6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
11 We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.
14 If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
2 Thessalonians 3:6-13
2 Thessalonians 3:6-13
Sermon
by Leonard Sweet
The fallout from the rampant rumors about an already present Parousia manifests itself in many ways in the Thessalonian church. Having addressed the panic and fear that had assaulted some Christians who were convinced by the rumors, Paul now turns to another related result - idleness.
Paul had mentioned people who were idle or disorderly (an adverbial form of the same root) in his first letter to the Thessalonians (4:11-12; 5:14). Apparently the problem persisted. This is such an important issue to Paul and the Thessalonian community that he devotes more space to discussing the topic of idleness than he does to any other except the Second Coming itself.
Although today's epistle text is characterized by a voice of command and authority, Paul nevertheless tempers his directives with genuine compassion. He addresses the Thessalonians - even those idling and erring - as "brothers and sisters." It is out of a spirit of genuine compassion, then, that Paul now commands those not in error to "keep away" from the mistaken ones in their midst.
There is a definite military sound behind Paul's "commanding" language - magnified by the fact that "idleness" was a form of misconduct with which soldiers could be charged. Yet his command to "keep away" does not invite the complete ostracism of the idlers from the Christian community. The heart of the fellowship must be exercised about them, but they are not to be exorcised.
These "idle" ones (the NIV renders this term as "disorderly") are probably those who had become convinced that the Parousia had already come or was imminent - causing these believers to cease working altogether while they waited for Jesus' arrival. It is not unlikely that these misinformed believers also used their identity as Christians - chosen ones of the coming Lord - to envision themselves as "above" menial labor. In the Greek ideal, such labor was carried out only by slaves, not by free men.
Paul denounces this misconception with strong words and examples. In place of some Greek notion of who should work, Paul offers a far more direct teaching - those who won't work, don't eat (v.10). But before he cites that rule, Paul calls on the Thessalonians themselves to testify to the truth of Paul's argument against idleness. In verse 6, he asks them to recall that they themselves had heard Paul lecture against idleness when he was among them.
Not only did Paul teach against idleness but, as verses 7-8 report, he actively practiced what he preached. Again, Paul's tone is commanding and emphatic - "you ought to imitate us." Imitating the actions of a great leader and teacher - an apostle in fact - should not be an intimidating possibility for Christians. It is commanded of them. Imitation is not an option.
Paul's insistence that he did not "eat bread" with anyone is a common Semitism for "get a life." Paul is not denying that he enjoyed the hospitality of others while in Thessalonia. He simply means he did not depend wholly on others for his livelihood. In 1 Thessalonians 2:9, Paul has already testified that he and his companions worked very hard and with great purpose when they were among the Thessalonians.
Verse 9 reminds Paul's readers that as a preacher of the gospel, he had every right to expect a certain degree of maintenance from the community he was serving. But he did not even accept that while he was among them. He waived that privilege so he might be a better "example to imitate" for all his brothers and sisters in that community. The phrase translated "give you an example" is literally "in order that we might give ourselves" as examples - suggesting that Paul and his co-workers gave not just the message they preached, but that they gave themselves as well.
There are mixed reviews about the origins of the proverb-like "rule" Paul states in verse 10. Some scholars suggest that it is a traditional Jewish saying, while others claim it is derived from an established Greek provenance. It may be that the truth of its roots is less in any particular culture than in the international logic of workshop ethics. For Paul's purpose, and the force this rule was intended to have in the Christian community, notice that there is a focus on the will of the non-worker. If anyone won't work or is "unwilling to work," then that person "should not eat." This is not a simple statement of fact but suggests that the refusal to work prompts a moral imperative - that person should not eat.
In verse 11, Paul confronts his Thessalonian brothers and sisters head-on with the facts as he knows them. Yet, he continues to temper his theological offensive by letting those in error remain relatively anonymous. Obviously, Paul knows of a particular situation among the Thessalonians. The impression given by Paul's Greek here is that he knows the identity of these "idlers," and yet he chooses to identify them simply as being "among you." The NRSV's translation of the activities of these idlers, "busybodies, not doing any work," is accurate enough but misses the clever play on words Paul's Greek invokes.
In response to these busybodies, Paul gives his final command. He invokes the name of "the Lord Jesus Christ" to add undeniable weight and authority to his words. Yet again, there is a softening of his words, for it is coupled with his "exhortation" or "urging" toward these wrong-headed Christians for their return to right action. He identifies these idlers quite obliquely here as "such persons." This restrained term doesn't brand them again as idle or lazy, but instead lets the readers decide if they themselves are among "people of this kind." It is evident that while Paul is anxious to root out this error from the Thessalonian church, he is far more interested in achieving reconciliation rather than spewing condemnation.
In verse 13, Paul again addresses the rest of the Thessalonian community. His exhortation that they "do not be weary in doing what is right" is so general that it can apply both to this particular situation and to the whole of Christian life. But clearly, Paul intends to convey to those who have remained unshaken by the rumors of an imminent Parousia and have kept faithfully to their work that they must include in that work their continued attempts to bring their excitable, idle-handed brothers and sisters back into the fold.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Works, by Leonard Sweet
Overview: Paul takes on an authoritative tone as he confronts a persistent problem within the church (e.g., issuing commands “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” in 3:6, 12). He first commands the church to keep away from people who are “idle” (perhaps better understood as “disruptive” or busy doing the wrong kind of work) and rebellious (3:6). He reminds them of his example and teaching (3:7–10). He worked hard in ways that benefited the community rather than draining it. Responsibility and privilege should go together. But there are some in Thessalonica who are busy doing selfish and divisive things that damage the community (3:11). Paul now commands such people to “settle down and earn the bread they eat” (3:12), while the rest of the church should never tire in doing what is right (3…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
11 We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.
14 If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
Some within the Thessalonian church were not working and had become dependent on others to sustain them (3:10–12). They were “disorderly” (KJV; NIV: “idle and disruptive”) in that they did not heed the apostles’ example (3:7–9) and verbal instruction (3:10). Some suggest that the reason the Thessalonians were not working to earn their bread was that they believed that the day of the Lord had come or was at hand (2Thess. 2:1–2). Paul, however, does not directly link the present discussion with the church’s confusion about the end times. More likely, these believers had, from the beginning, resisted the apostolic instruction to abandon their status as dependent clients of rich patrons (see 1Thess. 4:11–12; 5:14). Paul’s teaching here does not, however, absolve the church from its responsibilities toward those in true need (1Thess. 4:9–10).
The first apostolic exhortation (3:6) echoes the weighty authority found in 1Thessalonians 4:1–8: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.” Separation from disobedient members was a principal form of church discipline (Matt. 18:17; Rom. 16:17; 1Cor. 5:9–13), though here it is not exercised as excommunication (3:14–15). In a collectivist society where honor is bound up with membership in the group, separation from the group would be a source of great shame and motivation to correct one’s conduct. The exhortation regards those who are idle (as in 1Thess. 5:14), a term that does not mean “lazy” but rather “out of line,” “disorderly,” or “undisciplined.” Certain Thessalonians did not live according to the apostolic teaching or tradition (see 2:15) given them through deed and word (3:7–10).
Here, as elsewhere, Paul calls the believers to imitate his and the others’ conduct (3:7). Learning by imitation was prescribed by the ancients, especially in the sphere of moral teaching about virtue and vice (3:9; Phil. 3:17; 1Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7; 1Pet. 5:3). Examples were considered more persuasive than words. Paul reminds the church that he and his associates were not idle, that is, they did not lead a disorderly life with regard to work. As 3:8 says, “nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you.” Previously the apostles reminded the church that they were not greedy and did not place any financial burden on them (1Thess. 2:7, 9). Paul also raised his voice against any who were motivated by greed (1Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; Acts 20:33; 1Tim. 6:9–10; Heb. 13:5; 1Pet. 5:2; 2Pet. 2:3). Though the apostles labored hard (Acts 18:1–5; 1Thess. 2:9) and paid for their own food, they also received support from the Philippian congregation (Phil. 4:15–16).
Paul taught that payment for Christian ministry was acceptable (1Cor. 9:7–14; 1Tim. 5:17–18; Gal. 6:6; see also Matt. 10:10), though in order to become a model for the church to follow he did not take advantage of that privilege (3:9; 1Cor. 9:15). Paul distanced himself from the practices of many itinerant philosophers of the era whose public speaking was motivated by greed for gain. His example matched his repeated exhortation to the church, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat’ ” (3:10). The rule given was an authoritative command (3:4, 12), backed by divine authority (3:6). Paul’s exhortation was about a person who is able to work and yet “is unwilling,” not those who, for whatever reason, could not work to earn their bread. Teaching about labor was part of the ethical instruction of the church (Eph. 4:28; 1Thess. 4:11–12). Paul also absolves patrons of their obligations toward their clients. The teaching, however, does not absolve the church of its responsibility toward the needy (see also 1John 3:17; James 2:14–17).
Next follows a second exhortation (3:11–12). Paul and his companions somehow heard that some members of the church were disorderly, not following the apostolic example and teaching (3:11a). They finally state how they were disorderly: “They are not busy; they are busybodies” (3:11b). “Not busy” is better translated “not working.” In a play on words in the Greek, Paul says they are busybodies, which suggests that they were meddlesome in other people’s affairs, perhaps as they took up the causes of their patrons (see 1Thess. 4:11–12). Paul again buttresses his exhortation with an appeal to divine authority (as 3:6; 1Thess. 4:1–8): “Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat” (3:12). The call to quietness (“to settle down”) appears also in 1Thessalonians 4:11. In the literature of the era it described people who were respectable and did not cause problems in the community, in contrast to those who were socially disruptive. Paul wants the believers to earn their own bread as he showed them in his example (3:7–8). This means of support causes no social scandal.
On the other hand, the church should continue to do good and support those in genuine need, never flagging in this responsibility. A third exhortation is thus offered: “And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good” (3:13; cf. Gal. 6:9–10; 1Thess. 4:9–10). Continuing to support those in need, as well as the mission, is what is good (Phil. 4:14–15). They should not become weary and abandon their efforts (Luke 18:1; 2Cor. 4:1, 16; Gal. 6:9; Eph. 3:13) in helping these.
Finally, Paul calls on the community to take disciplinary action: “Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed” (3:14). The verb “take special note” suggests disapproval and not just recognition of the problem. Such disorderly members, who had received repeated instruction and warning, were to be excluded even from the common meal of the church. These would be fully disenfranchised, and in a collectivist society the impact would have been devastating. The hope was that they would experience social shame (1Cor. 4:14; Titus 2:8), which, in a society that valued honor above all else, would have been a very effective means of social control. The church bears a responsibility to guide the conduct of its members as the group supports the common Christian virtues and helps each to avoid vice.
The situation here is not exactly parallel to 1Corinthians 5:9–11. Here the disorderly person remains a member of the community of salvation: “Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer” (3:15). Enemies were not simply tolerated during this era but rather became the object of ill will and action. Unruly members should be admonished (1Thess. 5:12, 14) as those who are part of the family of God. Such counsel and warning aims to change the conduct of a person (Acts 20:31; Rom. 15:14; 1Cor. 4:14; Eph. 6:4; Col. 1:28). There was a corporate responsibility toward the errant member.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Paul returns to the theme of idleness touched on in the earlier letter (see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11f. and 5:14). Obviously, the problem persisted. Judging by the more peremptory tone of the warning, it appears to have worsened. The amount of space allotted to the matter measures how seriously Paul regarded it. But still his pastoral concern is uppermost. The object of the exercise is to help the erring, not to punish them or make the other members feel good. In all matters of church discipline, this distinction is of prime importance. On the form of the exhortation, see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 4:1–12.
3:6 The strong-sounding verb, we command you (parangellō, see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11) affords a distinctly military ring to the whole verse. The metaphor contained in the reference to every brother who is idle of the soldier who drops out of line (ataktōs, see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:14) further enhances this tone. The command is issued, moreover, on the highest authority: in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1 and 1 Cor. 5:4f. for the use of this phrase in connection with church discipline; for the titles Lord and Christ see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). But, for all the authority with which he speaks, Paul’s affection for his readers remains. He calls them brothers (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:4), including those who are in error. The church, he says, is to keep away (stellomai, used of furling sails but here of withdrawing into oneself; cf. 2 Cor. 8:20), from every brother who is idle, literally “who walks out of line,” i.e., whose conduct is “disorderly”; (see disc. on 1 Thessalonians 2:12 for “walking” as conduct). The present tense of the participle indicates persistence in such conduct, which is not according to the teaching (paradosis; see disc. on 2:15), you received from us (paralambanō; see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:13). Some texts read, “they received,” with reference to the idlers in particular, but whether one reads you or “they” makes little difference. The church had received clear instruction by word (see disc. on 3:10) and then by letter, with regard to conduct no less than to doctrine, and the idle brother was blatantly disregarding that teaching (see further the note on this verse).
3:7 This appeal to what had been taught is supported by a reminder of the missionaries’ own conduct among them. You yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. This is not the first time that Paul cites the example of himself and his colleagues (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:5), but he does it now with special emphasis. The verb dei, NIV ought, signifies a compelling and often a divine necessity—something that springs from the will of God. We could hardly possess a stronger statement of the importance of Christian conduct or a more striking statement of Paul’s own confidence that he was setting an example for others to follow (the verb is mimeomai, “to mimic or imitate”; cf. 3:9; Heb. 13:7; 3 John 11). Not that he expected them to be a clone of himself; rather, there were so few Christian examples that it was necessary that they should follow the few that they had.
Paul gives three reasons (hoti) why the Thessalonians should follow the example set by the missionaries. First, we were not idle when we were with you. The verb atakteō corresponds to the adverb ataktōs of verses 6 and 11 and the adjective ataktos of 1 Thessalonians 5:14 (see disc. on that passage).
3:8–9 Second, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. Food in this connection represents maintenance of any kind (cf. 2 Sam. 9:7), and the missionaries had received none from the Thessalonians. On the contrary—and this is the now the third reason why the Thessalonians should follow their example—we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. The Greek understands “we ate” from the previous clause, adding the qualifying participle, “working,” to give the sense, “we ate by working night and day.” This statement repeats almost precisely 1 Thessalonians 2:9 (see disc. and note on that passage), although the reason for making it is quite different. Paul is in this instance holding himself and his colleagues up as a model to be imitated; there he was defending their motives and his own in particular against the slanders of their antagonists (see also disc. on 1 Thess. 2:9 for night and day, and on that passage again and on 1 Thess. 1:3 for laboring and toiling, kopos and mochthos). The missionaries as apostles of Christ had every right to be a burden to their hosts (cf. 1 Thess. 2:6), but they had foregone that right in order to make ourselves a model (typos, “example,” cf. Phil. 3:17) for you to follow (“to mimic,” see disc. on 3:7). Exousia meant originally the freedom to do as one pleased but came to mean right in the legal sense, the right of authority. Paul discusses this right more fully in 1 Corinthians 9:13f., where he shows that it rests on dominical authority (cf. Matt. 10:5–10; see also 2 Cor. 11:12 where in a different situation, he gives another reason for foregoing the right of support).
3:10 Not only did the missionaries model how the Thessalonians should conduct themselves in this matter of self-support, but they instructed them to the same effect and, judging by the tense of the verb (imperfect), they did so repeatedly. The sense of the Greek is: “we also (a better translation of kai than NIV’s even, meaning in addition to their example) used to command you” (parangellō, cf. 3:6 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11). That command is repeated using their original words (the Greek hoti is recitative, the equivalent of quotation marks in English): “If a man (tis could be either a man or a woman, although the reference is undoubtedly to men) will not work, he shall not eat.” The present imperative, he shall not eat, expresses a general rule. Exceptions, of course, can always be made. The words have about them the ring of a proverbial saying which, if proverbial in origin, may go back to Genesis 3:19 (cf. Gen. Rab. 2.2 on Genesis 1:2). But some suppose that it was a Greek proverb. Or it may have been a maxim coined by Paul himself. At all events, the apostle sees this saying now as indicating God’s will for his people. Strikingly, however, what is condemned is not worklessness but the unwillingness to work. The verb thelō implies a deliberate choice, a conscious decision not to work (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:14). “It is an impossible exegesis which argues (from this text) that all poverty is self-willed, a product of a welfare mentality which should be countered not with food stamps but denial of support. The implication in the letters is that these disruptive persons were perfectly capable of supporting themselves but refused to accept that responsibility, busying themselves instead by meddling in other persons’ affairs, compounding the problems they were creating” (Saunders). An implication of the rule laid down in this verse, which lay beyond Paul’s interest, is that the ability to earn one’s living is an important factor in human well-being. We should understand, then, how demoralizing unemployment is for those unable to work. For the conscious recollection of what was said when we were with you, cf. 2:5 and 1 Thessalonians 3:4.
3:11 The reason for Paul’s remarks in verses 6 to 10 surfaces: We hear that some among you are idle. Perhaps he learned this from the same report that brought news of their mistaken ideas about the Parousia (see 2:1–12), or perhaps he is referring to the original report brought by Timothy. Nothing in the text indicates that they had just learned about it now or that they had heard of it only once. Again the Greek is literally, “walking in a disorderly manner” (cf. 3:6 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:12 and 5:14). What precisely this means is explained: they are not busy; they are being busybodies. This play on words in the English reflects a similar play in the Greek, where the two participles are each based on the verb ergazō, “to work.” The second is a compound found only here in the NT, periergazomai, “to waste one’s labor about a thing,” and so “to be a busybody” (cf. 1 Tim. 5:13 for the corresponding adjective, periergos, and 1 Thess. 4:11; 1 Pet. 4:15 for similar warnings against this trait).
3:12 Paul’s response was to command and urge the idlers to settle down and earn the bread they eat—literally, that “they should eat their own bread,” perhaps with some emphasis on “their own,” since they were in the habit of eating other people’s, “working with quietness” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:11). Such quietness is the antithesis of being a busybody. Paul comes down heavily on the idlers, but even so, his pastoral concern for them is still evident. To spare their feelings, perhaps, he does not address them directly but indirectly as such people. Again, he softens the militaristic tone of we command (see on 1 Thess. 4:11) by the addition of parakaloumen, we urge, which has as much to do with encouragement as with admonition (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2). Finally, he adds the qualifying phrase, in the Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 6 the longer form is used, “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” but in the name of becomes an assertion of authority. Without it, the phrase is better understood as a reminder of where they stand and of Paul’s continuing relationship with them because of it and despite their shortcomings. They were still his brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 3:15; see note on 1 Thess. 1:1 for the titles Lord and Christ).
3:13 The admonition of this verse addresses all of the brothers (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:4). As for you—the emphatic you marking the change of reference from a particular group to the whole church—never tire of doing what is right (cf. Gal. 6:9, and for other exhortations to perseverance, 1 Cor. 15:20, 58; 16:13; Phil. 1:27f.; 2:15f.; 4:1; 1 Thess. 3:5, 13; 5:23). Paul may have had in mind specifically the attitude of the church as a whole to the idlers. The latter’s conduct may have been the cause of irritation. But irritation was no less a fault than its cause. The shortcomings of one person or group are no excuse for the failure of another. As Christians we are called to do what is right (Matt. 5:48). If Paul did have in mind a specific situation, his language gives nothing away. The prohibition never tire, in the aorist subjunctive, makes no suggestion as the present imperative would, that they had tired. The verb kalopoieō, “to do good,” is unique to this passage in the NT. The compound with kalos rather than with agathos might suggest the sense, “to be seen to do what is right”—kalos is evident goodness. But the distinction between it and agathos should not be pressed. The present participle expresses what should be habitual to Christians.
3:14–15 As in Romans 16:17 and 1 Corinthians 16:22, the letter ends with a warning: If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. The verb “to obey,” hypakouō, derives from the verb “to hear” (akouō) and means “to act on what is heard,” in this instance, our instruction, logos, “word.” The only instruction calling for obedience in this letter (the Greek is literally, “the letter,” but at the end of an epistle it was common to refer to the letter in this way) is that they should “stand firm and hold to the teachings” (2:15) and, in particular, as 3:6–16 makes clear, the teaching concerning idleness. The verb semeioō, “to take note,” has much the same sense as skopeō in Romans 16:17, “to keep an eye on” (NIV “watch out for”). It is another word peculiar to this letter in the NT. Anyone marked out as not heeding this particular teaching was to be disciplined by excluding him from the fellowship of the church: Do not associate with him (synanamignymi, lit. “to mix up [ana] together [syn]”). In 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11, the only other place in the NT where this verb is used, Paul lays it down that the church should not eat with the offender concerned. Here he may not have intended quite such a rigorous discipline. His purpose was to shame the offender into settling down and becoming a more useful member of the Christian community (v. 12). To that end, he is careful to add: Do not regard him as an enemy (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:13 for hēgeomai, “to regard”), but warn him as a brother (for noutheteō, “to admonish,” see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:12). The well-being of the offender was, for Paul, of first importance. Discipline is not to be punitive, but educative, with rehabilitation as its objective.
Additional Notes
3:6 Keep away from every brother who is idle: In the parenesis of 1 Thessalonians Paul exhorts his readers to a social responsibility (1 Thess. 4:11f.). This theme reappears in 5:14 where the idle are warned not to be idle. Both passages are explained by 2 Thessalonians 3:6–13, where Paul deals at much greater length with the same, worsening problem (G. S. Holland, The Tradition That You Received From Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988], pp. 82f., argues that the problem of the disorderly in 2 Thessalonians is a new one concerning a group setting themselves up as spiritual authorities. There is little to commend this suggestion). Most scholars find the idleness to be rooted in an eschatological excitement stemming from the Thessalonians’ belief in the imminence of the Parousia (see, e.g., von Dobschütz, Die Thessalonicher—Briefe, pp. 179–82; B. Rigaux, Saint Paul Les Epîtres aux Thessaloniciens [Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956], pp. 519–21; Best, pp. 176–78; Bruce, pp. 90f., 204–9; Morris, Themes, p. 74; for the suggestion that it was a symptom of Gnosticism, see Introduction on The Writing of 1 Thessalonians). Soon those who had left off working became impoverished and a problem for the church and possibly for non-believers. Von Dobschütz, on the basis of the classical meaning of the terms that Paul uses (“to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business,” 1 Thess. 4:11) claims that this group was warning not only believers about Christ’s return but non-believers in public places (p. 182). J. Frame adds that the idle demanded that the leaders instruct other members to support them, but this demand was tacitly rejected (1 Thess. 5:12f., 19f.). This led the idle to interfere in the management of church affairs (The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912], pp. 159–63). Some also concluded that the idle were responsible for the deception that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2; cf. C. H. Giblin, The Threat to Faith [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967], p. 147; W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], p. 268).
The traditional view that belief in the imminence of the Parousia caused this behavior has been modified by some in favor of the view that its cause lay in the belief that the kingdom of God in the final sense had fully come (realized eschatology). We have already considered and rejected this view (see note on 2 Thess. 2:2, and Introduction on The Writing of 1 Thessalonians).
More recently an attempt was made to find a sociological reason for the Thessalonians’ idleness. Some scholars suggested that it should be understood against the background of the disdain of the Greeks and Romans for manual labor (cf. W. Bienert, Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel: Eine Grundlegung Evangelischer Socialethik [Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1954], pp. 270–72; John Seventer, Paul and Seneca [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961], p. 213); others that it should be understood in terms of the practice of certain philosophical schools. The Epicureans, for example, were wont to live off others, unmoved by society’s disapproval (see Abraham Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983], pp. 24–27; idem, “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess. 2,” NovT 12 [1970], pp. 203–17; idem, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” NovT 25 [1983], pp. 238–56, for the claim that Paul used and modified Stoic language [Dio Chrysostom’s criticism of the so-called wandering philosophical preachers] and parenetic topoi from philosophic tradition). R. Russell, “The Idle in 2 Thess. 3:6–12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem,” NTS 34 (1988), pp. 105–19, contributes important insights to this discussion. “Because Paul associated the problem of disorderliness with manual workers, it is more likely,” Russell argues, “that the reason and model lies within the situation of the urban poor of the Hellenistic city. In the average Hellenistic city … the opportunities for employment were limited, and with the scarcity of work idleness was more widespread and wages even lower—many of the urban poor knew nothing but poverty” (p. 112; cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], pp. 268–69; Mikhail Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941], vol. 2, pp. 1126–27; C. Lee, “Social Unrest and Primitive Christianity,” The Catacombs and the Colosseum, ed. S. Benko, J. O’Rourke [Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971], p. 129). On occasion, however, the poor developed a relationship with a benefactor from whom they would receive support in exchange for the obligation to reciprocate with an expression of gratitude, and something of this sort may have lain behind the situation that Paul was addressing. Russell continues:
Paul’s converts included the urban poor, and some may have … formed a client relationship and obligation to a benefactor. Once brought into the circle of Christian love, they could have appeared to outsiders to be idle beggars who exploited the generosity of the Christian community without any sense of reciprocal response to their new benefactors. If Pauline churches are composed primarily of believers from a lower social position with a minority from higher social levels in positions of leadership, then the idleness is more likely expressed by believers who are manual laborers from a lower social class. Paul urges these idle poor, caught up as beneficiaries of Christian love, to work, being self-sufficient and constructive in their relationship with others (p. 113).
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by David J. Williams, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils.
To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:12; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.
Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.
Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:15). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.
On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.
Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.
All the Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.
During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).
The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (6:48–49).
In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).
Passion week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:1617; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).
The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.
The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).
Direct Matches
A description for a manner of living deemed inappropriate forthe people of God. Appearing six times in the OT and six times in theNT, this adjective is often used in connection with speech. In Isa.58:13 “idle words” involve living to please oneselfrather than God. In the book of Job, Zophar accuses Job of “idletalk” when he considers Job to be mocking God (Job 11:3). InDeut. 32:47 Moses assures Israel that the words he has declared tothem are not idle words but are in fact their life. Paul denouncesidle speech, including gossip (1Tim. 5:13) and spiritualtestimonies that glorify the speaker rather than God (Col. 2:18). Theword is also used in Scripture to denounce laziness and failing towork to provide for one’s physical needs (Prov. 31:27; Eccles.10:18; 11:6; 1Thess. 5:14; 2Thess. 3:6–13).
To appropriate the thought or behavior of others. God warnsIsrael not to imitate “the detestable ways of the nations”(Deut. 18:9; cf. Exod. 23:24; Lev. 18:3). Israel’s desire forcultural assimilation, leading to idolatry, incurs divine judgment(2Kings 17:15; Ezek. 20:32; 25:8). The NT carries forward thiswarning to Christians, who must embrace their citizenship in heaven(Phil. 3:20; cf. Rom. 12:1–2; James 4:4; 1John 2:15; 5:5,19).
Inversely,to imitate the humility of Christ, complete submission to the will ofGod, regardless of the cost, is a core virtue (Phil. 2:1–11;Titus 3:2; cf. Matt. 11:28–30). Paul invites others to imitatehim as he imitates Christ (1Cor. 11:1; 2Thess. 3:7–9;2Tim. 3:10–12). By obeying Christ, a disciple imitatesGod (Eph. 5:1–2).
Imitationincarnates faith. To this end, Jesus spends time with his disciples,allowing them to observe his way for approximately three years beforesubmitting to the painful conclusion of God’s will for hisearthly ministry (Mark 3:14; 14:36). Jesus commands his disciples toimitate his washing of their feet, a task normally reserved for thelowest household slave (John 13:12–20), and to pick up theirown crosses (Mark 8:34 pars.). “A student,” he remindsthem, “is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fullytrained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).
In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translatedas “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses thatthe laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’sinstruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God(Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah)proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of hispromises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions(dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priestsfail to give “true instruction,” they let the people goastray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly,failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’scondemnation (Ps. 50:17).
Butthe biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual isProverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim,the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction(musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting(1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similarEgyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims ofPtahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbialwriting, Ahiqar.
WhileProverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispensesadvice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element ofthe biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound tothe “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs,instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom”(chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose”woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.
Jesuswas known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in theSynoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction(Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christentails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction(logos) of Jesus (1Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone whodisregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with(2Thess. 3:14).
Instruction(didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift ofthe Holy Spirit (1Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by theone so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is tobe shared in and out of season (2Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness isalso to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by thechurch (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failureto heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God(1Thess. 4:8; 2Thess. 3:14). On the other hand,reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) shouldencourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See alsoEducation.
In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translatedas “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses thatthe laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’sinstruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God(Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah)proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of hispromises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions(dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priestsfail to give “true instruction,” they let the people goastray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly,failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’scondemnation (Ps. 50:17).
Butthe biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual isProverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim,the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction(musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting(1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similarEgyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims ofPtahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbialwriting, Ahiqar.
WhileProverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispensesadvice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element ofthe biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound tothe “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs,instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom”(chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose”woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.
Jesuswas known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in theSynoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction(Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christentails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction(logos) of Jesus (1Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone whodisregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with(2Thess. 3:14).
Instruction(didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift ofthe Holy Spirit (1Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by theone so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is tobe shared in and out of season (2Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness isalso to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by thechurch (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failureto heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God(1Thess. 4:8; 2Thess. 3:14). On the other hand,reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) shouldencourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See alsoEducation.
Godthe Worker
Abiblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of allthings. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) isused only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen.1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe Godaccomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“toform, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) areused numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans assubjects.
Thesethree terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2(cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun,moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; andhumankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man”(Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to lifeby breathing into him the breath of life.
Elsewherein the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb.banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]).Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes(lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah+ le]) a woman(Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) andstretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdomis God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), takingpart in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT revealsChrist as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3;Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in whichGod’s work is described.
HumanLabor
Ideally,work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work isone way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate tofill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28),and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take careof it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity aswell as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provisionfor the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22).The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah[see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverseworkmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement whilesubordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “thefear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work withinthe limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10),idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2Thess. 3:6–10).Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.
Butwork now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, Godcurses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into thework cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living byhardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelongreminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The bookof Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharpquestions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14;2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin anddeath haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode ofthe tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on humanpretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) isa pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self ratherthan on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2).Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and theyincur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James5:4–6).
Thus,Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenantfaithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves,and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’scommand that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation oflabor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This moveprioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythmof work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest fromhis work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it toIsrael’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; bykeeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards againstreplicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.
Exodus31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The properinterplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates thedivinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strongreminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God andIsrael. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worstuse, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool andmakes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [theirgold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24).This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery ofidol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue ofpersonal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaronseeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry byconcealing his own role in the project.
Publiclabor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingshipand engages in international trade (e.g., 1Sam. 8; 1Kings9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’sstatehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of theseestablish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that whenCyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose toremain.
TheNT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view thatwithin proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, hascome to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18),which entails calling some people away from their normal occupationsto follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness ofthe kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workersin God’s service” (1Cor. 3:9), and Christians are“God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of theresurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos),not in futility but in hope (1Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).
The English word “tradition” refers both to aprocess of transmitting information from generation to generation andto the content that is thus transmitted. Tradition can be oral orwritten, and in the context of theology and biblical studies itconstitutes a form of religious authority and a means of legitimatingcustoms and beliefs. Much of the biblical data concerning tradition,which comes primarily from the NT, is connected with the verbalnotion of “passing (something) on” or, conversely,“receiving (something).” There is also a noun meaning“tradition.” The writings of the NT are neither for noragainst traditional authority perse as a form of religiousauthority, but instead display a range of attitudes toward traditionand traditions.
Jesus’Critique of Jewish Tradition
Onone occasion, Jesus sharply rebuked the Pharisees and teachers of thelaw for “setting aside the commands of God in order to observeyour own traditions” (Mark 7:9 [cf. Matt. 15:1–20]). Thecontext of this remark is a dispute between Jesus and hisinterlocutors that arose when Jesus’ disciples were observedeating with unwashed hands. According to the Pharisees (as reportedby Matthew and Mark), this requirement was a “tradition of theelders” (Mark 7:5). Jesus, however, distinguished between humantraditions and the word of God, and he accused the Pharisees ofadhering to the former even when this conflicted with observance ofthe latter. Later written rabbinic sources posited two streams ofnormative tradition, both going back to Moses and Mount Sinai: thewritten law and the oral law. This distinction, or one like it, maylie behind Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and the teachersof the law. It is important to note that Jesus’ criticism oftradition is not simply formal (i.e., opposition to traditionalauthority as such) but is substantive, in that the Pharisees wereguilty of following traditions that prevented them from observing thecommands of Moses: “You nullify the word of God by yourtradition that you have handed down. And you do many things likethat” (Mark 7:13). The memory of Jesus’ antitraditionalposture was later invoked by the opponents of Stephen, who said, “Wehave heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy thisplace and change the customs Moses handed down to us” (Acts6:14).
Sucha negative view of tradition is also evident in Col. 2:8, where theapostle warns against captivity to “hollow and deceptivephilosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elementalspiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” Thesubsequent discussion elucidates to some extent the content of thetraditions that threatened to displace the primary orientation of thebeliever to life in Christ (2:6–7); these include circumcision“performed by human hands” (2:11), rules about eating,drinking, Sabbaths, and holidays (2:16), and rules of asceticismdesigned to restrain “sensual indulgence” (2:23).Interestingly, while Jesus set up an antithesis between thetraditions of the elders and the law of Moses, Col. 2:14 appears toidentify “the charge of our legal indebtedness” with thesystem that depends on human tradition rather than on Christ.
Thesituation represented by Col. 2:8–23 (dependence on traditionversus dependence on Christ) finds a similar expression in Paul’sautobiographical account in Gal. 1:11–24. There, Paul assureshis audience that the gospel he preached “is not of humanorigin” (v.11). Invoking the vocabulary of tradition, hecontinues, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taughtit; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (vv.12–13). Paul goes on to flesh out this antithesis betweenrevelation and tradition, particularly as it applies to his apostolicclaims: he is not against religious tradition as such, since he wasformerly “zealous for the traditions of my fathers”(v.14). Nonetheless, the radically nontraditional authority ofhis gospel is underscored by the fact that he did “not consultany human being” (vv. 16–17, 19). Of course, it is notlikely that Paul would desire to undermine tradition perse, ashe would himself rely on it as a means of propagating his own gospel.Indeed, he had already warned the Galatians against departing fromthe tradition that they had accepted from him (1:9) (see thediscussion of 1Cor. 15:1–11 below).
PositiveAttitudes toward Tradition
Incontrast to Jesus’ critique of the traditions of the eldersobserved by the Pharisees, a number of NT texts present thetransmission of traditions in a positive light. Chief among these isPaul’s discussion in 1Cor. 15:1–11 of the gospel hepreached in Corinth. In this text, he speaks of his own reception ofthe tradition (“For what I received” [v.3]), histransmission of the tradition to the Corinthians (“I passed onto you as of first importance” [v.3]), and the church’sreception of the tradition (“I want to remind you of the gospel... which you received” [v.1]). What follows,the content of the tradition, is a summary of the events of the deathand resurrection of Christ according to the Scriptures and hispostresurrection manifestation to the apostles, including Paulhimself (vv. 3–7). Previously in 1Corinthians, Paul hadcommended his audience for their fidelity to tradition: “Ipraise you for ... holding to the traditions just as Ipassed them on to you” (11:2). To return to the discussion ofGal. 1 and Paul’s radical break with tradition: for Paul, therevelation of Christ stood outside the prior stream of tradition inwhich he had been raised, but subsequently it became a new traditionto be passed on and to be held with as much zeal as the old (see Acts16:4; Rom. 6:17; 1Cor. 11:23; Phil. 4:9; 1Thess. 2:13;4:1–2; 2Thess. 2:15; 3:6).
LikePaul, other NT writers appeal to traditional authority as a means ofpassing on the faith. Jude urges his readers to “contend forthe faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people”(Jude 3 [cf. 2Pet. 2:21]). Luke’s credentials as ahistorian include his faithful transmission of the account of things“just as they were handed down to us by those who from thefirst were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2).Like Paul, Luke asserts the authority of the traditional processwhile also recognizing that the transmitted tradition had ahistorical inception in recent memory (in this case, the testimony ofeyewitnesses to the life of Jesus). In other words, the appeal is notsimply to traditional teaching perse, as if “old”is intrinsically better than “new”; rather, the story ofJesus, as new as it is in history, becomes a matter of tradition onceit has occurred and been testified to by eyewitnesses.
Traditionand Protestantism
Inbroad terms, each of the three great “religions of the book”(Judaism, Christianity, Islam) recognizes theologically normativestreams of postscriptural (or extrascriptural) tradition in additionto their sacred books. During the Reformation, Protestant theologianssought to introduce a number of corrections to medieval theologyunder the banner of a return to “Scripture alone” (solaScriptura). In response, Catholic theologians asserted the authorityof Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the teaching of thechurch). All living traditions, of course, pragmatically rely onmultiple forms of religious authority. As a result of this history,“tradition” has come to stand for an illegitimate or atleast suspect form of religious authority in some strands ofProtestant thought, wherein a radical biblicism is professed incontrast to a celebration of tradition and traditions.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
is mentioned in the definition.
Various levels of financial responsibility are recognized inthe Bible: to one’s own household, the church, the state, andthe poor. It is the responsibility of the head of a household toprovide for its members, including immediate and extended family,servants, and slaves. This provision encompasses members of the widerfamily who have been left without independent means, such as widowsand orphans. Paul instructs Timothy to ensure that children andgrandchildren extend this care to their widowed mothers orgrandmothers. Failure to provide for one’s family and householdis a grievous sin (1Tim. 5:4, 8,16).
Financialprovision for those whose lives are dedicated to ministry is theresponsibility of the church. In the OT, the Levites, who wereallocated no tribal land of their own to provide for their needs,received the tithe of the rest of the nation. In turn, they were topresent a tithe of what they received in offering to God (Num. 18:26;Josh. 18:7). Similarly in the NT, the church has financialresponsibility to provide for its ministers (2Thess. 3:8–9;1Tim. 5:17–18).
Christiansare also responsible for paying their taxes to the state, since thisauthority is also instituted by God to administer justice (Rom.13:1–7).
Theresponsibility to provide for the poor rests with all righteous menand women. Although the church has a special responsibility to carefor its own poor (2Cor. 8:1–5; 1Tim. 5:16), suchcharity is not restricted to the Christian poor but is extended toall who are in need (Prov. 14:31; 19:17).
Romans is a letter sent by Paul from Corinth to the housechurches in Rome. The letter is unique in several ways. It is thelongest of all Pauline letters, which explains why it appears firstin the NT canon (Paul’s letters are arranged in length fromlongest to shortest and divided into two groups: to churches and toindividuals). Romans is one of the last letters Paul wrote while hewas a free man. Shortly after sending it, Paul traveled to Jerusalem,where he was arrested, and subsequently spent several years in prisonin Caesarea and Rome. Romans is one of two letters Paul sent tochurches that he had never visited (the other is Colossians, a churchstarted by Paul through one of his missionary associates, Epaphras).But what sets Romans apart from the rest of his letters is this: itis the only letter Paul sent to establish contact with a church thathe did not start. Since letter production was so expensive, why didPaul send this, his lengthiest letter, to a group of people he didnot know? It seems perfectly reasonable for Paul to send letters tostraighten out problems among his own converts while he was absent,but it seems odd that he would send a very long, sophisticatedtheological argument (with several warnings) to a group of housechurches that did not know him, much less ask for his advice. Why didhe do it?
Paul’sPurpose
Romeand Spain. Paulstates his purpose for sending Romans at the beginning and toward theend of the letter. At first, he explains why he had not visited Rome,even though he wanted to come in order to “impart to you somespiritual gift to make you strong” and “that I might havea harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles”(1:11–13). Paul’s intentions are revealing. He believesthat since God has called him to be the apostle to the Gentiles(1:1), it is his duty to impart spiritual gifts to churches withGentile members as well as add to their number by converting Gentilesin their region. In other words, although Paul had never visited Romeor had a hand in starting or guiding the Roman church to this point,he believes that he is responsible for it by virtue of his calling.Therefore, since he has been unable to do the work of an apostle bycoming to them, he sends the Roman house churches a letter(15:14–16). But this is not the only reason for Romans. At theend of the letter Paul asks the Roman Christians to support hisupcoming mission to Spain (15:22–29) and to pray that God willprotect him during his visit to Jerusalem, for he expects troublewhen he arrives there (15:30–32).
Paul’srequest for financial support is a little unusual. Only a fewchurches helped him financially (Philippi and probably Antioch), andas far as we know, he did not ask for this assistance (Phil. 4:15–17;2Cor. 11:9). He preferred to support himself by working (1Cor.9:6–18; 2Thess. 3:7–10). In Paul’s day, moneycame with strings attached; clients were obligated to “obey”their patrons—an arrangement that Paul would find intolerable.So, in light of Paul’s practice of self-support, why did he askthe Roman house churches for assistance with his planned mission toSpain? And if that were his primary purpose in writing, why did hesend such a lengthy letter containing arguments that seem to havelittle to do with his request? A simple letter asking for help wouldhave sufficed. Besides breaking from his usual practice ofself-support, why would he ask the Roman church for help? Why notsend a letter to churches that he himself had started and ask fortheir help? Paul had recently finished collecting a relief offeringfrom his churches to help the poor in Jerusalem. Why did he notcollect additional funds (or use part of the money) to expand hismissionary efforts to Spain? If he was willing to be indebted tosomeone, why not let it be his own converts (especially thePhilippians)? Indeed, there seems to be more to Paul’s letterthan a request for financial aid. Apparently, Paul’s reasonsfor writing Romans go beyond his stated purposes.
TheRoman churches.Paul’s relationship with the Roman house churches may have beenmore involved than what might be presumed. At the end of the letterPaul greets at least five house churches, naming several individuals(16:5, 10–11, 14–15). It is a long list of names,especially compared to other Pauline letters. These are persons Paulknew very well, not only Prisca and Aquila (cf. Acts 18:2; 1Cor.16:19), but also Epenetus, Ampliatus, and Stachys, whom Paul calls“my dear friend” (16:5–9) as well as Andronicus,Junia, and Herodion, who are called “my relatives” (16:7,11; NIV: “my fellow Jews”). He even referred to a memberof the church as “a mother to me” (16:13). Paul also knewabout the problems in Rome (14:1–15:13) and felt obliged toclear up what others were saying about him in Rome (3:8). In otherwords, Paul and the Roman church were not strangers. He did not sendthe Roman letter to introduce himself in order to ask for help. Eventhough the apostle to the Gentiles had never visited Rome, Paul andthe Roman church knew each other. He obviously had many friends amongtheir number; several were key leaders (a group to which Paul wastrying to add Phoebe [16:1–2]). Perhaps Paul’s influencein the church was so significant that he was compelled to send theRoman letter for the same reason he sent other letters: they neededhis help in straightening out their problems. In particular, JewishChristians were not getting along with Gentile Christians—asituation that Paul had faced several times before—which theapostle addresses in the last half of the letter (9:1–15:13).But if that is the main reason for Romans, what is the purpose of thefirst half of the letter—a lengthy, sophisticated theologicalargument concerning the righteousness of God that seems to havelittle to do with ethnic divisions among Roman Christians?
Theology.Since Romans contains the clearest and most substantive theologicalargument of all of Paul’s letters, scholars wonder why he wroteit. Some have thought that Paul was trying to get his beliefs down onpaper before facing perilous times in Jerusalem. Others have argued,based on Paul’s appeal for financial support, that Romans is acondensed version of his gospel—a “this is what I preachso you can support me” letter. Recently, scholars have beenemphasizing the correlation between chapters 1–8 and 9–16.That is to say, the first half of Romans is the theologicalfoundation upon which Paul builds his argument for a unified churchthreatened by ethnic, social, and economic divisions. But what is theevidence of ethnic strife in the Roman letter? First of all, whenPaul greets certain house churches, the grouping of names revealsthat “birds of a feather flocked together.” Persons withJewish names appear together (16:1–7), separated from thosewith slave names (16:8–10a), and distinguished from those withhigh-status Greek names (16:14–15). This conforms to thedemographics of the first-century city, where Jews were segregatedfrom their neighbors and the poor lived together in the leastdesirable part of Rome. The contentious debate over food and calendarbetween the “weak” and the “strong” revealsfault lines that conform to ethnic and social divisions within thechurch: weak= Jews, strong= Gentiles (14:1–15:13).At one point, Paul even singles out his Gentile readers by issuing aspecific warning about ignoring the Jewish roots of their faith(11:13–24). With these issues in mind, scholars see how Paulfront-loaded his warnings about ethnic strife with the theologicalargument of 1:1–8:39. Indeed, Romans is a pastoral letter withtheological purpose.
Outline
I.Introduction (1:1–17)
A.Greeting (1:1–7)
B.Thanksgiving and prayer (1:8–15)
C.Thesis: the righteousness of God by faith (1:16–17)
II.The Righteousness of God by Faith (1:18–8:39)
A.Judgment of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20)
B.Righteousness of God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11)
C.Questions regarding the righ-teous-ness of God in Christ by faith(5:12–8:39)
III.Living Righteously by Faith (9:1–15:13)
A.What about Israel? (9:1–11:36)
B.Present the body as a sacrifice (12:1–21)
C.Submit to God (13:1–14)
D.Accept one another (14:1–15:13)
IV.Conclusion (15:14–16:27)
A.Paul’s purpose (15:14–33)
B.Final greetings (16:1–27)
Paul’sArgument
Themain point of Paul’s letter to the Romans is that therighteousness of God has been fully revealed in Christ Jesus.According to Paul, this is “good news” (gospel) for Jewsand Gentiles. In fact, the entire letter is Paul’s explanationof why he believes that this new revelation of God’srighteousness in Christ is good news for all people, even his ownkin. But what does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God”?Is he talking about how God makes individuals right by faith inChrist? Or is he defending God’s way of saving the world,saying that God is right to bring salvation to all people through thegospel? Does the phrase “righteousness of God” mean“personal justification that comes from God” or “thejustice of God”? What makes Paul’s meaning even moreconfusing for speakers of English is that one Greek word (dikaiosynē)can be translated three ways: “righteousness,” “justice,”or “justification.” Thus, there are those who argue thatPaul emphasizes personal righteousness—that is, how a personcan have right standing with God. Others, however, maintain that Paulis arguing for his gospel as an undeniable demonstration of God’sjustice—that is, how God’s character as a just God isrevealed through the salvation of the world through Christ (not onlysons of Abraham, not only sons of Adam, but all creation). Thedifferent emphases have significant implications for Paul’sargument.
Judgmentof God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20).Take, for example, Paul’s view of the law and how it functionsin the first part of Romans (1:18–3:20). Some take 3:20 as theclimax of this part of the argument, where Paul assigns one purposeto the law: to define sin. So according to this line ofinterpretation, Paul believes that God gave the law in order to showhumanity’s need of Christ. Since no one is able to keep thewhole law, especially those to whom it has been given, the Jews, then“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”(3:23). The implication, of course, is that God gave the law in orderto reveal to people Israel’s failure so that Israel wouldrecognize their need for a righteousness that depends not onobedience but on God’s free gift through Christ. But there aretwo problems with this approach: Paul is offended by the idea thatGod gave the law to the Israelites in order to cause them to “stumbleso as to fall” (11:11–12), and he also maintains thatthere were some who kept the law (Gentiles!), proving that “doersof the law will be justified” (2:13–14 NASB, NKJV). Inother words, the law is God’s gift to Israel that is supposedto give it an advantage when it comes to righteousness (3:1–2).But the Jews disobeyed God (2:17–24), incurring his wrath( just like the Gentiles [1:18–32]). So Paul makes theargument that God is right to punish Israelites (as well as theGentiles) for their disobedience (2:1–12): “There will betrouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first forthe Jew, then for the Gentile” (2:9). In other words, 1:18–3:20is not only an argument for the universality of sin (which neitherJew nor Gentile would deny) but also a justification of therevelation of God’s righteous wrath against all ungodliness anddisobedience, even for the Jewish people. Paul is pointing out thejustice of God by emphasizing his impartial punishment of sin.
Butthis is where an interlocutor (a hypothetical opponent of Paul) couldraise an objection: “But we Jews have the covenant with God,consisting of laws and promises from God. God promised to bless thesons of Abraham and gave us the law—with all the prescriptionsfor sacrifices and atonement—to deal with sin. We will escapeGod’s wrath because God is faithful even though we are not.”Even though Paul’s interlocutor does not use these words, thisis the basis of the argument that Paul puts into the mouth of hisimaginary opponent in 3:1–8. The interlocutor essentially says,“If our sin reveals the righteous wrath of God, then Paul issaying that our disobedience serves his purpose. Why should we bejudged as sinners?” In other words, what is the point of thecovenant if God’s chosen people are no better off than paganson the day of judgment? But this is the very point that Paul willcontend with on two counts. First, who says that God’s chosenpeople do not have an advantage in preparing for the day of judgment(an argument that he will come back to in 9:1–11:32)? Second,who says that the law is God’s only requirement of the covenant(a question that he answers in 3:21–5:21)? Throughout theentire Roman letter Paul holds two seemingly contradictory ideas intension: the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Abrahamis not contingent upon Israel’s obedience (God is faithful),and not every descendant of Abraham will realize the covenantpromises of God (only those who have faith like Abraham). The reasonfor the tension is that a new kind of righteousness has been revealedapart from the law (although predicted by the Law and the Prophets),fulfilling the salient requirement of the covenant. Those who believethat the righteousness of God is found in Christ will inherit thepromises of God to Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile. Therefore,Christ’s followers are the sons of Abraham, the children of thecovenant, justified by faith, not by law. All of this is by divinedesign—what Paul calls “predestination.”
Righteousnessof God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11).According to Paul, sacrifices prescribed by the law only deferred thewrath of God. “In his forbearance he had left the sinscommitted beforehand unpunished” (3:25). On the other hand,Jesus’ sacrificial death, a public display of God’srighteousness, atones for the sins of Jews and Gentiles “at thepresent time” (3:25–30). To describe the justification ofChrist’s death as an act of redemption, Paul uses a technicalword, “propitiation” (v.25 [NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”]), which has two meanings: either God’srighteous requirement was “satisfied” by the blood ofChrist, or God’s wrath was “appeased” by the bloodof Christ. Either way, at this point we might have expected Paul toexplain how Christ’s death satisfied the requirements of thelaw by offering the perfect sacrifice (much like the argument ofHebrews). Instead, he emphasizes the role of faith in this newrevelation of God’s righteousness: both the faith(fulness) ofJesus and the faith of those who believe in him (the phrase oftentranslated “faith in Jesus Christ” might also mean“faithfulness of Jesus Christ” [3:22, 26]). This does twothings at once: it makes the righteousness of God available toGentiles as well as Jews because it is based on faith (“Is Godthe God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, ofGentiles too” [3:29]), and it elevates the role of faith aboveworks of the law in the story of God’s covenant with Israel(“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apartfrom the works of the law” [3:28]). In other words, byprivileging faith over works of law, Paul has made a way for Gentilesto realize the promises God made to Abraham and has established thesupreme requirement of the Abrahamic covenant for Jews. This is whyscholars say that 4:1–25 (Paul’s interpretation of God’scovenant with Abraham) is crucial to his argument for therighteousness of God in Christ.
Abrahamwas God’s first Gentile convert. That is to say, Abraham was anuncircumcised Chaldean when God established his covenant with thefather of Israel. For Paul, the sequence of the story is pivotal tohis argument. In 4:3 he quotes Gen. 15:6, “Abraham believedGod, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and pointsout that God’s righteousness was “credited” or“reckoned” to the patriarch because of his faith while hewas still uncircumcised (Rom. 4:10–12). Abraham believed God’spromise of making him the father of many nations even though he hadno son. Faith in God’s promise is what made this uncircumcisedman righteous. Furthermore, because of his faith, the promise of Godwas fulfilled: Abraham not only became the father of Israel; hebecame the father of all nations (Gentiles) who have faith likeAbraham. And what kind of faith is that? It is a resurrectionfaith—one who believes that God gives life to the dead, notonly dead loins and a dead womb, but also a dead man (4:16–25).So the righteousness of God is “reckoned” for “uswho believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He wasdelivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for ourjustification” (4:24–25). Faith in the promise of God isthe requisite of covenant blessing. For if the covenant were based onworks of law, then Israel would be the only beneficiary of God’sgrace, and the promises God made to Abraham—that he would bethe father of many nations—would be made void (4:13–15).“Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be bygrace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—notonly to those who are of the law but also to those who are of thefaith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (4:16).
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus changed everything. It turned God’senemies into friends. It brought peace to those who deserved God’swrath. In Christ’s death, God loves the ungodly. In Christ’sresurrection, hope befriends the helpless. When Paul spells out theadvantages of the righteousness of God in Christ in 5:1–11, itreads like a condensed version of all that is right with the gospelaccording to Paul. His favorite triad is there: faith, hope, love. Heemploys his favorite metaphors to explain the meaning of thesacrifice of Christ: justification and reconciliation. He writes ofsalvation in every tense: past, present, and future. In fact, therest of the argument in 5:12–8:39 is Paul’s explanationof what he means in these few verses, gathering up issues raised atthe beginning of the letter—the problem of sin, the law, andthe righteousness of God.
Questionsregarding the righteousness of God in Christ by faith (5:12–8:39).Paul once again begins with the human condition: the law of sin anddeath reigns in the world because of Adam. But where the first Adamfailed, the second Adam (Christ) has succeeded: because of hisobedience, grace reigns eternally through his righteousness(5:12–21). How does this righteousness apply to Christbelievers, especially Gentiles without law? Sin was crucified withChrist so that believers can be slaves of righteousness, freed fromthe bondage of sin (6:1–23). Furthermore, believers have beenfreed from the law, a spiritual and holy gift that sin used to arousethe flesh, effecting death (7:1–25). What the law could not do(bring life) because of the weakness of the flesh, God did by sendinghis Son in human flesh in order to condemn sin, bring aboutjustice/righteousness required by the law, and provide his Spirit toenable believers to have resurrection life (8:1–27). This hasbeen God’s plan from the beginning (predestination): he willhave a people (election) like Jesus Christ ( justification),who will share in his resurrection (glorification). And what Godstarts, he finishes. Nothing can frustrate the plans of God. His loveis too great; his power is irrepressible (8:28–39). Since Godis the one who justifies the “elect,” no charge can bebrought against them (8:33).
Paul’sAdvice
Theconclusion to Paul’s argument—believers in Christ can donothing to jeopardize God’s love for them as his “elect”—bringsto mind the problem of Israel’s rejection of the gospel(9:1–11:32). If Paul believes that God’s promises areirrevocable, should not the same apply to Israel? If therighteousness of God is found in Christ, what does this mean for Jewswho do not believe in Jesus? Does their unbelief undermine God’sfaithfulness? This was more than a theological problem for Paul.Ethnic issues threatened to divide the church in Rome. Evidently,Gentile believers were displaying an arrogant attitude toward Jewishmembers of the church (11:13–24), contemptuous of their dietaryrestrictions and Sabbath observances (14:3–6). Perhaps Paul’snotorious reputation as a lawbreaker (3:8) added fuel to the fire ofethnic strife and emboldened Gentile believers to disregard Jewishsensibilities with smug confidence, especially in a place such asRome, where tensions between Jews and Gentiles were prevalent. Or,maybe Paul had nothing to do with it; Gentile contempt for Jewishpeople and their ways was an unfortunate by-product of the argumentfor Gentile inclusion: the law no longer defined righteousness (“Whoneeds the Jews and their law?”). Whatever the cause, Israel’srejection of the gospel coupled with the historical problem of Jewversus Gentile was a delicate issue that required a carefully nuancedanswer from Paul (9:1–11:32), setting up his advice for housechurches that needed to learn how to get along with one another(12:1–15:13).
Whatabout Israel? (9:1–11:36).Paul uses Isaiah’s idea of a faithful remnant to explain howGod’s promises to Abraham are fulfilled despite Israel’sdisobedience (9:27–11:10). In this case, the disobedient ofIsrael are made evident by their refusal to believe in the gospelaccording to Paul (10:5–21). Because they prefer arighteousness of their own (a Jewish kind of righteousness), zeal forthe law has made them ignorant of the righteousness of God in Christ(9:30–10:4). But does Jewish unbelief compromise God’sfaithfulness, jeopardizing God’s promise to Abraham? No, foraccording to Paul, not every descendant of Abraham inherits thecovenant blessings (e.g., Ishmael and Esau [9:6–26]). So, ifGentiles are grafted into the tree of Abraham’s descendants byfaith, and Jews who deny the righteousness of God in Christ arebranches broken off the tree of promise, does this mean that God hasgiven up on Israel (11:11–24)? No, because Paul believes that“Israel has experienced a hardening in part” (11:25).Eventually, the hearts of the Jews will soften to the gospel, becausethey will be jealous of God’s covenant blessing extended toGentile believers, and “all Israel will be saved” in theend; the natural branches cut off from the olive tree will be graftedback into Abraham’s family tree (11:11–15, 24–32).Here Paul inverts the Jewish eschatological expectation that Gentileswill be saved before the end of the world because of their jealousyof God’s blessings for his people, Israel (Isa. 19:23–25;49:6–7). In the end, then, God’s mercy triumphs over alldisobedience (whether Jewish or Gentile) because “God’sgifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).
Presentthe body as a sacrifice (12:1–21) and submit to God (13:1–14).Because of God’s mercies for Jews and Gentiles, Paul appeals tothe house churches in Rome to sacrifice themselves for the cause ofChrist (12:1–2). What does a life of surrender look like? Itmeans keeping overinflated self-esteem in check (12:3) and affirmingthe diversity of the body of Christ, meeting the needs of allmembers, and overcoming evil with good by avoiding revenge, helpingenemies, and submitting to Roman law (12:4–13:7). Love is thekey to this life of sacrifice, in which the believer wears the LordJesus Christ like an armor of righteousness, knowing that the day ofsalvation draws near (13:8–14). In the meantime, believers mustaccept one another “just as Christ accepted you, in order tobring praise to God” (15:7). Indeed, for Paul, Christ is thesupreme example of sacrifice because he “did not pleasehimself” but rather took on the sins of the circumcised and theuncircumcised (15:3–9).
Acceptone another (14:1–15:13).Thus, since Christ was a servant to Jews and Gentiles, how much moreJewish and Gentile Christ believers should serve one another. Jewishmembers of the Roman church should quit judging believers who eatmeat, drink wine, and recognize every day as a holy day (14:1–12).Gentile members should stop parading their freedom to eat and drinkwhatever they want (14:13–23): “If your brother or sisteris distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting inlove. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died”(14:15). Regarding these gray areas, each person should operateaccording to his or her own conviction before God (14:22–23).But when it comes to the bonds of fellowship, Paul encourages them tohave “the same attitude of mind toward each other that ChristJesus had” (15:5). So Paul’s innocuous request of thesegregated house churches may reveal a unifying strategy: “Greetone another with a holy kiss” (16:16).
Both Testaments proclaim, “The earth is the Lord’s,and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1; 1Cor. 10:26). Only theLord and Creator of the universe can rightfully claim ownership overanything, be it physical, spiritual, or moral (Job 41:11). Thus,“every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down fromthe Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). He even ownshuman beings themselves. In a biblical worldview, God alone exercisesownership. People, however, exercise stewardship over what he hasgiven.
Scriptureguides and regulates human relationships with respect to owningproperty. While people are ultimately only stewards, they must neverwrongly take or desire what God has entrusted to others. ThereforeGod commands, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15) and“You shall not covet” (20:17). The book of Proverbsexplains how to wisely dispose of one’s goods (Prov. 3:9, 10;11:25; 22:9), as does Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt.25:14–30). Numerous passages teach that human “ownership”should be earned through work, if possible (Jer. 29:5–7;2Thess. 3:10). People should acknowledge their possessions asgifts from God by giving to the poor (Eph. 4:28) and to God’sappointed leaders, both secular and Christian: “Give back toCaesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”(Mark 12:17 [cf. Rom. 13:6; 1Tim. 5:18]).
Infact, the whole Bible can be read as the drama of the divine ownerrelating to his human stewards. At creation, God charges Adam and Eve“to work ... and take care of” the garden(Gen. 2:15), thereby entrusting all creation to human care. Indisobedience they abuse their stewardship, as will their offspring.In the fall, humankind forfeits God’s benefits in paradise(Gen. 3); he disowns his unfaithful stewards. The rest of Scripturerelates how God redeems a people for himself, adopting thedisinherited back into his household. He begins by promising Abrahamthat his offspring, Israel, will possess a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:8),which will be a kind of new paradise (Exod. 3:8). The Israelitesconquer the territory, but over time they prove to be unfaithfulstewards. After breaking God’s covenant, they lose the land inexile.
Jesus’parable of the landowner in Matt. 21:33–44 is basically acapsule version of this grand biblical story. Both come to a climaxwhen God sends his Son, Jesus Christ. He comes to “buy back”his people from their sins as the one faithful servant (Mark 10:45),even unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Jesus pays for his elect’sadoption with his blood, so now believers partake in God’sownership over all things. “All things are yours, whether ...the world or life or death or the present or the future—all areyours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (1Cor.3:21–23).
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians addresses achurch troubled by an overly realized eschatology. Whereas at thetime ofthe first letter the Thessalonians were expecting theimminent return of Christ (1Thess. 5:6), by thetime ofthe second letter some believed that Christ had already come(2Thess. 2:2). Because of this, some were being drawn fromtheir work into idleness (2Thess. 3:6). Paul’s purpose,then, was to correct their eschatology, restore them to their tasks,and rebuild their confidence in Christ. He does this both byemphasizing Jesus Christ as Lord (the letter is uniquely consistentin the NT in applying the title “Lord” [Gk. kyrios] toJesus) and by describing two apocalyptic events that must happenbefore the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ: the great apostasy andthe appearance of the man of lawlessness (2Thess. 2:3).Scholars have noted that Paul most often refers to Jesus as Lord inhortatory and eschatological passages. Indeed, though brief,2Thessalonians emphasizes exhortation and eschatology.
LiteraryConsiderations
Authorshipand the question of pseudo-nymity. Asearly as AD 110, Polycarp of Smyrna alluded to 2Thessaloniansin his letter to the Philippians (Pol. Phil. 11:4), and both Marcionand the Muratorian Canon refer to the epistle. It was known toIgnatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. In the modern era,beginning at the end of the eighteenth century, the Paulineauthorship of the epistle was questioned, first by J.E.C.Schmidt, then by F.C. Baur, and more fully by W.Wrede,who dated the letter to a little before the date implied inPolycarp’s letter.
Comparisonof 1 and 2Thessalonians.The case for pseudonymous authorship depends largely on a comparisonbetween 1Thessalonians and 2Thessalonians. The lettersshare a number of similarities in language, style, and content,including similarly worded salutations (1Thess. 1:1; 2Thess.1:1–2), expressions of thanks (1Thess. 1:2; 2:13; 3:9;2Thess. 1:3; 2:13), intercessory prayers (1Thess. 3:11;2Thess. 2:16), references to the broad reputation of theThessalonian church (1Thess. 1:1–10; 2Thess.1:3–4), the persecution of the Thessalonian church (1Thess.2:14–16; 2Thess. 1:5–10), divine election (1Thess.1:4; 2Thess. 2:13), references to a personalized antagonist(“Satan” in 1Thess. 2:18; “the evil one”in 2Thess. 3:3), the exhortation to avoid idleness (1Thess.4:11–12; 5:14; 2Thess. 3:7–13), a common concernfor the parousia and its anticipation (1Thess. 4:13–5:11;2Thess. 2:1–11), and a number of stylistic resemblances(cf. 1Thess. 3:11 with 2Thess. 2:16; 1Thess. 4:1with 2Thess. 3:1; 1Thess. 5:23 with 2Thess. 3:16).
Inaddition to resemblances, advocates of pseudonymous authorship haveperceived some deep discontinuities between the letters. Thequestion, then, is to devise a theory to explain both types offeatures (see below). In 1Thessalonians the parousia isdepicted as an imminent event that could occur at any moment, “likea thief in the night” (1Thess. 5:2), whereas in2Thessalonians the basic supposition is that the end will comenot unexpectedly but only following the series of public eventsdescribed in 2Thess. 2:3–4. The imminent tone of1Thessalonians can be compared to that of 1Corinthians(an undisputedly Pauline letter), while the attitude of2Thessalonians and its acceptance of an indefinite delay of theparousia find no obvious parallel in the other letters widelyaccepted as written by Paul, but have been described as best fittinga context in the last quarter of the first century, within the milieuof eschatological debate that gave rise to two other disputed Paulineletters, Ephesians and Colossians. Although we should not facilelyharmonize the differences between the letters, neither should weoverstate the imminence of eschatological expectation in1Thessalonians, where, as in 2Thessalonians, Paul remindshis readers that in fact they will not be surprised by the parousia(1Thess. 5:4)—although, admittedly, less apocalypticdetail is given than in 2Thessalonians. Moreover, both lettersgive ample attention to life in the period of eschatologicalanticipation (2Thess. 3:1–16), particularly to thetemptation to idleness (1Thess. 4:11–12; 5:14; 2Thess.3:7–13).
In2Thess. 2:2 the author warns against letters circulating inPaul’s name but falsely attributed to him. As proponents of thepseudonymous authorship of 2Thessalonians have pointed out,this problem is unlikely to have arisen during the lifetime of Paulhimself, as he would have been able to discredit such letters. Also,the handwritten signature at the end of the letter (2Thess.3:17 [the rest of the letter would have been dictated to a secretary,as in Rom. 16:22]) and the special emphasis placed on it (compared to1Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; and in a disputed Pauline letter, Col.4:18) have been taken as indicating an attempt to deceive, or atleast as consistent with what a pseudonymous author would have deemednecessary to pass off the letter as the work of the famous apostle.Of course, this argument depends on the fact that Paul actually didsign some of his genuine letters in this way, though 2Thess.3:17 does admittedly go beyond the other examples listed as a pleafor authenticity, even to the point of raising suspicion. On theother hand, if falsely attributed letters were being passed around inPaul’s lifetime, the extra emphasis on his personal mark wouldbe called for.
Finally,some have described a shift in tone between the two letters, fromjoyfulness to somberness. Supposing that 2Thessalonians waswritten some years after 1Thessalonians and the death of Paul,this has been taken as a reflection of eschatological disappointmentduring the interim and a readjustment of expectations to the realityof a longer-than-anticipated delay in the parousia. However, thedifference in tone, as well as the difference in theological emphasisnoted above, might simply reflect differences in the sets ofcirc*mstances that occasioned the two letters, and the tone of bothletters could be construed as coming from the mind of a singleauthor.
Relationshipbetween 1 and 2Thessalonians.Considering similarities and differences together, the proponents ofpseudonymous authorship judge the theological, linguistic, andstylistic differences to be substantive and real and to reflect botha significant lapse in time and the work of two distinct authors. Inthis view, the long list of resemblances indicates only that2Thessalonians is a rather studied imitation of1Thessalonians. If Paul wrote both letters, why would he haverepeated so much of his earlier letter in the second and done sowithin a relatively short span of time? As alternatives to the theoryof pseudonymous authorship, several proposals have been advanced toexplain this unexpected behavior, including the notions that theletters were addressed to two groups within the city of Thessalonica(Jewish and Gentile); that each letter reflects the differingauthorial contributions from the three senders of both letters (Paul,Silas, and Timothy [1Thess. 1:1; 2Thess. 1:1]); that oneof the letters was addressed privately to a restricted group withinthe community; that 2Thessalonians was written not shortlyafter 1Thessalonians but rather following a second visit toThessalonica (see Acts 20:1–2), during which developments notrecorded in Acts would have set the stage for the distinctiveemphases of the second letter; or that reversing the chronologicalpriority of the letters so that 2Thessalonians preceded1Thessalonians provides a scenario in which the Paulineauthorship of 2Thessalonians can plausibly be maintained. Atpresent, the authorship of 2Thessalonians remains a matter ofdispute among biblical scholars.
Theologicalconsiderations.Apart from the internal evidence discussed above, the theory ofpseudonymous authorship raises theological questions. How does thepossibility that Paul did not write the letter bear on the authorityof this letter as Scripture? Is the intent to deceive as to theauthorship of the letter consistent with the belief that the letterwas divinely inspired by a holy God? In terms of its history ofreception, 2Thessalonians has the highest pedigree and, asnoted above, was alluded to as early as the first part of the secondcentury. The Pauline authorship of the book and its status in thecanon do not seem to have been a matter of dispute in antiquity.Responding to critical assessments of the book’s authorship anddate in the modern era (and more broadly to assessments of other“disputed Pauline letters”), some evangelical theologiansand biblical scholars have argued that epistolary pseudepigraphy wasnot considered respectable in antiquity; that is, such a practice wasconsidered tantamount to forgery and an intent to deceive. The earlychurch would not have knowingly accepted into the canon any letterknown to have been pseudepigraphically authored and promulgated. Inlight of this reconstruction of ancient attitudes, the proposal ofpseudonymity in the case of 2Thessalonians and other supposedlyPauline letters becomes a significant theological problem.
Inaddressing this issue, it should be noted that the concept ofauthorship was and is somewhat flexible. Paul did not likely writewith his own hand any of the letters in the NT, apart from adding hissignature at the end of 1Corinthians, Galatians, and possibly2Thessalonians and Colossians. In each instance the degree towhich the scribe or amanuensis contributed to the wording or contentof each letter (see Rom. 16:22) is unclear. In the case of2Thessalonians and some other Pauline Epistles, the letteroriginated from a group of three associates: Paul, Silas, andTimothy. It is unclear to what extent Silas and Timothy should beconsidered as having made an authorial contribution to the letter.Admittedly, the theory of pseudonymous authorship of 2Thessaloniansgoes far beyond any of these cases, since, as generally articulated,it involves dating the letter to the last quarter of the firstcentury, at least ten years or so after the death of Paul. In termsof the theological problem described above, a letter authored inPaul’s name under such circ*mstances represents a qualitativelydifferent scenario than one written by associates during his lifetimeyet ultimately knowingly authorized and sent (and signed) by theapostle himself. Still, the range of meanings entailed in the conceptof “authorship” should lead to circ*mspection inevaluating the theological implications of the theory of pseudonymousauthorship. Reducing this theory to the possible element of deceptionmay risk oversimplifying and even demonizing the motivations and aimsof the pseudonymous author. (See also Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity.)
Date.As is obvious from the foregoing discussion of authorship, the dateof 2Thessalonians is bound up in the question of authorship. IfPaul wrote 2Thessalonians, it would have to have been prior tohis death in the mid-60s. FirstThessalonians was likely writtenaround AD 50, and 2Thessalonians may have been written shortlythereafter, if it was written prior to Paul’s second visit tothe region of Macedonia (Acts 20:1–2), during his time inCorinth (18:1–5) or Ephesus. A second visit to the city is notmentioned in 2Thessalonians, and in contrast to the evidence ofActs 18:5 regarding the second missionary journey of Paul, we cannotwith certainty place the three authors of 2Thessalonians (Paul,Timothy, and Silas) together at a later date. Advocates ofpseu-don-y-mous authorship usually date the letter to the lastquarter of the first century in order to allow some time for thesupposed development in eschatological expectation between the twoletters, and probably also for the collection of Paul’s lettersin later years to provide the background for the reference in2Thess. 3:17 to “all my letters.” At any rate, itshould be dated prior to the composition of Polycarp’s letterto the Philippians around AD 110.
Ifpseudonymous authorship is accepted, then two passages in the letterthat refer to events after Paul’s death may bear on a moreprecise dating of the composition. First, the reference to “God’stemple” in 2Thess. 2:4, if it refers to the temple inJerusalem, would suggest a date prior to AD 70, when that edifice wasdestroyed. Second, some have argued that the reference to therevelation of the “man of lawlessness” in 2Thess.2:3 refers to an expectation that the emperor Nero was to come backfrom the dead. This would suggest a date after Nero’s death inAD 68. Both passages can be explained in other ways: the figure ofGod’s temple continued to be invoked symbolically after AD 70,and the “man of lawlessness” is obscure enough to inspirecaution in too quickly identifying him with a historical person.
Outline
I.Introductory Greeting and Thanksgiving (1:1–12)
A.Greetings from Paul, Silas, and Timothy (1:1–2)
B.Thanksgiving (1:3–10)
C.Prayer (1:11–12)
II.The Coming of Christ (2:1–12)
A.Warnings against reports that Christ has come (2:1–2)
B.The man of lawlessness and the great apostasy must come first (2:3–7)
C.God will ensure the destruction of both through Christ (2:8–12)
III.Exhortations (2:13–3:15)
A.Thanksgiving and prayer (2:13–3:5)
B.Exhortation to avoid idleness in themselves and in others (3:6–15)
IV.Closing Prayer and Benediction (3:16–18)
The slothful person or “sluggard” (NIV) is arecurring theme in the book of Proverbs. The Hebrew word, ’atsel,occurs fourteen times in Proverbs and nowhere else in the OT. Thesluggard stands in contrast to the diligent or upright person,exemplifying folly by being disinclined to take responsibility forself-provision. This is sometimes stated in an exaggerated manner: “Asluggard buries his hand in the dish; he will not even bring it backto his mouth!” (Prov. 19:24). Sluggards are portrayed asindulging excessively in sleep (6:9), making excuses for inactivity(22:13), and exasperating those who depend on them (10:26).Ultimately, the sluggard’s ways result in self-imposedprivation (13:4; 20:4; 24:33–34). Ironically, sluggards thinkthat they are wise (26:16; cf. 14:12).
Ageneral concern for idleness and laziness is found in the wisdombooks (Prov. 10:4; Eccles. 10:18) and in Paul’s letters(1Thess. 5:14; 2Thess. 3:6–7). In the latter,idleness is twice associated with “busybodies” (2Thess.3:11; 1Tim. 5:13), revealing the negative impact that idlenesshas upon a community (idleness leads to gossip, producing divisionand strife).
Asidefrom physical idleness, Heb. 6:12 warns against spiritual sloth,which undermines faith. Jesus warns against indifference to the Sonof Man’s appearing, reflected in his condemnation of thesquandering of one’s “talents” in the meantime(Matt. 25:14–30 NIV mg.).
Godthe Worker
Abiblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of allthings. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) isused only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen.1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe Godaccomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“toform, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) areused numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans assubjects.
Thesethree terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2(cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun,moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; andhumankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man”(Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to lifeby breathing into him the breath of life.
Elsewherein the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb.banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]).Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes(lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah+ le]) a woman(Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) andstretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdomis God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), takingpart in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT revealsChrist as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3;Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in whichGod’s work is described.
HumanLabor
Ideally,work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work isone way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate tofill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28),and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take careof it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity aswell as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provisionfor the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22).The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah[see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverseworkmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement whilesubordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “thefear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work withinthe limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10),idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2Thess. 3:6–10).Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.
Butwork now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, Godcurses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into thework cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living byhardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelongreminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The bookof Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharpquestions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14;2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin anddeath haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode ofthe tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on humanpretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) isa pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self ratherthan on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2).Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and theyincur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James5:4–6).
Thus,Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenantfaithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves,and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’scommand that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation oflabor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This moveprioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythmof work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest fromhis work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it toIsrael’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; bykeeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards againstreplicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.
Exodus31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The properinterplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates thedivinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strongreminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God andIsrael. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worstuse, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool andmakes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [theirgold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24).This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery ofidol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue ofpersonal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaronseeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry byconcealing his own role in the project.
Publiclabor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingshipand engages in international trade (e.g., 1Sam. 8; 1Kings9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’sstatehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of theseestablish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that whenCyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose toremain.
TheNT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view thatwithin proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, hascome to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18),which entails calling some people away from their normal occupationsto follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness ofthe kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workersin God’s service” (1Cor. 3:9), and Christians are“God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of theresurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos),not in futility but in hope (1Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).
Governmental agencies established to distribute money,vouchers, medical coverage, and other necessities to those who are inneed and who qualify for such distributions according togovernment-established rubrics. Welfare programs as we know them inour own modern societies are modern creations of secular states andare not aspects of the biblical or ancient Near Eastern world. TheBible, however, significantly addresses the complex subject ofpoverty and Israel’s responsibility to the poor.
TheOT emphasizes Israel’s responsibility for the poor, especiallyfellow Israelites, but also foreigners sojourning in Israel (Exod.22:25; Lev. 25:25, 35; Ruth 2:10). Because of the blessings bestowedon them by God, Israelites were commanded to be personally generousto those in need (Lev. 25:36–38; Deut. 15:7–13). Theywere to underharvest their fields, vineyards, and groves so that thepoor might glean from them (Lev. 19:9–10; Deut. 24:19–22;Ruth 2:2–3, 7–11). Those who aided the poor were promisedblessing (Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:27).
Thepowerful were not to oppress the poor by lending to them usuriously(Lev. 25:36–38) or enslaving them indefinitely (Lev. 25:39–42;Deut. 15:12; 24:14–15). Oppression was a grave offense becauseGod had led Israel out from oppression in Egypt (Exod. 22:21; 22:9;Ps. 72:4, 12–14; Prov. 22:16; Jer. 22:17–19; Ezek.18:5–9; 22:29–31; Amos 4:1–3).
Particularlyin Proverbs, Israel is also cautioned against behaviors that lead topoverty, including sloth (6:6), slacking (10:4), neglectingdiscipline (13:18; 20:13), loving sleep (20:13), loving pleasure(21:17), heavy drinking and gluttony (23:21), and empty pursuits(28:19).
TheNT builds and expands on the OT’s admonitions about treatmentof the poor. Giving to the poor remains an imperative (Acts 2:45;Rom. 12:13; James 2:15; 1John 3:17), but it is to be donewithout fanfare (Matt. 6:2–3; Mark 12:38–40). Generosityought to be from the heart and regardless of means (Luke 21:2–4;2Cor. 8:1–5), yet not under compulsion (2Cor.8:8–9; 9:7). Christians are called to assume responsibility forthemselves (2Cor. 11:9; Eph. 4:28; 2Thess. 3:7–11)and their families (1Tim. 5:8, 16).
Showing
1
to
50
of235
results
1. We Cut the Coal
Illustration
John R. Steward
Sometimes people do not think that their work is very important or significant. They go through each day believing that what they do is of little value or importance. They need to see the larger picture and how their job fits into the bigger picture. They need to discover, as Martin Luther said, the ministry of vocation.
During World War II, Winston Churchill as Prime Minister was traveling around his country. He was trying to motivate and inspire his fellow citizens. He was willing to go almost anywhere to encourage people in the war effort. He would, of course, always visit the troops. But he also visited those who worked on the farms and in the factories. He knew that the odds against them were great and that he must continue to help keep the morale high.
There was one group he had not yet seen. It was the coal miners. Someone asked him if he would be willing to see these men, who spend most of their time below the ground in such dangerous conditions. One man told Churchill that the miners did not feel that they were doing very much in the effort against the Nazis. He said that no one ever gave them any credit for the work that they did. Would he visit them, he asked. The Prime Minister told the man that he would be pleased to visit these men.
When Churchill visited the coal miners they were absolutely amazed that he was there. They could not believe that he would come to see them. All they could do was to stare with their dirty faces at the man who would lead Britain to victory. His words will never be forgotten by those who heard him on that day. "We will be victorious!" he said. "We will preserve our freedom. And years from now when our freedom is secure and peace reigns, your children and your children's children will come and they will say to you, 'What did you do to win our freedom in that great war?' And one will say, 'I marched with the Eighth Army!' Someone else will proudly say, 'I manned a submarine.' And another will say, 'I guided the ships that moved the troops and the supplies.' And still another will say, 'I doctored the wounds!' " The men sat with rapt attention wondering what he might say about them. "They will come to you," he shouted, "and you will say with equal right and equal pride, 'I cut the coal! I cut the coal that fueled the ships that moved the supplies! That's what I did. I cut the coal!'
Adapted from Robert Schuller, Be an Extraordinary Person in an Ordinary World (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell), p. 89.
2. Life Can Be Dangerous
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
The Road Runner cartoons, Wile E. Coyote and all the Acme products he bought, may be the reason we have so many warning labels on products toady. Warning labels point to dangers in life. Most warning labels make sense but some of them are just downright ridiculous and makes you wonder WHY a company had to put that warning label on their product.
There are a couple of websites devoted to nothing but inane warning labels. Here's a few of them.
"Do not put in mouth." On a box of bottle rockets.
"Not dishwasher safe." On a remote control for a TV.
"Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand." In the manual for a Swedish chainsaw.
"Warning: May contain nuts." On a package of peanuts.
"Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish." On a bottle of shampoo for dogs.
"Do not use in shower." On a hair dryer.
"Warning: May contain small parts." On afrisbee.
"Not suitable for children aged 36 months or less." On a birthday card for a 1 year old.
"For use by trained personnel only."On a can of air freshener.
"Fragile. Do not drop." Posted on a Boeing 757.
"Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." On a portable stroller.
"May be harmful if swallowed."On a shipment of hammers.
Are we all related Wile E. Coyote? Are we all dumber than a bowl of pudding? Apparently the Warning Label people think so.
Let's face it, life can be dangerous. Sometimes it can be like nothing more than an ongoing obstacle course.Or a minefield.You never know when something's going to blow up in your face or what the next challenge is going to be. Maybe that's why the reality TV show Survivor is so popular.
This passage from Ephesians could be the warning label for the Christian life. Not a funny one but a serious one.
3. THE AGE OF ANXIETY
Illustration
John H. Krahn
The present decade may well be termed the Age of Anxiety. Anxiety is nothing new. In the Sermon on the Mount we read (Matthew 6:25, 33-34): "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? ... But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day."
We need not rehearse all the problems with the economy, crime, terrorists, and assassination attempts. The evening news plays the same familiar tune night in and night out. Sometimes we feel that these days we have to take the bad with the worst. Much of the time we feel apprehensive about the future. Feeling uneasy, we sometimes wonder what impending ill will befall us next.
In the light of many troubles, the Sermon on the Mount seems to be a tough saying from Jesus. It states that if our minds were set on God, we would not lack the needful things of this earth. When we are anxious over daily concerns, it often has a paralyzing effect on our religious life. Worrying about items of food and clothing directs our life inward toward ourselves rather than outward toward the Lord.
In his sermon the Lord does not speak out against working, or planning, or saving for the future. But our obsession with having the so-called better things in life and the increased amount of time it now takes to be able to afford them, has, too often, supplanted the art of living. Further, and inexcusable in God’s eyes, work has threatened the worship life of many Christians. Many people are working on Sundays. Others work so long and so hard during the week that they say they do not have time for God on Sundays. Jesus has no understanding of this and says in reply, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, then all else will be added unto you."
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "If a man owns land, the land owns him." In some ways he is right. As we begin to own things in life and acquire better things, there are times that it seems that these things own us rather than the other way around. Our increased bills dictate to us that we must work overtime, work on Sunday, or that both husband and wife need to go to work. Maybe if we decided to own less, we could live more.
Jesus concludes his teaching on anxiety by stating that we are not to be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let today’s troubles be sufficient for the day. In Deuteronomy 33:25 God says, "as thy days, so shall thy strength or we don’t trust in the Lord for strength to meet tomorrow or we don’t." Otherwise, we will constantly ruin the present by worrying about the future.
In Isaiah 41:13 God says, "For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, ‘Fear not, I will help you.’ Worry is an insult to God. Anxiety demonstrates lack of faith. When we feel anxious, we best kneel before the Lord, confess our sins, and surrender our anxieties to him."
4. Where the Scary Things Live
Illustration
Johnny Dean
For most of us, becoming adults hasn't necessarily cured us of our fear of the dark. Oh, we may have switched to waterbeds that nothing could possibly get underneath. And our closets may be a little bigger (although still not big enough) and they're filled with business suits or work clothes instead of building blocks and athletic gear. But at night, when the lights are out and the children are safely tucked into bed to wrestle with THEIR fears, our own monsters come to life and torment us yet again.
Am I a caring husband? Am I a loving wife? Do I really try to understand my spouse's point of view? Are we raising our children the right way? What about my parents? Am I doing all I can to make their later years as pleasant as they made my early years? Can I be sure my children aren't experimenting with drugs? When will I ever be able to slow down? Why doesn't someone invent a magic pill that will make all these excess pounds I'm carrying around disappear overnight, never to return again? Why do I never seem to be satisfied any more? Where is God in the middle of all this chaos in my life?
Yes, in the light of day we function pretty well through this messy maze of life - paying bills, getting family schedules coordinated, even managing once in a while to eat those high-fiber, low-fat meals our doctors tell us we're supposed to eat. And the fear of our unknowns, the scary stuff, is kept safely at arm's length, barricaded securely behind our busy work schedules and microwave dinners.
But when our world slows down a little, when darkness falls, the fears creep in. No they don't - they RUSH into our lives, our hearts, our minds, our very souls, and the torture begins once again. Does it always have to be that way?
Quoting the prophet Isaiah, Jesus said, "The people who lived in darkness have seen a great light, and to those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned." And there's something inside us that wants to believe that if anything in this life is true, THIS is! Something inside us wants to believe that this is the only hope worth hanging on to, that here is a way out of the fearful mess we've made of our lives. Somewhere, sometime, we believe that WE have seen that light. We remember seeing it, once upon a time, a long time ago. If only we could find it again - or if IT could find US - then maybe the darkness wouldn't be quite so threatening and ominous.
5. Paying for the Pipes and the Piper
Illustration
William G. Carter
A woman wrote in to Dear Abby: We are not overly religious people, but we do like to go to church once in a while. It seems to me that every time we turn around, we are hit for money. I thought religion was free. I realize that churches have to have some money, but I think it is getting to be a racket. Just what do churches do with all their money? Curious in North Jersey.
Abby wrote back, Dear Curious: Even priests, ministers and rabbis must eat. Since they work full-time at their tasks, their churches must support them. Staff and musicians must also be paid. Buildings must be maintained, heated, lighted and beautified. Custodial staff must eat and feed their families. Most churches engage in philanthropic work (aid to the needy, missions, and education); hence, they have their financial obligations. Even orchids, contrary to folklore, do not live on air. Churches can't live on air either. Religions, like water, may be free, but when they pipe it to you, you've got to help pay for the piping. And the piper.
6. Reasons for Rest
Illustration
Charles Hoffacker
Jesus has his reasons for inviting his disciples to rest. They have just returned from a mission on which he had dispatched them. He had sent them out in pairs and in haste. They were not to encumber themselves with gear or supplies, but simply trust local hospitality to meet their needs. They were not to linger where they were not wanted. Instead, they were to be on the move, calling people to repentance, casting out demons, anointing the sick. It was work they had never done before, and once they returned, they must have been exhausted.
Many of us do critically important work and find ourselves exhausted. Yet we don't rest. We may even believe that we cannot or should not rest. We push ourselves in a way that we would never push others. Our life may be productive, we may check off everything from our daily "to do" list, but deep down we recognize something is wrong, that we lack a sense of deep meaning, and so we feel cheated
The disciples have returned from their travels, but the pace has not slackened. As the Gospel reports, "Many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat." Does that scene sound familiar to you? Is your workplace like that? Is your home like that? This is a common experience for people today. Many are coming and going, and they have no leisure even to eat.
Jesus listens to the disciples as they report on all they did and taught in the numerous places they visited. He does not, however, tell them to throw themselves into action again with even greater abandon. He doesn't ask them to do something difficult and dangerous, big and brave. Instead, what he asks for is disarming in its simplicity: "Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest for a while."
7. Obedience
Illustration
Erma Bombeck
Erma Bombeck wrote abouthaving the meanness parents in all the world:
I had the meanest parents in all the world. When I was seven years old they dared to spank me just because I told them I would not do what they asked me to do to help around the house. My friend next door never got spanked. He didn't have to help at home. He had nice parents.
I had the meanest parents. I had to eat all my broccoli and carrots before they would ever let me have dessert. My friend next door never had to eat vegetables. He had fast food brought in with burgers and shakes and brownies with all kinds of ice cream.
I had the meanest parents. They made me go to church every Sunday as long as I lived under their roof, sit there in that boring worship service. My friend next door could do as he pleased. He never went to church. Sunday was a fun day for him.
I had the meanest parents. They made me work for my allowance. I had to get a job helping an elderly old man with chores around his house. My friend next door never had to do anything and he was given four times as much allowance as I could ever earn. He had nice parents.
I had the meanest parents. When I turned sixteen, they made me earn points before I could drive the family car. My friend next door was given a brand new luxury automobile. My folks had bought an old jalopy for me to get back and forth to school, but you think I'd drive that hunk of junk and park it beside those Jeep Wagoneers, BMWs, Buicks and Mercedes? My friend had it made.
Or so I once thought, but, when we reached age thirty, I had a change in perspective. I had learned that my parents were not so mean after all. I was experiencing: the pleasure of work, the reward of recreation, the strength of a healthy body, the bonds of a strong marriage, the inward confidence that comes from faith and the wonderful supportive fellowship that comes from the Church as a community of believers.
As for my friend, things were not going so well: he was not finding his niche in the workplace, nothing seemed to satisfy him, he was having difficulty getting along with people who were not willing to do everything just as he thought he knew it ought to be done, his marriage had not lasted even two years, his body was getting out of shape, and he evidenced a cynical outlook without any under-girding that comes from the assurance of faith.
Erma came to understand that obedience to her parents ways instilled in her lasting, life giving values. "If you love me, obey..." Obedience.
8. It Doesn't Have to Be That Way - Sermon Opener
Illustration
James W. Moore
The noted author, John Killinger, tells a powerful story about a man who is all-alone in a hotel room in Canada. The man is in a state of deep depression. He is so depressed that he can't even bring himself to go downstairs to the restaurant to eat.
He is a powerful man usually the chairman of a large shipping company but at this moment, he is absolutely overwhelmed by the pressures and demands of life… and he lies there on a lonely hotel bed far from home wallowing in self-pity.
All of his life, he has been fastidious, worrying about everything, anxious and fretful, always fussing and stewing over every detail. And now, at mid-life, his anxiety has gotten the best of him, even to the extent that it is difficult for him to sleep and to eat.
He worries and broods and agonizes about everything, his business, his investments, his decisions, his family, his health, even, his dogs. Then, on this day in this Canadian hotel, he craters. He hits bottom. Filled with anxiety, completely immobilized, paralyzed by his emotional despair, unable to leave his room, lying on his bed, he moans out loud: "Life isn't worth living this way, I wish I were dead!"
And then, he wonders, what God would think if he heard him talking this way. Speaking aloud again he says, "God, it's a joke, isn't it? Life is nothing but a joke." Suddenly, it occurs to the man that this is the first time he's talked to God since he was a little boy. He is silent for a moment and then he begins to pray. He describes it like this: "I just talked out loud about what a mess my life was in and how tired I was and how much I wanted things to be different in my life. And you know what happened next? A voice!! I heard a voice say, ‘It doesn't have to be that way!' That's all."
He went home and talked to his wife about what happened. He talked to his brother who is a minister and asked him: "Do you think it was God speaking to me?" The brother said: "Of course, because that is the message of God to you and everyone of us. That's the message of the Bible. That's why Jesus Christ came into the world to save us, to deliver us, to free us, to change us and to show us that ‘It doesn't have to be that way.' A few days later, the man called his brother and said, "You were right. It has really happened. I've done it. I've had a rebirth. I'm a new man. Christ has turned it around for me."
Well, the man is still prone to anxiety. He still has to work hard. But, now he has a source of strength. During the week, he often leaves his work-desk and goes to the church near his office. He sits there and prays. He says: "It clears my head. It reminds me of who I am and whose I am. Each time as I sit there in the Sanctuary, I think back to that day in that hotel room in Canada and how depressed and lonely and lost I felt and I hear that voice saying: It doesn't have to be that way.'"
That is precisely what this story is all about. Christ walks into the tormented life of the Gerasene demoniac, this madman, whose life is coming apart at the seams and He turns it around for him. He gives him a new beginning, a new start, a new birth. At the beginning of the narrative, it sounds like a horror-story. This wild-eyed, adrenalin-filled, madman comes running and shrieking out of the tomb. He is so unbalanced! He is convinced that he is being held captive by a whole legion of demons, who are pulling and jerking him in every direction
This is an eerie, grim, suspenseful, frightening situation. Jesus and His disciples have just come through a storm on the Sea of Galilee. It is nighttime and having survived that frightening storm they are thrilled to now set foot on solid ground. But, as they get out of the boat, they encounter a different kind of storm… yet another scary experience. They hear strange sounds coming from the tombs… shrieks, growls, screams, moans, the rattling of chains. Then, suddenly, a horrifying sight. A madman with tattered clothes, bruised, dirty, bloody and battered with pieces of chains dangling from his arms and ankles, comes running and screaming directly toward them!
Now, let me ask you something: "What would you have done in that situation?" This was a perilous place, a bloodcurdling moment… a powerful, dangerous, berserk man, charging them. I think I would have run for my life... or jumped back in the boat.
But not Jesus! Jesus stood His ground and faced the madman. Undaunted, unafraid... Jesus stood there and dealt with this wild man. Jesus healed him. He brought peace to his troubled soul. He changed him. He cleansed him. He turned his life around… and you know (don't you?) that He can do that for you.
Now, let me underscore this and spell it out a bit more by lifting three ideas out of this great story...
1. You Don't Have to Be at War with Yourself.
2. You Don't Have to Be at War with Other People.
3. You Don't Have to Be at War with God.
9. Wait. Trust Me.
Illustration
Paul Batura
A friend earlier today called my attention to some counsel and perspective served up on an episode of The Andy Griffith Show titled, “Opie’s Hobo Friend.” It originally aired November 13, 1961. [It’s politically incorrect these days to refer to a homeless person as a “hobo” – but that wasn’t the case back when John F. Kennedy was in the White House.]
As the storyline goes, a homeless man named David Browne shows up in Mayberry. He swipes some sandwiches, makes friend with Sheriff Andy Taylor (played by Griffith) and by extension, Opie, Griffith’s son. Deputy Barney Fife is suspicious of Browne, but Andy gives the traveler benefit of the doubt. Soon, though, things begin to change.
Opie becomes enamored with the man, impressed how he can eat well and live such a carefree existence without a job. His young and impressionable mind is spinning. Of course, Opie’s innocence and lack of discernment prevent him from seeing through the facade and the man’s dishonesty.
The sheriff gently confronts the man:
David Browne: You know, I’ve grown awful fond of that young fellow. What’s wrong?
Sheriff Taylor: Well, there seems to be something wrong with his thinkin’. He’s gotten a little twisted on things lately, like bein’ able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
David Browne: Oh.
Sheriff Taylor: Not that that’s an easy thing. A lot of grownups still strugglin’ with that same problem, but ‘specially difficult for a youngster, ’cause things rub off on ’em so easy.
David Browne: Well, Sheriff, maybe I do look at things differently than other people. Is that wrong? I live by my wits. I’m not above bending the law now and then to keep clothes on my back or food in my stomach. I live the kind of life that other people would just love to live if they only had the courage. Who’s to say that the boy would be happier your way or mine? Why not let him decide?
Sheriff Taylor: Nah, I’m afraid it don’t work that way. You can’t let a young ‘un decide for himself. He’ll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it, then when he finds out there’s a hook in it, it’s too late. The wrong ideas come packaged with so much glitter, it’s hard to convince him that other things might be better in the long run and all a parent can do is say, “Wait. Trust me” and try to keep temptation away.
Wrong ideas packaged with glitter continue to entice and tempt not only children, but plenty of adults, too.
Today’s parents are in a battle against those who, instead of allowing mothers and fathers to say, “Wait. Trust me,” are saying, “Go ahead. Trust us.”
We’d be better off with a world full of more Sheriff Andy Taylors.
10. What Is Caesar’s and What Is God's? - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
A young lady was soaking up the sun's rays on a Florida beach when a little boy in his swimming trunks, carrying a towel, came up to her and asked her, "Do you believe in God?" She was surprised by the question but she replied, "Why, yes, I do." Then he asked her: "Do you go to church every Sunday?" Again, her answer was "Yes!" He then asked: "Do you read your Bible and pray everyday?" Again she said, "Yes!" By now her curiosity was very much aroused. The little lad sighed with relief and said, "Will you hold my quarter while I go in swimming?"
The little boy was straightforward and honest in his questions because he wanted to entrust to the lady something valuable. The Pharisees are not being honest. They have no intent in entrusting Jesus with anything. They are not looking for the answer to a question. They don't want someone to hold their quarter. They are looking for a way to get rid of this trouble making Nazarene named Jesus.
The Pharisees were so angry it blinded them. Think for a moment about the ironies here: We know, because we live on this side of the resurrection, that Jesus was God. They thought he was demonic, an agent of Satan. We know that Jesus is the King of kings. They thought he wanted to be the King of Israel. We know that he was the Son of God. They thought he was simply Joseph and Mary's son. We know that Jesus has influenced the world for 2000 years. They thought his influence would end at the cross.
It's a fascinating story. We look at the Pharisees and we shake our heads. How could they have been so wrong when the truth was standing right in front of them? I believe they were upset because Jesus held them accountable and exposed their hypocrisy. "Teacher, we know that you are sincere," they say to him, "and teach the way of God." Not for a moment did they believe in Jesus' sincerity. It was a set up. It was a way of putting him at ease before they stabbed him in the back. Tell us then, they continue, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor?
I suppose we ought to be grateful to the Pharisees. In their question, which Jesus says was motivated by malice, they prompt one of the greatest of Jesus' teachings. It may not seem like much on the face of it, but the implications of this teaching have echoed through the centuries and they have shaped western societies. Jesus said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Let us ask three questions this morning and find out why this little teaching has had such a great influence.
1. What Is Caesar's?
2. What Is God's?
3. Which Will You Choose?
11. The Santals - Whatever a Man Sows, He Will Reap
Illustration
John R. Steward
In India there is a tribe known as the Santals. Missionaries who work with them have observed many interesting characteristics about their lifestyle.
One of the more notable facts concerning the Santals is how they carry a burden. The women carry a burden on their heads while the men use a long pole. When a baby is born everyone asks, "Does he carry on the head or on the shoulder?" which is another way of asking if the child is a boy or a girl.
A missionary who works with the Santals once had a friend come for a visit. He asked a Santal to meet him and bring his luggage. The Santal, carrying pole in hand, went to retrieve the missionary's friend. When he got to the station he encountered a problem. The visitor only had one bag. The Santal's normal response would be to divide the burden in half and put the halves on each end of the pole and carry the burden. However, he could not divide this burden in half. So the Santal found a rock that weighed as much as the luggage bag. He tied the rock to one end of the pole and the luggage bag to the other and carried home the "doubled burden." He found that the double burden was lighter than the single bag of luggage.
When we live lives of selfishness we, too, will find it to be more difficult. When we become a giver instead of a taker we discover that life is easier and in fact lighter, for "whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."
Adapted by Stuart Robertson, Balanced Burdens (London: Hodder and Stoughtonl Limited), p. 9.
12. Encouragement
Illustration
Ronald Love
It is a common practice at military academies for the upper classmen to haze the first year students. This is part of the initiation rites. Dwight David Eisenhower, as a second year student at West Point, participated in these activities. One day a plebe, as freshmen were called, bumped into Eisenhower. Such an act was unpardonable, so Eisenhower responded as expected, yelling and screaming at the young cadet. Searching for the most demeaning thing he could utter, Eisenhower said the plebe looked like a barber. With that remark the plebe drew himself up to his full height, squared his shoulders, thrust forth his jaw, and responded that he was a barber. It was as a barber that he had supported his family prior to coming to the Academy.
Devastated, Eisenhower returned to his room. He retold the incident to his roommate, confessing, "I've just done something that was stupid and unforgivable. I just managed to make a man ashamed of the work he did to earn a living." In his autobiography Eisenhower wrote that for him this was a lesson about "the lack of consideration for others." In his room that day, Eisenhower vowed never to demean another individual again. It was a promise he kept through his life, even as Supreme Allied Commander during the Second World War and as the thirty-fourth President of the United States. He became an encourager and it showed in the effectiveness of his leadership.
That is the very heart of the Christian faith.
13. Creeds and Deeds - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Rev. David Chadwell posed a rather interesting question: Which would you prefer for a next-door neighbor: a person of excellent habits or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a good friend: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a husband or a wife: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a child: a child with excellent habits, or a child with a good heart?
It is wonderful to have a neighbor who conscientiously cares for his property while respecting your property. It is wonderful to have a friend who always treats you with consideration. It is wonderful to be married to a husband who always is thoughtful and courteous, or to a wife who always is gracious in her comments and deeds. It is wonderful to have a son or daughter who shows respect and uses good manners.
As wonderful as those situations are, none of them compare to having a neighbor, a friend, a husband, a wife, a son, or a daughter with a good heart.
When you discuss good behavior, you are discussing the quality of a person's self-control. When you discuss a good heart, you are discussing the quality of the person.
This is the focus of today's Scripture. Pharisees and teachers have come down from Jerusalem and, interestingly, they are gathered around Jesus watching the disciples. The disciples, it seems, are eating lunch. They have come in from the day's work. Too tired and too hungry to care that their hands and faces were dirty, they immediately sat down to eat without washing.
The Pharisees cease upon this ceremonial oversight and question Jesus: Why don't your disciples live according to the traditions of the elders and clean their hands before they eat? This is all that Jesus needs to hear. He sticks up for his disciples, turns on these teachers and says in essence, "Why do you not live according to the traditions of God and clean your hearts?"
What mistake did these Pharisees make? What is Jesus trying to convey, not only to them, but to us as well. For you see, it is just as easy for us to fall into a good habit and leave behind a good heart. What is Jesus' warning to us?
1.We prefer creeds rather than deeds.
2.We look at the outside not the inside.
3.But God requires good Creeds, Deeds, and Hearts.
14. A Life of Despair
Illustration
Brett Blair
Two of his daughters and a son-in-law committed suicide. Three of his children died of malnutrition. Marx felt no obligation to earn a living, but instead lived by begging from Engels. He fathered an illegitimate child by his maidservant. He drank heavily. He was a paid informer of the Austrian police, spying on revolutionaries. Though Marx and his wife were poor, he kept investing in the stock market where he constantly lost. His wife left him twice, but returned. When she died, he didn't attend her funeral. His correspondence with Engels was full of obscenities. His favorite daughter, Eleanor, with her father's approval, married Edward Eveling, a man who advocated blasphemy and worshiped Satan. Daughter Eleanor committed suicide, poisoning herself with cyanide. Karl Marx died in despair.
Laura Marx, Karl's other daughter committed suicide together with her husband on25 November 1911. The coupledecided they had nothing left to give to the movement to which they had devoted their lives. Laura was 66 and her husband Paul Lafargue was 69. In their suicide letter, which Paul wrote,they explained why they committed suicide.It reads:
"Healthy in body and mind, I end my life before pitiless old age which has taken from me my pleasures and joys one after another; and which has been stripping me of my physical and mental powers, can paralyse my energy and break my will, making me a burden to myself and to others. For some years I had promised myself not to live beyond 70; and I fixed the exact year for my departure from life. I prepared the method for the execution of our resolution, it was a hypodermic of cyanide acid. I die with the supreme joy of knowing that at some future time, the cause to which I have been devoted for forty-five years will triumph. Long live Communism! Long Live the international socialism!"
Vladimir Lenin was one of the speakers at the funeral. He would later write the following to his wife: "If one cannot work for the Party any longer, one must be able to look truth in the face and die like the Lafargues."
Is it any wonder things ended this way for the Marx family?When you look at the tenets of Marxism, where else would you end up but in despair? Listen to these 10 basic principles:
- Abolition of private property
- A heavy progressiveincome tax.
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- State control of banks.
- State controlof communication and the press.
- State owned businesses.
- Equal liability of all to work, establishingindustrial armies
- Equal distribution of the populace over the country.
- Combination of education with industrial production.
What is there left to live for? This world would lead to the despair that caused the Marx family to take their lives. They stand in contrast to the Greatest Commandment to love God and love your neighbor and to the admonitionof the Beatitudes. Christianity frees and affirms; Marxism controls and demands. It's life or death isn't it? It's God's offer to the Israelites: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live
15. The Burden Bearing Christ - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
There is a wonderful legend concerning the quiet years of Jesus, the years prior to his visible ministry. The legend claims that Jesus the carpenter was one of the master yoke-makers in the Nazareth area. People came from miles around for a yoke, hand carved and crafted by Jesus son of Joseph.
When customers arrived with their team of oxen Jesus would spend considerable time measuring the team, their height, the width, the space between them, and the size of their shoulders. Within a week, the team would be brought back and he would carefully place the newly made yoke over the shoulders, watching for rough places, smoothing out the edges and fitting them perfectly to this particular team of oxen.
That's the yoke Jesus invites us to take. Do not be misled by the word "easy," for its root word in Greek speaks directly of the tailor-made yokes: they were "well-fitting." The yoke Jesus invites us to take, the yoke that brings rest to weary souls, is one that is made exactly to our lives and hearts. The yoke he invites us to wear fits us well, does not rub us nor cause us to develop sore spirits and is designed for two. His yokes were always designed for two. And our yoke-partner is none other than Christ himself.
Running throughout all scripture from the beginning to the end is the theme that ours is a burden bearing Christ. He is not just a Lord whom we burden, and we do, but a Lord who actually solicits our burdens. I want to think with you this morning concerning that thought. He who would be effective must first be free from his burdens. And, it is Christ who frees us. Frees us from...
1. The burden of sin
2. The burden of self-righteousness.
3. Our burdens. So we can bear the burden of others.
16. Gratitude
Illustration
Victor Shepherd
Pastor Victor Shepherd tells the story of a missionary surgeon he met who was rather gruff and to the point. On one occasion the surgeon was speaking to a small group of university students about his work in the Gaza Strip. He was telling us that we North American "fat cats" knew nothing about gratitude. Nothing! On one occasion he had stopped a peasant hovel to see a woman on whom he had performed surgery. She and her husband were dirt poor. Their livestock supply consisted of one Angora rabbit and two chickens. For income the woman combed the hair out of the rabbit, spun the hair into yarn and sold it. For food she and her husband ate the eggs from the chickens. The woman insisted that the missionary surgeon stay for lunch. He accepted the invitation and said he would be back for lunch after he had gone down the road to see another postoperative patient. An hour and a half later he was back. He peeked into the cooking pot to see what he was going to eat. He saw one rabbit and two chickens. The woman had given up her entire livestock supply -- her income, her food, everything. He wept unashamedly as he told the story no doubt for the 100th time. He concluded his story by reminding us again, that we knew nothing of gratitude. He concluded by saying, the incidentwill stay with me forever.
There isanother incident concerning gratitude that will never be forgotten. It's about a woman who poured costly perfume over our Lord as she wiped his feet with her hair. Make no mistake the perfume was expensive, three hundred denarii, a year's income for a laborer in Palestine. Enough to keep a family alive for twelve months.
17. DOCTOR OF THE LAW
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Luke 5:17 - "On one of these days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem;"
Acts 5:34 - "But a Pharisee in the council, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while."
Later we will speak of the role of the lawyer in Jewish life, but here we are speaking of persons whom we might consider as being advanced beyond that specified role; men who specialized in the sacred statutes. These men concerned themselves with teaching rather than with the giving of written opinions. This is a strictly New Testament term, and the men themselves were of a type unique in history.
These men belonged to God, but not in a priestly way. They had nothing to do with worship; their dress was the same as that of the other Hebrews; they did not eat of the sacrificial meat; and, although they did make up a caste, they made no claim to belonging to the blood of Aaron nor the tribe of Levi. In the beginning they were simply the "scribes," but as they devoted themselves more and more to the study of religious questions, they began to be differentiated from the scribes; they felt themselves, and perhaps, with reason, to be an aristocracy of intellect and piety.
Although they traced their claim back to the time of Ezra, they became most prominent after the Maccabean wars, the national struggle against the Greeks. They had "built a hedge around the Law," and, by doing so, had preserved the essence of Judaism. They provided true intellectual life of the nation, and guided its thought; they controlled education, and particularly the higher education; they named the judges and fixed the jurisprudence; they uttered the commentaries on the Law in the synagogues; they had made the Great Sanhedrin not only a governing body and a supreme court; but also a theological college - in other words, they had the say in every phase of national life.
Today, we don’t have men who have powers of such broad scope and far-reaching potential, but we can perhaps compare these doctors of the law to the professors or heads of departments of our colleges and universities. And they became doctors of the law in much the same way that professors become professors. Any Hebrew at all could aspire to this position, no matter what his economic or sociological status. If a man left the vocation to devote himself to one of the most famous doctors, under whom he might study. After however long a period of time was necessary for him to have achieved a sense of readiness to teach, he was on his own, with students following him.
They more than studied the Law; they scrutinized every part of it and analyzed its application to the every day life of the Jews. To this degree, they went far beyond the modern professor, who seldom works with material of his own. Of course, these men weren’t working with extraneous material, either, but they were making individual judgments and applications that affected almost all of the people.
It was through the work of these men that was built up the Talmud - "the Instruction," or, "the Recitation." This is an extraordinary work, made up of two divisions. The first is the Mishnah, which is written in classical Hebrew; it is the basic canonical legal code, and its 63 tractates cover the whole field of human activity. The second is the Gemara, an immense commentary of the Mishnah; it was written in Aramaic, and there are two recensions, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian.
The greatest doctor of the Law of whom we know was Gamaliel, who might have been a teacher of St. Paul. We must tread warily when judging these men; there is a tendency to confuse them with the Pharisees of the worst kind which Jesus often criticized. But a doctor of the Law was not necessarily a Pharisee. They taught what they felt to be the truth, as our best professors do today, sometimes at risk.
And, as many professors have left works of inestimable value, so too the doctors of the Law left behind the Talmud, to which the expatriated Jews could cling as a symbol that the destruction of the Temple did not mean the end of their religion. We may not always agree with the opinions of our professors, but we must acknowledge the debt of their works, just as we must acknowledge the works of the doctors of the Law.
18. Second Century Rules
Illustration
Elizabeth Elliot
Imagine this as the acid test for Christian discipleship: "I am in earnest about forsaking 'the world' and following Christ. But I am puzzled about worldly things. What is it I must forsake?" a young man asks. "Colored clothes, for one thing. Get rid of everything in your wardrobe that is not white. Stop sleeping on a soft pillow. Sell your musical instruments and don't eat any more white bread. You cannot, if you are sincere about obeying Christ, take warm baths or shave your beard. To shave is to lie against Him who created us, to attempt to improve on His Work."
Quaint, isn't it this example of extra-biblical scruples? And perhaps amusing. The list has constantly shifted over the 1,800 years since this one was actually recorded. And let's say it's beyond quaint. It'sabsurd and yet it is the answer given in the most celebrated Christian schools of the second century! Is it possible that the rules that have been adopted by many twenty-first-century Christians may sound as absurd to followers of Christ a 100 years years from now?
Jesus asked the man he healed not to say how he had been healed. Why? Because of our scruples. We have a penchant for taking the greatest moments and bringing them down, twisting them and robbing them of their joy. Our...scruples! Nowhite bread. No soft pillows. No more music.
19. Storing What We Do Not Need
Illustration
W. Robert McClelland
Jesus did not condemn the man for eating, drinking and being merry, nor even for being rich. Rather the man was called foolish for building bigger barns. The point of the story is that the entrepreneur was planning to store more of his wealth than he needed to eat, drink and be merry. Look again at the words of the story. The man says, "What shall I do for I have nowhere to store my crops?" Not true! He has barns. His problem is that his harvest has been so great that his present storage facilities will not hold all of the grain. So he decides, "I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain. Then and only then will I have ample goods to eat, drink and be merry." Again, not true! He already has ample goods. He does not have to live in the moment. He has barns for his future. They may not be as big as he would like, but he has plenty to eat, drink and be merry. The man already has enough wealth to enjoy Shalom. He has a sense of well-being and security because God has generously blessed his land with fruitfulness. Fortune has smiled on him and he has been able to accumulate a sizeable portion of this world's goods.
The point of the story is not that there is something wrong with amassing some wealth, but that he was intending to store it all by building bigger barns and storing it. He was called "foolish" because he did not recognize that his wealth had brought him happiness and that it could do the same for others if only it were not locked up in those bigger barns. His sin was not that he had become wealthy, but that he wanted to hoard all his wealth. His sin was not that he ate, drank and was merry, but that he was withholding the means for others to do the same. He had become a bottleneck in the flow of Shalom blessings to others.
The story, so understood, is not a teaching condemning the foolishness of gathering wealth. It is rather a parable which condemns the refusal to share the wealth we do not need. It warns about the shortsightedness of failing to be a good custodian of the abundance that God entrusts to us.
20. The Peace that Jesus Gives
Illustration
Lee Griess
There is a road in southern Italy that begins in the city of Eboli and ends in the mountain village of Gagliano. To anyone who makes that journey, it is an ascent to hell. Gagliano is no more than a scattered cluster of fallen down whitewashed old buildings, hanging desperately to barren slopes near a rocky cliff. The village has been there for centuries and for as far back as the oldest person can remember it has always been a place of severe poverty, unrelenting disease, frightening superstition, monotonous despair, and death. Oppressed and defeated by those conditions, it is said that the peasants of Gagliano do not sing and there is a saying among them that "Christ stopped in Eboli," that somehow God had forgotten them and Christ stopped at the other end of the road. Because hope and joy, the fullness of human life that God means for us to have, are not found there, the road to Gagliano is a road that leads to hell.
Likewise, there are some stairs in a New York City tenement that go up six flights to an apartment that houses a family of ten -- a grandmother, her two daughters and their seven children. Anyone who has climbed those stairs and shared in the experiences of that family this past year has made an ascent to hell. Unemployed, with few or no job skills, the family subsists on welfare payments and the meager wages one daughter brings home from work at a fast-food restaurant. Often the heat does not work and there is no hot water. Many days there is no food, for alcohol and drugs often eat up their money. Five days before Christmas, while the grandmother was down on the first floor to fetch the mail, one of the little boys climbed up on the gas stove, turned it on and set himself ablaze. While the rest of the world was singing "Joy to the World," that family, already dead to the world around them, mourned the painful death of one of their children.
In another part of the world, there is a trail in eastern Turkey that winds its way through the rocky barrens to the squalor of a refugee camp. Here thousands of people are housed in makeshift tents -- tattered blanket homes. If you were to take that road and visit those camps, you would hike yourself into hell. Sickness and disease are rampant there. Death is a frequent visitor where fresh water and food are scarce and sanitary conditions are unheard of. The people who live in those camps are trapped -- unable to move forward into Turkey and, because of war and fighting behind, unable to go back to their homes.
In this so-called modern world, which is supposed to be undergoing a revolution of change in the direction of a "new world order," so many of its roads lead not up, or forward, into the future, but back and down into hell. Sickness stalks the streets of Zaire under the name of the Ebola virus. In fact, all over our world, and even here in the United States,there are streets and stairways, elevators and superhighways that lead to hell, places of evil where people are trapped in boredom, bigotry, loneliness, leukemia, poverty, psychosis, despair, and death.
Trouble is all about us and the words of Saint Paul ring true when he wrote, "Outwardly we are wasting away. Daily we are being given over to death." To us Jesus speaks this morning, saying, "Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled. Neither let them be afraid."
21. Dad's Favorite Sayings
Illustration
Staff
Dad's are always giving advice. Perhaps you have heard a few ofthese from your father:
- The man on the top of the mountain didn't fall there.
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
- Marry a big woman; someone to give you shade in the summer and warmth in the winter.
- An excuse is a poor patch for the garment of failure.
- Never try to catch two frogs with one hand.
- Always throw away the box when you take the last piece of candy.
- Honesty is like a trail, once you get off it you realize you are lost.
- Remember who you are and where you came from.
- Wherever you are in life, first make friends with the cook.
- Don't shake the tree too hard, you never know what might fall out.
- A closed mouth gathers no feet.
- Measure twice, cut once. San
- The second time you get kicked in the head by a mule it's not a learning experience.
- Never buy anything that eats.
- You need to do what you have to do before you can do what you want to do.
- Well, you know what happens when you wrestle with pigs, you get all dirty and they love it.
- This is a democratic family; everyone gets a vote and I get five.
- If you're afraid to go too far, you will never go far enough.
- If you don't need it, don't buy it.
- If this is the worst thing that happens to you in life, don't worry about it.
- Never be so broke that you cannot afford to pay attention.
- You live to work, you work to live, but if you work to work I hope you don't live by me.
- If it is to be, it's up to me.
- Successful people make a habit of doing things that failures don't like to do.
- Don't let your studies interfere with your education.
- Don't be foolish just because you know how to.
- Marry your best friend.
- Peer pressure is a crack in the armor of your own conviction.
- Knowing what's right from wrong is education, doing what's right is execution. The latter is the hard part.
- The difference always is attitude.
- You have to eat an elephant in small bites.
- The one who quits last wins.
- Potential means you haven't done your best yet.
- Do you know what happened when I found out all the answers? They changed all the questions.
- The golden rule: the guy who's got the gold makes the rules.
- If everybody else is doing it, it is probably wrong.
22. Switching Tracks
Illustration
David G. Rogne
Sometimes the best thing we can do is to move on to another field. Paul Harvey tells the story of Joe, who was born into a family of Sicilian immigrants, a family who had a 300-year history as fishermen. Joe's dad was a fisherman. His brothers were fishermen. But Joe was made sick by the smell of raw fish and the motion of a rocking boat. In a family where the only acceptable way to earn a living was by fishing, Joe was a failure. His dad used to refer to his son as "good for nothing." Joe believed his dad. He believed that his attempts at other types of work were an admission of failure, but he just couldn't stand the smell of the fishing business. One thing that Joe could do was to play baseball. Giving up a field where he could not succeed, Joe DiMaggio moved to another field and became one of the great successes of baseball.
23. PRIEST
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Deuteronomy 26:4 - "Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God."
Among the nomadic tribes there was no developed priesthood. Religion partook of the general simplicity of desert life; apart from the private worship of household gods, the ritual observances were mainly visits to the tribal sanctuary to salute the god. with a gift of the first-fruits. These acts required no priestly aid; each man slew his own victim and divided the sacrifice in his own family circle; the share of the god was the blood which was smeared upon or poured out beside the stone set up as an altar. In the beginning, therefore, we find no trace of a sacrifical priesthood.
With the beginning of nationality, however, starting with the Exodus and developing into the Conquest, there was developed a unity of worship. However, even then, this unity was still not expressed in fixed institutions; the first-fruits were still a free gift, and every household represented and consumed them with his own family circle in a sacrificial meal without preistly aid.
In fact, rather than being just an officiator at sacrifice, the priest was the organ of revelation and he gave guidance in the ordinary affairs of life, the word for priest as adopted by the Hebrews from a Canaanite word, means "soothsayer," or "revealer." So, then, the function of the early priests was to reveal the word of God, either by reference to a legal code which contained the revealed will of God and the accumulated experience of the past.
Even after the people settled and sancturies were built, the role of the priest continued to be more of a judge than the person we think of as offering sacrifice. However, as more and more sanctuaries appeared and the Hebrews absorbed more of the ways of their neighbors, and, ultimately, with the establishment of the monarchy, a more and more elaborate ritual developed that required a professional priesthood.
There were regular public offerings maintained by the king and offered by the priests; private sacrifices required priestly aid; their judicial functions also brought them profit, since fines were exacted for certain offenses and paid to them. The greater priestly offices were therefore in every respect very important places, and the priests of the royal sanctuaries were among the grandees of the realm, but there is no indication of a hierarchy existing by divine right.
It was in post-exilic Israel that the priesthood as we usually think of it came into existence, although the reform by Josiah in 621 B.C. gave the prerogative of sacrifice to the priests alone. Already in the time of Josiah, altar service and not the judicial or "teaching" function had become the essential thing, but by the time of Ezekiel it had mainly to do with ritual, with the distinction between holy and profane, clean and unclean, with the statutory observances at festivals and the like.
The holiness of Israel centered in the sanctuary, and round the sanctuary stood the priests, who alone could approach the most holy things without profanation, and who were the guardians of Israel’s sanctity, partly by protecting the one meeting place of God and man from profane contact, and partly as mediators of the continual atoning rites by which breaches of holiness are expiated. In the old kingdom the priests had shared the place of the prophets as the leaders of thought were the psalmists and the scribes, who spoke much more directly to the piety of the nation.
From the foundation of the Hasmonean state to the time of Herod the history of the high priesthood merges into the political history of the nation; from Herod onward the priestly aristocracy of the Sadducees lost its chief hold over the nation and expired in vain controversy with the Pharisees.
Today, aside from the Roman Catholic Church, and the High Episcopal Church, we prefer to use the term "pastor" rather than priest for our spiritual leaders. But we must recognize the influence of the Hebrew priesthood on the thought and organization of Christendom. Two main points were taken over - the doctrine of priestly mediation and the system of priestly hierarchy. We cannot here go into doctrinal matters, but it is enough to say that the concepts of sacrifice which are still retained in the Roman system are the stumbling-block on which Protestant apologists fall. Within the Roman Church the old priestly system still is evident in many ways.
24. What Things Are Perfect Joy
Illustration
St. Francis of Assisi
How St. Francis, Walking One Day with Brother Leo, Explained to Him What Things Are Perfect Joy.
One day in winter, as St. Francis was going with Brother Leo from Perugia to St. Mary of the Angels, and was suffering greatly from the cold, he called to Brother Leo, who was walking on before him, and said to him: "Brother Leo, if it were to please God that the Friars Minor should give, in all lands, a great example of holiness and edification, write down, and note carefully, that this would not be perfect joy."
A little further on, St. Francis called to him a second time: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor were to make the lame to walk, if they should make straight the crooked, chase away demons, give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, and, what is even a far greater work, if they should raise the dead after four days, write that this would not be perfect joy." Shortly after, he cried out again: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor knew all languages; if they were versed in all science; if they could explain all Scripture; if they had the gift of prophecy, and could reveal, not only all future things, but likewise the secrets of all consciences and all souls, write that this would not be perfect joy."
After proceeding a few steps farther, he cried out again with a loud voice: "O Brother Leo, thou little lamb of God! if the Friars Minor could speak with the tongues of angels; if they could explain the course of the stars; if they knew the virtues of all plants; if all the treasures of the earth were revealed to them; if they were acquainted with the various qualities of all birds, of all fish, of all animals, of men, of trees, of stones, of roots, and of waters - write that this would not be perfect joy."
Shortly after, he cried out again: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor had the gift of preaching so as to convert all infidels to the faith of Christ, write that this would not be perfect joy." Now when this manner of discourse had lasted for the space of two miles, Brother Leo wondered much within himself; and, questioning the saint, he said: "Father, I pray thee teach me wherein is perfect joy." St. Francis answered: "If, when we shall arrive at St. Mary of the Angels, all drenched with rain and trembling with cold, all covered with mud and exhausted from hunger; if, when we knock at the convent-gate, the porter should come angrily and ask us who we are; if, after we have told him, ‘We are two of the brethren', he should answer angrily, ‘What ye say is not the truth; ye are but two impostors going about to deceive the world, and take away the alms of the poor; begone I say'; if then he refuse to open to us, and leave us outside, exposed to the snow and rain, suffering from cold and hunger till nightfall - then, if we accept such injustice, such cruelty and such contempt with patience, without being ruffled and without murmuring, believing with humility and charity that the porter really knows us, and that it is God who maketh him to speak thus against us, write down, O Brother Leo, that this is perfect joy. And if we knock again, and the porter come out in anger to drive us away with oaths and blows, as if we were vile impostors, saying, ‘Begone, miserable robbers! to the hospital, for here you shall neither eat nor sleep!' - and if we accept all this with patience, with joy, and with charity, O Brother Leo, write that this indeed is perfect joy.
And if, urged by cold and hunger, we knock again, calling to the porter and entreating him with many tears to open to us and give us shelter, for the love of God, and if he come out more angry than before, exclaiming, ‘These are but importunate rascals, I will deal with them as they deserve'; and taking a knotted stick, he seize us by the hood, throwing us on the ground, rolling us in the snow, and shall beat and wound us with the knots in the stick - if we bear all these injuries with patience and joy, thinking of the sufferings of our Blessed Lord, which we would share out of love for him, write, O Brother Leo, that here, finally, is perfect joy. And now, brother, listen to the conclusion. Above all the graces and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ grants to his friends, is the grace of overcoming oneself, and accepting willingly, out of love for Christ, all suffering, injury, discomfort and contempt; for in all other gifts of God we cannot glory, seeing they proceed not from ourselves but from God, according to the words of the Apostle, ‘What hast thou that thou hast not received from God? and if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?' But in the cross of tribulation and affliction we may glory, because, as the Apostle says again, ‘I will not glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Amen."
25. St. Ignatius Prayer
Illustration
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Lord Jesus, teach me to be generous,
teach me to serve you as you deserve,
to give and not to count the cost,
to fight and not heed the wounds,
to toil and not to seek for rest,
to labor and not to seek reward,
except that of knowing that I do your will.
26. SERVANT, SERVITOR
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Exodus 12:45 - "No sojourner or hired servant may eat of it."
2 Kings 4:43 - "But his servant said, ‘How am I to set this before a hundred men?’ ..."
A servant is a person of either sex who is in the service of another person, and the term does not necessarily mean that this servant is a domestic, in the sense that we use it today. In our usage, a servant is one who works for pay and in so doing attends to the physical needs, in one way or another, of the person who has employed him.
But this was not necessarily the designation in the ancient world. Rather, that concept would be more akin to "slave," which implies a forced labor, but is more in keeping with the type of work done by today’s servants. Rather, the ancient servant means merely someone who was in service to another, and this type of service was often of a high order. In that sense, then, any person under the king was a servant. For example, we have Eliezer, whose position in the household of Abraham compared with that of the prime niinister, hardly a menial position!
However, the servant had certain obligations, whatever his status or rank - he was under obligation to obey and to work for the benefit of his master, which is still not too far away from the idea of the hired workman of today. In return for his obedience and care, he received protection and reciprocal care.
The servitor, on the other hand, may correspond more to our modern concept of servant, since he was the one who served, or ministered to, another. However, again, we must not necessarily equate this with a menial position, although, of course, it could well have been one, and often was. But the point is that it did not have to be so. It may merely mean "one in waiting," or the person who is available to serve in whatever capacity is required. And that, too, is still true today.
27. Number One on the List
Illustration
Brett Blair
Ivy Lee (1877–1934) was an American publicity expert and worked as a consultant for a number of businesses. One of those was for Charles Schwab, who was then president of Bethlehem Steel. Schwab was obsessed with efficiency and wanted Bethlehem Steel to become more productive. Ivy Lee was brought in.
Schwab asked: “Show me a way to get more things done.”
Lee: “Give me 15 minutes with each of your executives”
Schwab: “How much will it cost me?”
Lee: “Nothing. Unless it works. After three months, you can send me a check for whatever you feel it’s worth to you.”
Schwab agreed and during those 15 minutes with each executive, Lee laid out the following five step method:
- At the end of each working day, write down the fivemost important things you need to accomplish tomorrow. Do not write down more than fivetasks.
- Prioritize thoseitems in order of their true importance.
- When you arrive tomorrow, concentrate only on the first task. Work until the first task is finished before moving on to the second task.
- Approach the rest of your list in the same way. Don’t worry if you’ve only finished one or two by the end of the day; the others can wait.
- Repeat this process every working day.
It’s simple right? Well, Schwab and his team starting using this method. It worked well, very well. After a couple months of outstanding production from his staff Schwab senta $25,000 check to Lee. Adjusted for inflation that's $400,000 today!
Today this simple approach is called theThe Ivy Lee Method. It's amillion dollar productivity approachfor a lot of companies. If we were to apply the Ivy Lee Method to Christianity what would it look like?I think all of would agree that Love God and Love your neighbor would be #1 on the list. But after that? What would come after that. I think this text is a good candidate for #2: So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' Rather seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
In fact isn't that the Ivy Lee method itself?Let's call it the Jesus Method:Trust in God; pursue what is Good, and don't worry about tomorrow. And today your needs will be met.
28. The Leverage of Prayer
Illustration
C. H. Spurgeon
We would be abler teachers of others, and less liable to be carried about by every wind of doctrine, if we sought to have a more intelligent understanding of the Word of God. As the Holy Spirit, the Author of the Scriptures, alone can enlighten us rightly to understand them, we should constantly ask His teaching and His guidance unto all truth.
When the prophet Daniel sought to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream, what did he do? He set himself to earnest prayer that God would open up the vision. Therefore, if, your own and others' profiting, you desire to be "filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding," remember that prayer is your best means of study. Like Daniel, you shall understand the dream, and its interpretation, when you have sought God. You may force your way through many barriers to understanding with the leverage of prayer. Thoughts and reasonings are like the steel wedges which give a hold on truth, but prayer is the lever which forces open the treasure hidden within.
29. The Priorities of a Servant
Illustration
Brett Blair
A young boy by the name of James had a desire to be the most famous manufacturer and salesman of cheese in the world. He planned on becoming rich and famous by making and selling cheese and began with a little buggy pulled by a pony named Paddy. After making his cheese, he would load his wagon and he and Paddy would drive down the streets of Chicago to sell the cheese. As the months passed, the young boy began to despair because he was not making any money, in spite of his long hours and hard work.
One day he pulled his pony to a stop and began to talk to him. He said, "Paddy, there is something wrong. We are not doing it right. I am afraid we have things turned around and our priorities are not where they ought to be. Maybe we ought to serve God and place him first in our lives." The boy drove home and made a covenant that for the rest of his life he would first serve God and then would work as God directed.
Many years after this, the young boy, now a man, stood as Sunday School Superintendent at North Shore Baptist Church in Chicago and said, "I would rather be a layman in the North Shore Baptist Church than to head the greatest corporation in America. My first job is serving Jesus."
So, every time you take a take a bite of Philadelphia Cream cheese, sip a cup of Maxwell House, mix a quart of Kool-Aid, slice up a DiGiorno Pizza, cook a pot of Macaroni & Cheese, spread some Grey Poupon, stir a bowl of Cream of Wheat, slurp down some Jell-O, eat the cream out of the middle of an Oreo cookie, or serve some Stove Top, remember a boy, his pony named Paddy, and the promise little James L. Kraft made to serve God and work as He directed.
30. 101 Ways to Spend Your Time
Illustration
Tim Kimmel
Becoming good at the things that build inner confidence and calm takes practice and a dash of creativity! The following list might provide some cloudseeding for a brainstorm or two of your own:
- Pay off your credit cards.
- Take off ten pounds or accept where you are without any more complaints.
- Eat dinner together as a family for seven days in a row.
- Take your wife on a dialogue date (no movie, guys).
- Read your kids a classic book (Twain's a good start).
- Memorize the Twenty-third Psalm as a family.
- Give each family member a hug for twenty-one days in a row (that's how long the experts say it takes to develop a habit).
- Pick a night of the week in which the television will remain unplugged.
- Go out for a non-fast food dinner as a family.
- Pray for your spouse and children every day.
- Plan a vacation together.
- Take a vacation together.
- Read a chapter from the Bible every day until it becomes a habit.
- Sit together as a family in church.
- Surprise your teenager. Wash his car and fill up his gas tank.
- Take an afternoon off from work; surprise your child by excusing him from school and taking him to a ball game.
- Take a few hours one afternoon and go to the library as a family.
- Take a walk as a family.
- Write each member of your family a letter sharing why you value them.
- Give your spouse a weekend getaway with a friend (same gender!) to a place of their choice.
- Go camping as a family.
- Go to bed early (one hour before your normal bedtime) every day for a week.
- Take each of your children out to breakfast (individually) at least once a month for a year.
- Turn down a promotion that would demand more time from your family than you can afford to give.
- Religiously wear your seat belts.
- Get a complete physical.
- Exercise a little every day for a month.
- Make sure you have adequate life insurance on both you and your spouse.
- Write out information about finances, wills, and important business information that your spouse can use to keep things under control in the event of your death.
- Make sure your family car is safe (tires, brakes, etc.) and get it tuned up.
- Replace the batteries in your smoke alarm.
- Put a security system in your house.
- Attend the parent/teacher meetings of each child as a couple.
- Help your kids with their homework.
- Watch the kids on Saturday while your wife goes shopping (but if a friend calls, don't say that you're "babysitting").
- Explain to your spouse exactly what you do for a living.
- Put together a picture puzzle. (One thousand pieces or more.)
- Take time during the week to read a Bible story to your children and then discuss it with them.
- Encourage each child to submit to you his most perplexing question, and promise him that you'll either answer it or discuss it with him.
- Finish fixing something around the house.
- Tell your kids how you and your spouse met.
- Tell your kids about your first date.
- Sit down and write your parents a letter thanking them for a specific thing they did for you. (Don't forget to send it!)
- Go on a shopping spree where you are absolutely committed to buying nothing.
- Keep a prayer journal for a month. Keep track of the specific ways that God answers your needs.
- Do some stargazing away from the city with your family. Help your children identify constellations and conclude the evening with prayer to the majestic God who created the heavens.
- Treat your wife to a beauty make-over (facial, manicure, haircut, etc.). I hear they really like this.
- Give the kids an alternative to watching Saturday morning cartoons (breakfast at McDonald's, garage sales, the park, chores, etc.).
- Ask your children each day what they did at school (what they learned, who they ate lunch with, etc.).
- After you make your next major family decision, take your child back through the process and teach him how you arrived at your decision.
- Start saying to yourself "My car doesn't look so bad."
- Call you wife or husband from work just to see how they're doing.
- Compile a family tree and teach your children the history of their ancestors.
- Walk through an old graveyard with your children.
- Say no to at least one thing a day even if it's only a second piece of pie.
- Write that letter to the network that broadcast the show you felt was inappropriate for prime-time viewing.
- Turn off the lights and listen to a "praise" tape as you focus your thoughts on the Lord.
- Write a note to your pastor praising him for something.
- Take back all the books in your library that actually belong in someone else's library.
- Give irritating drivers the right to pull in front of you without signaling and yelling at them.
- Make every effort to not let the sun go down on your anger.
- Accept legitimate criticism from your wife or a friend without reacting or defending yourself.
- If your car has a Christian bumper sticker on in drive like it.
- Do a Bible study on the "wise man" and the "fool" in Proverbs...and then apply what it takes to be wise to your life.
- Make a list of people who have hurt your feelings over the past year...then check your list to see if you've forgiven them.
- Make a decision to honor your parents, even if they made a career out of dishonoring you.
- Take your children to the dentist and doctor for your wife.
- Play charades with your family, but limit subjects to memories of the past.
- Do the dishes for your wife.
- Schedule yourself a free day to stay home with your family.
- Get involved in a family project that serves or helps someone less fortunate.
- As a family, get involved in a recreational activity.
- Send your wife flowers.
- Spend an evening going through old pictures from family vacations.
- Take a weekend once a year for you and your spouse to get away and renew your friendship.
- Praise your spouse and children in their presence to someone else.
- Discuss a world or national problem, and ask your children for their opinion on it.
- Wait up for your teenagers when they are out on dates.
- Have a "quiet Saturday" (no television, no radio, no stereo...no kidding).
- If your children are little, spend an hour playing with them but let them determine the game.
- Have your parents tell your children about life when they were young.
- Give up soap operas.
- De-clutter your house.
- If you have a habit of watching late night television, but have to be to work early every morning, change your habit.
- Don't accept unnecessary breakfast appointments.
- Write missionaries regularly.
- Go through your closets and give everything that you haven't worn in a year to a clothing relief organization.
- Become a faithful and frequent visitor of your church's library.
- Become a monthly supporter of a Third World child.
- Keep mementos, school projects, awards, etc. of each child in separate files. You'll appreciate these when they've left the nest.
- Read the biography of a missionary.
- Give regularly and faithfully to conscientious church endeavors.
- Place with your will a letter to each family member telling why you were glad you got to share life with him or her.
- Go through your old records and tapes and discard any of them that might be a bad testimony to your children.
- Furnish a room (or a corner of a room) with comfortable chairs and declare it the "disagreement corner." When conflicts arise, go to this corner and don't leave until it's resolved.
- Give each child the freedom to pick his favorite dinner menu at least once a week.
- Go over to a shut-in's house as a family and completely clean it and get the lawn work done.
- Call an old friend from your past, just to see how he or she is getting along.
- Get a good friend to hold you accountable for a specific important need (Bible reading, prayer, spending time with your family, losing a few pounds, etc.).
- Establish a budget.
- Go to a Christian marriage enrichment seminar.
31. What's the Next Best Thing
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
The fellow was tired and weak all the time, drained of energy. Finally he decided to pay a visit to his doctor. “Doctor,” he said, “I feel drained and exhausted. I’m always tired. I don’t seem to have any energy. I have a chronic headache. I feel worn out all the time. What’s the best thing I can do?”
The doctor knew something about the man’s wild and fast-paced lifestyle. “What’s the best thing you can do? You can go home after work, eat a nutritious meal, get a good night’s rest, and stop running around and carousing all night -- that’s the best thing you can do.”
The man pondered that for a moment and then asked, “What’s the next best thing I can do?”
Too often we decide for the next best because we’re not willing to pay the price for the very best. We’re not willing to give up habits that are taking their toll on our physical health. We’re not willing to give up activities and relationships that are morally questionable. We’re not willing to pay the price of spiritual discipline. There’s no point in seeking a meaningful life if we are willing only to do the next-best thing in finding it.
32. We Thought You Said Daddy!
Illustration
As we celebrate Father's Day today, I would like to share the following story about the effect that one father had on his family. This particular family had three small children who were determined to have a puppy. Mom protested because she knew that somehow or other, she would end up caring for the critter. True to form, the children solemnly promised that they would take care of it. Eventually, she relented and they brought their little puppy home. The children named him Danny and cared for him diligently - at first. But, sure enough, as time passed, Mom found herself becoming more and more responsible for taking care of the dog. Finally, she decided that the children were not living up to their promise so she began to search for a new home for Danny. When she found one and broke the news to the children, she was quite surprised that they had almost no reaction at all. One of them even said rather matter-of-factly, "We'll miss him."
"I'm sure we will," Mom answered, "but he is too much work for one person and since I'm the one that has to do all the work, I say he goes."
"But," protested another child, "if he wouldn't eat so much and wouldn't be so messy, could we keep him?"
Mom held her ground, "It's time to take Danny to his new home." Suddenly, with one voice and with tears in their eyes, the children exclaimed, "Danny? We thought you said Daddy!"
33. Paid In Full
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The story istold of a man who was caught and taken to court because he had stolen a loaf of bread. When the judge investigated, he found out that the man had no job, and his family was hungry. He had tried unsuccessfully to get work and finally, to feed his family, he had stolen a loaf of bread. Although recognizing the extenuating circ*mstances, the judge said, “I’m sorry, but the law can make no exceptions. You stole, and therefore I have to punish you. I order you to pay a fine of ten dollars.” He then continued, “But I want to pay the fine myself.” He reached into his pocket, pulled out a ten-dollar bill, and handed it to the man.
As soon as the man took the money, the judge said, “Now I also want to remit the fine.” That is, the man could keep the money. “Furthermore, I am going to instruct the bailiff to pass around a hat to everyone in this courtroom, and I am fining everyone in this courtroom fifty cents for living in a city where a man has to steal in order to have bread to eat.” The money was collected and given to the defendant.
This is an excellent example of justice being meted out in full and paid in full—while mercy and grace were also enacted in full measure.
34. Give To God The Things That Are God's
Illustration
Phyllis Faaborg Wolk
"Tell us what you think, Teacher. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" When the Pharisees asked Jesus that question, he responded with a request, "Show me the coin used for the tax," and someone handed Jesus a coin embossed with the head of the current Roman emperor, Tiberius. Engraved around his head was the inscription, "Tiberius Caesar, majestic son of the majestic God, and High Priest." "Whose image is on this coin?" Jesus asked. "The emperor's," they responded. "Well then," Jesus said, "give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor." The image of the emperor was embossed on the coin, therefore the coin belonged to him.
But in answering the Pharisees' question, Jesus didn't stop with the issue of taxation. He continued, "and give to God what belongs to God." As Jesus spoke the words, "give to God what belongs to God," standing right before him were those on whom the image of God had been embossed. The Pharisees, teachers of the law of Israel, children of Abraham whom God had claimed as his own, had been created from the very beginning in the image of God. In the image of himself, God had created them. They belonged to God. Those in whose eyes Jesus looked as he spoke were the coins of God. "Give to God what belongs to God," Jesus said. But when he spoke those words, the Pharisees left him and went away.
Should we pay taxes to the government? Yes, Jesus would say. But again, Jesus wouldn't stop there. Today he looks you in the eye and says, "Give to God what belongs to God." And as he looks at you, Jesus sees the image of God. In the beginning God created you and embossed his image upon you. In the waters of baptism, God marked you with the cross of Christ forever. God has given himself to you and has promised to love you and be with you forever.
Mrs. Detweiler was created in the image of God. She worked at Murray Elementary as the special education teacher. It didn't take her students long to recognize the image of God within her which made them feel special and loved. Even though she was a special education teacher, the students of Murray Elementary considered it a privilege to be invited to Mrs. Detweiler's room. The walls of her small classroom were covered with stars made out of bright yellow construction paper. Neatly written in black permanent marker on the star at the top of each row was the name of one of her students. As soon as a student finished reading a book, the title of that book was placed on another star that soon appeared directly beneath the star bearing the student's name. The more books a person read, the more stars accumulated under the name. Whenever her students finished a book, Mrs. Detweiler made them feel like stars, themselves. Her ability to make her students feel special and important was a mark of the image of God shining through her.
Mrs. Detweiler bore the image of God. She loved her students -- that was the image of God. She gave of herself by teaching them to read -- that was the image of God. She believed in her students -- that was the image of God. But even as one created in the image of God, Mrs. Detweiler would be the first to say that she had her faults. There were times when she let her students down; times when she lost her patience; times when her mood affected her ability to respond to her students enthusiastically. Mrs. Detweiler wasn't perfect, but she had been created in the image of God, claimed as God's child through her baptism and renewed each day with the gift of forgiveness. As she gave God what belonged to God by giving of herself to her students, Jesus worked through her. Through Mrs. Detweiler, God's love, acceptance and encouragement was shown to many students as they grew and matured into the people God had created them to be. As she gave God what belonged to God, God continued to give himself to her, revealing his love again and again through the sparkle in her students' eyes.
You are God's. His image has been placed within you. When I look at you, I see the image of God. I see the image of God in your faces as you greet one another before worship. I see the image of God each time you pray for each other and share one another's concerns. I see the image of God when I go to the nursing home and watch you hug and hold and gently speak with those who reside there. I see the image of God when I watch the Sunday school staff relate with the children -- so often God's love is given and received in the simple interactions they share. I see the image of God in the church kitchen, as members of this congregation work side by side to prepare a meal after a funeral or before a fellowship event. I see the image of God every time one of you gives to the Lord's work in a generous and cheerful way, sharing with others the blessings God has given you. God's image shines when you invite and welcome your neighbors to church -- not only those who are like you, but those who bring different perspectives and talents and needs to this body of Christ. I see God's image as this congregation reaches beyond itself to support missionaries and relieve world hunger. Whenever you give of yourself to others, the image of God within you is being revealed.
You are the bearers of God's image. Jesus said, "Give to God the things that are God's." You are God's. Jesus says, "Give yourself to God." But before you can even respond to Jesus' call to give yourself to God, God gives himself to you. Even before you have a chance to respond to Jesus' command, Jesus goes to the cross. Jesus goes to the cross to give to God what belongs to God. Jesus goes to the cross to give you to his Father in Heaven, who then blesses you with salvation and eternal life. Jesus goes to the cross for you and gives you life.
Give to God the things that are God's. When you give yourself to God, God will nurture his image within you. Jesus who now lives in you will give himself to others whenever you give of yourself to those in need. Jesus will use you to reveal God's love and forgiveness, to show all God's children how special they are to God, and to proclaim salvation to all who have been created in the image of God. Give to God things that are God's, remembering that Jesus has already given himself for you. Amen.
35. Rewards
Illustration
Thomas a Kempis
Do not be worn out by the labors which you have undertaken for My sake, and do not let tribulations ever cast you down. Instead, let My promise strengthen and comfort you under every circ*mstance. I am well able to reward you above all measure and degree. You shall not toil here long nor always be oppressed with griefs. A time will come when all labor and trouble will cease. Labor faithfully in My vineyard; I will be thy recompense. Life everlasting is worth all these conflict, and greater than these. Are not all plentiful labors to be endured for the sake of life eternal? Lift your face therefore to heaven; behold I and all My saints with me--who in this world had great conflicts--are now comforted, now rejoicing, now secure, now at rest, and shall remain with Me everlastingly in the kingdom of My father.
36. Togetherness in the Eucharist
Illustration
Charles R. Leary
Bread suggests togetherness, care and love, hopes and dreams, fun and adventure.
Let's say some new friends invite you to their house for a meal. When you are a guest in their home, they are sharing their intimacy with you. They are sharing with you some of the privacy of that place where they live every day, eat every day, love every day, work on their problems, argue from time to time, sleep and depart for work and pleasure and return for rest, every day.
After graciously receiving you, they show you around their home in which they take deep pride. Then you go to the dining room for the meal. You find the table set with care, the food exceptionally delicious, and the conversation flows easily. Simply put, it becomes a lovely evening and you leave feeling full in every way. You enjoy bread from the kitchen, but much more. You enjoy the bread of being graciously received, the bread of informed and lively conversation, and the bread of being in beautiful surroundings..
Magnify that thousands of times and you begin to have a glimmer of what the church perceives the Holy Eucharist to be. In the Eucharist Jesus and "Bread of Life" are one. In the Eucharist bread and wine are the elements that nurture faith in God.
37. Christ Is Alive
Illustration
Kurt E. DeHaan
Why We Believe Jesus Rose from the Dead: If Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Christian faith is a foolish fantasy. However, if the resurrection of Christ did occur, it confirms His life, message, and atoning work. It is the basis of our hope of life beyond the grave. Christ is alive, and the evidence is overwhelming. Here are some of the reasons we can be so sure.
- Jesus predicted His resurrection (Matt 16:21; Mark 9:9-10; John 2:18-22).
- The Old Testament prophesied it (Psalm 16:10; compare Acts 2:25-31; 13:33-37).
- The tomb was empty and the grave clothes vacant. if those who opposed Christ wished to silence His disciples, all they had to do was produce a body, but they could not (John 20:3-9).
- Many people saw the resurrected Christ. They looked on His face, touched Him, heard His voice, and saw Him eat (Matt. 28:16-20; Luke 24:13-39; John 20:11-29; John 21:1-9; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor. 15:3-8).
- The lives of the disciples were revolutionized. Though they fled and even denied Christ at the time of His arrest, they later feared no one in their proclamation of the risen Christ (Matt 26:56, 69-75).6. The resurrection was the central message of the early church. The church grew with an unwavering conviction that Christ had risen and was the Lord of the church (Acts 4:33; 5:30-32; Rom. 5:24).
- Men and women today testify that the power of the risen Christ has transformed their lives. We know that Jesus is alive not only because of the historical and biblical evidence but also because He has miraculously touched our lives.
38. We Are Not Ghosts
Illustration
Keith Grogg
On Easter morning, before the sunrise service in Carolina Beach, I was standing next to my friend Steve Hall, the minister at St. Paul's Methodist. And the sun hadn't quite peeked out above the horizon, but there was a spectacular red glow all along the skyline, reflecting on the ocean. And I was just about to say, "Steve, I can't figure out why I'm not out here every morning," but he had started to speak first, and he said, "Why am I not out here every morning?"
John, the most sacramental of the four evangelists, puts this scene with the risen Jesus on the beach; and Jesus has built a little campfire, and he asks the disciples returning from their morning trawl to bring some fish to add to the ones he's already got on the grill, along with bread that he has provided.
But Luke has it happening in the house in Jerusalem where the disciples are gathered, and it is evening.
In both cases, Christ's presence is as real as it gets, and he is so alive that, like you and me and every human being in the world, he needs something to eat.
As you and I, members of the body of Christ, try to minister to the world around us, may we remember the real, tangible, physical needs of this world that God loved so much that God gave hisonly Son.
We are not ghosts. We can do things, build things, make things, share things. And occasionally, when we have done our daily work for the physical well-being of this absolutely real world, we will have the privilege of sitting at table together, in the presence of the one who opens our eyes, and makes our breaking bread together a sacrament.
39. Historic: The Declaration of Independence
Illustration
Staff
The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in Congress, July 4, 1776
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
- For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circ*mstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.
- We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
- We have reminded them of the circ*mstances of our emigration and settlement here.
- We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
- New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
- Massachusetts: John Hanco*ck, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
- Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
- Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
- New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
- New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
- Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
- Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
- Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
- Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
- North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
- South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
- Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Background
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to set forth the principles upon which the Congress had acted two days earlier when it voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee's motion to declare the freedom and independence of the 13 American colonies from England. The Declaration was designed to influence public opinion and gain support both among the new states and abroad especially in France, from which the new "United States" sought military assistance.
Although Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston comprised the committee charged with drafting the Declaration, the task fell to Jefferson, regarded as the strongest and most eloquent writer. The document is mainly his work, although the committee and Congress as a whole made a total of 86 changes to Jefferson's draft.
As a scholar well-versed in the ideas and ideals of the French and English Enlightenments, Jefferson found his greatest inspiration in the language and arguments of English philosopher John Locke, who had justified England's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 on the basis of man's "natural rights." Locke's theory held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty. Jefferson's theory of "natural law" differed in that it substituted the inalienable right of "the pursuit of happiness" for "property," emphasizing that happiness is the product of civic virtue and public duty. The concept of the "pursuit of happiness" originated in the Common Sense School of Scottish philosophy, of which Lord Kames was the best-known proponent.
Jefferson emphasized the contractual justification for independence, arguing that when the tyrannical government of King George III of England repeatedly violated "natural law, " the colonists had not only the right but the duty to revolt.
The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1) a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.
40. Persisting In Integrity
Illustration
Susan breathed in deeply in another effort at self-control. "How dare Ray ask me! How dare he! 'A little overtime again!' he says. He knows I don't get any. But, it's not the money. It's the other issue - the issue of 'how dare he?'"
Susan was the administrative assistant to the vice-president. She loved her work. She kept everyone and everything in balance: the trainees, the secretarial staff, the president himself and Ray. She even had time to visit her parents and sail weekly with the team.
She felt her top teeth sink mercilessly into her lower lip and pinch the lip cruelly against her lower teeth. "Oh! That hurts! Be careful or I'll be bleeding!"
Her eye mechanically surveyed her office: diploma discreetly framed on the opposite wall, favorite photos of the boat and team to the right, her beautiful desk with its neat files, and the large window to the left overlooking the intersection. Numb in her thoughts, she gazed below. Red light. Green light. People crossing. Cars passing. "How dare he!" Her concentration returned to the report immediately in front of her.
Ever since she began, it was this way. Work hard. Give it her all. Every rating "Excellent!" But always, "Susan, this is great but I need you to .. a little overtime again!" Again she realized her lower lip was painfully squeezed between her teeth. She relaxed her jaw "What if I had a partner and children waiting somewhere? At least the team doesn't eat till 9 p.m. Maybe ..."
She glanced at the report: "Part 3. Include Bill's concerns. That'll take hours!" Picking up a pen she settled back into her chair. Bill's concerns were outlined on the top. Her eye scanned the first line. But then she raised her head.
"What's really going on? What's the real issue? Why all these last minute needs? Is it pity? I'm not married and so he needs to keep me busy? Is it power? He's on the board and I'm not. Is it I'm a woman and he's the man?" She shuddered at that thought. "Is he hard-hearted? Genuinely ignorant? Doesn't he see his own pattern? His meeting isn't 'til next Thursday. He doesn't 'just' need it ..." She breathed in deeply again. "That's it! I'll get the revision done and on time. But not tonight and not without talking to Ray and if necessary with Paul in personnel. The report will be done; it will also be noted in my office journal."
She opened the journal confidently and made a brief entry. "Paul will appreciate this journal - it was his idea when I last talked with him about Ray. Ray and I need to talk and reach an understanding or I move on. I'll no longer grin and bear. I'm worth it! Paul knows it. So does Ray."
Notation finished, Susan closed her journal and the report file and went determinedly and cheerfully to meet her team for the sail. "
41. Marriage in India
Illustration
Lisa D. Kenkeremath
In most parts of the world, a wedding is just about the biggest, most lavish event most people will ever attend. In the villages of India, for example, the marriage rites and festivities last for three days. Preparations of food and decorations begin weeks ahead. Bride and groom alike are dressed head to toe in sumptuous fabrics of silk and brocade, gold jewelry set with precious stones, garlands of flowers around their necks the most beautiful clothes they will ever wear. The groom may ride into the village on a white horse to meet his bride. Everyone in the village, from the youngest to the oldest, from the richest to the poorest, is invited, and the bride's family personally feeds those who come to beg. No one would think of refusing the invitation, and even the poor people scrape together some bits of finery to wear. The bride and groom are almost incidental to the scene, which has a glamour and excitement of its own as people sparkle in their finery, eat and drink and make music. For a time, work is set aside, the daily grind of poverty and deprivation is forgotten, distinctions of wealth and rank are blurred. For a time, life seems full of love, joy and harmony.
And Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son." Parties in general, and weddings in particular, figure prominently in the Biblical vision of salvation. The prophet Isaiah speaks of the day of redemption as the day when "the Lord will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines" on God's holy mountain (Isa. 25:6). This is the great messianic banquet when all creation is healed and God and humanity feast together. In today's text, the prophet sees the people of God as brides and grooms decked out in the garments of salvation.
42. The Sacrifice of A Son
Illustration
Michael P. Green
A legend is told about the days of theGreat Depression. AMissouri man named John Griffith was the controller of a great railroad drawbridge across the Mississippi River. One day in the summer of 1937 he decided to take his eight-year-old son, Greg, with him to work. At noon, John Griffith put the bridge up to allow ships to pass and sat on the observation deck with his son to eat lunch. Time passed quickly. Suddenly he was startled by the shrieking of a train whistle in the distance. He quickly looked at his watch and noticed it was 1:07—the Memphis Express, with four hundred passengers on board, was roaring toward the raised bridge! He leaped from the observation deck and ran back to the control tower. Just before throwing the master lever he glanced down for any ships below. There a sight caught his eye that caused his heart to leap poundingly into his throat. Greg had slipped from the observation deck and had fallen into the massive gears that operate the bridge. His left leg was caught in the cogs of the two main gears! Desperately John’s mind whirled to devise a rescue plan. But as soon as he thought of a possibility he knew there was no way it could be done.
Again, with alarming closeness, the train whistle shrieked in the air. He could hear the clicking of the locomotive wheels over the tracks. That was his son down there—yet there were four hundred passengers on the train. John knew what he had to do, so he buried his head in his left arm and pushed the master switch forward. That great massive bridge lowered into place just as the Memphis Express began to roar across the river. When John Griffith lifted his head with his face smeared with tears, he looked into the passing windows of the train. There were businessmen casually reading their afternoon papers, finely dressed ladies in the dining car sipping coffee, and children pushing long spoons into their dishes of ice cream. No one looked at the control house, and no one looked at the great gear box. With wrenching agony, John Griffith cried out at the steel train: “I sacrificed my son for you people! Don’t you care?” The train rushed by, but nobody heard the father’s words, which recalled Lamentations 1:12: “Is it nothing to you, all who pass by?”
This story is condensed and adapted from “Is It Nothing to You?” by Dr. D. James Kennedy, March 19, 1978, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Note: This story has a few iterations dating back to the 1800's. It is a likely legend due to know known records of the events.Snopes deals with ithere.
43. Storing What We Do Not Need
Illustration
Staff
Jesus did not condemn the man for eating, drinking and being merry, nor even for being rich. Rather the man was called foolish for building bigger barns. The point of the story is that the entrepreneur was planning to store more of his wealth than he needed to eat, drink and be merry. Look again at the words of the story. The man says, "What shall I do for I have nowhere to store my crops?" Not true! He has barns. His problem is that his harvest has been so great that his present storage facilities will not hold all of the grain. So he decides, "I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain. Then and only then will I have ample goods to eat, drink and be merry." Again, not true! He already has ample goods. He does not have to live in the moment. He has barns for his future. They may not be as big as he would like, but he has plenty to eat, drink and be merry. The man already has enough wealth to enjoy Shalom. He has a sense of well-being and security because God has generously blessed his land with fruitfulness. Fortune has smiled on him and he has been able to accumulate a sizable portion of this world's goods.
The point of the story is not that there is something wrong with amassing some wealth, but that he was intending to store it all by building bigger barns and storing it. He was called "foolish" because he did not recognize that his wealth had brought him happiness and that it could do the same for others if only it were not locked up in those bigger barns. His sin was not that he had become wealthy, but that he wanted to hoard all his wealth. His sin was not that he ate, drank and was merry, but that he was withholding the means for others to do the same. He had become a bottleneck in the flow of Shalom blessings to others.
The story, so understood, is not a teaching condemning the foolishness of gathering wealth. It is rather a parable which condemns the refusal to share the wealth we do not need. It warns about the shortsightedness of failing to be a good custodian of the abundance that God entrusts to us.
44. Jesus Startles Us
Illustration
Joel D. Kline
As in so many of Jesus' parables and teachings, we find the message of this parable shocking. As Donald Kraybill writes in The Upside Down Kingdom:
Again and again in parables, sermons, and acts Jesus startles us. Things are not like they are supposed to be. The stories don't end as we expected. The Good Guys turn out to be the Bad Guys. The ones we expected to receive a reward get chastised . . . The least are the greatest. The immoral receive forgiveness and blessing. Adults become like children. The religious miss the heavenly banquet… The kingdom surprises us again and again by turning our world upside down.
And indeed, a story in which those who labor only one hour receive the same reward as those who toil all day long confounds our usual ways of thinking. Philip Yancey asserts that there is an "atrocious mathematics" at the heart of the gospel. Writes Yancey, "Jesus' story makes no economic sense, and that was his intent. He was giving us a parable about grace, which cannot be calculated like a day's wages. Grace is not about finishing last or first; it is about not counting."
45. Taste and See
Illustration
Brett Blair
An elderly woman made her living selling artificial fruit. One day a customer complained the fruit she sold was not realistic enough. She pointed to an apple, saying it was too red, too round and too big to be a real apple. At that point the artificial fruit lady picked up the apple and proceeded to eat it.
The resurrection of Jesus, throughout the years has been critically examined, judged by authorities, and editorialized by writers, and the conclusion of most is that it is simply an event which can not be proven and probably too good to be true. It may look like an apple but in actuality it is artificial fruit, they conclude. But if you will pick it up and take a bite you come to know that he really did rise from the grave. He is alive. He is listening to our prayers. He is ready to serve when that service deals with the human heart in need of a shepherd's guidance and love.
George Bernard Shaw, the famous playwright, was handed a newly written play by a fledgling playwright. Shaw was asked to give the young man a criticism of the work a few days later. "How did you like it?" asked the author. "I fell asleep reading it," said Shaw. "Sleep is my comment on your work."
My friend there is nothing boring about the resurrection. Easter dawns upon a world hidden in darkness. Easter awakens every sleeper with the news that preacher of peace, the Prince of Power and the Lord of Love has appeared. Christianity is real. Christianity is alive. Christianity is anything but boring. Let us all wake up and smell the roses. Let us resolve to live our lives as if Jesus were a guest in our homes, workplaces and businesses. The truth is that the Lord is here, there and everywhere. He is alive. He is our Risen Lord to whom we offer our discipleship with love.
The song goes, "They'll know we are Christians by our love." Let us be about our Father's business as we serve him with joy. Let us show and tell others the good news of the gospel.
46. The Frail Old Man
Illustration
Staff
A frail old man went to live with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year-old grandson.The old man's hands trembled, his eyesight was blurred, and his step faltered.The family ate together at the table. But the elderly grandfather's shaky hands and failing sight made eating difficult. Peas rolled off his spoon onto the floor.When he grasped the glass, milk spilled on the tablecloth.The son and daughter-in-law became irritated with the mess.
"We must do something about Grandfather," said the son."I've had enough of his spilled milk, noisy eating, and food on the floor."So the husband and wife set a small table in the corner.There Grandfather ate alone while the rest of the family enjoyed dinner.Since Grandfather had broken a dish or two, his food was served in a wooden bowl.
When the family glanced in Grandfather's direction, sometimes he had a tear in his eye as he sat alone.Still, the only words the couple had for him were sharp admonitions when he dropped a fork or spilled food.The four-year-old watched it all in silence.
One evening before supper, the father noticed his son playing with wood scraps on the floor.He asked the child sweetly, "What are you making?"Just as sweetly, the boy responded, "Oh, I am making a little bowl for you and Mama to eat your food in when I grow up."
The four year old smiled and went back to work.The words so struck the parents that they were speechless. Then tears started to stream down their cheeks.Though no word was spoken, both knew what must be done.That evening the husband took Grandfather's hand and gently led him back to the family table.For the remainder of his days he ate every meal with the family.And for some reason, neither husband nor wife seemed to care any longer when a fork was dropped, milk spilled, or the tablecloth soiled
Note: Traditional versions of this story can be found in a number of traditions, in Chinese lore, where a valuable porcelain bowl is broken.A version in Russian, Irish and Hispanic cultures relates the grandfather sent to a small cold room in the house.When the son is told to take an old worn rug to the grandfather to wrap up in he starts cutting the rug (or blanket) in half, when asked why, the son replies, "I am saving half for you when you are old.
47. Water That Brings a New Beginning - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Water has been in the news a lot recently, at least in the forms of snow and ice. Winter storms and snow literally stopped traffic in many parts of the country. And as much as we try to forge through to get to work or school, sometimes we have to stop and respect what the water around us is doing. Water is part of the drama of our life. It brings life, but not enough or too much can bring destruction. Let us focus on the life giving power of clean, fresh water.
There are two very different ways to think about baptism. The first approach recognizes the time of baptism as a saving moment in which the person being baptized accepts the love and forgiveness of God. The person then considers herself "saved." She may grow in the faith through the years, but nothing which she will experience after her baptism will be as important as her baptism. She always will be able to recall her baptism as the time when her life changed.
The second approach wouldn't disagree with any of that, but would add to it significantly. This idea affirms baptism as the time when God's love and forgiveness are experienced. It also recognizes baptism as a time of change. However, where the first approach isolates the act of baptism as the most important moment, the second approach understands baptism more as a beginning. While it is true that in the waters of baptism God laid claim on our lives, it is also true that we spend the rest of our lives trying to figure out what that means. The first understanding often overlooks the journey which follows baptism.
Baptism too frequently carries the connotation of having arrived. Sometimes people say to their ministers, "I want to be baptized and join the church as soon as I get my life in order." Of course, if that is what any of us are waiting on, we will never be baptized. None of us will ever have our lives sufficiently in order to be baptized. Baptism is not something we earn, nor is it a sign that we have found all the answers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Baptism is a beginning. It is the desire to see the world differently, to see each other differently, and even to see ourselves differently. Baptism is a fresh start, not a destination. Baptism calls into question our previous lives, it does not bless them. Baptism is not a trial-free membership, but a rite of initiation into a way of life in which Jesus promised there would be trials.
Jesus' baptism serves as a model for our baptism. For Jesus, baptism represents the beginning of his ministry. While some ultimate questions may have been answered when he was with John the Baptist in the Jordan River, Jesus continued to deal with questions and temptations throughout his life. The baptism of Jesus is one of our favorite stories. We love to hear how the heavens opened, to imagine the dove descending, and to hear God's blessing on the Son. We would like to think something like that happens when we are baptized. What we should be prepared for is that our journey of faith, much like Jesus' journey, continues to unfold long after our baptism as we try to discern what our baptism means in our daily living.
We can begin to understand more about our baptism by thinking of it in three ways.
- First, baptism is about beginning anew.
- The second part of baptism is the good news that we have been included.
- The third part of baptism is ordination.
48. Boy Scouts Who Forgot Gratitude
Illustration
Bruce Goettsche
I remember when I was in Cub Scouts a long time ago and we were having a meeting with parents in the basem*nt of the church where we met. We had a speaker for some reason that night and I have no idea what he was talking about. But I do remember something that he did.
He had ten Tootsie Pop suckers and he asked who would like one. Well, if you know me you know I raised my hand. So ten of us went up and were each given a sucker and then we sat down feeling pretty special. That is until the speaker began talking again. He commented that no one said thank you when he gave them their sucker. And at that moment every one of us was embarrassed and ashamed (especially since our parents were there feeling embarrassed and ashamed too.) I have never forgotten that powerful object lesson.
It is very possible that this speaker got his idea from the story of the ten lepers. This text is a powerful object lesson. If you pay attention, it is a lesson that will stay with you the rest of your life.
49. BRIDGES NOT WALLS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
There are basically two kinds of people in the world: those who build walls and those who build bridges. The great American poet Robert Frost wrote, "Before you build walls, make sure you know what you are walling out and what you are walling in." Unfortunately, most of us have built some walls during our lives - perhaps even a few more than bridges. God suggests we rent a crane, one with a big steel ball at the end, and start knocking them down. With the walls crushed we can then build a bridge between us and the person with whom we didn’t get along. Bridge built, now love and joy begin to pass between us.
Bridge building becomes possible for the believer through the cross of Jesus Christ. His cross bridged the chasm of sin, alienation, and death that separated God from us. Faith in him now makes it possible for us to span the gulf that isolates us from certain family members and neighbors.
The story is told about a teenage girl who was told that if she stayed out beyond a certain time, she would have to eat bread and water at supper. She stayed out too late, so at supper time she was given bread and water. But as the family started to eat, the father reached over and took the bread and water and gave the daughter his own meal. They ate in silence for a while, and then the girl, with tears in her eyes, came over and put her arms around her father’s neck as she said, "Daddy, I’ll never disobey you again." Something had happened to her on the inside. No threat of punishment, no fear of consequences, could work a miracle like that. Only love, bridge-building love could do it.
When Christ came, he bestowed a kiss on a weary world. We have the sweet kiss of forgiveness and acceptance through his death and resurrection. It is not ours only to savor but also is ours to give. Give it today - especially to a person who might least expect it. Then stand back and watch out for crumbling walls.
50. All We Really Need to Know
Illustration
Robert Fulgum
Robert Fulghum in All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten summed it up best:
"ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to live and what to do and how to be, I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the sandpile of Sunday School. These are the things I learned:
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.
Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup–they all die. So do we.
And remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned–the biggest word of all–LOOK.
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living." These are the kind of lessons we all learn and try to pass on to our children.
Showing
1
to
50
of
235
results
- MorningStar founder Rick Joyner slams Chris Reed for disrespecting ministry with resignation
- Israel says goodbye to murdered hostages as thousands gather for funeral of Hersh Goldberg-Polin in Jerusalem
- African Methodist Episcopal Church reaffirms ban on same-sex marriage
- 'Reagan' surpasses expectations with $9.2M opening weekend despite panning from critics
- American among 6 hostages executed by Hamas; Biden 'devastated and outraged'
- Dennis Quaid, 'Reagan' cast reflect on faith, leadership in new biopic: 'Don't shortchange God'
- Archaeologists discover 2,700-year-old seal in Jerusalem helping affirm city's biblical heritage
- Pat McAfee's dancing on ESPN'sCollege GameDay draws reactions from Christian leaders
- UMC bishop says 'agitation' is reason why he left Nigeria amid leadership change
- 4 US hostages remain in Gaza; questions arise over lack of media attention
- Christian Formation for the ‘Toolbelt Generation’
- German Pastor to Pay for Anti-LGBTQ Statements
- Should Christians Across Denominations Be Singing the Same Songs?
- Rwanda Explains Why It Closed Thousands of Churches. Again.
- Activist Lila Rose Under Fire for Suggesting Trump Hasn’t Earned the Pro-Life Vote
- More Christian Colleges Will Close. Can They Finish Well?
- Choose This (Labor) Day Whom You Will Serve
- What to Watch for in ‘Rings of Power’ Season 2
- When to Respond to Slander (and When to Ignore It)
- It Is Not Best for Man to Eat Alone
- Single Dad Adopts Down Syndrome Girl Rejected by 20 Families
- Carmelites find St. Teresa of Ávila's body still incorrupt after opening coffin for study of relics
- Maharashtra: Collapse of Shivaji statue shakes up politics in the state
- SO, WHY ARE YOU VOTING FOR TRUMP?
- Russian Foreign Minister Has a Longtime Female Companion With Over $13 Million in Unexplained Assets
- Scientists reveal long-lost secrets of major biblical events
- Afghanistan slides into 'ever more hellish conditions' after new morality law enacted
- Kangana Ranaut's Emergency Postponed As CBFC Revokes Certificate Due To Death Threats: 'Disappointed Hu Apne Desh Se'
- Understanding Islamic Finance – Analysis
- Eye-opening reply to 'what's the fastest a coworker's been fired' is a winner on X
- A Shroud of Evidence
- There Never Was a Pro-Life Case for Trump
- Donald Trump and the Sovereign Rights of God
- How a Church Fought Back Against a Liberal Takeover — And Won
- St. Teresa of Ávila's Body Remains Incorrupt After Almost 5 Centuries
- Faith of My Fathers
- Chinese Christians are the Canary in the Coal Mine
- Mohamad Jebara, 'Reclaimer' of the Quran
- Algerian Man Charged Over Synagogue Arson Attack in France
- Religion is America's Mighty Engine of Charitable Goodness
