2 Timothy 1 contains an amazingly long and amazingly beautiful sentence.  Now you may think, Reid, it is just weird to call a sentence beautiful.  The fact is there is so much wonderful theological truth packed into this sentence that I almost called it a sexy sentence-but that is definitely weird.   Let me go ahead and share the sentence with you:

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.

There is much to say about this sentence, but here I want us to focus on the nature and description of the manner in which God saves.  When we break down what is said here we will be coming very close to biblical teachings on election (God's choosing and calling of sinners to himself) and a word that causes many people to twitch-predestination.   I know even writing these words may bring an emotional response, but stay with me as we look at what our sacred writings teach us about these things...for as we do, I do believe that worship will be the end of our discussion.  In this essay I have very modest goals.  First, I want to track through the above verse and cross reference what it is teaching with other parts of Scripture.  Hopefully, it will become clear as to what Paul is saying here.  Second, I want to look at some objections to what is being taught.  The first of these objections will be theological in nature, the second with be existential-or dealing with our thoughts, emotions and experiences surrounding this teaching.  Since I believe it is pre-ordained, let us begin. 

On Self Salvation

The first phrase I want to look at is this: it is God who "saved us."  Let me build a bit towards my conclusion which will simply be this: The Bible knows nothing of "self salvation."  First of all there is no self creation.   The universe and every particle that makes it up only exists because the creator God desired it to be so.  Neither we, nor stars, nor pulsars, nor dark matter, nor monkeys or eggplants choose their own existence or bring their own existence about.   Our sacred Scripture teaches us that all things were created by him and for him (Colossians 1:16) and for from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11: 36).  Secondly, there is no ultimate self determination.  Think about how much of your life is simply out of your control.  I know it feels a bit un-American to realize that you are not the captain of your own destiny, but think about all the things of your life you did not, and could not choose.  We did not determine the time or place set for our birth.  In fact, Scripture teaches that God determined these things for his purpose (Acts 17:22-34).  Furthermore, you did not choose who your parents would be-whether we like it or not our parents are the culmination of a long line of circumstances that we had nothing to do with.  Additionally, we do not choose to get sick, get hit by a bus, create  your own personality, or choose the actions of others (whether good or bad).   I know there are books out there that will tell you "the secret" is that you can control all things, make reality obey you...but let me tell you, that is a devastating lie.  Now I am not saying that our attitude is inconsequential, your choices do not matter, or that good or bad consequences do not result from wisdom or foolishness.  This of course is true.  But we must not believe the nonsense that you can control everything and everyone around you-everyone who is in therapy is trying to get off of that drug.  Only God could sit in such a sovereign position-so just realize that we have very limited control.  Finally, there is simply no self-salvation.  I know there are aisles and aisles of books in Barnes and Nobles which will tell you how to fix it all, but new ones must be written all the time promising the same things as the old ones.  We know that humans are seeking redemption, salvation and ways to fix ourselves, but the only book which holds the truth of that matter has already been penned...and its author is God.  

You see God knows the reality of the human predicament.  The Scriptures teach a very high and very low view of human nature.  We are created in the image of God and therefore the most important and valuable creatures in the world.  Yet Scripture is also clear that we are sinful and in rebellion against God.   No one by nature is running to God; we are running away.  Romans 3 teaches us there is none that seeks God, none that does good.    Additionally the prophet Isaiah teaches us that we all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one-to his own way (Isaiah 53:6).   We are in rebellion, our desires are for self, sin, not submission to and the worship of God.. Paul in his first letter, the book of Galatians, he is clear that self salvation is pure mythology.  In his last letter to Timothy he again is clear.  If we are to be saved, it is he that saves us-there simply is no self-salvation.   If we could save ourselves we would not need a Savior.  We would declare ourselves without need of God for we could make ourselves perfect without his initiative.  Friends, this is the very essence of sin.

The Scriptures make this clear from beginning to end.  He saved us!  He saved Noah and his family when God's judgment fell upon the wicked on the earth.  He saved Abrahams family again and again.  He saved Israel from brutal slavery in Egypt, warring nations and its own self-destructive tendencies.  He redeemed Israel from exile in Babylon by raising up leaders such as Ezra, Nehemiah and Zerubbabel to bring people back to the land.  Ultimately and finally he saves his people and calls them to himself through Jesus Christ, the great high priest, the sacrifice given for our sins, the great King and Savior of the world.  Salvation is of the Lord !   This is the clear message of Scripture.  As such it is therefore of his initiation and volition.  He created, he redeems-all worship, credit praise and glory then go to God. We have no place to boast in self-righteousness or self salvation; we only marvel that he saves sinners such as ourselves. 

Continue reading "Walk On - Salvation is of the Lord" »

There is much made in our culture, certainly in corporate settings, about the importance and nature of leadership.  There are those who advocate coalition building, those who advocate proactive decisiveness, those who still validate hierarchy and those for flattened non hierarchical structures.  Even definitions for leadership bounce all around with the the latest gurus offering their counsel.  My thoughts and experience of leadership have grown through the years but there is one principle that I keep returning to which I find both effective and biblical.

I guess someone could have a name for this but I simply call it leading from among the people.  To be honest, I have found myself in leadership roles my entire life.  Whether leaders are born or made, I am not saying, but I do know that it has been somewhat natural for me to find myself leading others.  Whether it was quarterbacking the high school football team, leading the honor society, captaining our wrestling team my days as a teen were filled with leadership.  In college it seemed that many of my college teammates and classmates would come to me for counsel and insight into life difficulties and problems.  During my life over the last 12 years God has has consistently placed me with and among leaders in ministry.  Anyway, the leaders I personally have found most attractive and the kind I pray to be are those who "lead among the people." 

First, let me describe some ways of leading which are counter to this sort of leadership.  Second, I want to give a few illustrations of what I mean when I say "lead among."  Two will come from Scripture, one from pop culture...none from books written by the business gurus.

What it means to NOT lead from among the people

• Leading from Above - this is being in charge of people, telling them what to do without embracing or experiencing the circumstances.  It is leading from positional authority...calling down from on high so to speak.  I like this leadership only from 3 persons - Father, Son and Holy Ghost - I do not enjoy it from people.  It is particularly troublesome if the person does not have trustworthy character or is not willing to personally sacrifice with or for those she leads.  Having responsibility for others is good - having authority without character is resented. 
  
• Leading Insincerely - Some like to fake it.  To act interested, concerned, even get their hands dirty with others in their leadership.  The problem can be that they do not naturally feel a place among those they lead - they do things in order to produce effects without really living it authentically.  Usually this sort of leadership is short lived or seen through.  People tend to have pretty high authenticity meters today - a fake usually is exposed.
  
• Leading for Personal Gain - I know there are some who say that this is the default motivation of every heart - personal self-interest.  I just think it is brutal to be led by someone who sees others as a means to and end and not an end themselves.  There are even definitions which describe management as using others to accomplish pre determined goals.  This could be good or terrible.  It all depends on how "using" is defined.
  

A few examples of leading among

Life Reflected in Film 

One of crazy Mel Gibson's recent movies demonstrated the kind of leadership with which I resonate.  No it is not Passion of the Christ, but we will get to Jesus' leadership in a moment.  The movie is entitled We Were Soldiers. The 2002 film features the story of Lt. Col Hal Moore and the Battle of la Drang in during the Vietnam war.  Col Moore's leadership style was strong but very clear.  I will not forget his line in the movie "Men, I will be the first one off the chopper and onto the field and I will be the last one to leave."  There was not question that he was the leader; there was no doubt he was in charge.  Yet he found with and among his men and did not bug out when things got hot.  The director dramatically portrays this in the film with his boot hitting and exciting the ground of that bloody battle field.  Men love to follow guys like this who lead among.

Biblical Leadership - Old Testament

The most prominent example of this I find the Scriptures.  In the Old Testament Song of Debra (Judges 5) a great battle had been one by the nation of Israel over its enemies.  Debra sings a song of celebration after the victory where God is honored.  A few things stood out to me in regards to the leaders of Israel.  The song begins with stating something obvious, but the entire point of leadership:

1 Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day:2 “That the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly,bless the Lord!

Leaders led and did not abdicate or leave the people in confusion.  Second, the people offered themselves willingly without which you have only coercion not true leadership.  These simple realities were enough case for rejoicing. Additionally the song says the following of the people in verse 9:

My heart goes out to the commanders of Israel who offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless the Lord.

It seems the Hal Moores of the world existed in our ancient past as well as leaders offered themselves willingly among the people.  The leader who leads at not cost to himself does not gain the respect as the one who fights along side of his men.  The Old School kings would fight; new school leaders sit aside from the battle.  I like the Old School.

Biblical Leadership - New Testament

In the book of 1 Peter, their is an exhortation given to elders - men called to give leadership in the local church.  The "among them" principle is found here as well in chapter 5. 

5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Now I could spend way too many words here on the POCBlog expounding on this but to be honest I think the words "among you", willingly, not for shameful gain (TV preacher?), not domineering, examples, humility...well, these words can just speak for themselves.

Finally, the incarnation which we celebrate at Christmas is the prime example of this principle.   And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. If anyone had the right and ability and position to lead from above it would be Jesus.  Who being in the very nature God...took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:1-11).  He took on human nature, walked with people, taught from among, exemplified from among, healed from among and died among the people.  He gave his life for others, served others and lived in light the Father, the highest authority. In my opinion he is the greatest leader in human history.  Here are his words on leadership.

35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

To summarize, leading among people means living out with people the goals and callings of an organization.  It does not mean that a leader has to participate in every job or every aspect of a group, but it does mean that people experience him "with them" in tangible ways.  How that works out will depend on the organization, its tasks, the nature of its calling etc.  People want to be appreciated, valued, have their work validated and to know that another human being is as interested in their life as much as their life accomplishes for the team.  Such leaders I will follow - the other kind I will ignore.  I am not saying I will not submit to and respect rightful authority which is place over me.  What I am saying is that I will pursue legitimate paths to align under different leaders and will not waste my life under men who neither know me nor go to battle with me.  Life is too short for that.

Mark 8:27-30 and its more robust parallel in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew's gospel has been the source of some historical controversy between Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  It is taken by the latter to be biblical warrant for the institution of the Roman papacy, the Pope as the father of the church and its supreme teacher in regards to faith and morals.  I will quote the Matthew passage here:

¹⁶Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

While this brief essay cannot treat these issues with the rigor which is needed, I do hope it might illuminate the differences between Roman and Protestant/Eastern Orthodox views of the Christian faith.  I will lay out a few points of argument made by each side in regards to the issue of the papacy.

Catholic Arguments for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (The Pope)

There are many arguments that the Roman church makes in favor of the primacy and leadership of the Pope and the hierarchy of cardinal, bishop and priest which is under him.  The argument usually takes two lines-one from the sacred tradition of the church and the other from Holy Scripture.¹   On the tradition front, there is a section in the classic work of the 2^nd century church father Irenaeus to which Roman Christians point to as favoring papacy.  Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon which was located in what is now modern day France.  He wrote extensively confronting several heretical teachings of his day. He is quoted often in various contexts-in this case, in favor of the primacy of Rome.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.²

Additionally, the ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325 listed four major patriarchates/sees (seats of authority) being Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem with Rome given the place of highest honor.  In the late fourth century Constantinople was inserted making the list of honor-Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, though the rivalry of Rome and Constantinople would continue until the east/west split in AD 1054.  One of the issues was papal authority which the Eastern Orthodox churches still reject until this day.  Finally, the text from Matthew quoted above is used extensively in the argument for the papacy. The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome, the first pope.  His successors maintain the highest authority in the church.  The succession of bishops or overseers of the church in Rome is not the issue, the issue is this man's rule over the church as the supreme representative of Jesus on the earth today.

Arguments Against the Papacy

There are many long standing arguments against the papal authority in church history.  They too interpret both tradition and Scripture to make the argument.  Again, this is necessarily brief and therefore incomplete.  First, it is argued that Peter is but one of a plurality of leaders in the early church.  All traditions attribute great honor and leadership to Peter, but he was by no means infallible.  During the life of Jesus we see Peter's evolution into a great leader through his many failures.  Yet even post resurrection we see the apostle Paul rebuke Peter for his inconsistent and hypocritical actions in relating to Jew and Gentile in a way contrary to the gospel (See Galatians 2:11-14).  Second, the text in Matthew 16 does not imply the papacy and certainly nothing like papal infallibility.  Many interpretations have been offered which give primacy to Peter and his role in the establishment of the church, but none of this need imply the papacy which evolved in the Roman church during the middle ages.  Third, the historical honoring of Rome by councils does not warrant the papacy. Rome is honored as a great historical church in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, but the other great churches and their patriarchates were not subjected to her-in fact, this was not the case with Constantinople and continued to be an issue for hundreds of years and persists until today.  There also has been a reality in history which stated that councils should decide matters of dispute, not one bishop.  This was the case through the first seven ecumenical councils and was argued by the Conciliar movement in the late middle ages.  Additionally, the apostolic succession of Pope's and their infallibility seems historically dubious.   First, one particular pope, Honorius 1, was declared posthumously to be a heretic and false teacher in AD 681 for advocating something called Monothelitism .  How could he be considered infallible?  Second from AD 1378 to 1417 there were actually two popes in the Western church, one in Rome one in France seated at Avignon.  The Council of Pisa in 1409 disposed both popes and appointed another, but both did not step down leaving the church with three popes for a brief time.  The issues were resolved with the Council of Constance (1414-17) but raised the question of whether a council could rule over the pope for the council had removed the two popes and elected Martin V to power.³  One last historical issue is of note, although the Roman church claims it was always the case, papal infallibility was not made Roman teaching until Vatican I in 1870. 

In conclusion it must also be said that the story of the papal institution has been haunted by grabs for power, accumulation of wealth, immorality and sin.  Though the Catholic church claims that the Pope has not erred and has never taught in contradiction to Scripture I think history is replete with examples of both action and teaching which do not reflect infallibility.  This only means that Popes are people and are in no way infallible.  The highest authority for the church has never been the succession in Rome, but the apostolic teaching of Scripture being faithfully entrusted and passed on through the ages.  We trust not hierarchy or power to maintain the church, but the Spirit and the Word of God.  There are errors on all sides...Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  Yet our disputes are resolved in humility, standing under, not over the very Word of God in Scripture.  History and our lives are messy, we no doubt move forward with truth and error.  But much as Luther echoed long ago under great pressure to recant his views-Our consciences are chained to the Word of God...here we stand, we can do no other.

Notes 

1. It should be noted that in the Roman religion that Scripture and the teaching Tradition of the church are equal forms of authority which are seen as complementary and never contradictory.   Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme authority and is the corrective and judge of all human teaching in the church.

2. Irenaues, Against Heresies 3.3.2-http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

3. For a good summary of church history during this era see Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1 (New York: HarperOne, 1984) - See particularly the chapter on the Medieval Papacy.

This past weekend I was in Blacksburg, VA for the second time in the last month.  My prior trip was to engage with a community about the atrocity which took place on the Virginia Tech campus in April.  During that trip we were looking at Jesus' view of suffering and the reality of evil in our hearts and in our world.  This trip was different.

I went to pastor the wedding ceremony of two friends, Abraham Hardee and Sophia Abraham.  Yes, it was an Abrahamic affair.   The wedding gave me a smal glimpse of the kingdom of heaven for which I am grateful.  No, it was not a Utopian weekend without any sin or drama - whenever you get lots of people together someone will find offense somewhere.  What was so beautiful about the occasion was the mosaic of God's people who were present in the wedding party. 

In one of the visions into heaven afforded by the book of Revelation we read the following:

9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen." Revelation 7:9-12

Now there was not a great innumerable multitude at the service this weekend; though the wedding party did have 14 attendants, a bride, a groom, a flower girl and me the pastor.   What was seen though was a beautiful tapestry of diversity in God's people.  Of the 18 in the wedding party I believe there were 1 Asian American, 3 Indian Americans, 6 Euro Americans and 8 African Americans.  In this party there was not only diversity, there was unity within the diversity.  To my knowledge each person is a follower of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Jewish carpenter from an ancient ghetto town called Nazareth. 

Often our contemporary world is marked by a diversity without unity and a mere tribalization of peoples by race, ethnicity, religion or economics.  Or it is marked by a unity without true diversity with communities segregated along worn out lines of division - Sunday mornings come to mind.

This weekend I stood as a white dude with some dear, dear friends.  One Indian, the other a black guy.  I could not help but weep during the ceremony and to be honest it had nothing to do with race.  I saw the gospel of Jesus working in people...and it was beautiful - as were the vows of covenant marriage made through communion with Jesus.  I wish the couple the best and continued grace in the gospel.  Now if I could only persuade the Hardees to come live in New Jersey with our family - and start churches together made from the same metal. 

Perhaps...

The following are some additional notes given out along with the message Healing is from Jesus, given at the Inversion Fellowship on Sept 13, 2007. 

The teaching of the Bible regarding The Kingdom of God is perhaps some of the most complex, mysterious, beautiful and awe inspiring realities.  This essay will be but a gnat scratching on the surface of the moon in attempting to describe the teaching of Scripture on this topic.  Yet it is also a matter of great importance because it is deeply connected to the gospel as taught by Jesus and the apostles.  The sections of this essay will be excessively brief as my goal iw to introduce rather than rigorously present all the issues.  For those interested there is a short and accessible book by the late George Eldon Ladd entitled The Gospel of the Kingdom which I recommend.

The Kingdom Defined-Rule and Reign

When we hear the word Kingdom today we are tempted to define it in terms of a geographical realm with a castle and certain people being ruled by a monarch.  At least in my kids' fairy tale books and DVDs this is usually how it rolls out.  Or if you are up on world affairs you might thing of a middle eastern monarchy such as Saudi Arabia or perhaps history buffs will think of historical western kingdoms before the advent of democratic nation states.  Either way, both impressions will not help us in thinking of what the ancients meant when they spoke of the Kingdom of God.  A kingdom as described in Scripture is the actual rule and reign of a King himself.  Rather than a geography or a people, the kingdom is the expression of an authority and the nature of that rule.  To put it very simply, the Kingdom of God is the rule and reign of God.  It is his exercised rule or sovereignty, not the realm in which it is implemented.¹  Additionally, there is great agreement that the Kingdom or Rule of God is one of complete justice, the eradication of sin and death and the peaceful ordering of all things by Christ our King.

So this brings to us an important question.  If the Kingdom is the rule of God, is it now here with us?  Or is the Kingdom a future reality coming in the time which we call "Heaven." Our answer will be yes...and yes.

Did it already come?  Still Coming? 

The idea of the coming Kingdom is rife with discussions of temporality (issues of time).  Did Jesus bring the Kingdom in AD 33? Is God in charge now, or is that still coming?  What does the second coming of Jesus say to the reality of the Kingdom?  Does the Kingdom have to do with righteous and just rule or the salvation of sinners by a holy, wrathful, loving, good and forgiving God?  Additionally, is it God's job to bring about his rule and reign on the earth, or is it our job as the church?  Or both? There are so many questions associated with this.   Christians throughout history have fallen on various sides of these questions and the issue is very important in many conversations today.  The witness of the Bible on this is precisely the source of the struggle for it clearly teaches that the Kingdom came with Jesus in some way (i.e. Mark 1:14,15) and it is with us in our present reality (Romans 14:17).  It teaches that those who believe in Jesus are moved into the Kingdom, yet at the same time there remains a dominion of darkness (Colossians 1:13,14).  Our greatest mistake is to be reductionist about the Scriptures teaching, silencing some parts in favor of others.  This is what Christians have done from time to time with the teaching on the Kingdom of God.  A few examples.

Too Much Now

Over time many Christians see the rule of God as perfect justice for all people and creation itself.  It is a state where all is made right on the earth.  So they see the gospel in these terms.  The good news is that there is a different life available now.  We can live lives of love and justice and bring the Kingdom to the earth more fully.  Liberal Christianity of the late 19th and early 20th century made this push.  Today, the idea that the gospel is "the Kingdom is here now" and live that way is becoming popular among Christians flying the flag "Emergent."  The call of the gospel is to live the Kingdom way now.  That is the good news brought by Jesus.  This is in some sense true.  Yet the casualty of "Kingdom Now" thinking is that the salvation of sinners from the wrath of God, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus "for our sins" is lost.  Many in this camp no longer teach that sin is individual, but only social.  They no longer teach the reality of eternity and the right judgment of God.  They no longer teach that Hell even exists but instead that our only focus should be "bringing the Kingdom" now.  It you choose to believe that the Kingdom is all Now, we miss some incredibly important truths about the Later.   If you like theology-you would call this over realized eschatology. 

Too Much Later

On the other extreme is the teaching that the gospel is only about getting a "go to heaven card" and not a call to followership of Jesus, transformation of communities, and reflection of the saving gospel of the Kingdom in our lives today.  All the focus is on the second coming of Jesus and the coming judgment and not living the way of Jesus today.  If all we are to do today is get folks saved-and I do believe we have a job to call sinners to repentance and faith-we will neglect building a Kingdom culture now that reflects the reign of God.  God desires for us to proclaim justice for the oppressed, to feed the hungry and to steward creation as representatives of another Kingdom.  You might say that under realized eschatology ignores some very important aspects of the rule of God-NOW for the sake of thinking about the Later.

Of course all this is too simplistic-but these issues are important.  The solution to this is not reductionism but to see all the teaching on the Kingdom-that it is a present in breaking reality, that it is not fully here, that it will come definitively at the second coming of Jesus as important.  We must like Now and Laters, not just Now or Later.  Sorry, you knew that was coming...

Now and Not Yet...

The Kingdom is Now

What we want to hold in tension is that the Kingdom very much appeared with the incarnation of Jesus, who is our covenant King.  The Kingdom also expresses itself when people enter into it by repentance and faith in Jesus.  When someone becomes a Christian, a follower of Jesus, for whom Christ has paid for their sins and reconciled them with God, the person very much enters the Kingdom.  After the first coming of Jesus we now can be set free from the power of sin, death, Satan.  All of these are thwarted-Jesus is the first fruits, the promise of our own resurrection and eternal life.

The Kingdom is Later

Yet Scripture is clear that this current age is under the dominion or rule of sin, death and Satan.  Our great enemy is called the prince of the power of the air, the ruler of this world (or age) and we know very well that sin and death still hold fast on the earth.  George Ladd summarizes this very well:

This age is dominated by evil, wickedness and rebellion against the will of God, while the age to come is the age of the Kingdom of God...The point is this: it is the character of this age to choke the working of the Word of God.  The spirit of the age is hostile to the gospel.²

Yet, in becoming a Christian now we receive the promise and evidence of the final destruction of these things as sin looses it power over us (sanctification) and death itself is not the end for us any longer (See John 11:17-27).  Finally, the second coming of Christ will fully bring the reality of the Kingdom in forever.  It will be definitive.  The dead will rise to immortality, evil and wickedness will be judged completely and demonic powers removed for all time.  As such all things will be made new and the redemption of God in all things will arrive. 

The Gospel and the Church-A Resistance Movement

In our day Jesus is still at work in the world saving sinners and adding folks to his community known as the church.  In this group of people we have a counter cultural community that lives according to the gospel of the Kingdom.  It proclaims good news of the death of Jesus for sin and the resurrection of Jesus for our hope.  It loves others and cares about injustice and empowering the poor.  The church is an in breaking of the Kingdom and this reality is proclaimed in the preaching of God's Word and visible in the practice of the ordinances of baptism (entry sign into the Kingdom) and the Lord's Supper (a continuing sign of the Kingdom).  This community exists for the world but does not subscribe to the systems and power of the world.  It is a revolution, an Inversion by which God is transforming people and extending grace into communities.  We are much like a resistance force in occupied territory.  Though sin, death and hell still have power, we proclaim hope through the gospel. We are a rag tag group of folks who are desiring the Lord to come and working hard for the sake of others.   We hold out the gospel and call people to Jesus for their salvation.  Then we walk together as a broken community giving our lives away for the sake of others.  When we fail we practice and live in regular repentance and hope in the gospel because we all fall short of the glory of God.  This is why we need Jesus.  We cannot bring his Kingdom or deal with our sin.  He does.  This is why the gospel is central to our lives and mission.  Once someone becomes a follower of Jesus, he is then part of the Inversion...Dallas Willard said it well:

To become a disciple of Jesus is to accept now that inversion of human distinctions that will sooner or later be forced upon everyone by the irresistible reality of his kingdom. How must we think of him to see the inversion from our present viewpoint? We must, simply, accept that he is the best and smartest man who ever lived in this world, that he is even now "the prince of the kings of the earth" (Rev 1:5). Then we heartily join his cosmic conspiracy to overcome evil with good.³

What is the Gospel of the Kingdom?  It is two fold.  It is to see sinners saved and involves individual salvation.  Yet it also calls us to see a new society or culture formed-the church.  The gospel saves us and will ultimately redeem all things.  It is Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15) and a uniting of all things under God (Ephesians 1.10).  In our lives today we live as part of a revolution, not a fortress to keep out the world.  The gospel saves you and me and makes us part of God's restoration of all things. I'll give the late British journalist GK Chesterton the final word.

In the upper world hell once rebelled against heaven. But in this world heaven is rebelling against hell. For the orthodox there can always be a revolution; for a revolution is a restoration. ⁴

Yours in the Revolution,

Reid S. Monaghan

Notes

• 1. George Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom; Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.,: Eerdmans, 1959 20.
• 2. Ladd, 28, 29
• 3. Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy : Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God, 1st ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 90.
• 4. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Image Books ed. (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 113.

 

The following are some additional notes given out along with the message The Gospel is Our Life, given at the Inversion Fellowship on Sept 6, 2007.

A Tale of Two Titles

There are many names or titles given to Jesus in the Scriptures. He is called the lion of the tribe of Judah, the rose of Sharon, the son of man, the great I AM, the Lamb of God, the Lilly of the valley, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace, the Good Shepherd, the Word of God, the Light of the World, Savior, Lord. Indeed, you could keep going as this just scratches the surface.¹ Yet perhaps two of the most significant and radical titles ascribed to Jesus in Scripture appear in startling fashion in the prologue to the gospel of Mark. In one simple verse, something unbelievable is seen:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Now for many of us the names here are so familiar that the awe they bring may be lost to us. We are so used to hearing or reading "Christ" and "Son of God" in reference to Jesus without really pausing to see what they mean. Christ has become something like Jesus' last name...sort of like Fred Jones-but Jesus Christ. Son of God is taken for granted so we forget the radical nature of calling a human being such a thing. Lets look very briefly at each of these.

Jesus, Who is the Christ

The term Christ is derived from the Greek term Χριστός or Christos. Rather than a last name it is a title which means "anointed one of God" its Old Testament equivalent is Messiah. The term comes from the practice by which certain people were "anointed" or called by God and set apart for a special ministry. In the OT the priests (Exodus 29:7, 21), prophets (1 Kings 19:16), and kings (1 Samuel 10:1) were anointed with oil for their specific roles with God's people. When Jesus is called the Christ, or the Messiah, it simply states that Jesus is the completion of the work of God in history in whom all the covenant promises are fulfilled. He is the great high priest connecting human beings to God. He is the great prophet incarnating and speaking to us the Word of God. He is the great king that we long for who will benevolently rule for all eternity. To say Jesus is the Christ is to say that the hopes and longings of Israel-the hopes of all who will become children of God by faith-are fulfilled. The promised coming is on the ground-this is a new beginning, nothing will ever be the same.

Jesus, The Son of God

Muslim people have misinterpreted this title for years. The term Son is many times understood in the wrong context to mean that God had a physical offspring through copulation with a human being. It hasn't help that Mormonism actually teaches this, but nonetheless this sort of thinking is not what Scripture means when Jesus is called the Son of God. Philosopher Peter Kreeft sheds great light on how this term was used in the time of Jesus.

Son of a dog, is a dog, son of an ape an ape, son of God, is God - Jews were Monotheistic, only one God-Son of God is the divine title of Jesus and everyone at his time understood this title to mean just that.²

In titling Jesus as the Son of God they were clearly stating that this human being was God become man. This was no ordinary person walking the ancient landscape-the world's very creator, the second person of the triune God, was making an appearance.

In writing this inspired book, Mark structures the account of Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection using these titles. - Christ and Son of God. Here in the prologue they land on us in the first words of the gospel. Jesus, the Messiah, God come to earth is on the scene. Everything is about to change. From the middle of Chapter 1 until the middle of the book Jesus is living out a ministry of healing, exorcism and authoritative preaching in the areas of Galilee and Judea. In Chapter 8 Peter makes a confession as to Jesus' identity-"You are the Christ." From this point the narrative is heading towards Jerusalem. Finally, at the end of the book another confession is made; this time the words are from a Roman centurion. After observing the death of Jesus on an executioners cross, the words are uttered-"Truly this man was the Son of God!"

From the Wilderness to the Cross

The appearance of Jesus was not before the political powers and religious leaders, no, rather God came to his people in a dusty wilderness. Outside the pomp and regality of the powers that be, the man born in a humble manger, would now begin his ministry on the outskirts of town. From this lonely outpost would launch the most significant, world changing, universe changing work of all time. God would have it no other way. In the Exodus he led his people in a wilderness. In those days his people were disciplined and tested so that they would learn to trust God (Psalm 95:7-11). In Jesus coming to meet God and his people in the wilderness he will pass the test, be affirmed by the Father and by the Spirit launch his ministry onto the public scene. The Jesus release party took place not in a big ballroom or the hippest scene in town. It took place in the mysterious, dangerous and lonely place where God provides for and meets his people. He still calls to us in our own wilderness of sin and death today.

Where Mark begins his gospel he brings it full circle. He is recognized as the Christ, the Messiah and then he heads towards his ultimate mission of dying for the sins of the world. When this mission has been accomplished, a gentile, who would have access to God through Christ has his eyes open to what has just taken place. The crucified before him was indeed God. The coming resurrection would kick off the mission of the gospel in the world which continues into our day. This gospel continues to shape peoples' destinies in our day. The risen Jesus is still entering and saving lives today by the Holy Spirit sent into the world to glorify Jesus among his people. The gospel presented in Scripture is the defining story of our lives. 

The Gospel, our A-Z not our ABCs

What is the gospel? So many times we associate the term with some simple truths that we believe in order to go to heaven and then move on with life. Let me be clear. The gospel is the story of God's redemption of people through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Yet the good news of Jesus Christ extends further into our lives than simply getting us to a preferred afterlife. Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City has written and spoken extensively on the gospel and its all encompassing role in our lives as followers of Jesus.

We never "get beyond the gospel" in our Christian life to something more "advanced." The gospel is not the first "step" in a "stairway" of truths, rather, it is more like the "hub" in a "wheel" of truth. The gospel is not just the A-B-C's of Christianity, but it is the A to Z of Christianity. The gospel is not just the minimum required doctrine necessary to enter the kingdom, but the way we all make progress in the kingdom. ³

The gospel is not something we hear at camp, pray a prayer and then get on with life. It is not just for people who are not Christians, but it is the story that must define our lives. If we do not see our relationships, our vocational choices, our time, our money, the use of our lives on the earth in light of the gospel our lives will not be transformed as they ought. The following is but a brief recounting of the gospel, the large story of Scripture, which invades us anew each day that we follow by faith in the way of Jesus. Let me summarize in short form, the good news found in Scripture.

The Gospel

The gospel is the large story of Scripture of the working of God throughout time and history to bring about the redemption of his people and all things. The gospel is the story of the one Creator God, making all things, space, time, matter, energy in order to display his nature to his creatures. God created human beings in his own image and likeness to know him, love him, and reflect his character in the world to one another for their joy and his glory. Our first parents then gave God the proverbial Heisman, choosing to live life their way rather than God's way. They turned away from God and his provision for them, disobeying his commandment and thereby bringing fracture in their relationship with God, one another, and creation. God thereby cursed man and creation subjecting it to futility, bondage and decay. Yet God in his grace set about to redeem a people back to himself and has pursued us throughout history to this end. He promised in the very early days to send a human being, a seed of a woman to bring people back to God, reconciling them to himself and all things (Genesis 3:15) Throughout history he communicated with us and connected with us through prophets, men called to speak God's message to humanity. He made covenants with his people that would culminate in his sending of his own Son to the earth. He would be a Jewish person, the offspring of Abraham (Genesis 12, 15). He would fulfill God's commandments perfectly satisfying the demands of the law completely and live without sin (Hebrews 4.15). He would be a king to his people (2 Samuel 7) guiding them into a life of love, joy and peace. He would teach us the truth, show us perfected humanity, and ultimately die to take our place and pay the penalty for our own rebellion and sin (1 Corinthians 15:1-3). This person, Jesus, gave his life for us in what Martin Luther called the great exchange. Our sin was placed on him as he took our deserved judgment and punishment by dying on a cross. We then receive his righteousness and favor and good name before God the Father (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). We are thereby forgiven, brought back into relationship with God, our guilt is removed, God's wrath no longer is upon us, and we now become his followers and agents of reconciliation in the world. We receive all of this by his grace, none of it is earned by our works or actions. God will someday bring his kingdom in fullness where Jesus will completely and finally bring an end to all evil and usher in an eternal age of life and peace for all who follow him. Those who persist in rebellion against God will face his justice in Hell for all which was done in this life, eternally receiving the due penalty for sin.

Seeing Through The Gospel

• How I see myself -It is devastating and liberating to see myself as a sinner saved by grace. I need to know that I was bad enough for Jesus to die and loved enough that he joyfully did so.
• How I see and relate to others-If God has forgiven me, how ought I to live with others who sin against me. If we cannot learn to forgive those who make mistakes, who hurt us, we will simply be unable to love and be loved in relationships.
• How I understand where I live, where I work-I will spend most of my time in my workplace and in the place I call home. How does the gospel speak to where I live, who I associate with, what people I deem lovable, how I seek to invest my free time?

Seeing the gospel applied to all areas of life is Christian faith. If we miss this we will make following Jesus about morality or a set of religious rules we create for ourselves and by which we judge others. Legalism and relativism are equally poisonous.4 Our sinfulness and need for grace should slay legalism in our hearts. God's holiness and leadership in our lives should lead us to embrace God's ways and follow him because we are accepted and loved by him.

Notes

1. Names of Jesus, Rose Publishing-This handy little pamphlet has 50 names http://www.rose-publishing.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=757.
2. Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman, Why I Am a Christian (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001). For a defense of the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God and how this title is used see Part 5, Chapter 13-Peter Kreeft, Why I believe Jesus is the Son of God, 222-234.
3. See Timothy Keller-The The Sufficiency of Christ and the Gospel in a Post-Modern World at TheResurgence.com
4. See Timothy Keller - Preaching in a Post Modern City - Part 2.
   

...Continued from The Gospel of Mark

As we begin a new season together we will all be following Mark's story of Jesus which was a Journey towards the cross of Christ and living in light of his resurrection.  In our short few months together in Mark will have no illusions that we will be able to probe the depths of this book.  However, while we cannot plumb its depths, we will ascend its heights and run across its peaks.  Our main concern is having our vision of life transformed by the wonders we see in Jesus Christ and his gospel.  It is our hope that our vision and love of Jesus is aroused and our feet made swift in following.  

The Gospel is Our Life - Signpost in Mark 1

The book of Mark begins with a resounding clarity of purpose: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  Here we find a beginning of a new chapter in an unfolding story, here we have good news coming forth, here we find the name of a person which means "The Lord Saves," here we find a person unique in all of history; a Son but no ordinary man.  Human beings have been made and fashioned for worship and our hearts will glory in all manner of things be it through religion, the pursuit of pleasure, the identification with a certain group or the exaltation of self.  Yet our lives will wander adrift without the lifting of our burdens of sin and the receiving of grace and peace with God. 

When religion beckons we must find the root of our story in the good news.  It is not what we do that makes us acceptable to a holy and good God, it is what has been done by Jesus himself in the fullness of time on the earth.  Jesus' first words in the gospel of Mark beckon us to action: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Healing Comes from Jesus - Signpost in Mark 1, 2, and 3 

In a world that daily echoes the remnants of the fall of man we know that we are in desperate need of healing and wholeness.  Our bodies are broken and will surely pass away at an appointed time.  Our relationships are broken with communities constantly separating and being fractured.  Spiritual powers torment and destroy lives daily around the world and our souls are stained with the reality of sin.  We live today with the present world groaning and longing for redemption and renewal.  Jesus tells us that the self-righteous, the proud, the self-sufficient and the denial of our condition have no place with God.  For he tells us in Mark 2:17 - "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." All sinners may come to him and none will be cast out.

We Live In His Story - Signpost in Mark 4 

There are many ways to define life and communicate its ultimate meaning and purpose.  Many have chosen to describe the world only in scientific terms.  Many have chosen to weave complex philosophies for the consumption of humanity.  Others have danced through a myriad of political visions, cultural revolutions and social engineering.    Yet how did Jesus teach us and define for us the ultimate reality and the Kingdom of God?  He told stories to teach those who could hear.  Stories designed by God to both reveal the hidden secrets of the rule and reign of Jesus and to conceal them from those who would have no part in worshipping their Creator.   In the parables of Jesus life finds form and definition.  In his stories we see our story with clarity and soul humbling and soul refreshing life.  In fact, in the large story of the gospel we find the truth and see our faces as we are meant to be. 

The Hero of Every Story - Signpost in Mark 4

If life is the unfolding of a great story, the story of God, then that story has a beginning, a climax, and a final resolution.  It also has a hero, a great rescuer and every story of Scripture whispers his name[1].  The identity of Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God is the most important issue in all of history.  In the last part of Mark four we see a question emerge from the lips of the disciples, "Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?" In this signpost we look at the hero of history in a story that includes uncertainty, calamity, fear, peril and chaos - sound like life?  It ends with Jesus speaking definitively into hearts filled with trepidation and the peace and calm that results.  

A New Living Way - Signpost in Mark 7

So many times we get consumed with the external realities of appearances, morality, religion and wearing masks for people all around us.  Yet what is the reality of the human heart?  The picture that Jesus paints for us is not pretty as he tells us all matter of sin and wickedness flows out from our hearts.  Though his picture of humanity is one of depravity, he does not leave us there.  He knows that a mere coat of paint to cover our brokenness will crack and crumble in life.  No, instead of a simple pious makeover, he reminds us that the problem we have is not simply our poor religious performances.   In order to transform us into new people and place us on a path of life, it requires radical heart surgery.   It is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean, and it is a renewal and recreation of our very selves which we most desperately need.  Is this possible?  Seeing Jesus in Mark 7 tell us YES!  But we must come to God needy and hopeful - in faith - for the work only he can do. 

A Continual Unfolding - Signposts in Mark 8, 9 and 10

There are some high mountain peaks in every narrative, crucial plot turns which move the story to its climax.  As the story of Jesus unfolds in Mark we see some very important events go down.   First, Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ a confession upon which the church will be built.  Second, Jesus begins to foretell what was prophesied about him long ago, that the Son of Man must suffer, be murdered and rise from death.  This was an unexpected turn of events for the disciples that he repeats with them driving home the central focus of his mission.  Third, God reveals Jesus is his glory on the top of a mountain.  His radiant beauty and manifest glory was displayed for the disciples just before they turn towards leading the mission towards a cross in Jerusalem.  The cost of following Jesus, a Jesus who would be rejected by people and die an ignoble death, was being made clear. 

Do We Really Want Jesus? Signposts in Mark 11 and 12

Upon his entry to Jerusalem Jesus was being treated like a political religious rock star.  He was on the Jay Leno show, Carson Daly wanted to hang out and pretty much the whole town was in an uproar at the arrival of Jesus.  Their hero had come to save the day for Jerusalem and the reigns of the Roman oppressor would soon by conquered by the Messiah, a great warrior King! Or was there another plan?  Many of the people who welcomed Jesus would soon stand on the other side of his cause.  He would threaten religious power by bringing the salvation of God.  Those who desire to lead men in religion, rather than to the throne of grace, would soon shout out with ferocity "Crucify Him!"Even his closest of friends, the man who just had confessed him as the Christ of God would turn on his friend in a moment of trial.  Peter himself would deny Jesus. So I ask us...do we really want Jesus? 

Death by Love and Life By Death - Signposts in Mark 14, 15, and 16

The final apex of Mark's story comes to a head in the final chapters of the book.  Everything that began in chapter 1 has moved to this final station where death will come by love and life for God's people will come by death.  Jesus, the creator of all things, is mocked, rejected and tried as a common criminal.  His people abandon him and he submits himself to a shameful death, even death on a cross.  Yet such was the will of a loving God, for it pleased the Father to crush the Son.  Putting an end to sin, death and hell in one act and by death would come life to all men who believe.  This is the crown jewel of our faith.  The songs of men might sing of self-sufficiency and the triumph of our human ingenuity.  We will have no portion on this plate - we will preach and live Christ. Christ crucified, victoriously raised, on mission on the earth today beckoning to each of us...Follow Me. 

This is my prayer - joy in following Jesus in the mission of God on the earth,

Reid S. Monaghan

---

[1]This phrase is borrowed from the subtitle of what I consider to be the best children's Bible available today.  Sally Lloyd-Jones, The Jesus Storybook Bible - Every Story Whispers His Name (Grand Rapids: Zonderkidz, 2007).

Continued from The Gospels - A Reliable and Biased Testimony to an Unparalleled Life

In terms of historical attention, the gospel of Mark has been a bit of a little step brother to the longer gospels of Matthew, Luke and John.  In fact, many in the ancient world considered Mark to serve the church as a sort of abstract, or a short outline version, of the Gospel of Matthew.[1] Historically there has been much more preaching on John and Matthew. Even today, you will not find as many sermons preached from Mark's gospel as you will from the more theological gospel of John.[2]  In recent times much more scholarly focus has been given to this gospel due to its helpfulness in a solution to the Synoptic Problem (see above).  The work is a mere sixteen chapters and is a fast paced accounting of the teaching and life of Jesus.  It contains no birth narrative as do Matthew and Luke and is very concerned with presenting Jesus' Passion Week as the focus of the story.  In fact, about half of the book is about the last week of Jesus life.  This will be only a brief introduction to the background of the book and its teaching.  For those who want more just follow the yellow brick road called the footnotes.  I am convinced that Jesus just loves footnotes.  At least I do.

Authorship of Mark

All of the gospels do not have the authors name as part of the text itself, but the four gospels have never really been anonymous in church history.  The author's name which is associated with the book is that of a man named Mark.  This person is mentioned several times in the New Testament and was commonly known as John Mark.  The earliest church traditions all associate this gospel with Mark and his task to record the account of the apostle Peter in writing.  The earliest sources we have are from the writings of Papias a church leader in Hierapolis and Irenaeus bishop in Lyon (modern day France).  Papias' work survives in a text written by the prominent early church historian Eusebius.  It reads as follows:

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 no 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, nor to state any of them falsely. [3]

It is estimated the Papias tradition is very early and dates perhaps to within 90-100 AD.[4]  Irenaeus, writing in the second century recorded the following:

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.[5]

The oldest traditions all hold that Mark was the other who arranged the teachings of Peter to give a written account of Jesus Christ to the church.  In addition to the tradition there is good internal evidence in the book that Mark's gospel greatly reflects the preaching of Peter that we see in the book of Acts.[6]  New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace provides a great summary of the internal connection with Mark and Peter; I will quote him at length:

• John Mark had contact with Peter from no later than the mid-40s (Acts 12:12) and it appears that the church met at Mark's own residence.
• Both Peter and Mark were connected to the churches in Antioch and Jerusalem.
• Paul sent Mark from Rome to the Colossian church and to Philemon in 60-62.  If Peter were in Rome at this time, Mark would have had contact with him there.
• 2 Timothy 4:11 we find Paul giving Timothy instructions to bring Mark with him from Ephesus to Rom (c. 64).  It is possible that he had been outside of Rome since his departure in 62.
• Mark is with Peter in Rom in c. 65 (1 Peter 5:13) perhaps after his return at Paul's request.  Peter also calls Mark his "son" in this passage indicating a more long-standing relationship.
• The book of Mark's outline follows the Petrine teaching recorded in Acts 10:36-41.  (1) John the Baptist  (2) Jesus Baptized by John (3) Jesus' miracles show he is from God (4) he went to Jerusalem (5) was crucified (6) he was raised on the third day.  This shows that perhaps Mark even received a framework for the oracles of Jesus from Peter.
• The low view of Peter and the other apostles in Mark shows that the person writing was not trying to put them on a pedestal.  A non-apostolic writer would have done this unless he was recording what he actually had received from Peter.[7]

So we have good reasons, both external testimony from tradition and content of the book itself that John Mark arranged the instruction of Peter who gave eyewitness testimony to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ his Lord.

Who was John Mark

John Mark is mentioned several times in the New Testament as an associate in ministry of both Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and Paul (Acts 12:25, 15:37-39; 2 Timothy 4:11).  In some ways he is one of the key players in the early church as he is a disciple and co-laborer of the two men who most shaped the Christian movement after the ascension of Jesus.  In the early days in Jerusalem the church apparently met in his house (Acts 12:12), the same house in which the last supper was held.[8] He exhibits great ability as a storyteller and takes us on a journey to the central focus of the gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

One of the things I appreciate most about John Mark is that he is a bit of a comeback kid.  In his relationship with Paul we see him as one of the earliest missionaries taking the gospel out into the world.  Then apparently he becomes a little freaked out in the field and abandons the mission.  This of course had Paul a little miffed and Paul and Barnabas actually part ways.  Paul simply doesn't trust him after Mark punked out on him.  Yet Barnabas, whose name means son of encouragement, gives him a second chance and Mark was greatly used by God.  He eventually becomes Peter's right hand man and what God does in his relationship with Paul is amazing.  Paul's last comments about him are very endearing.  Just before Paul's death, he asks Timothy to send for John Mark; apparently he wanted his friend at his side in his last days.

Dating of Mark

Many events factor into a dating of the gospel of Mark and knowing some important and confirmed/accepted times from the first century is always helpful.  These dates will be brought into our discussion of a date for Mark's writing.

Event	Date (AD)
Fall of Jerusalem	70
Martyrdom of Paul and Peter	64-68
Epistles of Paul	45-68
Some Oral Tradition	32-70
Crucifixion of Jesus	32

In looking at Mark's date we find several important issues.  First, if we accept the tradition that he recorded the teaching of Peter then we must place it somewhere in the locus of the life of the apostle.  Second, if one finds the two source/Markan priority hypothesis as a good solution to the Synoptic Problem, then Mark must precede Matthew and Luke and this affects its dating.  Third, we have testimony from the early church that Mark wrote either just before or just after the death of Peter which we date to the persecution under Nero after a great fire in 64 AD.  With the theme of suffering so prominent in Mark and Peter's execution in the mid sixties, most prefer a date for the gospel between 60 and 70, usually right around 65. 

Yet some who favor Markan priority place it in the mid 50s[9] for the following reasons.  If Mark was written first then the gospel of Luke must be dated after Mark.  Dating Luke's gospel is not so difficult.  We know from the text itself that the same author composed by Luke and Acts as a two part volume with Luke compiled first.  A few dates help us position Luke-Acts.  First, Acts has no mention of the fall of Jerusalem which we date conclusively to 70AD.  This would be strange if this painful event had already occurred.  This gives us confidence to place the writing of Acts to before 70.  Additionally, Acts also ends with Paul living under house arrest in Rome.  We estimate that Paul is martyred in between 64-68 so this would place Acts some time before his death.  If Luke came before Acts we find that gospel coming on to the scene in the very early part of the 60s with some placing it around 62AD.  So if one favors the thesis that Mark was written first, then a date preceding Luke, sometime in the late 50s seems to be preferred.  However, if you hold to the tradition that Matthew was first, then Mark can be happy at around 65AD.  With either consideration, Mark is one of the earliest gospels recorded to pass the teaching and story of Jesus on for generations to come. 

Provenance of Mark

Here is our big word for the day...provenance.  It simply means the origin of the writing or the place where it was written. The church has always held that the gospel was written from Italy, in the imperial capital of Rome.  The use of technical Latin terminology, the use of Roman accounting of time (6:48; 13:35) all point towards Rome. Mark's use of the Greek version of the Old Testament, his explanation of Jewish customs and practices, his translation of Aramaic terms indicate he was writing with a Gentile audience in mind. [10]   Finally, Mark's lack of inclusion of a Jewish genealogy for Jesus perhaps points to a Roman audience as well.  We have no good reason to doubt that the gospel originated in the first century Christian community in Rome. 

Context and Purpose of Mark

Ben Witherington's commentary on Mark calls to mind two very important cultural contexts which are in play in Mark's gospel.  First, the culture of early first century Galilee/Judea in 20-30 AD and second, the mid first century culture of Rome in the 60s.[11]  It is an interesting fact that both contexts presented great difficulty for both the Jewish and early Christian communities.  Galilee/Judea was under Roman occupation and rule where Jesus and his following appeared a religious-political threat to imperial power.  Rome in the mid 60s presented an intense, though brief, time of suffering and persecution under the maniacal leadership of Nero.  That story needs a brief explanation.

In the early days of Nero's reign Christians lived in relative peace in the empire.  They were seen with some suspicion due to their rejection of pagan gods and festivals as well as their preaching of the gospel.  Aggressive seeking of converts put them at odds with the established and ancient religions of the day.  Though Peter and Paul were executed for their leadership in preaching the gospel, aggressive, wide spread persecution of Christians as a class of people was not yet the reality.  This changed around 64 AD with a widespread fire in Rome.  The cause of the fire is uncertain with some blaming the emperor as the source.  Nero, however, found a different scapegoat to turn suspicion away from him.  He blamed the Christians.  This was significant for two reasons. First, he was the first emperor to treat the Christians as followers of a different religion than that of the Jews.  This made them believers in a new religion, not an ancient and accepted faith.[12]  Second, he declared open season on Christians and set off unprecedented abuse of Christian people. After the time of Nero's persecutions, a brutal account was recorded by the ancient historian Tacitus.  Oh, how our sisters and brothers suffered for the sake of the name of Christ.  Here is the account of Tacitus:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.[13]

Nero sounds like a pretty big jerk to me and just making an educated guess I imagine that he received a really, really warm reception in the afterlife.  The themes in Mark reflect this context of suffering and persecution.  In the gospel Jesus is presented as the suffering servant, wrongly and brutally punished by the hand of Rome.  Christians in Rome under Nero's reign would have understood this message.  Follow the example of Jesus in the midst of suffering. 

Such is our own call - we are called to Jesus and to live together in his mission.  Whether we live in times of open suffering or lulled to sleep by comfort and familiarity we must be shaken loose from our current views of life in order to follow Jesus in our world today.  We need his life and story to constantly define our own.  This is our invitation, to see Jesus as the founder and perfecter of our faith, the definer of life and the person whose story gives us signposts for ever turn of life ahead.

---

[1] William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans, 1974), 3.

[2] This is not a scientific survey, but if you compare the two pages on SermonCloud.com and you will see the disparity.  Mark - http://www.sermoncloud.com/sermons-on-Mark/ and John - http://www.sermoncloud.com/sermons-on-John/

[3] Lane, 8.

[4] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002), 4.

[5] Irenaeus, Against Heresies(Christian Classics Ethereal Library, accessed August 15 2007); available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html.

[6] Lane, 10-12.

[7] Daniel Wallace, Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline(Bible.org, accessed August 15 2007); available from http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1093.

[8] Edwards, 5.

[9] This is the position favored in Carson, Moo, and Morris.

[10] Lane, 25.

[11] Witherington, 31.

[12] Ibid., 34-35.

[13] Tacitus, The Annals (MIT Internet Classics Archive, accessed August 15 2007); available from

Continued from The Books of the New Testament

Skeptics throughout the ages have asked whether the gospels are to be trusted because they were written by biased people, the followers of Jesus himself.  They surely must have had a skewed point of view as to who this Jesus is.  After all, you cannot trust someone's biggest fans to give an objective account of someone's life...can you?  Recently this skepticism has been found unwarranted for a couple reasons.  First, we know that eyewitness accounts are always the most reliable when looking at events that we ourselves did not observe.  If the gospels demonstrate themselves to be the testimony of eyewitnesses they are then the most trustworthy views of Jesus we possess.  Second, the claim that someone is unable to correctly convey a story because they are "biased" is highly unwarranted.  We will look at each of these issues.

Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament

When asking the question "What happened with this Jesus guy?" the first persons we should ask are those who walked with him, talked with him and lived their lives with him.  Or as 2 Peter 1:16 rightly records, those who were eyewitnesses of his majesty.  This requires us to look at the claims of the gospels to be just that - a written record of eyewitness testimony.  This was a view taken for granted for years until the advent of critical scholarship in the 19^th century where the origin and source of all the gospel writings was brought into question.  Revisionist historians and liberal New Testament scholars began to claim the gospels were 3^rd or 4^th century compilations of Christian communities which did not reflect anything close to eyewitness testimony. 

However, there has been much movement in New Testament studies over the last several decades which has ruled out the revisionist ideas of liberal theology.  The late 3^rd and 4^th century dates have been utterly repudiated and we have been able to date all the gospels conclusively to the first century.  This has been due to amazing archaeological discoveries such as a fragment of John's gospel dating to around 125 AD.  Additionally, recent scholarship has shown that there are very good reasons to understand the gospels as testimony.  In 2006 Scottish Richard Bauckham published Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony which makes a strong case for our understanding the gospels as containing the testimony of those who knew the life and teaching of Jesus directly.  More and more scholars are coming to the position which the church has always held.  The gospels are the most reliable portrait of the life and teaching of Jesus because they contain the accounts of the people who were there.  But where these people just Jesus fan boys, too biased to be trusted?  Good question.

Bias is not Always Bad 

The question of bias is important, after all, the gospel writers did not leave us with a simple narrative that records nothing more than rote historical facts.  No, they were convinced of the truth of Jesus' teaching and their account of history contains the teaching of theology about Jesus as well as historical data.  Yes, there are towns, rulers, times and places mentioned, but also teaching as to the identity of Jesus and his mission from God.  But does this one sided account, that of Jesus' followers, disqualify their testimony as being valid?  In fact I will argue that if you want to know something about something or someone, you are better off asking people who are passionately committed to the story he shares.  A few examples can help us see that Bias is not always bad.

One example comes from the world of technology and through a simple question.   If you desire to know about the ins and outs of Macintosh computers, would you ask someone has never touched a Mac to be your teacher?  Of course not...who would you ask?  You probably would ask one of those MacIdolaters who are loyal subjects of the cult of Steve Jobs.  You know that crazy Apple guy who has to put down Windows every time the subject arises.  You know the guy who is flossing[1] his iPhone for all to see.  You may be that guy.  My point is this.  The people from whom you will get the best information about Macs are probably the ones who are the most biased; the ones who are passionate about their elite computers.  In like manner, NASCAR fans should be consulted on the intricacies of Stock car racing, indie rockers should be the ones you talk to about what is happening in the music scene and his original followers are the ones we should consult about Jesus Christ.   

One final example of a more serious kind should be mentioned.  To exclude a person who was involved with an event, who passionately cares that the story be told, as being a reliable witness would be quite odd indeed.  This sort of reasoning would rule out the accounts of Jewish historians of the Holocaust.  They are most interested as they were the ones most closely involved with this horrific course of events.  We would not think of discounting someone's testimony because they are "biased" against the Nazi's because their family went through the Holocaust.  No, rather we trust them as they were the closest people to the events and care most passionately about conveying and passing on this history.[2] 

Until someone is shown to be an unreliable witness we ought to take their word for something until they are shown to be not trustworthy.  The philosopher Immanuel Kant rightly showed some time ago that an assumption that all people are lying all the time is self-refuting.  We should assume truth telling unless we have good reason to think that someone is not telling the truth.[3]  If we find that someone is in their right mind and capable to tell the truth, is willing to do so, his words are recorded and preserved with integrity and his testimony is validated by other witnesses, we should trust the words of that person.[4]  It seems that this is precisely the sort of reality that we find in the writers of the gospels. 

It was their intention to tell the truth

• Most of them were religious Jews who thought that intentional falsification (lying) was a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments.  Lying was not a virtue in their community.  This does not mean there were not religious Jews who were liars at the time, but it was not a virtue extolled in the community.
• The New Testament writers were concerned with "delivering" the teaching of Jesus and the gospel to the next generation in their writing.  The Apostle Paul specifically says that he delivered or passed on to the Corinthian church the gospel.  This gospel was considered by the early Christians as a matter "of first importance." See 1 Corinthians 15:1-3.  There is good evidence that they believed they were passing on what they saw as a holy tradition through their writings.^[5]

They were able to tell the truth

• They were a culture steeped in a tradition of oral teaching and memorization.  In fact, scholars have shown that ancient peoples could memorize massive amounts of information, with an important focus on maintaining the very words of their teachers.[6]
• If they experienced any external pressure it was against the preaching of their message. They gained nothing in the way of position, power and possessions for faithfully telling the Jesus story.  To the contrary most of them were killed for it.  

 Their Words Preserved Accurately

• It is beyond the scope of this paper but there is good textual evidence that we have the New Testament documents today in a form that is extremely close to the original manuscripts.  This is non controversial.  Most scholars agree that the current Greek texts of the New Testament are very accurate.  To put it simply, we have pretty much what was written.  Interesting enough, one of the few controversial passages, Mark 16:9-20, is in the gospel of Mark.
• Additionally, there was very little time between the actual events of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.  The less time that passes the less likely legendary development occurs.  The gospels were all finished by around 90AD with Mark and Matthew likely within just a few decades of the resurrection of Jesus.  In the period in which the gospels were written down many eyewitnesses of the events would have still been alive.  As Richard Bauckham states, "The Gospels were written within living memory of the events they recount.  Mark's gospel was written well within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses, while the other three canonical Gospels were written in the period when living eyewitnesses were becoming scarce, exactly at the point in time when their testimony would perish with them were it not put in writing"[7]

They are Corroborated/Validated by Others

• If an author shows that he tells the truth on matters that are verifiable externally, he is thought to be a reliable witness.  The New Testament writers note at least thirty historically confirmed people in their works. The gospels in general and the passion narrative in particular find corroboration in several ancient sources outside of the New Testament.^[8]  In addition, we find quotations at length from the gospels in the sermons and writings of the early church fathers.
• When the gospels are examined, they show a strong historicity which is only doubted when a bias against the supernatural is brought to bear.  Many skeptics have written off the testimony of the gospels because they were written down by men who believed in God, who record the occurrence of the miraculous and the resurrection of an incarnate Savior God.  Yet such bias against the supernatural is just the work of a closed mind.  Someone who says - I cannot believe the words of the New Testament because I don't believe in God or miracles - is already closed off to any amount of evidence.  They are saying "I don't believe because I don't believe."  Such views are intellectually stifling and hardened to what God might say if they simply read the gospels with an open heart and mind to see the unparalleled life of Jesus on display.

In closing, the gospel literature is unique indeed.  It is part biography, part history, part theology yet passionately what Bauckham simply calls testimony. 

Understanding the Gospels as testimony, we can recognize this theological meaning of the history not as an arbitrary imposition on the objective facts, but as the way the witnesses perceived the history, in an inextricable coinherence of observable event and perceptible meaning.  Testimony is the category that enables us to read the Gospels in a properly historical way and a properly theological way.  It is where history and theology meet.[9] 

Let's go get some history and theology, in a portrait of the person of Jesus, truthfully set forth in the gospel of Mark.

---

[1] See the Urban Dictionary for a definition of the word floss - The Urban Dictionary, (accessed August 14 2007); available from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=floss.

[2] For a more sophisticated look at the uniqueness of Holocaust testimonies see the treatment in