Amillennialists interpret Christ’s millennial reign in an ideal or spiritual sense. While believing in the Second
Coming, they reject the idea of a literal thousand‐year reign on earth. Some see Christ’s reign as having
begun during His earthly ministry or at the time of His resurrection. They cite Peter’s declaration that Christ
now rules from the right hand of God (Acts 2:33–36). Israel and the church are viewed as forming one
people of God, and the kingdom promises to Israel are seen as applying to the church age, or to the eternal
existence in the new heavens and the new earth. The amillennial approach usually involves an ‘Idealist’
view of Revelation as a whole.
Methods of interpretation
At the end of the day working out what Revelation is about is the critical question. What does Revelation
mean? To what do the visions of John refer to? What are we to learn from them? There are four main
perspectives:

The Preterist Approach: the Symbolism Speaks to the First Readers Only.
This is also called the ‘contemporary historical’ (zeitgeschichtlich) approach. It is the most commonly held
view among scholars today. It is almost certainly not the majority view among evangelical lay people who in
the main take it in a futuristic sense.

In this approach, the visions of John relate primarily to John’s own day and world. They grow out of and
describe events in the world of that day. Hence they are like the apocalypse of Enoch, the Assumption of
Moses, 4 Ezra and Baruch which are taken in this way for their own day. These apocalypses arise out of
times of terrible evil and persecution. The apocalypses were written to encourage people in the midst of
evil and oppression with the impending triumph of God.

The purpose of Revelation then is to show his readers how God will bring his judgment on those who are
oppressing him in their world, triumphing over the forces of their age and delivering them. It is not to be
taken literally and applied to history; they are pseudo‐prophecies rewritten under the pretension of
prophecy.

Those who take this view will interpret the book against the Neronian or Domitian persecution which was
threatening the church in Asia and/or generally at the time. They rigorously apply the symbolism to that
day only. So the Beast is one of the Roman emperors (Domitian or Nero), the false prophet is the cult of the
504

worship of the Emperor. Revelation assures the readers of Christ’s imminent return to destroy Rome and
establish his Kingdom on earth.

There is without doubt an element of truth to this view; Revelation undoubtedly arises out of and speaks
into such a situation in its initial reading. However, there are significant differences with Jewish
apocalypses; in particular, the concern in Revelation for the history of salvation running from OT to NT.
John employs a rich array of OT imagery to prophecy into the future. 16 In addition this view represents a
misunderstanding of the nature of OT prophecy. While these Jewish prophetic oracles relate to their own
day, the oracles too have a futurist emphasis as well awaiting God’s intervention and triumph e.g. return
from exile, a new heaven and a new earth. Thus, it is dubious to limit Revelation to having no futuristic
dimension whether it be general and symbolic, or specific.
The Historical Approach: the Symbolism Speaks to Human History Past.
In the Middle Ages there grew a belief that the millennium was about to begin. To support this view,
thinkers from these movements interpreted the events of Revelation as a sketch of church history form the
time of Christ to their own day. In this way of interpreting Revelation, events in church history are found
which correlate with the incidences in Revelation to fit the seals, trumpets, bowls etc. This approach (called
kirchengeschichtlich) was popular among the Reformers, enabling them to interpret the beast in Revelation
as the papacy. This has been used for a variety of schemes including millenarian (e.g. I. Newton),
nonmillenarian (Luther), or postmillenarian. 17 The problem with this view is that each interpreter creates a
new scheme and makes different connections making the whole enterprise rather spurious. On the other
hand, if the events of Revelation are future orientated, the symbols will find their legitimate correlates in
human history at some point.
The Idealist Approach: the Symbolism is General not Specific.
This is also called the ‘symbolic approach’. Some scholars argue that the symbolism of Revelation is
designed to help us understand God’s person and means in a general way; that is, they do not give us a
scheme of events. They are about great principles not specific incidents. The symbols then reflect spiritual
powers in the world. Hence it is not specifically predictive, but generally predictive i.e. the message assures
the readers that God will triumph without specifics. However, all apocalyptic is based around a correlation
between the symbol and events in history and in the least one would expect this of Revelation.
The Extreme Futurist Approach i.e. Dispensationalism: The Symbolism Speaks of
Israel, the Church and the End
Up until the mid‐late 20th century it was popular to interpret Revelation in terms of Dispensationalism. In
this matter there are two divine programs, one for Israel and one for the church. All the seals, trumpets,
and bowls belong to the Great Tribulation and relates to Israel and not the church. In ch. 2‐3 the church is
seen on earth, but church never occurs again until 22:16. The 24 elders (4:4) are the church, raptured and
rewarded. The rapture occurs at 4:1 and the people of God on earth who remain are Jews, 12,000 from
each of the 12 tribes (7:1‐8) who proclaim the ‘gospel of the Kingdom’ during the tribulation and win many
Gentiles (7:9‐17). The Beast is the head of the restored Roman Empire (cf. Dan 9:27). The final seven years
begins with a covenant between the Beast (antichrist) and Israel that will be broken after 3½ years and
then the Beast will turn on the Jews. The great conflict in Revelation is between antichrist and Israel, not
antichrist and church. 4‐19 have to do with the tribulation period, ch2‐3 alone are for the church, and the
church age. The seven churches represent seven successive periods of church history; the final period is
one of apostasy and spiritual apathy. This view died out in the mid 20th century among Dispensational
scholars. 18

16
G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the NT, 621‐22.
17
So Ladd, Theology, 622.
18
See Ladd, Theology, 622‐623.
505

The moderate futurist approach: the Symbolism Speaks to a Yet Unfulfilled Future
A consistent futurist approach (Endgeschichtlich) approach holds that everything from ch4‐22 of Revelation
finds its fulfilment in the last days of human history. Thus it depicts the consummation of God’s redemptive
purposes involving salvation and judgement. One variation of this is a more moderate futuristic approach
which modifies this slightly believing that some of the events in these chapters and particularly the earlier
ones take place in history before the end. This consistent futurist approach is probably the dominant and
assumed view in popular evangelical Christianity.
Conclusion
My own view coheres with the consistent futuristic approach. 19 I would argue that the seven churches of
Asia are literal churches with real problems that are addressed by John; albeit in a stereotypical form. He
then moves in 4‐22 to describe in highly symbolic terms the events surrounding the heavens and the end of
the age in which God will establish his Kingdom and evil will be vanquished. The backdrop that this is drawn
against is life in a persecuted stage of early church history under the tyranny of Rome and the Emperor
Cult. That being the case, the vision of the future is to be interpreted in its first century world‐view, the
symbolism giving first‐century Roman angles on the pictures drawn. However, while the orientation is
future, clearly the message has present appeal to the first readers, giving them great encouragement as
they face struggles and persecution; particularly the assurance of God’s ultimate victory over evil and the
vindication of his people. Having said that, interpretation is highly contentious and I would take a
conservative and tentative general line in seeking to interpret events. Here is a summary of the views of
Revelation.

Summary of Four Views on Revelation

Interpretive Basic Thesis
Approach
Preterist All the events of Revelation were fulfillled during the period of the Roman Empire.
Historical Revelation is a panorama of church history from the apostolic era until the
consummation.
Idealist Revelation is not a representation of actual events, but is rather a symbolic depiction
of the spiritual warfare between good and evil.
Futurist Beginning with ch. 4, Revelation describes the future events accompanying the end of
the age.
20

Revelation Exercises
Rather than continue with more detail on Revelation, at this point we will work with two highly disputed
passages concerning the mark of the beast, and the millennium. Students should read the excerpts from
Read this section from: Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: T.
Nelson Publishers, 1997) and come to their own conclusion of which view makes more sense.
The Mark of the Beast (Rev 13:11‐18)
Read through the commentary below and decide which of these perspectives makes more sense. Read with
your bible open beside you.

19
This is a tentative position I hope to put to the test in the future.
20
Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts: Old and New Testaments. Electronic ed. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1996.
506

The Second Beast: Revelation 13:11–15

11
Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke
like a dragon. 12And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the
earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13He
performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight
of me. 14And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in
the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was
wounded by the sword and lived. 15He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast,
that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image
of the beast to be killed.

Historicist
As stated previously, historicist scholars have differed among themselves with reference to the identity of
the two beasts. Regardless of their opinion about the identity of the first beast, however, the majority
would seem to identify the second with papal Rome or the priesthood of the Roman Church. In the empire
that sprang up under Charlemagne, through the influence of the papacy, there was a return of the Roman
world to paganism, but in its christianized form. This was also the revived head that had formerly received a
deadly wound. Or, to shift the imagery, in the new manifestation of the Roman persecuting spirit, as
embodied in the papal system, we see the image (v. 14) of the first beast given life and breath (v. 15).

This beast has two horns like a lamb (v. 11). Thus far, it mimics the Lamb, Jesus Christ. As a point of
interest, bishops since the time of Pope Gregory (590) wore a pallium of lamb’s wool and abbots wore a
miter with two points and were known as the Goruti (“ the horned ones”). Jesus had warned his disciples to
be vigilant against the appearance of “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15).
This beast is elsewhere called the “false prophet” (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). Jesus said that,
notwithstanding the sheeplike appearance, “inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Like the donkey in
Aesop’s fable, who donned a lion’s skin and succeeded in terrifying his fellow animals until he had the poor
judgment to undertake an impressive roar, the false prophet’s true colors are made apparent by what
proceeds out of the mouth (Matt. 7:16; 12:33–34). Thus the lamblike appearance is offset by the fact that
this beast spoke like a dragon (v. 11).

This beast is said to perform great signs (v. 13), in order to enforce the worship of the beast. There have
been few movements, to this day, that have claimed more signs and miracles to their endorsement than
has the Roman Catholic Church. A partial list of alleged miracles said to have occurred in relation to
Catholicism could include the following: images have come down and lit their own candles (could this be
called “making fire come down from heaven”— v. 13?); crucifixes have spoken; idols have sweat, turned
their eyes, moved their hands, opened their mouths, healed sicknesses, raised the dead, mended broken
bones (does this sound like giving breath to an image, so as to allow it to speak— v. 15?); the stigmata has
appeared on hands and feet of persons; Mary has appeared to many, healed their sicknesses, etc. Many of
these things are still being claimed in modern times.

Protestant commentators (e.g., Elliott, Barnes, Vitringa, Cuninghame) have generally understood these to
be fake miracles done by the second beast, though demonic power could account for the presence of
actual supernatural occurrences.

Preterist
While the beast from the sea is not difficult to identify, the same cannot be said for the second beast, who
rises up out of the earth [or land] (v. 11). Preterist expositors have advanced at least three positions. The
most frequently encountered view suggests that this beast is a symbol for “the cult of the emperor,” that is,
507

that organized force within the empire that sought to enforce the worship of the Caesars. The second
beast’s two horns like a lamb (v. 11) suggest a religious nature more that a political one. Among those who
make this identification is David S. Clark:

This suggests religious activities. And so this second beast is rightly recognized as the Pagan religion
or pagan priesthood. This Pagan religion supported the imperial power. It helped to hold up the
hands of the emperors. It supported the civil authority, and especially lent its aid in the persecution
of the Christians, and the Christian church. Thus it served the cause and power of the first beast…
The Pagan religion gave animus to the persecution of those who did not worship at the heathen
shrines, and was hand in glove with the civil power in persecuting the Christian church.

Jay Adams concurs:

The symbolism probably depicts the cult of the emperor which was very strong in Asia Minor. This
cult demanded emperor worship. However, it is possible, though unlikely, that the beast is to be
identified with an individual rather than a group. At any rate, the beast (or “false prophet”) must be
linked with the strictly religious aspect of the problem Christians faced in the Roman persecutions.

A second opinion is that of J. Stewart Russell, who considers the rising of the beast out of “the land” to
necessitate a geographical origin in Israel. To him the two horns do not represent a religious character, but
stand in contrast to the ten horns of the first beast, in whose authority it operates. This contrast, says
Russell, indicates that the second beast’s “sphere of government is small, and his power limited, compared
with the other.” Given these data, along with the fact that the second beast upholds the authority of the
first beast (Nero), Russell affirms: “He can be no other than the Roman procurator or governor of Judea
under Nero, and the particular governor must be sought at or near the outbreak of the Jewish war.”
Two candidates would seem qualified by these criteria to be the second beast: Albinus and Gessius Florus,
the latter being the better possibility. Writes Russell,

Each was a monster of tyranny and cruelty, but the latter outdid the former. Before Gessius Florus
came into office, the Jews counted Albinus the worst governor who had ever ground them by his
oppression. After Gessius Florus came they thought Albinus almost a virtuous man in comparison.

Russell is quite prepared to defend his opinion against those who might object that the particular actions of
the second beast are not known to correspond to those of Gessius Florus:

Josephus, indeed, has not preserved all the facts, which, if we had them, would no doubt vividly
illustrate all the particulars of the apocalyptic portraiture of the second beast. But we scarcely need
them. Force, fraud, cruelty, imposture, tyranny, are attributes which too certainly might be
predicted of such a procurator as Florus. Perhaps the traits most difficult to verify are those which
relate to the compulsory enforcement of homage to the emperor’s statue and the assumption of
miraculous pretensions. Yet even here all we know is in favor of the description being true to the
letter. Dean Milman observes:—” The image of the beast is clearly the statue of the emperor;” and
he adds: “The test by which the martyrs were tried was to adore the emperor, to offer incense
before his statue, and to invoke the gods.”

A third possible identification of the second beast is that of David Chilton, who, like Russell, believes that
the coming of the beast “out of the land” must refer to Israel, but sees its appearance like a Lamb (v. 11) to
be a reference to false prophets. Jesus said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s
clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15). This beast is later called “the false prophet”
(Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). Chilton seems to take the beast here to represent the Jewish religious system
and leadership collectively as a false agent of God: “It is important to remember that Judaism is not Old
Testament religion at all; rather, it is a rejection of the biblical faith altogether in favor of the Pharisaical,
Talmudic heresy.”
508


Upon the points that this beast exercises all the authority of the first beast (v. 12), and exercises
supernatural powers (v. 13), Chilton writes:

The Jewish leaders, symbolized by this Beast from the Land, joined forces with the Beast of Rome in
an attempt to destroy the Church (Acts 4:24–28; 12:1–3; 13:8; 14:5; 17:5–8; 18:12–13; 21:11; 24:1–
9; 25:2–3, 9, 24).… The Book of Acts records several instances of miracle‐working Jewish false
prophets who came into conflict with the Church (cf. Acts 8:9–24) and worked under Roman
officials (cf. Acts 13:6–11); as Jesus foretold (Matt. 7:22–23), some of them even used His name in
their incantations (Acts 19:13–16).

The making of an image to the beast (v. 14), or an image of the beast (v. 15), the giving breath to the
image, and the requirement that all men worship it are difficult features to correlate with any action known
to have occurred in Israel in the first century. This need not be taken literally, however, and can simply
refer to the Jews’ general homage to Rome’s authority, as Chilton observes:
The idolatrous character of apostate Israel is assumed throughout the message of the New Testament. The
Apostle Paul specifically accuses the Jews of lawlessness and apostasy in Romans 2. In verses 21–22, he
says: “You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?… You who abhor idols, do you rob
temples?” … The False Prophet of Revelation represents none other than the leadership of apostate Israel,
who rejected Christ and worshiped the Beast.
Futurist
As if the appearance of the first beast did not portend enough disaster, we now see another beast—less
terrifying at first sight, having only two horns like a lamb (v. 11), but still very ominous, speaking like a
dragon. Ryrie interprets its features in this way: “The horns suggest strength, though less strength than the
first beast, and the lamb may allude to an appearance of meekness or innocence and may also indicate his
character as an imitation of the Lamb of God.”

It is generally held that this beast is a religious leader—or even a counterfeit messiah—in contrast to the
largely political character of the first beast. It seems apparent that the second beast is to be identified with
the “false prophet” in 16:13, 19:20, and 20:10. Some do not consider the figure of the second beast to
represent a man so much as a concept. Ladd suggests that this beast represents organized religion,
prostituted for evil ends, employed to support civic power. Mounce agrees: “The false prophet stands for
the role of false religion in effecting the capitulation of mankind to the worship of secular power. It is the
universal victory of humanism.”

More common among futurist scholars is the opinion that this beast, like the first, is an individual.
Walvoord is typical of this persuasion: “The identification of the second beast as the head of the apostate
church is indicated in many ways in the book of Revelation.” Walvoord uses a lengthy quotation from
Alford to imply approval of the suggestion that this beast may be the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
Some believe that the second beast, rather than the first, should be identified as the Antichrist. In this view,
he would be a Jew posing as the long‐awaited Jewish messiah. Gaebelein is of this opinion:

The second beast is a Jew.… The sphere of the second beast is Palestine.… This second beast is the
final, personal Antichrist.… He is a counterfeit lamb and his two horns are an imitation of the
priestly and kingly authority of Christ. He is the one of whom our Lord spoke (John v:43). He is the
man of sin, the son of perdition described by Paul in 2 Thess. ii. He must be a Jew or his claim to
being Israel’s true Messiah would not be accepted by the Jews.

Walvoord disputes this idea:

509

There is no evidence that either of the beasts is a Jew.… It would seem quite unlikely that either of
the two beasts of Revelation 13 will be a Jew inasmuch as they both persecute the Jewish people
and are the final Roman rulers of the times of the Gentiles.

Walvoord seems to represent the majority of dispensational interpreters when he writes that:
among premillennial expositors, the trend seems to be to identify all of these terms [the man of sin (2
Thess. 2:3), the little horn (Dan. 7:8), the prince that shall come (Dan. 9:26), the willful king (Dan. 11:36ff),
Antichrist (1 John 2:18)] with the first beast and relegate the second beast to a subordinate role as a
religious, rather than a political ruler.

Ryrie considers the power of the beast to make fire come down from heaven on the earth (v. 13) to be a
deliberate “duplication of the power of the two witnesses to show the world that he has as much power as
they had.” One way in which the false prophet will corrupt religion will be by commanding that an image to
the beast (v. 14) be made and worshiped on the threat of death for non‐compliance. Walvoord points out
that: “This image, referred to three times in the chapter, is mentioned seven more times in the Book of
Revelation (14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4).”

In addition to requiring the construction and veneration of the image, the false prophet proceeds to give
breath to the image of the beast (v. 15) so that it is even given the ability to speak, which to Ryrie may
indicate a supernatural miracle (performed by the power of Satan) which actually gives life to the image.
Or, the word [for “breath”] may be translated “wind” and indicate some magical sleight of hand which the
second beast performs that gives the appearance of real life to this image. The speech and movements of
this image could easily be manufactured.

Walvoord takes a similar view:

The intent of the passage seems to be that the image has the appearance of life manifested in
breathing, but actually it may be no more than a robot. The image is further described as being able
to speak, a faculty easily accomplished by mechanical means.

These comments fail to note, however, that the very ease with which technology today can generate
speech and robotic movement would seem to remove any occasion of marvel at the ability of the second
beast to manufacture such phenomena.

In Gaebelein’s opinion, the image will probably be set up outside of Palestine, possibly in Rome. Most
dispensationalists (e.g., Weidner), however, think that this image will be set up in the rebuilt temple in
Jerusalem, constituting it the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by both Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11)
and Jesus (Matt. 24:15).
Spiritual
The second beast supports the first, but is different in form and strategy. While the first beast is
ferociouslooking and terrifying, the second seems harmless like a lamb (v.11). Its innocuous appearance is
misleading, however, and like the false prophets of whom Jesus warned, its words like a dragon (v. 11) tell
more about its nature than does its lamblike appearance (compare Matt. 7:15–20 with Matt. 12:33–37).
Hendriksen identifies this beast:

The second beast is the false prophet (19:20). It symbolizes false religion and false philosophy in
whichever form these appear throughout the entire dispensation.

Wilson calls this beast “false religion as the servant of the secular power.” He writes:

In John’s day the beast operated through the priests who acted as the propagandists of the Caesar‐
cult by aping a spiritual power which they did not possess in the interests of a persecuting state.
510


Ramsay writes:

The Province of Asia in its double aspect of civil and religious administration, the Proconsul and the
Commune [the two horns], is symbolized by the monster described in 13:11.

Hobbs adds to the picture:

It is easy to identify this beast … This beast symbolized the Roman “Commune” or “Concilia.” This
was an official body set up in the provinces to enforce emperor‐worship.

Of this body, Summers informs us:

John and his readers knew what this imperial cult meant since it was better organized and enforced
in Asia Minor than in any other part of the Roman Empire. It was composed of deputies whose duty
was to build images of Domitian, altars at the images, and legislate in any way they considered best
to enforce the state religion.

Homer Hailey writes:

However, a representation of this form of paganism probably does not exhaust its significance, for
its spirit is reflected in all forms of false worship which followed, including the papacy and many
other systems of false religion.

This beast performs great signs (v. 13) in the sight of men, by which he deceives those who dwell on the
earth (v. 14). The specific examples of calling fire from heaven and causing an image to speak may either be
taken literally of actual tricks and ventriloquism performed by staged chicanery or as occult power. Since
the dragon is behind it, it is possible that actual supernatural signs are intended, though, as Wilson tells us:
“The trickery of magic was practiced by all the religious charlatans of the day.” Alternatively, they may be
intended only as a symbolic way of saying that false religions will give various convincing evidences of their
divine origins.

He enforces worship of an image of the beast (v. 15) on pain of death. The most persistent anti‐Christian
religious and philosophical sentiments will be those that align themselves with nationalism and statism—all
of which confer upon the state a godlike virtue. Dissenters are usually persecuted out of existence.
Sometimes state religions actually represent their governments or rulers with literal statues, though the
image need not be a literal statue.
The Mark of the Beast: Revelation 13:16–18
16
He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right
hand or on their foreheads, 17and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the
name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding
calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.
Historicist
It takes only a slight acquaintance with the literature on Revelation and eschatology to know two things: (1)
that the characters of the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin languages also served instead of numerals to designate
numeric values, and (2) that a great number of names throughout history have, by being reduced to their
numerical values, been shown to equal the mysterious number 666 (v. 18). Many attempts have been
made to solve the mystery of the meaning of the number of the beast. The earliest solution known to
historians was that proposed by Irenaeus in the second century, who believed it to be the name Lateinos
[Greek for “Latin”]. He wrote: “It seems to me very probable; for this is a name of the last of Daniel’s four
511

kingdoms; they being Latins that now reign.” This solution to the mystery has satisfied most of the
historicist writers as well. Barnes writes:

This appellation, originally applied to the language only, was adopted by the Western kingdoms,
and came to be that by which they were best designated. It was the Latin world, the Latin kingdom,
the Latin church, the Latin patriarch, the Latin clergy, the Latin councils. To use Dr. More’s words, ‘
“They Latinize everything: mass, prayers, hymns, litanies, canons, decretals, bulls, are conceived in
Latin. The Papal councils speak in Latin, women themselves pray in Latin. The Scriptures are read in
no other language under the Papacy than Latin. In short, all things are Latin.” With what propriety,
then, might John, under the influence of inspiration, speak, in this enigmatical manner, of the new
power that was symbolized by the beast as Latin.

For centuries, the mark (v. 16) of being Roman Catholic was that one worshiped in the Latin
language, regardless what language one commonly spoke, or whether one even could understand
the Latin liturgy! The receiving of this mark on the hand or foreheads (v. 16) may merely be an
allusion to the practice, common in ancient times, of slaves or soldiers bearing a mark or the name
of their owner or emperor upon their hands (Actius and Ambrose bear testimony to this), or, in
some cases, upon the forehead (as confirmed by Valerius Maximus and Ambrose).25

Writes Barnes:

Applied to the Papacy, the meaning is, that there would be some mark of distinction; some
indelible sign; something that would designate, with entire certainty, those persons who belonged
to it, and who were subject to it. It is hardly necessary to say that, in point of fact, this has
eminently characterized the Papacy. All possible care has been taken to designate with accuracy
those who belong to that communion, and all over the world, it is easy to distinguish those who
render allegiance to the Papal power.

The forbidding to buy or sell (v. 17) is explained by the fact that the popes have often forbidden
commercial intercourse with heretics or Protestants. Barnes writes: “It has been common in Rome
to prohibit, by express law, all traffic with heretics.” Pope Alexander III, at the Third Lateran Council
in 1178, ordered that “no man presume to entertain or cherish them in his house, or land, to
exercise traffic with them.” The same pope, presiding over the synod of Tours, passed a law
concerning the Waldenses, that “no man should presume to receive or assist them in selling or
buying.” At the Council of Constance, Pope Martin V issued a decree requiring that “they permit
not the heretics to have houses in their districts, or enter into contracts, or carry on commerce.”27

Various historicists have suggested many other names as possible explanations of the number 666, but
nearly all point toward the papacy as the beast. Some others have included: (1) Latin Basileia [Latin
kingdom]; (2) Apostaths [Apostate]; (3) the Hebrew word for ”Roman”—all of which can be shown to total
666.

Andreas Helwig (1572–1643) explained the mystic number 666 by reference to the pope’s official Latin title:
Vicarius filii Dei (translated: “Vicar of the Son of God”). The Roman numeral value of this title (i.e., V= 5, I=
1, C= 100, L= 50, D= 500, all other letters = 0) totals exactly 666. This title reportedly was written upon the
crown known as the “Triple Tiara” worn by the popes at their coronations. In the seventeenth century, it
was expunged from the miter.

25
These ancient authorities are quoted in Latin by Barnes, p. 333.
27
Documented by Elliott, Vol. III, pp. 220f.
512

Preterist
One of the major evidences for identifying the beast with Nero is this information about the number of his
name (v. 17). John obviously did not expect his readers who had understanding (v. 18) to have any
difficulty in identifying the beast, since they could simply calculate the meaning of this cryptogram. Here
using English characters, the Hebrew form of “Caesar Nero” is Nrwn Osr (pronounced “Neron Kaiser”). The
value of the seven Hebrew letters is 50, 200, 6, 50, 100, 60, and 200, respectively. The total is thus 666. This
is the solution advocated by David S. Clark, Jay Adams, Kenneth Gentry, David Chilton, and most others.
Most likely, the code utilized the Hebrew form rather than the Greek or Latin form of the name to avoid
detection from Roman authorities, who would know both Latin and Greek, but not Hebrew. The readers of
the book, however, knew considerable Hebrew, judging from the many symbols taken from the Old
Testament and also John’s use of Hebrew words like Armageddon, amen, hallelujah, Satan (a Hebrew
name, used in addition to the Greek word for devil), and Abaddon (in addition to its Greek counterpart
Apollyon). The Hebrew language has exerted so great an influence over the writing of Revelation, in fact,
that some scholars have even speculated that John originally wrote it in Aramaic (his native tongue and a
cognate of Hebrew). As for the impossibility of buying or selling by those lacking the mark (v. 17), David
Clark writes:

This was to boycott or ostracize the Christians, and deprive them of the common rights of citizens,
or the common rights of humanity. The pressure of economic distress was to be laid on them to
compel them to conform.

Chilton notes:

Similarly [the Jewish leaders] organized economic boycotts against those who refused to submit to
Caesar as Lord, the leaders of the synagogues ”forbidding all dealings with the excommunicated,”26
and going so far as to put them to death.
Futurist
Many see in this passage a prediction of a cashless, worldwide economy in which credit/debit numbers
assigned to individuals around the world replace the use of actual currency. Modern innovations in the
banking industry may be leading in this direction. Eventually this number will be placed on the body of its
possessor, possibly as an implanted computer chip or a laser‐tattoo, in order to eliminate the possibility of
theft or credit card fraud. Ryrie offers the basis for this literal view: “The word ‘mark’ means an impress
made by a stamp, like a brand used on slaves and animals.” But not all, including Weidner, take it as a literal
mark upon the skin:

Most commentators think that we dare not interpret here literally of an actual mark impressed,—that as in
the case of the servants of God no actual visible mark is intended, so here the mark signifies, as Alford says,
“rather conformity and addiction to the behests of the beast.’ ”

Without this number, it will be impossible for anyone to do business, placing men under intense economic
pressure to conform, which Biederwolf envisions as including something of a mandatory labor union: “The
Antichrist will control the labor market. In order to buy or sell one will have to join the organization of
which the Antichrist is the head.”

Walvoord adds that “the mark is simply a token that they are beast worshipers, and it serves as an
identification necessary to conduct business and to purchase the necessities of life. It is another device to
force all people to worship the beast.”

Mounce seems to think that the implied “economic boycott seems to be a harassment of believers rather
than a means of putting to death.” But most understand the text to teach that those who do not conform

26
Austin Farrer, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (London: Oxford University Press, 1964) p. 157.
513

will have to face death. Those who do conform, receiving the mark, will face worse consequences than
death in being cast into the lake of fire (14:10–11).

As Gaebelein puts it, the most terrible persecution is connected with this idol‐worship. The most awful
tyranny exists then, for all commerce is controlled by the Beast. Whoever does not have the mark of the
Beast on hand and forehead cannot buy nor sell, and whoever does not worship the Beast will be killed.
And those who worship the Beast and receive the mark are lost souls.

The meaning of the beast’s number 666 (v. 18) has been debated and applied myriads of ways. John Nelson
Darby, the father of the modern dispensational system, acknowledged that he did not know what it
represents:

I confess my ignorance as to the number six hundred and sixty‐six. I cannot present you with
anything satisfactory to myself. We find, answering to the number six hundred and sixty‐six, the
words apostasy and tradition; but I cannot say anything positive on the point.

J. B. Smith, after mentioning that the six Roman numerals (I, V, X, L, C, D) add up to 666, points “to the
possibility of a Roman being the antichrist… All the numerals from 1 to 36 total 666. Beast in the evil sense
occurs exactly 36 times (6X6) in Revelation.”

Attempts have been made to identify the number 666 with the names of many persons of ancient or
modern history. One popular opinion is that the Antichrist will be a reincarnation of Nero or Judas Iscariot.
Many modern historical figures have been shown to have names that can, by ingenious calculations, be
made to conform to this diabolical cipher. Ryrie, with good cause, observes: “So many identifications have
been made of 666 with characters of history as to make them all unreliable coincidences.”

More popular among modern expositors is the suggestion that the number six represents man, who falls
short of the perfection that the number seven would represent. Among these is Gaebelein:

But what does the number 666 mean? If we were to state all the different views on this number
and the different applications we would have to fill many pages and then we would not know what
is right and wrong… The number 666 signifies man’s day and man’s defiance of God under Satan’s
power in its culmination.
Spiritual
The proof of compliance with the anti‐Christian system is the acceptance of a mark on their right hand or
on their foreheads (v. 16). Interpreters such as Wilcock do not find it necessary to understand this mark as
any more visible or literal than is the “seal” (7:3) or the “name” (14:1) on the foreheads of the Christians:
As the invisible seal of the Spirit confirms the divine ownership of God’s servants (7:3), so the mystical mark
of the beast confirms those who thus sell themselves to the “system.”

Receiving the beast’s mark is synonymous with worshiping the beast (cf. 14:9, 11; 20:4), as Hendriksen
expresses:

The forehead symbolizes the mind, the thoughtlife, the philosophy of a person. The right hand
indicates his deed, action, trade, industry, etc. Therefore receiving the mark of the beast on the
forehead or right hand indicates that … either preeminently in what he thinks, says, writes or more
emphatically in what he does—this antichristian spirit becomes evident.

Those who do not participate in the world’s activities and philosophies in any age can expect
persecution and ostracism. The indication of this ostracism is found in the mention of one of its
forms, that they may not buy or sell (i.e., economic boycott—v. 17). The church of Smyrna may
514

have been poor (2:9) because of just such economic pressures. Summers continues to make
specific application to the time of Domitian:

Worshiping the emperor was a test at every phase of life. Christians were boycotted in the market
for the refusal to bear the mark of the emperor. Marriage settlements, wills, transfers of
property—none of these were legal without the stamp of the emperor.

The mark is either the name of the beast or the number of his name (v. 17). It is not necessary to
assume by the language used that the literal name or a literal cipher must be intended. Each digit in
the number 666 (v. 18) falls short of the symbolic number of perfection: 7. Since it is the number of
a man (v. 18), 666 symbolizes man’s imperfection. The number may have been chosen here
because of its association with Nero (see preterist comments), though pointing to him only as a
representative type of satanic states in any age that oppose Christianity. Wilcock writes: “The
number 666 does not mean Nero or Caligula or Rome. It simply means the beast, false religion.” 21

The Millenium (Rev 20:1‐6)
Read this section from: Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: T.
Nelson Publishers, 1997), Re 13:1‐4. At the end, discuss which you think is the better interpretation which
makes the best sense of the data. Read with you bible open beside you.
The Binding of the Dragon: Revelation 20:1–3
1
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in
his hand. 2He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a
thousand years; 3and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he
should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be
released for a little while.
Premillennial
Then (v. 1) suggests a chronological sequence following the events in chapter 19:10ff., where Christ was
seen in His Second Coming upon a white horse, subduing His enemies and defeating the Antichrist and the
False Prophet. Hence, the events of which we now read are to occur after the Second Coming of Christ.
John sees an unnamed angel coming down from heaven in possession of the key to the bottomless pit (v.
1), or the abyss, and sporting a great chain for the purpose of putting Satan out of commission for a time. It
is not necessary to know the identity of this angel, but Michael was seen to gain the mastery over Satan in
chapter 12, and it is possible that he is the mightiest of God’s angels—he alone in Scripture being called
“the archangel” (Jude 9).

The location of the bottomless pit is unrevealed, although many feel that it must have its opening
somewhere upon earth, since this opening is referred to twice in Revelation (v.l; cf. 9:1). In chapter 9, the
abyss was opened by a “star” that fell “from heaven to the earth,” suggesting the earth as the location of
the pit. The star that fell in chapter 9 was “given” the key to the bottomless pit, because, being an evil
angel, he did not possess it by right but by grant from God. The angel in chapter 20, however, is not seen
receiving, but “having” the key. While this does not preclude his having received it earlier (and may even
imply it), it may suggest a more innate right to possess and use the key on the part of this angel.
Having laid hold of the dragon (v. 2), the angel deftly discharges his commission to bind him for a thousand
years. There will be more to say later about this thousand years, but suffice it to say that the language
clearly indicates that the disabling of Satan is very thorough. In addition to the restriction imposed by the
chain, the devil is further eliminated by being cast … into the bottomless pit, and shut… up in it with a seal

21
Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views : A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers,
1997), Re 13:11‐18.
515

[set] on him (v. 3). This does not mean that there will be no sin in the Millennium, for as Biederwolf writes:
“This refers to Satan’s complete banishment from earth, so that while sin is still to exist in individuals, it is
no longer to be a power forming a fellowship, and thus making a kingdom of sin and Satan.”

The sealing of the prison, like the sealing of the tomb of Christ (cf. Matt. 27:66), suggests a forbidding of
any to tamper with it on command of the highest authority. The effect of this incarceration of Satan is that
he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished (v. 3). This clearly indicates the
presence of nations after the destruction of the Antichrist in 19:21—perhaps those that did not participate
in the conflict. These will be, according to Alford, “the quiet and willing subjects of the kingdom,” who will
again be seduced when the thousand years are over (vv. 7ff.).

There can be no doubt that the nations still experience satanically inspired deception today, which
challenges any interpretation of this vision that would make Satan to be currently bound. Weidner
declares: “If any one thing is clear, it is this, that the power of Satan has as yet not been bound.” “If he is
bound today,” it is often said, “the chain is too long.”

By way of anticipation, we are forewarned at this point that we have not yet seen the end of Satan’s career,
for, after the Millennium he must be released for a little while (v. 3). There will be one final rebellion
following the thousand years of Christ’s peaceful reign on earth before the eternal new creation will come.
Amillennial
Then I saw (v. 1) speaks only of the order in which the visions were presented to John, not the chronology
of its fulfillment. As chapter 12 describes the birth of Christ after many chronologically later events are
described in previous chapters, so this chapter goes back to the beginning of the Christian dispensation and
looks at Christ’s victory over Satan, accomplished at the Cross.

The angel who comes down to bind Satan may be Michael, who is depicted as defeating the dragon in the
parallel vision of chapter 12, or may represent Christ Himself, 2 the true conqueror of the devil, or may
simply symbolize the general fact of Satan’s having been overpowered.

Several elements in the passage seem to demand a nonliteral interpretation. First, the devil, a spiritual
being, is depicted as being bound by a great chain (v. 1), whereas one would think of spiritual beings as not
being susceptible to confinement by physical restraints. 3 A second indicator of the symbolism in the
passage is the reference to Satan (as elsewhere in the book) as both a dragon and a serpent (v. 2), neither
of which is any more a literal description of this spiritual being than is “a Lamb . . . having seven horns and
seven eyes” (cf. 5:6), a literal description of the man Jesus Christ. We are further dissuaded from a literal
interpretation of the passage by the fact that many of its features, e.g., a thousand years (v. 2), a pit, and a
seal (v. 3) are used elsewhere in Scripture in a symbolic manner. 4

The nature of the binding itself is not absolute, so as to preclude every activity of Satan. It is specifically
limited in the passage to the devil’s power to deceive the nations (v. 3) for the duration of the period. That
Jesus in some sense bound Satan during His ministry is affirmed by Christ Himself. Jesus describes His
ministry of deliverance to the demon—possessed as analogous to the plundering of a strong man’s house
by an invader (Matt. 12:29). Here the strong man is clearly Satan and the intruder is Christ. Jesus explains
parabolically that a necessary first step was to bind the strong man, who otherwise would not allow his
house to be pillaged. The implication is that Jesus’ casting out of demons provides proof that He had

2
The view of Augustine, Andreas, Vitringa, and Hengstenberg.
3
Notwithstanding passages like Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4, where “chains” are probably to be understood
symbolically as well.
4
For “1000 years,” cf. Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8. For the use of a “pit,” cf. Psalm 7:15; 9:15; 35:7; 40:2; 55:23;
69:15; 88:6; Prov. 22:14; Isa. 24:22; 38:17; Zech. 9:11. For “seal,” cf.John 3:33; Rom. 4:11; 1 Cor. 9:2; 2 Tim.
2:19; Rev. 6:3, 5, 7, 9, etc.
516

already “bound” Satan. This binding of Satan, however, does not involve a literal incarceration preventing
all movement. In the analogy, “binding” refers only to rendering his opponent incapable of resistance. The
parallel account in Luke replaces the metaphor of binding the strong man with that of stripping the strong
man of his armor and weapons (Luke 11:22). Thus, according to Christ’s own teaching, the imagery of
“binding Satan” conveys the fact that Satan has been rendered incapable of successfully resisting the
forward advance of God’s kingdom. Additional passages in the New Testament use similar images to
describe the decisive victory of Christ over His foes. Colossians 2:15 exults in the fact that Christ “disarmed
principalities and powers” through the cross, and Hebrews 2:14 states that Jesus endured death so that He
might thereby “destroy 6 him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.”

The meaning of this binding of Satan, then, is that Christ, at His first advent, brought about a conclusive
victory, leaving Satan impotent to prevent the success of God’s kingdom. The imagery of this passage is
simply a more vivid dramatization of this concept, in keeping with the apocalyptic style of the book itself.
Postmillennial
Then (v. 1) conveys the idea that the events about to be described are to occur after the events described
in the immediate preceding context. Thus the successful preaching of the gospel worldwide, resulting in the
subordination of all nations to the authority of Christ, precedes His Second Coming. The Second Coming of
Christ will be seen in verses 9ff. of this chapter, but the events before us in the present verses are to find
fulfillment before that. The Englishman often credited with the founding of this school of thought, Daniel
Whitby (1638–1725), identified the events of this chapter as following the seventh trumpet in chapter 11.
Followed by Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) in America, Whitby taught that the preaching of the gospel
will, at some future point, successfully convert the majority of sinners. Satan’s influence will thus be
effectively bound upon earth, that he should deceive the nations no more (v. 3) for a lengthy period. A. H.
Strong expressed this view:

Through the preaching of the gospel in all the world, the kingdom of Christ is steadily to enlarge its
boundaries, until Jews and Gentiles alike become possessed of its blessings, and a millennial period
is introduced in which Christianity generally prevails throughout the earth.5

This thousand years (vv. 2, 3) speaks of that future period.

David S. Dark sees this chapter as beginning a new section, not, as the amillennialist suggests, to
recapitulate a time period discussed earlier, but looking to the end of the Christian era, long after Christ has
subdued Jerusalem and Rome (in chs. 11 and 19). dark suggests that the capture of the Beast and the False
Prophet occurred at the fall of pagan Rome, but that the binding of Satan remains to be fulfilled in the
future. Most other postmillennialists (like the premillennialists) see no break between the chapters, but a
progression leading naturally from the end of chapter 19 into chapter 20. All agree with dark, however, in
saying: “We therefore conclude that there will be a millennium and that it will result from the preaching
and teaching of the gospel, when ‘the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord.’ ”

R. J. Rushdoony also believes in this golden era at the end of the church age, but takes a different approach
to the interpretation of Revelation 20. He sees this chapter almost exactly as does the amillennialist. He
writes: “Thus Revelation 20 is in a sense a recapitulation of the entire book.” He sees the binding of Satan
as having already occurred in the past, when Christ was on earth. The thousand years apparently is seen,
with the amillennialist, as the entire church age. The principal difference between his view and that of the
amillennialist is that the latter makes no prediction about the ultimate success of the gospel in converting
the world, whereas Rushdoony, with all postmillennialists, believes that the church will bring all things

6
The Greek verb katargeo, used here, means “to reduce to inactivity”—a parallel concept to that of
binding, and no more a reference to an absolute inactivity of the devil than that intended in our present
passage.
5
In his Systematic Theology (Philadephia: Griffith and Rowland, 1909) 3:1008, quoted by Grenz, p. 70.
517

under the dominion of Christ. It would seem that this view of Revelation 20 differs from that of classical
postmillennialism only in restricting the golden age to the end portion of the “thousand years” (which
represents the whole church age), whereas the older postmillennialism identifies the thousand years with
the golden age at the end of the church age and the end of the world. In one sense, Rushdoony’s view
could be called optimistic amillennialism. 7 with reference to the interpretation of this chapter. Benjamin B.
Warfield also took an approach similar to this.

The Thousand‐Year Reign: Revelation 20:4–6
4
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the
souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had
not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their
hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5But the rest of the dead did not
live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is
he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be
priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Premillennial
There is much dispute over the identity of the persons who were seen seated upon the thrones (v. 4),
whether they were (a) God, Christ, and the angels; (b) the twenty‐four elders (cf. Rev. 4:4); (c) the martyrs
and those who refused to worship the beast (mentioned later in the verse); or (d) all the saints of both the
Old and the New Testaments (cf. Matt. 19:28). The last view mentioned seems to be preferred by most
expositors (e.g., Alford, Milligan, Gaebelein, Weidner, etc.).

The right of judging was committed to them (v. 4), which suggests that they participated with Christ in the
judicial rule of the nations during the Millennium. In that John also saw those who had been beheaded and
who had not worshiped the beast, it has been speculated that they might be here standing before the
court being assessed “as to how far they were worthy of being called to the first resurrection” (Lange).
However, it is more likely that they belong to the larger company of those sitting on the thrones and are
singled out as worthy of particular mention. The reference to their being beheaded may represent any form
of martyrdom, not restricting the number to those actually decapitated.

The meaning of the expression they lived (v. 4) is hotly debated. Premillennialists prefer to translate the
expression they came to life, meaning “they lived [again],” and identify it with the first resurrection of
verses 5 and 6. This is the resurrection of the saints to reign on earth (cf. 2:26–27; 5:10) during the
Millennium. It is to be followed at the end of the thousand years by the resurrection of the wicked for the
judgment of the Great White Throne (vv. 11ff.), hence the rest of the dead did not live again until the
thousand years were finished (v. 5). Whereas the amillennialist and the postmillennialist do not consider
this “first resurrection” to be physical, it seems inconsistent to make this resurrection out to be a spiritual
one while acknowledging the resurrection at the end of the thousand years to be physical, as Alford writes:
As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual
interpretation now in fashion. If in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain souls
lived at the first, and the rest of the dead lived only in the end of a specified period after the first—if in such
a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second
means literal rising from the grave; then there is an end to all significance in language, and Scripture is
wiped out as a definite testimony to anything.

7
Chilton, who takes a view of the millennium similar to that of Rushdoony, struggles to properly label the position—
finding both “optimistic amillennialist” and “non‐chiliastic postmillennialist” too vocally unwieldy—settling for
“generic” postmillennialism.
518

It is acknowledged by some (e.g., Milligan and Fausset) that the vision of the souls (v. 4) of those who had
been beheaded must refer to disembodied souls, but this only means that John saw them first in their
disembodied states in heaven, whereas they now are seen experiencing the physical resurrection.
Though Lange takes the number symbolically, the thousand years (v. 4) may be as readily taken literally as
any of the other time indicators in the Book of Revelation. Stuart writes:

The great question whether this is to be taken literally or symbolically, is one that must be settled
by the analogy of the book in regard to specific periods. We have seen that the famous period of
three and one‐half years is to be understood, in all probability, in its literal sense.… Here, then,
assuming a similar usage with respect to numbers, we may suppose that the thousand years may
be taken in their ordinary sense, or at least for a very long period.

Though this will be long enough for the producing of many millennial generations of people, individual life
spans apparently will be greatly increased over those currently known. Isaiah 65:20 tells us: “No more shall
an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; for the child shall die
one hundred years old.”

Peter wrote that with the Lord one day is “as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day” (2 Pet. 3:8).
This may mean that the Millennium, coming after six thousand years of world history, should be regarded
as the antitype of the seventh day, which followed the six days of creation.

A particular blessedness and holiness accrues to the one who has part in the first resurrection (v. 6),
because only they live in the Millennium and will escape the second death to live on in the New Jerusalem
in the new creation. The reference to their being holy may reflect that they shall be priests (v. 6), since
priests were holy unto the Lord. It is important to note that those thus designated are priests of God and of
Christ, a phraseology providing a strong indicator of Christ’s co‐equal deity with God.
Amillennial
Two views prevail among amillennialists concerning the venue of the saints in this vision. The older view,
proposed by Augustine, is that the picture is that of the spiritual reign of believers on earth in the present
age, symbolizing the victory through which it is written that “we are more than conquerors through Him
who loved us” (Rom. 8:37).

An alternative view, attributed originally to the nineteenth‐century German scholar Kliefoth, is that the
vision describes the blessedness of the departed saints in heaven after death, but prior to the resurrection.
This is the more widespread view today among amillennialists.

The thrones (v. 4) are apparently in heaven, as were those in Revelation 4:4, upon which the twenty‐four
elders sat. Likewise, the souls of those who had been beheaded for Christ are no doubt seen in heaven
here, as they were in Revelation 6:9. The only place for the disembodied souls of saints since the
accomplishment of our redemption has been in heaven, and the only time‐frame during which such souls
can be found there (sans bodies) is from the point of their deaths till the time of their resurrection at the
Second Coming of Christ. Thus the time‐frame would seem to be the present age of the church, from John’s
own century to the time of the resurrection.

That this period is referred to as a thousand years (v. 4) need give us no trouble, even though the actual
age of the church has by this time run nearly twice this length of time. There is nothing surprising in finding
the use of a symbolic number here as elsewhere in Revelation. The number “a thousand” is frequently used
in Scripture without the intention of conveying statistical information. It is given as the number of
generations to which God keeps His covenants (Deut. 7:9), the number of hills upon which God owns the
cattle (Ps. 50:10), the number of enemy troops that one Israelite shall chase (Josh. 23:10), the number of
those who shall fall “at your side” as opposed to the ten thousand who will fall at your “right hand” (Ps.
91:7), etc. Furthermore, the expression “a thousand years” is never used elsewhere in Scripture for an
519

actual number of years, but only to suggest the idea of a very long time (cf. Ps. 90:4; Eccl. 6:6; 2 Pet. 3:8). So
also here, the reign of the martyrs during the time of Satan’s incarceration is simply a very long time, as the
figure “a thousand years” generally means.

The refusal of these victors to worship the beast or to wear his mark (v. 4), in no sense relegates them to a
period at the end of time, since the beast is not necessarily a person or entity restricted to some brief
period at the end of the present age, but can be interpreted as existing to oppose the church throughout
her history (see historicist and spiritual commentaries at chapter 13).

The phrase they lived and reigned with Christ (v. 4) is thought by some (i.e., premillennialists) to be better
translated “they came to life and reigned with Christ.” This version is followed by many leading Bible
translations. If this latter translation be correct, the reference is said to teach a rising from the dead of
these saints prior to the resurrection detailed at the end of this chapter. If this could be established, it
would support only the premillennial position, in that it would show that these persons, already having
been resurrected, must be seen here as living after the (premillennial) Second Coming of Christ. The
problem may be resolved in more than one way. First, it may be that their “coming to life” refers to their
entrance into heaven at the point of their death and does not speak of their physical resurrection at the
coming of the Lord. Alternatively, it is entirely possible to retain the translation “they lived” as simply
stating that they lived on in heaven beyond the point of their earthly deaths. Either translation, “they lived”
or “they came to life,” can be justified grammatically. The Greek verb in question is the aorist active
indicative of zaō (to live). This can be either ingressive or constantive in its present form. If the former, it
means “came to life.” If the latter, “lived” is the correct translation.11

The first resurrection (v. 5) may refer to the life of the departed saints in heaven or merely to the principal
feature of the time period as a whole in terms of the privileges of living saints as well. The Scriptures
elsewhere teach that there will be only one physical resurrection at the end of time, which will include the
righteous and the unrighteous (cf. John 5:28–29; Acts 24:14–15; compare “the last day” in John 6:39, 40,
44, 54, and 12:48). We find this resurrection of bodies from their graves at the end of the Millennium (v.
13). It follows that there can be no other physical resurrection than that mentioned at the end of the
chapter and that the “first resurrection” mentioned in verses 5 and 6 must therefore be a spiritual one.
Such a conclusion is justified by the fact that the Christian’s experience of regeneration is frequently spoken
of in terms of a spiritual rising from death to life (cf. John 5:24; 11:34–35; Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:13; 3:1; Rom.
6:4–5, 13). It is further justified by the fact of its juxtaposition with the second death (v. 6). There are two
deaths: one physical, and one nonphysical (v. 14). That one resurrection should be spiritual and the other
physical conforms to the dichotomy of the passage with reference to the two deaths.

11
The word in the same form appears two other times in Revelation. In Revelation 2:8, it is used of Christ, who “was
dead and lives” or “came to life,” depending on the meaning of the word. Both translations work in this context,
though “lives” works better in juxtaposition with “was dead.” If the meaning were “came to life,” the first verb should
have been “died” (thus both verbs would share equal strength of the active voice). The other occurrence is at
Revelation 13:14, where the beast who had been “wounded by the sword” nonetheless “lived” or “came to life.” The
former suggests that he survived the injury, whereas the latter presupposes that the beast was actually killed and
resurrected. One of the beast’s heads bore evidence “as if it had been mortally wounded” (13:3), but this is not the
same thing as affirming that the wound had in fact proved fatal. Even if the wound did prove fatal, it was only one of
seven heads that sustained the injury—the beast himself survived. Thus the word “lived” or “lived on” seems best to
fit the circumstances of the context of 13:14. Even if these conclusions could be established, they would not prove
anything about the use of the word in our present context. However, since the word for “live” and the word for
“reign” which are joined in the phrase, are both in the same verbal form (aorist active indicative) and since the action
of the second verb (“reigned”) in the passage refers to the constant activity of the whole period, rather than simply its
beginning, “they lived and reigned” seems more appropriate a translation than does the alternative: “they came to life
and began to reign … for a thousand years.” It was their reigning—not their beginning to reign—that lasted a
thousand years. Thus, from the amillennial perspective, the verb most likely speaks of their continuing to live in
heaven with Christ even though they had died on earth.
520

But the rest of the dead did not live again (v. 5). This either means (a) that the blessedness of the saints
was never experienced by the unsaved (until the thousand years were finished being taken only as a
contrast to the state of the saints during the same period, but not implying a change at the end of the
period), or it means (b) that, while the saints enjoy two resurrections (the first being spiritual rebirth and
the second being the physical resurrection at the end of time), the lost know no such “first resurrection”
and have only the physical resurrection ahead of them at the end of the present dispensation (a
“resurrection of condemnation,” according to Christ—John 5:29).
That the saints shall reign with Him a thousand years (v. 6) suggests that the church, seen collectively, in
some sense participates with Him in His reign over history during the entire church age.
Postmillennial
The meaning of the first resurrection (vv. 5, 6) is not a unanimously settled matter among postmillennial
writers. It is said of the martyrs that they lived and reigned (v. 4) for the thousand years, which is taken by
some to mean that the future victory of Christianity after its earlier history of persecution amounts to
nothing less than a rebirth of the cause for which the martyrs died. John Jefferson Davis writes: “The ‘first
resurrection,’ then, refers to the future restoration and vindication of the cause for which the martyrs
died.” 8 Barnes similarly writes:

They were exalted in their principles and in their personal happiness in heaven, as if they occupied
the throne with Him and shared its honors and triumphs. An older view of Daniel Whitby, followed
by A. A. Hodge in the nineteenth century and James Snowden in the early twentieth century, was
that the first resurrection refers to a revival of the martyr spirit. As explained by Strong, verses 4
and 5 of this chapter refer to a period in the latter days of the church militant when, under special
influence of the Holy Ghost, the spirit of the martyrs shall appear again, true religion be greatly
quickened and revived, and the members of Christ’s churches become so conscious of their
strength in Christ that they shall, to an extent unknown before, triumph over the powers of evil
both within and without. 9

When v. 5 says the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished, it may mean,
as dark understands it, that Christ’s cause and people were dominant during the thousand years, and
Satan’s allies were subdued till the thousand years were ended, and after that they rose to power again.…
They … rose to their old time power and persecution.

Rushdoony takes the view of many amillennialists that the first resurrection is a figurative way of referring
to the regeneration of the believer, whereas Benjamin B. Warfield held the view, also found among some
amillennialists, that the first resurrection is the entrance into heavenly joys and that these verses present a
picture of the souls of the redeemed safe in heaven. This appears to be the view of David S. Dark also.
Chilton points out that the “first resurrection” may be a reference back to Christ’s own resurrection from
the dead. Paul refers to Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20) and as “the
firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18). As Chilton says, when Christ arose, “He rose from the dead, and
resurrected all believers with Him.” Thus the beatitude is not pronounced upon those who have risen from
the dead, but rather he who has part in the first resurrection (v. 6). Every believer “has part in” the
resurrection of Christ—those souls seen in heaven illustrate that the life they have received while on earth
continues, uninterrupted by death, in heaven. Chilton raises a pertinent question, only to answer it:
Does this reign of the saints take place in heaven or on earth? The answer should be obvious: both! The
saints’ thrones are in heaven, with Christ (Eph. 2:6); yet, with their Lord, they exercise rule and dominion on
earth (cf. 2:26–27; 5:10; 11:15).

Having been resurrected with Christ, Christians are to rule and to promote His rule in the world at this
present time. Chilton, Rushdoony, and other Christian Reconstructionists believe that this rule of the saints

8
In Christ’s Victorious Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986) p. 98.
9
Systematic Theology, 3:1013.
521

on earth will ultimately take the form of “a Christian Republic, where God’s law rules.” 10 The application of
the Mosaic civil ordinances to modern case law is one of the principal concerns of this wing of
postmillennialists—in anticipation of a time when “all kings shall fall down before Him; / All nations shall
serve Him” (Ps. 72:11). If the rulers of the world are going to seek to honor God in their law‐making, the
church must be prepared to inform them of how civil law can best conform to the divine standard revealed
in the Mosaic statutes. 22
• What do you think the mark of the beast is? What is the beast? Which of these makes more sense?
Write a response.

10
James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984) pp. 26–27.
22
Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views : A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers,
1997), Re 20:1‐6.
522

Appendix One

WRITING A THEMATIC NEW TESTAMENT ESSAY
Read the question
At the end of the day an essay is a question answered. The essay will ask you to deal with an issue in a
particular way and to succeed you must do this. Here is an example from a previous NT essay:

Using Mark’s Gospel as your point of reference, write an accurate critical account of the essential features of
Jesus’ ministry and its significance for ministry today.

Key points to note:
The crux of the assignment
Write an accurate critical account of the essential features of Jesus’ ministry and its significance for ministry
today. Thus you are being asked in this question to go carefully through Mark’s Gospel and draw out of it the
various elements of Jesus’ ministry we find in his presentation of Jesus’ ministry. Some of these will include
itinerancy, preaching/teaching (esp. parables), miracles, feeding the poor, gathering a team of leaders for the
church and ministry, giving his life for the world as a ransom, rising from the dead etc.

Nuance 1
You are to use Mark’s Gospel. That limits your ability to draw on Matthew, Luke and John. You can use these
Gospel’s as a cross‐reference in footnotes and/or you can note any points of distinction or support in
footnotes e.g. a footnote might read: ‘in Matthew’s version of Jesus’ ministry, he highlights Jesus as a teacher
of ethics or a new law; Mark does not include this although he hints at it in 2:13 which may be a summary of
the Sermon on the Mount event’. If you choose in your essay to use all the Gospels you will be marked down
for not reading the question.

Nuance 2
You are to ensure that it is accurate and critical. This means you are not to simply sit with Mark’s Gospel and
draw your own conclusions without reference to other points of view. You need to read other people’s points
of view. These can be found through reading some of the sources I will give you in your essay bibliography or
through your own research. A couple of examples which will affect your presentation include that Mark’s
Gospel ends at Mk 16:8 and does not include any resurrection appearance accounts. Hence, does Mark include
Jesus’ resurrection as an ‘essential feature of his ministry’ in any way? Another direction that is required is the
background and purpose of Mark’s gospel to ensure you are reading it right and then drawing accurate
analogies into today’s world and ministry. So you need to share in the first part of your essay, very briefly and
succinctly, what your assumptions are.

Nuance 3
‘Its significance for ministry today’: this angle calls you to be creative and thoughtful in working through how
Mark wanted us to hear it for today’s ministry. Such questions which come to mind are:

1. Are we all called to Jesus’ itinerancy?
523

Writing a Thematic New Testament Essay
2. Are we called to continue the ministry of Christ; what are the blindspots of your church culture?
3. What challenges do you hear for your own ministry in Mark’s Gospel.

Layout of the Essay
Those of you who are confident and more experienced in writing essays through your secondary and tertiary
study can approach this in your own way. This is for those of you who do not feel so prepared.

Introduction
In which the topic is introduced and the processes of the essay explained.
1. A snappy creative introductory sentence which asks a question, brings a quote and generally
introduces the central theme and emphasis of the essay.
2. A clear outline of what you intend to do in the essay.
3. Here you may define the question and important terms as you see it.
4. This should be no more than 1/3 to ½ a page.

Body of the Essay
In which the bulk of the work is done, the question answered. The majority of marks will be awarded on the
basis of the quality of this section.
1. Answer the question systematically, concisely and creatively.
2. Ensure every element is dealt with as per the question.
3. In a thematic essay it is good to break down your answer into 4‐8 main points and make it very clear
what each point is using either subheadings (not too many); italicizing; highlighting. Each point should
we well explained and illustrated with one or two examples from text.
4. Every paragraph should have one main point and should be 4‐5 sentences maximum.

Other notes
1. Support your answer first and most importantly through interaction with the texts involved whether it
be Mark’s Gospel, a section of Scripture or whatever.
2. Textual references from the Scriptures should be supported by interaction with one or two scholar’s
viewpoints to ensure you are not merely reading your own interpretation into it. Each essay will have
bibliographical guidelines to help you.
3. Where you refer to a scholar’s idea or view which is not your own original thought, you should make
footnote reference to the place in that scholar’s work where you found it.
4. Don’t get overcomplicated with language and try to do too much. Be clear, concise and to the point.

Application
Most of my questions will ask for an application to today’s world or situation.
1. Apply to today’s world the findings of your discussion in the body of the essay.
2. Some tips for this include:
3. Summarise on scrap paper the main points of the body.
4. Think creatively of situations you have encountered, heard of, observed or considered in today’s
church and world and make some comments on the things that you have found toward those
situations.
5. Be creative here using words from contemporary songs, referring to scenes from movies or TV; this is
your chance to really show that you can connect the Word appropriately and dynamically to the
World.
6. Here, think of these types of questions:
7. What does this say to my life?
524

8. What does this say to the family?
9. What does this say about God and theology?
10. What does this say to the church?
11. What does this say to the world and Christians in the world?
12. What does this say to youth work, children’s ministry etc i.e. to other forms of ministry?

Conclusion
A final paragraph or two in which you bring together the discussion.
1. Summarise what you discovered in your research. Introduce nothing new, but simply restate in fresh
words the core findings of your discussion.
2. Restate in succinct form the points of application.
3. A final concluding statement, quote or thought.

Bibliography
A list of the references you have referred to in the essay and which have been important in your research.
1. The higher the level the greater the expectation in terms of reading. The tip I use here is that the
number of level points you to the number of books, articles you should refer to i.e. level 5 = 5; level 6
= 6 etc. Clearly the more you look at and use appropriately the better.
2. Ensure you lay out your bibliography alphabetically and as per the college written assignment
guidelines! Failure to do this will see you lose some marks.

Other things of note
1. Ensure you use the guidelines for written assignments from ed. services. This requires care and
observance of detail in terms of using commas, colons, speech marks, italics, order etc. This is a skill of
writing which we expect you to take care to learn here. It will see your mark reduced if you fail to do
this.
2. Stick to the Word Count (limit of 10% over in the body)! The skill of saying ‘it’ in the words given and
not blathering on indiscriminately is what we are looking to see students develop.
3. Double space the essay, single space and indented large quotes; you can single space and use a
smaller font size on your footnotes.
4. Remember you can use 25% of the word count in the footnotes so make the most of this for extra
comments, thoughts and references.
5. Avoid extensions if you can. Another challenge at Laidlaw is personal organization. Try to get into the
habit of not getting extensions; when you go into work or ministry most of the things you do will have
unmovable deadlines which cannot be avoided (e.g. a sermon every Sunday!). Ensure you lay out a
plan for your assignments from day one and stick to it. Of course wisdom sometimes dictates that an
extension is the only way to go where personal health and family needs dictate.
6. Stick to the job at hand and get it done! Keep a personal journal where you can write down those
other insights, questions and avenues of interest arise as you are reading, thinking and writing; make
these points of additional exploration in your down time.
7. Remember tutors are there to help. If you are lost, make a time to visit them and chat about your
essay, show them a plan or whatever; all this will help you do a good job.
8. Get a friend to proof‐read it and offer their thoughts. Do not collude or plagiarise (this is cheating and
not Christian!) but help each other. Second language people who are not confident should go to the
English department or other suitable English reader for help to ensure that the grammar, spelling and
wording is accurate.

525

Writing a Thematic New Testament Essay
526

New Testament Introduction Tips for Content Tests
Appendix Two

TIPS FOR CONTENT TESTS
Read the text through very carefully on your own
1. Work with the TNIV as this is the Laidlaw approved Bible at present.
2. Break it into sections.
3. Note the key themes, people, places, actions.
4. Note the verses that appear really important and read them through a few extra times.
5. Some people like to diagram the text with flow diagrams, with linear lists.
6. Know where things are found in the text e.g. Mk 1:9‐11: Baptism of Christ.
7. Note sequences.

Work with someone else or a group
1. Find someone to quiz you from the text.
2. Ask each other detailed questions about the text.
3. You can work with kids or family members; a good way to get them into the Word.
4. You can work with someone or others from the class.
5. Make it fun!

Layout of the tests
The tests will be complete online. To access the tests go to the Moodle course area and select the relevant
module. The tests can be attempted anytime up until the due date and time. You may re‐sit the test as many
times as you want. Your best mark will be recorded in the gradebook. The tests are open Bible and based on
the TNIV text.

527

Appendix Three

RECOMMENDED TEXTS
All the recommended texts are available from the library. Many of the texts are held on reserve to
ensure all students have access to them. Distance student can quest individual chapters of books to
be scanned and emailed to them.

General texts

Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green & Marianne M. Thompson, Introducing the New Testament. Its Literature
and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. EASY TO READ, BASIC, NOT CONSERVATIVE BUT
REASONED.
Blomberg, C. Jesus and the Gospels. An Introduction and Survey. Leicester: Apollos, 1997. MIDDLE OF THE
ROAD TO READ, SOLID, CONSERVATIVE.
Carson, D.A. & D.J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. A LITTLE
MORE CHALLENGING, SOLIDALLY CONSERVATIVE.
Drane, J. Introducing the New Testament. Oxford: Lion, 1999. BASIC, GOOD ENTRY LEVEL STUFF,
CONSERVATIVE.
De Silva, D.E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. Downers
Grove: IVP, 2004. DETAILED, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, SOLID.
Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight & I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (DJG). Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992. ON THE ADVANCED SIDE, DETAILED, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament. An Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Marshall, C.D. Kingdom Come. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Auckland: Impetus, 1993. BASIC,
GOOD ENTRY LEVEL STUFF FOR THE SUBJECT, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
Reddish, Mitchell G. An Introduction to the Gospels. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. SOLID, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD
LEVEL.
Stanton, G. The Gospels and Jesus. Second Edition. Oxford: University Press, 2002. SOLID, MIDDLE OF THE
ROAD.
Thielman, Frank A Theology of the New Testament. A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005. SOLID, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
Wenham, David & Steve Walton, Exploring the New Testament. Volume 1, Introducing the Gospels and Acts.
London: SPCK, 2001.
Young, Brad H. Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

Historical Setting
D.E. De Silva, An Introduction, Chapters 2‐4 (37‐137).
C. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, Chapter 1‐3 (7‐72).
J. Drane, Introducing the New Testament, Chapter 1.
Mitchell G. Reddish, An Introduction, Chapter 2 (44‐72).
529

Recommended texts
Paul J. Achtemeier, et al, Introducing, Chapter 2 (15‐52).
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, Chapters 1‐3 (23‐92).
David Wenham & Steve Walton, Exploring, Chapters 1 & 2 (3‐46).
‘Judaism’ in DJG.
Dead Sea Scrolls in DJG (Essenes).
Hellenism in DJG.
Pharisees in DJG.
Sadducees in DJG.
Synagogue in DJG.
Temple in DJG.
Sanhedrin in DJG.
‘Revolutionary Movements’ in DJG (Zealots).
‘Scribes’ in DJG.

Understanding the Gospels in General (e.g. Synoptic Problem)
D.E. De Silva, An Introduction, Chapter 4 (145‐188).
G. Stanton, The Gospels, Chapter 2 (13‐36). See also Chapter 7 (122‐139) on ‘other gospels’.
C. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, Chapters 4‐5 (73‐112).
D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo, An Introduction, Chapter 2 (77‐133).
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, Chapters 7‐8 (155‐258).
‘Synoptic Problem’ in DJG.
‘Gospel Genre’ in DJG.
‘Gospels Apocryphal’ in DJG.
Frank Thielman, A Theology, 45‐56.
Wenham, David & Steve Walton, Exploring, Chapters 4‐5 (81‐126).

Mark’s Gospel
D.E. De Silva, An Introduction, Chapters 5 (194‐229).
C. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, Chapter 6 (115‐125).
David Wenham & Steve Walton, Exploring, Chapter9 (191‐208).
‘Mark, Gospel of’ in DJG.

Matthew’s Gospel
G. Stanton, The Gospels, Chapter 3 (37‐57)
Wenham, David & Steve Walton, Exploring, Chapter 10 (209‐226).
‘Matthew, Gospel of’ in DJG.
530

In addition… you can read the introductions to the commentaries of France, Tom Wright, William Lane, R.
Guelich, Hurtado (see the bibliography for details)

Luke’s Gospel
G. Stanton, The Gospels, Chapter 5 (58‐78).
Frank Thielman, A Theology, 111‐149 (looks at Luke‐Acts as a whole).
David Wenham & Steve Walton, Exploring, Chapters 11 (227‐242).
‘Luke, Gospel of’ in DJG.

John’s Gospel
G. Stanton, The Gospels, Chapter 6 (97‐121).
David Wenham & Steve Walton, Exploring, Chapter 12 (243‐265).
‘Synoptics and John’ in DJG.
‘John, Gospel of’ in DJG.

Kingdom of God
G. Stanton, The Gospels, Chapter 12, 203‐217.
C.D. Marshall, Kingdom Come. (Whole book)
‘Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven’ in DJG
C.D. Marshall, ‘Kingdom of God’, Reality 64
G.E. Ladd, The Kingdom and the Church in A Theology of the New Testament (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press,
1974), 115‐119.
Paul J. Achtemeier, et al, Introducing, 214‐223.
Brad H. Young, Jesus, Chapter 5‐11, 18 (49‐128, 197‐205).

Miracles of Jesus
‘Miracle and Miracle Stories’ in DJG.
‘Healing’ in DJG.
‘Demon, Devil, Satan’ in DJG.
Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker. A Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove (Ill): IVP,
1999, Chapter 10 (258‐280); Chapter 17 (333‐359).
D. Wenham, “Miracles Then and Now”, Themelios 12/1 (1986): 1‐4.
531

Recommended texts
C.D. Marshall, “Ghostbusters – Then and Now,” Reaper 74/5 (Oct‐Nov, 1992): 14‐16.
J.Wilkinson, “Physical Healing and the Atonement”, EQ 63/2 (1991): 149‐167.
Paul J. Achtemeier, Introducing, 224‐227.
Brad H. Young, Jesus, Chapter 4 (35‐48).

Parables of Jesus
‘Parable’ in DJG.
Klyne R. Snodgrass, “From Allegorising to Allegorising: A History of the Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus”
in R.N. Longenecker (ed), The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 3‐29.
Stephen C. Barton, “Parables of God’s Love and Forgiveness” (Luke 15:1‐32) in R.N. Longenecker (ed), The
Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 199‐216.
Brad H. Young, Jesus, Chapter 12‐17 (129‐196).

Ethics of Jesus
‘Ethics of Jesus’ in DJG.
‘Sermon on the Mount’ in DJG.

Christology of the Gospels
‘Lord’ in DJG.
‘Christ’ in DJG.
‘Son of Man’ in DJG.
‘Son of God’ in DJG.
‘Servant of Yahweh’ in DJG.
‘Ransom Saying’ in DJG.
Brad H. Young, Jesus, Chapter 22 (243‐254).

Passion of Jesus
G. Stanton, The Gospels, Chapter 16‐17, (255‐291).
‘Passion Narrative’ in DJG.
‘Death of Jesus’ in DJG.
‘Trial of Jesus’ in DJG.
‘Predictions of Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection’ in DJG.

Resurrection of Jesus
532

‘Resurrection’ in DJG.

Additional Readings of Note
C. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, Chapter 18 (330‐362) (The Historical Trustworthiness of the Gospels).
G. Stanton, The Gospels, Chapters 8‐9 (143‐177) (Historical Knowledge About Jesus).
D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo, An Introduction, Chapter 26 (726‐743) (The Canon).
J. Drane, Introducing the New Testament, Chapter 12 (Can we trust the Gospels?).
‘Canon’ in DJG (Canon).
Mitchell G. Reddish, An Introduction, Chapter 7 (214‐240) (Includes discussion of the other Gospels,
Canonisation and the Historical Jesus).
Paul J. Achtemeier, et al, Introducing, Chapter 1 (1‐14) (What is the New Testament?).
Paul J. Achtemeier, et al, Introducing, Chapter 25 (589‐608) (The Formation of the New Testament Canon).
Paul J. Achtemeier, et al, Introducing, 207‐208 (The Quest for the Historical Jesus).
Frank Thielman, A Theology, Chapter 1 (19‐44) (The Theology of the New Testament: The Basic Questions).
Luke Timothy JohnsonThe Writings of the New Testament, Appendix 1: New Approaches to the New
Testament.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, Appendix 2: The Historical Jesus.
David Wenham & Steve Walton, Exploring, Chapter 6 (127‐140).
D.Wenham, ‘Scripture and Truth,’ Themelios 10/1 (1984):1 (available in library NT folder on reserve).
Stephen Williams, ‘Thinking Theologically,’ Themelios 19/1 (1993): 3‐4 (available in library NT folder on
reserve).
M. Woodruff, ‘What I Wish I knew Before I Went to Seminary,’ Youthworker (Summer, 1992): 80‐83 (available
in library NT folder on reserve).
R.J. Weymouth, ‘A guide to Essay Preparation’ (available in library NT folder on reserve).

533

Recommended texts
534

New Testament Introduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Testament Introduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Testament

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN CONTEXT

Why study the New Testament?

The impact of its main character, Jesus

Its importance to the faith it spawned, Christianity

Whichever perspective is correct, the Bible is inspired or ‘God-breathed’ (theopneustos); it is

Questions for your consideration

What is the New Testament?

The New Testament is a library of books

3. Letters to churches and individuals:5

Dating the books

ca. 6-4 BC The birth of Christ.

The formation of the New Testament

A period of oral and fragmented written transmission

The writing of the original documents

The grouping of the documents

The text of the documents

The NT and the OT

The nature of the Bible

The big story (the Bible as narrative)

The place of NT in the big story

Christ the centre

The Intertestamental Period (Second Temple Judaism)

A Nation under Roman Rule

Special Jewish privileges under Rome

Key Dates concerning Rome

Jewish attitudes to Romans

The Literature of Judaism

The Zealots (Or Nationalists).

The Essenes (Qumran Community)

The Common People (‘the people of the land’)

The Diaspora (‘Dispersion’)

Popular Prophetic Movements

The life of the peasant

Urban and Elite life

Pax deorum (“peace with the gods”)

Roman gods: 3 types of deity.

The Eleusinian Mysteries

The Mysteries of Mithra

Paul and Platonism

Paul and Stoicism

Paul and Cynic moral exhortation

Overland Roads and Highways

Demon‐Possessed Boy 9:17–19 17:14–18 9:38–43

Features of Jesus healing miracles.

The issue of faith

False theology challenged through healing

The link between healing and evangelism

Healing after Jesus in the life of believers

Indications that not all would be healed

The miracles as fiction

The miracles as evidences of Jesus’ messiahship and divinity

Miracles as acts of compassion Christians are to continue

Miracles as indicators of the power of God to heal today

The miracles from three points of reference: past, present and

The miracles as fulfilment

The conquest, judges, prophets and miracles

Eschatological expectation of healing (Messianic Age)

The nature of the future consummation of the kingdom

Healing miracles as signs of the cosmic healing of the kingdom

Miracles over nature

Miracles over death

Miracles as visual parables

Miracles are integral to Christian life and ministry