Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament

In Christopher Wright’s book Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament he presents the concept of Jesus as Messiah. The two main issues he addresses are that of the Old Testament passages that refer to the Messiah and how the New Testament writers saw Jesus in the Scriptures, as well as the issue of Jesus’ own views on the role of the Messiah and how he fit in this role. The idea of Jesus as Messiah or Christ is not uncommon among Christians, but Wright shows how the concept of Jesus as Messiah actually has a much deeper meaning than what we generally think of today. Wright shows that the Gospels are filled with language indicating the nature of Jesus as that of Messiah. The Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament constantly refer back to Old Testament passages in their attempt to show that Jesus truly was the Messiah of Israel. Matthew’s gospel begins with the genealogy of Jesus. While this at first may seem like a boring passage simply showing that Jesus had a long human ancestry, this text goes deeper than that. It is a summary of the people of Israel and their history, saying that the history of Israel may be summed up completely in Jesus himself (34).

This genealogy begins with the person of Abraham and lists off fourteen generations until the time of King David, followed by fourteen more generations to the period of the exile, and finally fourteen more generations until we get to the birth of Jesus. Here, the genealogy ends. It begins with Abraham because of the Abrahamic Covenant (3). In the book of Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham saying that he would have a son, and that the descendants of this son would be great and numerous. God also promised that through Abraham’s seed all nations would be blessed. This was the role of Israel as Abraham’s descendants (4). They were to be a blessing and light to all the nations of the world, showing them the way back to God. However, Israel failed in its mission repeatedly. The second major stop in this history of Israel is with King David. God made a covenant to David as well, promising him that he would never fail to have an heir or a descendant of his sitting on the throne, fulfilling the role of king (5). This promise remained true until Israel reached the next major event, the exile to Babylon. Here, it looked as though God’s promise had failed and that he had given up all hope for Israel and its redemptive role in the world. However, the people of Judah returned from exile. The genealogy lists another fourteen generations from this time until the time of Jesus’ birth. The expectation at the time of the restoration of Judah is that the King of Judah, the one of David’s line would be restored to the throne. The history of Israel is then summed up with Jesus because Jesus is not only the one who will restore the Davidic dynasty in himself as the eternal king, but he will also fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant by becoming a blessing to all nations of the earth as Abraham’s seed. The Davidic Covenant became linked with the Abrahamic Covenant at some point after the time of David (5). This can be seen in the language of Psalm 72 where the understanding has become that the ruler who sits on David’s throne will fulfill a particular kind of role, one in which all nations on earth would be blessed through him (6).

In Matthew’s gospel there is an emphasis upon the fact that the fulfillment of Jesus as Messiah is not just something that is only for the Jews, but for Gentiles as well. (5)  This is seen in the list of women who are briefly mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. All of these were foreign women, most of whom bore children by questionable means. Yet, these are the people Matthew chose to include in his genealogy – Tamar, who bore twins by her father-in-law; Ruth, a Moabitess supposedly descended from an incestuous relationship; Rahab, a foreigner and a prostitute; Bath-Sheba, a foreigner who committed adultery with King David (4-5). Matthew did this on purpose. He wanted to show that even Jesus, the ultimate Jew, had Gentile blood in his veins, just as King David. The Davidic King must represent all nations so that all will be blessed. Also, Matthew gives very specific groups of fourteen in his genealogy, even leaving certain generations out, and altogether ignoring the generations before the time of Abraham (6). He did this because of the numerical significance with the groups of numbers being divisible by seven, an important number, and with Jesus being placed at the conclusion of all these sevens, showing that he is the ultimate completion of Israel and Israel’s purpose (7).

Another one of Wright’s main points is that of Jesus’ own perception of himself and his purpose. The writers of the New Testament go out of their way to show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah or the anointed one and that he is the true and final fulfillment of Israel, summing up the Law and the Prophets, and that Jesus is Israel’s true Davidic king. The Gospel writers use various passages from the Old Testament to show that the Old Testament predicted his coming and what he would do. Modern exegetes may find some of these uses of Old Testament passages by the Gospel writers to be taken out of context. An example would be the passage in Isaiah 7 where King Ahaz is told by the prophet that a “virgin” (LXX) with give birth to a son and he will be called Emmanuel, God with us. Matthew uses this passage, along with others, for his own purposes. This passage may not have been talking about Jesus, but about the circumstances of King Ahaz’s time. However, what Matthew did was not necessarily wrong. Yes, he takes these verses out of context and applies them to his own story of Jesus’ birth, but in Matthew’s understanding he was recognizing the similarities between what God had done in the past and what he had done most recently in Jesus. Matthew believed that what took place in the past had significance not only for the past, but for what had happened in Jesus in his own time (58).

The gospel writers use much language to describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic King of the Old Testament promises.  However, Jesus does not really use this kind of language when he is referring to himself throughout the gospels. Wright says that Jesus more thoroughly identifies himself with the Son of Man as referenced in the book of the prophet Daniel, especially in chapter 7, as well as the Suffering Servant as portrayed in the book of Isaiah, especially in chapter 53 (148-58). However, the Son of Man in Daniel does not seem to very well portray the picture of Christ in the gospels even though Jesus referred to himself as “son of man” (153). He identifies the most with the Suffering Servant (154). In Jesus’ time, the passages in Daniel and Isaiah and some elsewhere had come to be seen for the most part as referring to the coming of the Messiah in Israel’s history. Jesus seemed to agree with this conclusion and, seeing himself fulfilling these roles. However, Jesus’ view of himself also differed considerably from others in that many believed that when the Messiah would come, he would overthrow the Romans and Jesus did not intend to do this (138). He identified much more with the Suffering Servant who would carry the sins of his people upon himself. With this understanding, Jesus would go to the cross and die, dashing the hopes of many of his followers who did not understand the nature of the Suffering Servant and how to reconcile this picture with that of the all-powerful Son of Man. While this may have dashed the hopes of many, Jesus truly does fulfill the expectations of both the Suffering Servant and the Son of Man in both his death and his resurrection.

At the time I was reading this book, I was also reading Scot McKnight’s King Jesus Gospel for Prof. Robertson’s evangelism class. These two books had some very similar things to say about the role of Jesus as Messiah, so I kept getting the two books mixed up. However, having looked back upon this book, I believe that it is superior to McKnight’s book. McKnight got caught up on his own pet peeves about the church and this served as the basis of his look at Jesus as Messiah. Wright looks at Jesus as Messiah on a much more academic level. Wright is also does a much more thorough job when looking at the history of Israel He goes into the details of the texts, and this is something that I appreciate. I think that often when people try to take a serious look at these texts they wind up talking too much about what they personally have gotten out of the texts. While this is certainly a valid thing to do, it becomes tiresome after the third or fourth rant. Wright, however, does an excellent job in presenting the facts and details of the passages he uses without getting caught up too much in his own opinions. While his opinions are obviously present, he gives fair treatment of various perspectives and possibilities without being too quick to jump to conclusions.

Something I enjoyed about Wright’s book was that he provided a fairly thorough look at the various scriptures of the Old Testament that refer to the concept of the Messiah as well as looking at the various kinds of covenants and their contexts within the Old Testament (77-101). Wright’s book was a helpful resource for my paper on Psalm 72 because of his conversation on these covenants. I was previously aware of the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants coming into play with Psalm 72, but after looking at surrounding psalms I saw how these two covenants are not the only ones to which the psalmist refers back. The psalms speak of Mosaic and Noahic covenants as well. I enjoyed examining Psalm 72 further, using Wright as a reference and guide, to see if this particular psalm contained hints at other covenants besides those of David and Abraham.

Another thing I appreciated with Wright’s book was the issue of Jesus’ human identity in his recognition of his role as Messiah. I find it fascinating to think about how Jesus first learned that he was the Messiah. I think we often do not think about this because we assume that because Jesus was God he of course knew it all along. Yet, I appreciate learning more about how the Jews had come to view the Messiah during Jesus’ lifetime and how they thought that the one who would be Messiah would not necessarily know until God revealed it to them at some point in their life. Wright made me wonder when Jesus might have realized this for himself as well as getting me to think about many other thought-provoking issues and concepts.

My Ministry Manifesto

Introduction

The way we perceive the Kingdom of Heaven informs how we practice ministry. Not only must we have sound theology when we participate in the ministry of the Kingdom, but we also must put this theology into practice. Any ministry must be lived out through the life lived by the Spirit, which means that we must maintain a right relationship with God and with those around us. If we wish to be satisfied in ministry, we must first begin with the upkeep of our own spiritual lives, both on a personal level as well as on a corporate level. Ministry should never be done alone. In one way or another, ministry is something that is shared by the community in which the same Spirit – the Spirit of Christ – dwells.

My Theological Understanding of the Life of the Kingdom

In the Via Salutis, or the Way of Salvation, we see Christ’s redemption of fallen humanity at work within us. Before we are saved, we have no desire to serve God. God speaks to us through His Holy Spirit before we are saved in an act that a number of people call prevenient grace, or grace that goes before. This means that before we were seeking God, God was seeking us. Before we were calling to Him, He was calling to us. Without this act of prevenient grace in our lives, we would not seek God. We would be left in our natural state imparted to us by our first parents, doomed to sin and death, without even understanding our need of salvation. But through His prevenient grace God calls out to us, though we may not recognize Him at first.

Salvation is a process. Many people have a difficult time knowing at what exact point they were saved. This is especially true of individuals who have grown up in Christian families and in the church. These people can often identify key points where they made significant progress in their salvation journey. It is good, especially in cases where the individual cannot remember a time in their lives when they did not believe in God or even when they weren’t a Christian, to think of salvation as something that is continuous. Salvation is not limited to one moment in time. It is a progression of one coming closer to God. In this way, salvation includes the time before the person prayed “the sinner’s prayer” when they were willingly moving towards God as well as the time afterwards when they continue to make choices that reflect their devotion to God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Part of a person’s salvation process is the coming to a realization that they need to be saved. They recognize the great peril they are in and are distressed by it. Through prevenient grace, the Holy Spirit causes the individual to recognize that they need to make a choice about whether or not they are going to follow God.

We eventually come to an understanding of our need of a Savior, and we surrender our lives to Jesus in repentance so that we may be saved. God is faithful, and He saves us. This can be called the act of justification, meaning that we are no longer condemned for our sins because we have surrendered them to God through Christ and have been forgiven.

We experience justification through faith. It is not by works that we are pardoned and saved, but by faith. God makes us spotless in His sight through faith which comes by His grace working within us. We are made righteous through faith. We believe God and have faith in Him whom we cannot see directly, and God declares us to be righteous. The Bible says the same thing of Abraham. It says that “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3).

We are made new in Christ so that we no longer live for ourselves and for the sinful nature. We continue to die daily to the self and the sinful nature by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit through the salvation we have found in Christ. We experience regeneration.

We are made new day after day as we grow in our relationship with God. As we continue on in our now redeemed lives, we have many opportunities to turn back to the old way of living in sin. The Holy Spirit works within us letting us know what is pleasing to Him. As we go on living, the Holy Spirit reveals to us even more areas of our lives we were not aware of that we need to surrender over to Him. If we continue to surrender these areas of our lives over to God as He reveals them to us, we eventually come to the point where we decide by God’s grace that we will always surrender everything over to God – both the known as well as the unknown. We choose that we will always say “yes” to God no matter what. This point of experience is referred to by a number of people as “entire sanctification.” Sanctification is a process that continues for the rest of our lives, and even in the afterlife, where our salvation will be made complete. The apostle Paul wrote of the future day of salvation as well as the present day. In the future day of salvation, we will be made like Christ in His glory. Our selves having been restored to the people Christ created us to be. In the meantime, we must remember that Christ’s salvation is also at work in us today. Our life does not begin when we die and go to Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven breaking into the kingdom of this world is an important element of our present faith in Christ as well as our eschatology. The way we perceive the Kingdom of Heaven informs the way we practice our ministry. Our ministries should not have the sole-goal of getting people to say the sinner’s prayer so that they can go to Heaven. There is more to Christianity than this. The mentality of getting people to "accept Jesus" so that they can go to heaven is actually off-center of what we are called to be as Christians. That view is one that is escapist. It is almost as though we were all just waiting to get into heaven because that is when life really begins. But this is not true. Life is also now, and we must live for more than an escapist feeling that all we need to do is pray so we can go to heaven. We cannot minister to people in this way. The Kingdom of Heaven is now, not just in the eschaton. We need to remember this when we evangelize people. We are not just getting them ready for Heaven. We are equipping them for life in this world as well, recognizing that Heaven starts now, not when we die.

Part of the sanctifying process is that we become the disciples of Jesus. Becoming a disciple of Jesus means more than simply being taught to do good things, though that certainly is a part of it. Discipleship involves taking on the same spirit as that of the teacher – becoming like the teacher, and exercising the same kind of authority as that of the teacher. Jesus told his disciples that they would do even greater miracles than what they had seen Him do. Christ gave the believers His own authority when He breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-2). He placed all authority that has been given to Him into the hands of his disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), and we are His disciples. We live by the same Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God Who proceeds from both the Father and the Son and who dwells within us. The filling of the Spirit and the sanctification process are parts of being a disciple.

God’s prevenient grace works in our lives before we are saved, and His sanctifying grace works in our lives once we are saved. It continues to work in us throughout our lives. When we do something that goes against God’s will, the Holy Spirit lets us know, and gives us the opportunity to surrender this part of our lives back to God. God’s saving grace is present in the act of salvation. However, God’s saving grace is also present both before and after salvation. It is what makes both prevenient and sanctifying grace possible.

My Understanding of Core Values for Ministry

Our central goal in ministry is to always place God first in our lives. This is the most important thing we can do. Before we can minister to others, we must love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). In order to be successful ministers we must maintain a daily devotional life and be consistent in prayer. As a couple engaged in ministry together we must also continue to set aside regular times to pray together, for each other and our ministry.

Another goal in our ministry is to love people and to minister to them. The second most important part of ministry is to love our neighbor (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 19:19; 22:39; Mark. 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14). We must reach out to those in need around us regardless of their ethnic background, lifestyle, or religious beliefs. We must learn to see people as Jesus would and to treat everyone we meet with the love of Jesus. We must be imitators of God in our life and conduct, remembering that it was God’s kindness that led us to repentance (Rom. 2:4). We must serve both the physical as well as the spiritual needs of the people we encounter. Jesus came not only to redeem the spiritual aspect of mankind, but the physical aspect as well. The physical and the spiritual are deeply connected. When we minister to someone, we minister to the whole person.

In ministry, we must be ready to develop disciples. We must realize that any ministry we are a part of does not depend on us, it is God’s work; therefore, any ministry we start or obtain should not end when we move on to a different assignment. We must train up other people to minister as we have done and to minister in whatever way they feel God is calling them to serve. We are not to make carbon copies of ourselves. We must invest in the gifts and strengths of others and let them use them to the best of their abilities without forcing our own particular interests upon them. We must also be willing to work as a team and in community, both with each other as well as with other ministers of Christ. We must also allow other people to minister to our needs and not allow ourselves to think that we can do it all on our own. We must be willing to accept gifts and generosity from others. In a very real way, refusing to accept gifts from others as a way of showing your unworthiness is actually an arrogant response. It sends a message that you do not need or want anyone but yourself.

My Succinct Summary of the Gospel

As a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve, all of mankind is fallen. Not only do we carry the burden of Adam and Eve’s original sin, but we also carry the weight of our own personal sins. Adam and Eve also serve as types of who we are as people – people who have been separated from God through rebellion. By our fallen nature, we are prone to depravity, meaning that all who have been given the opportunity to choose between what is right and what is wrong have chosen the wrong over the right. Our sin means that we are no longer in a right relationship with God. We are separated from Him (before salvation) and stand condemned to die in our sins and then be separated from God for eternity in hell. In order to restore a right relationship with us, God sent His only Son into the world to die for us and pay the penalty that our sins deserved. Because of Christ’s sacrifice, we can now enter into a right relationship with God. Our burden of guilt is removed. We can be set free from the works of the devil in our lives. God assumed human form, taking on the role of servant. What He assumed, He redeemed. He became mortal so that we might become immortal. He died so that those of us who die will be saved. He lowered Himself to the lowest reaches of human experience so that the lowest reaches of human experience might be redeemed. We are called to be imitators of Christ, filled with His Spirit.

Ministry Vision

We must keep in mind our mission statement – to love God, to love people, to make disciples – essentially, to bring Heaven to earth. We must maintain a daily devotional life and be consistent in prayer. We must take part in the fellowship of believers, ministering and being ministered to. We must find the correct spiritual disciplines for us to practice on a personal level in order to draw closer to God and to hear His voice more clearly. The spiritual disciplines are not to be seen as something to be feared or as a way of earning favor with God. They are to be seen as one of the ways we are able to better connect with God and be in tune with His Spirit. [1]

We must not be distracted by abstract scenarios based on how we think our lives ought to be lived in a sort of Jesus-mindset. We must instead learn what Jesus actually did in his own life-situation. When we do so, we learn that Jesus was a rabbi. He knew the entire Hebrew Scriptures by heart, and he had learned this through intense studying and memorizing since he was a child. One of the first things we must do if we truly wish to be like Jesus is to study the Scriptures and to know them and the message of God within them in our hearts.

Jesus fasted, and through the act of fasting one can see how Jesus was strengthened by this. Instead of relying on food to feed ones appetite, when fasting one is forced into recognizing a hunger within them of a different sort – a spiritual hunger. When this spiritual hunger is recognized and fed, then one has the ability to endure temptation and be victorious. Worship is both personal and corporate. Jesus also practiced the discipline of solitude. This was not just during his forty day fast in the wilderness where he was tempted by the devil. Jesus is also seen practicing solitude with prayer during His actual ministry. Jesus is recorded as having gone off into the hills by Himself away from all of the crowds and commotion in order to pray and to be alone with God. This was beneficial to Him and may be beneficial to the Christian in their walk. This is especially true for those involved in ministry. While we need to spend alone time worshiping God, we also need to take part in worship services with others, with those to whom we will minister and with those who will minister to us.

We must learn to see people as Jesus would and to treat everyone we meet with the love of Jesus. We must reach out to those in need around us regardless of their ethnic background, lifestyle, or religious beliefs. We must serve both the physical as well as the spiritual needs of the people we encounter. We must be able to preach and teach the word of God in a way that people can understand. We must be able to relate to those to whom we minister on a personal level and not be disconnected from them. We must speak truth into their lives, and we can do this best by knowing them on a personal level. We must be friends with those we minister to, not only speaking the truth of God to them with our words, but demonstrating the attitude of Christ in our life and actions. We must minister to all people: the poor, the rich; the well, the sick; the mentally challenged, the intellectually brilliant; the beautiful, the ugly; the evil, the righteous.

As we lead people into right relationship with Christ, we must keep in mind that conversion is a process that last a person’s entire life. We tend to think of conversion as being at a specific point in time, and while it is helpful to look back and take notice of pivotal points in one’s own salvation journey, we must also keep in mind that our faith is something that grows and develops as we grow closer to God. It should never be stagnant. In ministry, we must remember that getting people to pray the sinner’s prayer is not adequate. While it is good and is an important part of the conversion experience, it is not all there is. Conversion should not be viewed through a linear perspective where at one point one becomes converted. The conversion process is one in which an individual makes many steps in coming closer to Christ.[2] A conversion is not complete after “the second blessing” either. It is moving toward completeness. We must train up people in the faith and the knowledge of God, teaching them what God expects and showing them by example the life lived by the power of the Spirit. We must train up other people to minister as we have done and to minister in whatever way they feel God is calling them to serve. We must also be willing to work as a team and in community, both with each other as well as with other ministers of Christ. We must teach them salvation through Christ as revealed in the Bible, and the life of the Spirit.

Conclusion

Within our ministry, we must always seek to maintain the mind of Christ within us. Just as Christ made time to study the Scriptures thoroughly, we must also take the Scriptures to heart and know them. Just as Christ did not discriminate in those to whom He ministered, reaching out to both the rich and the poor, we must also do the same, recognizing that it is not those who are well who have need of a doctor (Matt. 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31). God reaches out to all people. Also, just as Christ took time to practice the spiritual disciplines, we must also do the same, being renewed in mind and spirit through prayer, self-examination, meditation, fasting, silence, and solitude, among others. We must recognize that while we are Christ’s ambassadors, we are not superheroes. We can do nothing without Christ, and we will not truly display the life of the Kingdom if we do not share the responsibilities of our ministries with those in the community of believers who are equipped to partake in the ministry we share. God has not called us to be isolated in life or in ministry. The life of the Kingdom and in ministry is one lived in community.

---

[1] Willard, Dallas. The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives. Harper Collins Publishers: New York. 1988. 265 pages.

[2] Smith, Gordon T. Beginning Well: Christian Conversion and Authentic Transformation. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2001. 233 pages.

The Death Psalm

The Scriptures were very important to the Jewish people. When Jewish boys went to school they were required to memorize the Torah, the first five books of the Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The girls also went to school and they were taught the Psalms and the Proverbs, as well as parts of the Torah.

Being a Rabbi, Jesus would have had the entire Bible memorized, including the Psalms. When Jesus was dying on the cross, he quoted from what was known as the Death Psalm, Psalm 22. It is the wish of a Jew to be reciting Psalm 22 when they die. It is difficult for someone who is being crucified to speak. They have to push up with their legs in order to get a breath of air. Jesus begins reciting the Death Psalm by shouting, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” and as time goes by, you can see that the Psalm is still on his mind. He is repeating it in his head, and every time he gets to a place where it reminds him of something, he speaks.

When the Psalm says, “From birth I was cast on you; from my mother's womb you have been my God,” Jesus says to his mother, "’Woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’" When the Psalm says, “My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death,” Jesus speaks, “I am thirsty.”

As Jesus remembers what the Psalm says, “They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment,” He watches as the soldiers gamble for His own clothing.

But the real good news comes at the end of this Psalm. It says:

“All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.
All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has finished it!”

And with that, Jesus cries out, “It is finished!” and He dies there.

“It is finished.” This is a truly remarkable sentence. The ramifications of such a statement are great. It’s over. It’s done. Jesus has paid the price. Sin and death have come to an end. But there is more to the death of Jesus than the forgiveness of sins. There is also redemption. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross made a way not only for us to escape from an eternity in hell, but it also provided a way for us to be brought back to God. We are now able to come to God without there being a dividing wall between us.

But the making of the way to bring people back to God is not something that is only for people as individuals. Our salvation and redemption is not something that for us only and only us to see. No. Christ’s sacrifice has made a way for the whole world to be brought back to God. The Psalm says:

“All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him.”

It goes on to say that the LORD’s righteousness will be proclaimed to future generations, and that they will say, “He has finished it.”

“He has finished it.” The death of Jesus is directly connected with the salvation and the redemption of the nations. Through the death of Christ, God will turn the hearts of the nations back to Him. The significance of Jesus saying “It is finished” can be found at the end of this death psalm, for the proclamation of the nations who have put their hope in God is that He has finished it. In Jesus, we see the fulfillment of this prophecy. Through His death, Jesus has finished it – meaning that he has made a way for the healing of the nations through the forgiveness of sins.

It is God’s desire that everyone be saved – this includes people from every tribe, language, people and nation. One of the reasons that Jesus has not come back yet is that there are people who still do not know him. There are tribes and people groups who do not yet know about Jesus and what He did for them. We know this is true from the Scriptures. It is not that Jesus does not want to come back. He does. But he is waiting for the full number of the Gentiles to be brought into the Kingdom before he returns to proclaim judgment on the world and establish His reign on earth forever.

2 Peter 3: 9-10 says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.”

God’s desire is that everyone be saved. This is why He has waited so long to pronounce His judgment on the world. Yet the Day of Judgment will still come at its proper time. However, we learn in the Gospels that this will not take place until after the Gospel has been preached to all the nations. Jesus says in Matthew 24: 14, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

This idea of God’s righteousness being extended to the very ends of the earth was not an idea that arose after the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus provided the foundation of this act to be carried out, but the idea that this would one day happen had been spoken of by the prophets long before Jesus made His home in an earthly tent – long before the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The prophets had seen this day and they looked forward to its fulfillment. Isaiah prophesied that the ends of the earth would turn to God.

When I was working in Argentina, my team-leader, Mike Morgan, would have us get together every morning and every night for a group devotion time. He would have us students prepare a devotion every morning to help prepare us for the day of work we would have ahead of us. And every almost every night, we would come together for a time of fellowship. We would share what we had learned during the day and we would encourage one another and tell each other in what ways we had seen God working in them and in others and in different circumstances throughout the day. Our team included native Argentines, including people from the tribe of the Toba Indians. They worked alongside us during the day, they ate with us in the morning, and joined us for our fellowship time at night. What was said in English was translated into Spanish for them. One night, Mike spoke to us out of the book of Isaiah the prophet. He said to us that Isaiah had prophesied thousands of years ago that the ends of the earth would one day turn to God. Mike told us that what we had seen that day was that prophesy being fulfilled. There we were – in the middle of nowhere – the very ends of the earth. And even there, God’s Kingdom was breaking through and being established. The Toba people of the remote northern regions of Argentina had been reached with the Gospel and were coming to know Christ. This was what Isaiah had prophesied. And this is what Jesus had in mind when He said on the cross, “It is finished.”

The Principle of Reproduction

Reproduction Defined 

The Principle of Reproduction has to do with multiplying the ministry. Those who minister to others are called to call others to minister to still more others. As Christians, we are to follow the command of God and multiply, filling the whole earth. We are called to make Christ-like disciples among the nations, teaching them to walk as Jesus walked. We are to bring other people into the Kingdom. 

Reproduction Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

This principle was demonstrated in the life of Jesus. He called his disciples to go out and make other disciples. This is seen when Jesus sends out the twelve into the surrounding countryside, it is seen when Jesus sends out the seventy into Judea, and it is further seen in the Great Commission given at the end of the synoptic Gospels and the beginning of the book of Acts. Jesus said to his disciples just before he ascended into heaven, “Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” These are the last recorded words of Christ before he ascended back to the Father, and the Christian community is to take his instructions very seriously.

Jesus did not just tell his disciples to reproduce. He told them that he would go with them and would go before them. Matthew records that after Jesus spoke these words to them, he said, “And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age.” Jesus will go with us in our disciple-making journey, and he is already ahead of us as well, even at the end of the age.

Matthew also records that right before Jesus gave his disciples these instructions he said to them that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him. He then turns to them and gives them this authority and instructs them to make disciples of all the nations, etc. The authority of Jesus has been given to the church to make disciples. Jesus even said that the church would do greater things than the miracles he himself had performed on earth.

The Principle of Supervision

Supervision Defined 

This principle may be defined as making sure that your protégé stays on the right track. When you are a leader in ministry, you will have people serving under you. When you delegate different responsibilities to them you will need to check up on them and make sure they understand what they are doing and why. You need to be available to answer their questions. You do not need to be always peering over their shoulder, but you ought to keep close enough distance to them so that you intervene in case anything goes wrong. Also, you should be there for them in order to encourage them and let them know when they have got it exactly right. 

Supervision Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

This principle was also modeled in the life of Jesus and seen in his own ministry with his disciples. Jesus spent all kinds of time with his disciples when they were in ministry together. He supervised them. However, Jesus was not physically with them every moment of every day, even though he was very close to being with them at all times. He looked out for his disciples and may sure they did not get themselves into trouble. This is seen on various occasions. When the disciples had been arguing amongst themselves about which one of them was the greatest, Jesus stepped in later and asked them what they had been arguing about on the road. The disciples were then ashamed of themselves as Jesus pointed out to them that their priorities were in the wrong place. Working in the kingdom was not about being the greatest; it was about being a servant.

Peter also got himself into trouble on a number of occasions. When he was asked by the religious leaders whether or not Jesus paid the temple tax, he spoke for Jesus and said that of course he did. Later, Jesus went to Peter and brought his impulsive answer to his attention, pointing out the ridiculousness of God giving money to God. However, Jesus does not seem as though he wanted to embarrass Peter or to offend the religious leaders on this matter so he sent Peter out to go catch a fish which had a coin in its mouth in order to pay for Peter’s tax and his. Jesus was showing Peter that God is all-resourceful, but also that God had humbled himself and became a man for the sake of others.

When Jesus disciples had returned to him after having gone throughout the countryside preaching the good news to all who would listen, Jesus was eager to hear their report. He did not send them out on their own, but sent them out in pairs to keep each other accountable among other reasons. Also, once he had sent them out he did not disconcern himself about their mission. He wanted to hear how things had gone. When they returned to him they gave him a glorious report which he seems to have been very pleased to hear. However, he even used this as a means for teaching them. They had been amazed that the demons themselves had submitted to them. Jesus told them that rather than rejoicing that the devils had submitted to them, they should receive greater joy that their names were written in the book of life. Jesus said that he had seen Satan fall from heaven like lightning. Satan was already being defeated, so they should not have been too surprised that the demons were powerless against them.

The Principle of Delegation

Delegation Defined 

The Principle of Delegation is the idea that ministry is not something that we simply do on our own. Ministry is a group effort. With delegation one calls upon others to play a role in the ministry of the kingdom. Ministry is not meant to be a one man show, but a partnership. The task of ministry is too much for just one person. Those in a leadership role ought to recognize their own limits as well as recognize the value of input by others into their work. The Christian faith and the acts of ministry which are a part of the Christian faith are not to be carried out in isolation. Christianity as well as ministry is relational. 

Delegation Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

Jesus modeled the Principle of Delegation in his own life. Rather than taking the time to carry out every item on his agenda by himself, he asked for help, or rather he assigned various tasks for other people to perform on his behalf. This is seen especially when Jesus sends out the seventy-two into the various regions around the country in order to preach the good news of the kingdom and to heal people of diseases and to cast out demons among other tasks. Rather than going to each of these places himself Jesus stayed behind in order to work on whatever he needed to work on at the time. Instead of attempting to do the work of seventy-two different men, Jesus delegated these responsibilities out to different capable people whom he felt he could trust with these tasks.

Another example of Jesus following the Principle of Delegation can be seen in the stories of feeding of the large crowds. Jesus had his disciples go around and count how many people were present, and he also had his disciples go around and have every one sit down on the grass. He also had them distribute the food which he miraculously provided for everyone. It almost seems silly that Jesus would ask for the help of his disciples when he was powerful enough to create the food they were handing out. However, I think this goes to show that just because you are capable of doing something on your own that does not mean that you ought to do it on your own. There is great benefit for yourself and for those who help you when you ask for help.

Another example of Jesus delegating is when he sends two disciples to go find a donkey for him to ride into Jerusalem. They go and fetch it for him instead him getting it himself. Also, around this time Jesus sent Peter and John to go prepare the Passover meal for him and his disciple to eat, rather than him preparing the whole thing himself. He appears to have had every confidence in them and their ability to perform these tasks on his behalf.

The Principle of Demonstration

Demonstration Defined 

The Principle of Demonstration can be explained by saying that one must set an example in the patterns and behaviors of their own life when leading other people in ministry. If one wants to see a certain type of behavior or attitude exhibited in the lives of those who follow him, then he must be willing to display these same kinds of attitudes and behaviors in his own life. People learn by example.

Demonstration Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

Jesus modeled this principle in his own life when he spent time with his disciples. He demonstrated to his disciples a life lived in submission and obedience to the Father. His disciples followed in his example. I have been taught that Jesus was a rabbi and that rabbis chose disciples or talmudim because they believed that the ones they chose had the ability and the potential to be like them. So the rabbis would set an example for their young disciples to follow and the followers would try to be just like their leader. This idea is seen in the gospels on a number of occasions. One example is when the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, and Jesus prayed for them to show them a proper example. This is how “The Lord’s Prayer” came to be – by demonstration.

Another example is when the disciples did not fast. The Pharisees asked Jesus why his disciples did not fast like John’s disciples fasted, and Jesus told them that they could not fast while the bridegroom was with them. It would seem that it was customary for rabbis to have their disciples fast on occasion. However, Jesus led his disciples in this a bit differently. His disciples followed his example.

Another example of this idea is seen when Jesus is walking on the water across the lake and Peter calls out to him asking to walk to him on the water. Peter saw his rabbi walking on the water and he wanted to be just like his rabbi, so he asked Jesus to call out to him to come and follow him out of the boat and onto the water. This is yet another example of Jesus leading by demonstration. There are many other examples throughout the gospels as well.

The Principle of Impartation

Impartation Defined 

The Principle of Impartation may be defined by stating that if one has a desire to live a life in ministry to others one must carry the Spirit of Christ within themselves. In ministry, one gives the Spirit of Christ to others, in a sense, and one can only give the Spirit of Christ to someone else if they have the Spirit of Christ themselves. In impartation, those who come into contact with the one in the position of ministry should be aware that this individual has the Spirit of Christ within them. 

Impartation Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

In the life of Jesus, one may see this Principle of Impartation put into practice. Jesus was God, so naturally when his followers spent time with him they were in a very real sense spending time with God. However, Jesus was not only God. He was also a human living with the Holy Spirit inside of him, the very Spirit of God. Jesus also imparted the Spirit to his disciples in a human way as well, not just as God. There is evidence in the New Testament that Jesus was a man who was filled with the Holy Spirit of God. At Jesus’ baptism, it is recorded that the Spirit of God came down from heaven in the form of a dove and landed upon Jesus. This was a sign that the Spirit of God was present with Jesus and it showed that he had God’s approval and authority. Evidence of the Spirit in Christ is also seen when Jesus is at the synagogue in Nazareth and he reads from the scroll “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” This idea portrays the impartation of the Spirit as a sort of anointing. Jesus had been anointed by God’s Spirit to proclaim good news.

Later in the gospels, Jesus anoints his disciples to proclaim this good news as well. This is seen especially in the great commission. Jesus also gave them of his own Spirit so that they would not be afraid and would be able to complete the task he had given them. This is seen in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples in the second chapter of Acts, but it is also seen before Christ’s ascension when he breathes his Spirit onto them. It is also recorded that after his resurrection Jesus appeared to the disciples and breathed on them and told them to receive his Spirit. He said this even to those who doubted.

The Principle of Consecration

Consecration Defined 

The Principle of Consecration may be defined by living in obedience to Christ. Christ called his followers to obey him and in our submission to the will of Christ and in our obedience to him we live out the Principle of Consecration. In consecration is seen devotion. We must devote ourselves to Christ, to his salvation, to his life, and to his purposes. 

Consecration Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

The Principle of Consecration is seen in the life of Jesus in that he called his disciples to absolute loyalty to him. His disciples were committed to following Jesus wherever he went, even to the grave, though they often fell short of their desire to follow him into all things. Jesus showed in his own life that he was consecrated to the will of the Father. He often says in the gospels that he has come to do his Father’s will. He even calls Peter “Satan” at one point because Peter is trying to convince that God’s will for his life is something other than what God has made clear to him. Christ sets an example of consecration to his own followers. Just as he submits to the Father, so they must submit to him as he does the will of the Father.

The call of Jesus to entire consecration is an extraordinary one. He says that “if anyone would come after he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow him.” He also says that “whoever wants to save his life must lose it.” Jesus goes on to say that those who have a divided will cannot serve him. They must be completely devoted. He says “A man cannot serve two masters. Either he will love the one and hate the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other.”

Jesus even says that those who would follow him must give up everything for the sake of the kingdom. There were many followers who came to Jesus to ask what they must do to be his disciple, and Jesus always called them to surrender their lives completely. The rich young man had to surrender all of his wealth. Another disciple was told that he must leave his father’s funeral planning to someone else. Another was told that he would have to be homeless with no place to rest his head if he truly wanted to be a disciple of Jesus, which meant to be like Jesus. Christ even said that being consecrated to him as his disciple would cause the members of one’s own household to become his enemies. All of this shows the weight of consecration. It shows that consecration is more important than wealth, than having a home, and even more important than your own family. These were “hard words” for most of Jesus’ followers.

The Principle of Association

Association Defined 

The Principle of Association may be defined by stating that the one who leads a ministry does not only teach and give lessons to those under his ministry, but he becomes close friends with those he teaches as well. He chooses to become associated with them. They do life together. They go places together, share meals with each other, and talk about life. 

Association Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

This Principle of Association is modeled in the life of Jesus and his ministry with the disciples. In Jesus’ ministry he selected the twelve disciples to be his close companions and followers. Jesus became associated with this group of people and they became associated with him. Jesus did life with these twelve young men. He took them with him to different places, such as the area around the Sea of Galilee, to Jerusalem, and even as far north as Caesarea Philippi at one point. Jesus took his disciples with him to participate in his ministry.

Jesus also ate meals with his disciples as well as others. Jesus associated himself with people who were considered the least and the unclean and even gave himself a sort of a bad reputation for doing so. He spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes and he came to be associated with them. The incarnation itself is an example of Jesus’ choice to associate himself with humankind. The Scriptures record that “he took up our diseases and carried our sorrows.” He identified with mankind and became associated with mankind. In Jesus’ friendship with his disciples, he is seen confiding in them. In the Garden of Gethsemane he asks them to stay up and pray with him during his night of sorrow, and he is deeply hurt when they cannot stay awake with him and pray. In John, Jesus calls his disciples “friends.” Jesus is also seen associating with the disciples by visiting them in their own homes. The Gospels record Jesus staying at Peter’s house and healing his mother-in-law while there.

The Principle of Selection

Selection Defined 

The Principle of Selection holds the idea that in ministering to others one may take on the task of ministering to a small number of individuals in particular over a mass amount of people. One does not ignore ministry to others but one may spend extra amounts of time with a few certain people in order to create an effective ministry to those individuals. It is important to have people who are much closer to you than the majority of those within your ministry. Being selective in this way is not wrong. It benefits those who are closest to you without taking away anything of necessity from the rest of the crowd. 

Selection Modeled in the Life of Jesus 

Examples of The Law of Selection may be referred to within the ministry of Jesus. In Jesus’ ministry, he focused on a select few to whom he ministered regularly. One may see many levels of selection within Jesus’ own ministry. Out of all the people who followed him he selected seventy-two people that he sent out the spread the good news of the kingdom of heaven in the various regions in Israel. He gave these seventy-two people authority to work miracles and cast out demons among other things. They were an important part of Jesus’ ministry.

However, Jesus carried his selection out even further and he chose his twelve disciples to be his close friend and comrades in ministry. Most of the recorded words of Jesus were spoken to the twelve disciples. Jesus focused on these twelve in particular. Instead of dumbing down everything he said so that it would be completely obvious to everyone, he chose to speak in parables to the crowds. Those who truly wanted to understand his message went to him later in order to learn from him what he had been trying to say. This act is seen quite frequently among the Twelve.

Jesus’ selection went even further than the Twelve, however. He selected three from among the twelve whom he considered to be his closest friends. These three were Peter, James, and James’ brother John. These three were the only three who witnessed Christ in his splendor when his appearance was transfigured before them on the mountain. It was with these three that Jesus was most intimate. Also, it would seem that Jesus was perhaps even more selective at this point, perhaps taking special interest in Peter, sort of singling him out as his replacement if you will, or at least the one who would take over his ministry after he was gone. John is also thought to be “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” so this might be another example of selection taking place within the gospel narrative.

Deconstructing Mark

Within the world of deconstruction is seen the dismantling of the hierarchical system of binary oppositions as established within the realm of structuralism. Structuralism, with its very modernist approach, sought to place specific rules and boundaries upon the interpretation of the text. Deconstruction seeks to take apart the text bit by bit in order to understand the broader meaning of what has been written without limiting itself to the boundaries established by structuralism.

Within the context of the deconstructive thought process of postmodernism lies the idea that there is more than one specific meaning to any given text. There are many layers of meanings that may be applied. Those with this view believe that the author had multiple meanings when he wrote what he did and also that many more meanings can be found within the text without a connection to the author and his original intent for the text. “A deconstructor begins textual analysis by assuming that a text has multiple interpretations and that it allows itself to be reread and thus reinterpreted countless times.”[1] While this idea of multiple meanings in a text sounds like a very postmodern way of thinking, it is actually a very old way of interpreting the Scriptures. One can see this type of thinking in the four-fold method of interpreting Scripture as seen in the early schools of the early church. Along with this would be Philo’s methods of allegory. However, this way of thinking goes much farther back in time than this. The ancient Jewish rabbis had a saying that said, “To every text is seventy faces,” indicating that they believed in multiple meanings and interpretations of the scriptural texts. These various meanings of the texts which the rabbis discovered came to be known as midrash, or their own interpretations or commentaries on what the Scriptures said and meant.

In order to find the multiple meanings behind the text, one must first stop assuming that there is only one meaning to what has been written. If one believes that there is only one specific meaning behind a text then they will not be open to examining the many other possible meanings of that text. “When beginning the interpretive process, deconstructors seek to override their own logocentric and inherited ways of viewing the text.” [2] One must detach themselves from modernist and structuralist ways of thinking about the text. Structuralism seeks to find the meaning of the text based on its own principles. Deconstruction sees these principles as weak and limiting and wishes to establish its own ways of interpretation. Deconstruction seeks to abolish the hierarchies established by the binary oppositions found in the structuralist methods of interpretation. Within structuralism is seen the idea that binary oppositions may be found and established within the text with one opposition being more significant or superior to its counterpart. Deconstruction states that one opposition is not necessarily more important than its counterpart. They may be of equal importance or value.

Also, with structuralism, one bases their interpretation upon preconceived ideas of rank and value of certain things. “According to Derrida, Western thought has always been built on binary oppositions […] The first term in each pair, as Derrida notes, is ordinarily assumed to be superior to the second and is elevated over it.”[3] For example, within the binary opposition of heaven and earth one would assume that heaven is of greater importance than earth – the spiritual realm over the physical realm. This is why when these two words are listed together – “heaven and earth” – heaven is listed before earth, instead of listing them as “earth and heaven.” Deconstructive thought says that one must question whether or not the rankings and the hierarchies that have been given to these binary oppositions are indeed the best way of looking at them. If one believes that heaven is more important than earth then this will influence greatly how they interpret any passage of Scripture relating to heaven and earth. Deconstruction asks, “What if we reversed the order? What if our preconceived notions and ideas of hierarchy are skewed? If the structuralist idea of heaven being more important than earth is not true, then how would that affect the way we interpret all other texts?” In reversing the order that these two concepts of heaven and earth are ranked within the structuralist mindset we may discover that earth is just as important as heaven or perhaps even more important than heaven. In reversing the order and so reinvestigating the significance of the various binary oppositions within the text, one may discover that there were in fact much deeper meanings to what was said in the text than what had been previously understood which was based upon perhaps faulty understandings on the relationship of one thing to another.

Deconstruction does not want the reader to be limited to what has always been understood as the major themes of the text. Deconstruction sees the obscure parts of the passages as being of great importance as well. With the example of heaven and earth, heaven would have been considered the major and more important theme, and earth the afterthought or the obscure idea; but with the reversal of the placement of the binary oppositions within the text, the obscurity of earth becomes less obscure and perhaps even just as important as the traditionally higher-elevated heaven. With this particular example - the reversal of “heaven and earth” to “earth and heaven” - one may find deeper levels of meaning now that the structuralist hierarchy has been pushed to the side for the moment. The new levels of meaning that one may take from this particular example could be such ideas as God’s creation of both heaven and earth as perhaps being of equal significance. Perhaps earth is just as important of a creation as heaven in God’s mind. Perhaps the physical aspects of His creation are just as important as the spiritual aspects. Perhaps the life lived on earth is just as important as the life lived in heaven. Perhaps this would also imply that the physicality of our makeup as humans could be just as important as our spirituality. These are just a few examples of what could be implied through the reversal of the binary oppositions within a text.

A good example of this concept being applied in the Gospel of Mark can be found in Mark 2:23-28. In this passage, Jesus and his disciples are walking through a grain field on the Sabbath when his disciples begin to pick pieces of grain and eat them. The Pharisees see this and complain to Jesus, letting him know that his disciples are working on the Sabbath and not obeying the Law (vv.22-3). Jesus responds by reminding them of the story of King David when he went into the temple and gave the consecrated bread to his men to eat when they were hungry and in need (vv. 25-6). While this does not necessarily say that the sacredness of the bread was not important, it does imply that the people who ate the sacred bread were just as important as the bread itself. In this is seen the idea that the earthly things may be just as important as the heavenly things. This is further seen when Jesus himself in verse 27 reverses the binary oppositions held by the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that the heavenly – the Sabbath – was more important than the earthly – man. Jesus turns this hierarchy on its head when he says, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (v. 27). Jesus himself is applying one of the principles of deconstruction when he does this.

There are several examples within the Gospel of Mark where Jesus is seen reversing the binary oppositions of the day as they were interpreted by the Pharisees. In the story of the calling of Levi, Jesus is seen eating at Levi’s house among the tax collectors and “sinners.” The Pharisees observe this and point out to his disciples the questionability of the company he is keeping (Mark 2:15-6). Jesus responds by saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (v. 17). In saying this, Jesus is reversing the binary opposition of “healthy over sick.” He instead places greater significance on the sick. This does not necessarily lower the importance of the healthy, however, since the obvious goal is to make the sick people into healthy people. It does say, though, that the sick people are just as important as the healthy people, and that God cares just as much about the sick as He does the healthy, or that He cares just as much about “sinners” as He does the righteous.

Jesus also reverses the binary oppositions of “first and last” a number of times within the Gospel of Mark. In Mark 9:33-7, Jesus asks his disciples what they were arguing about on the road, but they keep silent because they had been arguing about which one of them was the greatest. Jesus then says to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all” (v. 35). Jesus reverses the binary opposition from “first over last” to “last over first” and in doing so places the position of “servant” into a position of honor.

Later, in Mark 10:35-45, Jesus is approached by James and John who ask him if they may sit at his right and his left in his glory. Jesus tells them that they do not know what they are asking, and the other disciples become upset with the two brothers. Jesus then calls all of them together and tells them that if any one of them want to be great, they must learn to be a servant, “and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (v. 44). Jesus again places the last above the first, and in so doing ranks being a slave or a servant above the position of ruler, thus reversing the normal understanding of this binary opposition which stated that those who are ranked first in their position in life are more important than those who are ranked last.

This reversal which places the role of servant above other roles is key to understanding the Gospel of Mark. The disciples have much difficulty in understanding this concept. They expect Jesus to be a powerful and domineering ruler who will establish the kingdom of God. They do not understand that Jesus must come as a servant in order to bring in the kingdom. It is ironic that those who are closest to Jesus fail to see him for who he really is. This reversal of the concept of first and last also applies to Jesus’ reversal of bigger and smaller. In Mark 4:30-2 Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed. It is an unspoken implication that the people believe that bigger things are more important than smaller things, but Jesus tells them that the mustard seed starts out as the smallest only to become the greatest later. This does not say that bigger things are bad. On the contrary, the goal is that the smaller things become bigger. However, this does seem to say that the smaller thing is just as important as the larger thing, especially since the larger does not exist without first being small. This understanding of these binary oppositions is reflective of what Jesus is trying to teach about the kingdom of God and about himself. He is saying that in order to bring in the kingdom that he will rule he must first be a servant – he must first be small. Jesus displays this reversal in his existence as a human – God made into flesh. The disciples, however, fail to recognize just how important this concept is, which leads to another binary opposition which is discussed quite readily in Stephen Moore’s article on the deconstruction of Mark.

One of the main points of Stephen Moore’s article is that within the Gospel of Mark there is seen the binary opposition of insider vs. outsider. Normally, the insider would be the one considered as the more privileged or the greater one of the pair. However, Moore points out that often the disciples are left clueless as to what Jesus is trying to communicate to them, making them outsiders to his message. So it would seem that those who are on the inside, the ones who know Jesus the best, are really on the outside because they have very limited understanding as to who Jesus actually is. However, Moore also points out that within Mark’s gospel those who would normally be considered as outsiders, those who should not have understood who Jesus was, were the ones who understood who Jesus was more than his closest friends. The crowds tended to not know who Jesus was, Jesus’ disciples did not always have a good understanding of who he was, and even his own family said that he was out of his mind. However, there are examples within Mark of outsiders, of non-Jews, recognizing Jesus for who he really is. An example Moore uses in his article is that of the centurion who witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus. When the centurion sees all that happens and how Jesus died, he exclaims, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39). This Gentile, this Roman, this outsider, sees Jesus for who he really is, and in doing so becomes an insider. Mark shows through this reversal of the positions of these binary oppositions that Christianity is not for the Jew alone, but for the Gentile as well. Many of those who should have been insiders - the Jews - were outsiders, and a number of those who should have been outsiders - the Gentiles - were insiders. This concept is also seen in the story of the faith of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30). In that story, this Greek woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter who is suffering from demon-possession, and Jesus quotes to her a saying that says it is not right to give to the dogs the food that belongs to the children, indicating the established belief that the Jews were more important than the Gentiles. The woman responds by saying that “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28). Jesus tells her that this is a good reply and then heals her daughter. In this example, one sees Jesus’ inclusion of the Gentiles as well as the ability of the Gentiles to be considered as insiders.

Another example of the inclusion of the Gentiles as insiders can be seen in the two different stories of Jesus feeding the crowds. In the first account – the feeding of the five thousand – Jesus miraculously provides food for all of the people who have come to hear him teach. After the meal, the disciples pick up twelve basketfuls of leftovers. In the second account – the feeding of the four thousand – Jesus miraculously provides food for all of the people who have come to him, and after the meal the disciples pick up seven basketfuls of leftovers. It is important to note that in the first account, the miracle occurs in the land of the Jews. The second feeding occurs after Jesus and his disciples have traveled to the land of the Gentiles. It is also important to remember that the land of the Jews was referred to as “the land of the twelve” because of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that the land of the Gentiles in this area was referred to by the Jews as “the land of the seven,” which referred to the seven pagan nations that had lived there. It would seem then that the number of baskets leftover after each meal is related to the places in which the meals were eaten as well as the people who ate. It would seem that Jesus is telling his disciples as they gather the leftovers that they must gather disciples not only from the twelve tribes of Israel but also from the lands of the pagans. In giving this picture, Jesus includes the Gentiles in his kingdom, placing them as insiders. The irony of this comes later in Mark when Jesus mentions “the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod” (Mark 8:15). The disciples think he is talking about how they had forgotten to bring bread along. Jesus rebukes them for their lack of understanding and asks them if they remembered how many basketfuls of bread were left over from the five thousand and the four thousand. They tell him that there were twelve and seven. Jesus then asks, “Do you still not understand?” (Mark 8:16-21). The passage ends this way, with the disciples not understanding what Jesus is trying to tell them. Again, those closest to Jesus have become outsiders when they should have been insiders. It is even more ironic that the thing in this passage that they fail to comprehend is Jesus’ indication that the Gentiles are to be included as insiders.

These reversals of binary oppositions which are seen in Mark continually indicate to the reader that the Gospel is not something that only the Jews may receive. It is for Gentiles as well. The Jews did not understand and became outsiders. The Gentiles were the ones who ended up embracing Jesus. The binary opposition of “Jew over Gentile” which stated that the Jews were God’s chosen people and superior to the Gentiles is then placed on its head since the Jews failed to recognize the Messiah and the Gentiles ended up receiving him. Moore goes on to say that this reversal became commonplace over time. However, instead of the Gentile Christians being placed on an equal level with the Jews, the Gentiles eventually came to be seen as superior to the Jews. It is this line of thinking which led to such events as the crusades in which Gentile Christians not only slaughtered Muslims, but Jews as well. Stephen Moore points out that this is also the line of thought that eventually led to the slaughter of six million Jews by Nazi Germany in the holocaust of World War II. Moore points out that while it is true that the Gospel of Mark does not portray Jesus’ Jewish disciples in the highest regard and does indeed elevate the Gentile Christian, the placement of the Gentiles as superior to the Jews has taken the reversal of the binary opposition too far. Moore points out that Jesus’ disciples eventually do not remain in their ignorant and cowardice state. While Mark’s original ending does not show this and ends with the women knowing about the resurrection but being too afraid to tell anyone, the extended edition of Mark does give a glimpse of things that are to come. Jesus’ Jewish disciples will no longer be ignorant and cowards, but will become the founders of the church which took the Gospel to both the Jew and the Gentile and proclaimed that in Christ there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). So deconstruction’s reversal of the binary opposition does not always mean that the traditionally inferior thing should be placed above the traditionally higher one, but deconstruction does say that the traditional hierarchies should most definitely be rethought.


___________________________________________________


[1] Charles E. Bressler, Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall), 126.

[2] Ibid.
[3] Stephen D. Moore, Deconstructive Criticism: Turning Mark Inside-Out, ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), 98

New Testament Topics: The Travel Narrative of Luke

Within the center of the Gospel of Luke lies a section of Scripture known as “The Travel Narrative” or “The Journey to Jerusalem.” This section of the gospel begins at chapter nine, verse fifty-one, and extends until chapter eighteen, verse fourteen. This travel narrative fits into the overall theme of Luke-Acts by the way it attempts to show the reader that Jesus came not only for the Jews and the law-keepers, but for the Gentiles and sinners as well. Luke appears to be a very Jewish work, but it deals with issues that the early Jewish Christians would have been facing, such as what to do with the Gentiles (Powell 60). This travel narrative is unique in many ways to the four gospels, including the three synoptics. While other gospels show Jesus and His disciples making their way on up to Jerusalem, Luke’s presentation of this event contains much material not seen in any of the other gospels. It is thought that much of the material Luke incorporates into this section of his gospel came from a source or sources not used in any of the other gospel accounts. These sources or source are known as “L” among New Testament scholars. What does not come from the “L” source in this section is thought to be derived from the “Q” source and Mark’s Gospel. This travel narrative contains a number of materials found in the other gospels; however, there are a great number of materials unique to this gospel (Fitzmyer 265).

In the beginning of Luke’s Gospel, the writer states that he intends to write an orderly account of the life of Jesus. When one comes to “The Travel Narrative” portion of this Gospel, however, one may recognize that this portion of the story differs from the rest of the narrative. While much of Luke appears to be in chronological order, and interested in being as historically accurate as possible, this section deviates from this pattern. “The Travel Narrative” does not pay strict attention to the order of events. For some reason, Luke decided to deter from his orderly account. However, when one looks at the structure of “The Travel Narrative” one may see that this part of the story does in fact follow an orderly pattern of thought. The arrangement of the material within this section is not according to chronology, but rather to theme.

The New International Biblical Commentary suggests that this portion of Luke is arranged according to certain themes presented in the book of Deuteronomy, and that each theme in Luke is presented in the same order as they are presented in Deuteronomy (167). For example, the event towards the beginning of “The Travel Narrative” where Jesus sends out the seventy (or seventy-two) is seen to parallel or correspond with the seventy who accompanied Moses when he went up the mountain. If this is the case, then Luke would have had to have been very familiar with the Jewish Scriptures. This idea also draws attention to the fact that Luke’s Gospel portrays a message that is different in a way than the message of Deuteronomy. While the gospel-writer does not reject Deuteronomy, he does present similar materials to those seen in Deuteronomy in a rather different light than the way they are presented in Deuteronomy.

Luke’s Gospel contains the message that Christ came to save not only the Jews, but the Gentiles (goi’im) as well. Everything within Luke’s Gospel can be seen as an attempt to show that Christianity or following Christ is not limited to the Jews. This is one reason why Luke takes Jewish ideas and concepts such as those found in Deuteronomy and presents them in a way that is favorable to the Gentiles (Evans 167-8).

At the beginning of “The Travel Narrative” it is stated that Jesus turned His face toward Jerusalem. This verse lays the foundation for all that is about to take place. From this point on, the story of Jesus is based for the most part upon His teachings, rather than upon the actual events, presumably that were given on His way to Jerusalem. These teachings are grouped together according to theme, and one should not think that one of Jesus’ sayings was immediately followed by the next. While this may be possible, it would appear to be more likely - and this taking into consideration the placements of different teachings in the other gospels as well - that the sayings and teachings of Jesus are presented according to theme, as well as according to the various points the gospel-writer was trying to make.

Near the beginning of “The Travel Narrative” Jesus is said to send his disciples on ahead of Him to prepare the way. However, when they come to a Samaritan town, and the Samaritans find out that Jesus is on His way to take care of business in Jerusalem, the Samaritans say that He and His disciples are not welcome. When the disciples report this news to Jesus, James and John (the sons of Zebedee) ask Jesus if He would like them to call down fire from Heaven upon these Samaritans. This may in fact be a reference either by the gospel-writer, or by the young disciples themselves to the famous prophet Elijah. The disciples would have known the story of Elijah calling down fire from Heaven to consume the commander and soldiers when they came from Samaria to arrest him. James and John believed that if Elijah would call down fire to destroy unbelieving Samarians, then Jesus would certainly do no less. However, Jesus rebuked the two disciples for saying such a thing. Luke uses this event to show that Jesus did not come to destroy life, but to save it. He also shows that Jesus had compassion on the Samaritans, thus indicating that Jesus came not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well (Powell 61). This is the first reinforcement of Luke’s theme of salvation for all people presented in “The Travel Narrative.”

The verses immediately following this show Jesus talking to three different people. It is likely that these three people did not approach Jesus at the same time, but that Luke recorded three different conversations and grouped them together based on their theme and in order to make a point. The three potential disciples all wish to follow Jesus, but they have various things that they would like to do first. Jesus tells each of them that if they really want to follow Him, they must give up all of these other things. This is a hard teaching, because Jesus is asking them not to do things that were considered good, even important for an individual to do, but Jesus is saying that following Him is more important than even ones family ties. There is also another reference to Elijah here. One man states that he would like to go say good-by to his family before following Jesus. This is the same request that Elisha made to Elijah when he received his calling. Elijah allowed Elisha his request, but Jesus says that whoever “puts his hand to the plow and looks back” is not fit for “service in the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). This is also a reference to the same story, for Elisha was plowing when he received his call.

In chapter ten, Jesus sends out the seventy (or seventy-two) to the towns ahead of Him to prepare them for His arrival. Jesus then is recorded as saying that those Jewish towns who reject Him will receive a worse punishment than the wicked pagan nations who did not have a chance to receive Him. Jesus indicates that the wicked Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon, and even Sodom and Gomorrah, will receive a lesser punishment than the Jewish cities that reject Him. This would appear to be another attempt by the gospel-writer to show that the Jews are no better than the Gentiles. Jesus even says that if the miracles that had been performed in the Jewish cities had been performed in the wicked Gentile cities they would have repented.

Throughout Luke, the gospel-writer has a way of turning things on their heads. He portrays Jesus as being one who has no problem with messing with people’s traditions if they interfere with the Kingdom of God. In this way, many role-reversals may be seen presented. In verse twenty-one Jesus praises His Father for hiding “these things from the wise and learned” and instead revealing them to “little children.”

Jesus also shows His willingness to upset tradition when it interferes with the Kingdom of God when he is tested by an expert in the law. Both the torah-teacher and the rabbi (Jesus) agree that the best thing one can do is to love God with all of their being, and to love their neighbor as them self. The torah-teacher sets Jesus up by asking him who his neighbor is anyway, and Jesus responds by telling a parable. In the parable Jesus says that both a priest and a Levite saw a fellow Jew left for dead on the road to Jericho, and they left the man there and went on their way. Jesus’ point is that these two thought that the laws of cleanliness were more important than the law that said to love your neighbor. Jesus then says that a Samaritan came along and helped the Jewish man left for dead. Jesus says that even this Samaritan knew which was the more important law. In making the good man a Samaritan Jesus is again showing that Gentiles are no worse than the Jews (Powell 61).

Jesus is also recorded as allowing Mary to sit at his feet like he allowed his disciples to do and listen to his teachings. This is another example of Jesus’ overturning the laws of social norms when they interfere with the Kingdom of God. Jesus came not only for men, but for women as well (Powell 63). When Martha tells Jesus to rebuke her sister Mary for not helping her with the meal preparations, Jesus says that Mary “has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her” (Lk. 10:42).

Chapter eleven begins by Jesus teaching His disciples how to pray, and then a grouping of teachings is listed on prayer. This is followed by an account of Jesus driving out a demon and a list of several sayings relating to the topic. Jesus then goes on to say that the people He has been speaking to are wicked. He emphasizes the thought that the Gentiles are no worse than these people by referring to the Ninevites who repented at Jonah’s preaching, and the Queen of the South, who sought out Solomon’s wisdom. He says that they will condemn “this generation” at the judgment for not receiving Him.

Later, Jesus again flips tradition on its head by not washing before the meal at a Pharisee’s house. Jesus uses this as an opportunity to point out that there are more important laws than washing ones hands, and the Pharisees have decided to follow the less important laws while ignoring the most important laws of loving God and loving neighbor. More of Jesus’ sayings against the Pharisees are recorded at the beginning of chapter twelve.

Luke then gives a record of Jesus’ sayings in regard to putting faith in God rather than in material things. The parable of the rich fool is recorded here, as well the famous “lilies of the field” series of sayings. Luke then records a series of teachings by Jesus on the Second Coming, saying that one must be ready for this event. Jesus calls all to repentance. In the midst of this call, Luke records a unique teaching of Jesus. Jesus goes against popular thought and says that people who had been killed tragically were not being punished by God for sin. They were no more guilty than anybody else. In this passage, Luke records the healing of the crippled woman on the Sabbath. In both stories or teachings, Luke appears to use Jewish symbolism. He uses the number eighteen to describe both the number of people tragically killed as well as the number of years this woman had been crippled by a spirit (Keck 273). The fact that her infirmity was caused by a spirit is significant. The number eighteen is essentially the same as six and six and six, indicating that her infirmity, as well as the tragic deaths of the others, were directly related to Satan. It is fitting then that Jesus heals this woman on the Sabbath, the seventh day. In this way, Luke uses Jewish convention to tell his version of the gospel. At this point, Jesus also reiterates the fact that the Pharisees have chosen to make certain rules, such a strict interpretation of keeping the Sabbath more important than the law of loving ones neighbor.

After this, Luke records Jesus’ sayings about the Kingdom of God, and includes a foreshadowing of Jesus’ soon coming death in Jerusalem. Luke also records the account of Jesus healing a man during the Sabbath meal at a Pharisee’s house in the same place where he records Jesus’ sayings on inviting the poor to banquets rather than the rich (Powell 61).This leads into Jesus’ story about the great wedding banquet. Luke then records a number of Jesus’ sayings, such as His words about counting the cost of what one does, salt without saltiness, and placing the command to follow Him above the command to love ones family.

In chapter fifteen, Luke records three of Jesus parables on searching for what is lost. In these stories, Jesus paints a picture of God that shows His character. He shows that God is a God who loves everybody dearly no matter what they have done, and longs desperately to bring them back into His presence. In the parable of the lost son, Jesus ends His story with the older brother deciding whether or not to welcome his brother back into the family as his father has done. In this way, Jesus is telling his audience to go against their tradition of excluding those who have rebelled against the community. Jesus tells them that they should always be ready to welcome these people back.

In chapter sixteen come some of Jesus’ more difficult teachings. At the center of this section of the narrative is the message that one must choose to love God over money (Powell 61). Jesus tells the story of the “shrewd” manager, and of the rich man and Lazarus. Within chapters sixteen and seventeen Luke adds some sayings of Jesus on divorce, sin, faith, and duty which seem unrelated to the other themes. Luke then reiterates the fact that Jesus is on His way to Jerusalem and proceeds to tell a story about Jesus healing ten lepers, but only the Samaritan leper coming back to thank Him. In this way, Luke again places the hated Samaritans in a favorable light.

Jesus again speaks of the coming of the Kingdom of God, pointing out that this is a spiritual kingdom. However, he goes on to say that while the Kingdom is spiritual it will take on physical form some day. Jesus then begins to speak of prayer and its part in the coming of the Kingdom. He says to pray and never give up, and he tells a story about a tax collector and a Pharisee who both prayed, but the tax collector was the one whom God accepted because he was the humble one. This is how “The Travel Narrative” ends. Up until the end, Jesus is portrayed as one who is not only for the Jews and the righteous law-keepers; He is shown throughout the narrative to be for everyone.

_______________________________________________

Sources

Evans, Craig A. (ed.) New International Biblical Commentary, 5th printing. Hendrickson Pub., Inc.: 2002. Peabody, Mass.

Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction, 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill: 2009. New York.

Powell, Mark Allan. (ed.) The New Testament Today. Westminster John Knox Press: 1999. Louisville, Kentucky.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (ed.) The Anchor Bible. The Gospel according to Luke I-IX. Bantam Doubleday Dell Pub.: 1970. New York.

Keck, Leander E. (ed.) New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. IX Luke John. Abingdon Press: 1995. Nashville, TN.