In the book of Hebrews, the author spends considerable space on perseverance through faith; it may be said that this is the essential point emphasized throughout Hebrews 11:1–12:2. In the last two verses of this section (12:1–2) the central key to perseverance through faith is stated:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (ESV)
There are two major points made here; consider the following.
First, we must recognize that faithfulness as demonstrated in the cases found in Hebrews 11 affirms that “to be faithful is to hold on despite pain [sic].”[1] The pain may come in different forms and may either be the decision to reject sin or the constant struggle of unbelief.
Second, in order to imitate the faithfulness of the biblical heroes painted in Hebrews 11, and to complete the redemptive story of God (Heb 11:39–40), we are also called to remove the obstacles of sin with which we struggle in order to persevere faithfully.
The Weight and Grip of Sin
The call to faithfulness is illustrated through a well-known image from the Greco-Roman world – runners in the races. It would be a foolish athlete who competes in a race and impedes his performance by adding weight (12:1); in fact, it is common sense to remove as much weight as possible in order to improve one’s speed. The point is clear: weights hinder performance.
The “weight” which hinders the runner’s performance is equated by the phrase “sin which clings so closely.” Sin is a common human problem (Rom 3:23) and occurs when we behave contrary to God’s guidance (1 John 3:4).
The Hebrews author describes this sin as that which “clings so closely” (Grk. euperistatos). As a Greek term, the word used is quite rare and only found once in the entire New Testament. It appears, however, to have a wide range of suggested meanings, but essentially here reflects the idea of a dangerous “distress” or “calamity.” In the ancient Jewish Greek work, 2 Maccabees, this word is used to describe how “heavy disaster overtook” the Jews as they accepted an alliance with the Romans (2 Macc 4:16).[2]
There is also an element of skillfulness involved in sin suggested by this term, to exert a tight grip of control upon us.[3] God wants us to know that if we allow sin to dwell in our lives, it has the skill to take “advantage” to prevail against our better judgments.[4]
For this reason, we must not be passive with sin in our “race” of faithfulness, but with focused determination (taking the figure of the runner) we must act decisively to “thrust from ourselves” (“lay aside” ESV) the “weight” and the “sin” which will have a disastrous grip upon our spiritual lives.[5]
When Sin Grabs You
With the foregoing in the mind, it is clear that we must be on our guard against sin. It appears to be that many Christians flirt with sin and roam the borderlands of acceptable godly behavior with reckless abandon, believing that “all is under control.” Yet, like a fly snared by a Venus Fly Trap, once its trigger is initiated the tight and skillful grip will not release until the fly is dead.
Solomon sets forth a profound “cautionary tale” about those naïve and immature souls thinking they can live within the clutches of sinful living (Pro 7:1–27). Such will leave home free of constraints of the commandments, teaching, and insights of godly wisdom and wander the streets until they come to the threshold of sinful behavior. They will stand at the very edge thinking it’s possible to be so close to sin until the folly of sin “seizes” them (7:13) and seductively leads them to spiritual death (7:21–23). Foolishly tempting folly is viewed as ungodly, something the emerging wise person should refrain from.
Some have suggested that the “weight” and “sin” in Hebrews 12:1 ought to be viewed as two different problems, both of which hinder faithfulness to God and the ultimate completion of service to God.[5] This may be possible, though we feel that “weight” is a metaphor for sin; nevertheless, the point is taken “that there may be many things which could serve as hindrances to our running well.”[6] All of them weigh us down, so it is imperative we seek divine grace and sanctification to be Spirit enabled to run the Christian race.
The warning we ought to understand here is that instead of piling on questionable burdens, we ought to “lighten” our loads from hindrances that both hinder and distract us from full and complete service to our God and Father; which consequently affects our hope of heaven.
The fact that we come near to God through faith (Heb 11:6), and that this “nearness” rewards them that “seek” Him ought to compel us to offer a life filled with choices that seek His will over that of our own. Below we consider a couple areas where hindrances appear quite often.
Emotional Fixations
Additionally, we are prone to make emotional connections; this is part of our human experience and in fact, is a God-given attribute that reinforces healthy relationships. However, at times we can ill-invest our emotions into dangerous territory.
Some invest their emotional connections in unhealthy relationships. Affairs begin when one’s emotions are invested in another who is not their spouse. Young ones join gangs when they invest their loyalty into a group of friends, which they adopt as a surrogate family structure. Christians become emotionally compromised when they invest their romantic emotions into potential mates which could care less about their faith and godly morals.
It is not simply a matter of human weakness, after all, “all have sinned,” so goes the argument. There is, however, a real difference between succumbing to temptation and placing one’s self into the lion’s mouth of temptation because we are fixated on someone or some vice. It is a trite spirituality for one to appeal to grace while indulging in every sin. Paul clearly said, “may it never be” that Christians abuse God’s grace in this fashion (Rom 6:1–2).
Due to fear of rejection by friends or family, some people give in to pressure and trade their birthright for worldliness. We would be wise to guard our hearts and emotions (Pro 4:23):
Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. (ESV)
Planning for It
Finally, planning for sin is perhaps the most obvious area where hindrances appear in the life of the Christian. Temptations appear to everyone, but God promises that with every instance there is a “trap door” to escape the call of sin (1 Cor 10:12–13).
Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:12–13)
“That you may be able to endure it” is an implied promise of spiritual strength if you will give in to the Spirit’s lead. Nonetheless, we are allowed to make our own decisions (Jas 1:13–15). God cannot force us to live godly. We will in fact reap what we sow:
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Galatians 6:7–8)
One may be tempted to compromise sexually with a boyfriend or girlfriend, but that can only occur if a provision is made to fulfill the lust of the flesh (Rom 13:14). One may be tempted by the desire to want things that they obtain what they want through immoral methods of gain; when instead, we are to “work quietly” and “earn” our “own living” (2 Thess 3:12). Another may structure their lives so they can indulge in pornography, drugs, or drunkenness.
Sometimes we are so consumed with the notion that we have the capacity to do something that we do not stop to think about whether or not we should. “I’m 21 today, I’m going to a bar”; only that the consequence of a “night out” is a drunk mess barely able to wake up in the morning. Hangovers are not proof of adulting, they are consequences of a lack of wisdom. A practice surely condemned in Scripture (1 Pet 4:3). Unfortunately, we can multiply these “entitlement” habits, which are ultimately antiauthoritarian expressions that dishonor parents and ultimately God.
Concluding Thoughts
For those who have truly absorbed the beauty of the loving Gospel of Jesus Christ, and know that the ultimate dwelling placed is prepared for those who are faithful to God, no hindrance ought to be too difficult to cast aside so that we can have all the endurance we need to run the race of faith. So that we too can say with Paul:
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (2 Tim 4:7–8).
Cast off your sins! Trust God’s grace! Lean on the Spirit’s sanctificaiton! I’m praying and rooting for you.
James H. Moulton, and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914–1929), 264.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, editors, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 1.471-42; Joseph H. Thayer, 1889, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 261.
William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2.63.
H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (New York: American Book Co., 1888), 109.
“And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).
This is the time of year people talk of peace. There are many sayings or quotes about “Peace on Earth.” You can see them written on items such as cards or also mentioned in songs.
The holidays are just a temporary time for that special feeling of being happy, merry, and the feeling of being at peace. We all look forward to spending time with family, exchanging gifts, and enjoying the festivities.
Is this the kind of peace we want or where we find true peace? In the Bible, we find many scriptures about peace. We are told of the God of peace in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Romans 15:33. We are told Jesus is the Lord of peace (2 Thessalonians 3:16) and the Prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6).
As mentioned in our text, we are told peace from God surpasses all understanding. This goes beyond any understanding anyone has on earth. How are we to find this peace? This is peace given to us by God.
“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you” (John 14:27a).
Jesus said, “that in me you may have peace” (John 16:33a).
But we cannot receive peace without doing something. We must seek peace and pursue it, 1 Peter 3:11 quoted from Psalm 34:14.
“So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Romans 14:19).
“We must strive for peace with everyone” (Heb 12:14).
If we set our mind on the Spirit it is life and peace (Romans 8:6b).
Have you ever thought that you need to plan for peace? Proverbs tells us,
“Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, but those who plan peace have joy” (Proverbs 12:20).
By faith, those who are in Christ may have peace. In order to obtain peace we must Love God and his laws (Psalms 119:165).
God will give us peace when we seek it, pursue it and set our minds on it. God will keep us in perfect peace when our minds are stayed on him.
We must “trust in the Lord forever for the Lord God is an everlasting rock” (Isaiah 26:4).
The following question comes up once and a while in various forms:
Is it permissible for a baptized boy to be taught by a woman in the church’s Bible School program?
Questions like this often emerge from the heart of a concerned Christian parent whose heart wishes to honor the Lord. I pray and hope that the following guide will be helpful to those seeking an answer to this question.
The question has several elements which much be addressed. They will form the headings of this brief response in the following order: (1) what is the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12?, and (2) does baptism make a person an adult?
The Prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12
Paul writes to Timothy,
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (English Standard Version)
If left alone an argument may be made to the effect that a woman can never instruct nor be in a position of authority over a man —never. This would, however, be stripping the passage from its larger context and thereby generating a dangerously misleading analysis of these words.
Paul’s prohibition is built upon two lines of reasoning: (1) the order of creation, and (2) the profile of the fall. Observe:
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:13–14 ESV).[1]
Although some apply this passage to domestic relationships (husband and wife), or to relationships in the world, such as in business (no women bosses), Paul is specifically addressing the “places” of Christian assemblies. He is not addressing all interactions between women and men, Christian or otherwise.
In verse 8, Paul uses the phrase “in every place” (en panti topō) which is a short hand for “in every place of assembly.”[2] Thus, the focus of Paul’s prohibition has quite a limited application —the Christian assembly. This is further made clear by the mention of the males —as opposed to the women— who are to pray in the assembly (v. 8), and the emphasis on godly women as doers of good works (vv. 9-10) and as active learners in the assembly (vv. 11-15).
Perhaps a point of clarification is in order. Paul does base the “headship/respect” principle for married couples on the order of creation (Eph 5:22–33), but with a different focus. It would be inappropriate to argue —based on 1 Timothy 2:11–15 alone— that women are to be silent at home before their husbands, and contradictory to passages that assume women have administrative authority in their own home (1 Tim 5:14), which also includes martial rights and due consideration from the husband (1 Cor 7:4–5).
Thus, the prohibition in this passage addresses the particular setting of the worship assembly. This must be kept in mind.
Before we move forward. I know there are many genuine believers that would cringe at the notion that there are teaching limitations along gender lines within the church assembly. Yet, while I understand some do believe this instruction to be ad hoc—unique— and therefore, not normative, Paul’s argument is built on his apostolic application of Genesis 2:18-25 and 3:1-14 which refer to the order of creation and the order of the fall.[3]
This should never be confused with an emphasis on the superiority of men and the inferiority of women, both are equal image-bearers of God (Gen 1:27; 2:18).[4]
Is Adulthood Bestowed at Baptism?
This is the heart of the question. The New Testament, in no place that I have found, marks baptism as the transitional act which bestows not only forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) but also adulthood upon the recipient. If adulthood is bestowed at baptism, then, what of those who are baptized in their 30s or 40s — have these people been simply children up to this point?
I have heard it said before:
If a boy is ready to make the most important decision he will ever make, then should he not be regarded as an adult? Why not?
While the argument appears to have merit, such a view can have disastrous consequences. Let me further my point. Does this also apply to young baptized girls? Are they now adults ready to marry and bear children? Should the newly baptized boy be thrust into church leadership now because he is a “man”? Why not?
This is not New Testament logic on three grounds: (1) it is nowhere mentioned in the NT, (2) baptism is about the “new creation” and forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 5:17), and (3) baptism is about a “new birth” —a sort of spiritual infancy (John 3:3). So the logic of the gospel runs in the opposite direction of the above claim. Baptism is certainly the most important decision a person can ever make, but that by default does not make a person an adult. This is not what the NT teaches. The assertion is an opinion and we must be very careful with opinions.
Still, even in the New Testament world, there were different words used to describe age groups.[5] One key point to observe is that the ancient world held very a different view of children than modern times when it comes to concepts like merit and value, property, rights, etc. Nevertheless, we will survey these words quickly:
Bréphos means “young” and “fruit of the body” and thus refers to small children/childhood (2 Tim 3:15), newborn infants (1 Pet 2:2), and those within the womb (Luke 1:41, 44).
The words país (small, little), paidíon (little child) and paidárion (little boy, John 6:9) are bit interconnected. Paidion may refer to someone not yet 7 (Matt 2:11,13–14), which covers are large span of time; whereas, a child from the ages 7-14 would be called pais (Luke 8:51, 54). The “adolescent” (14-21) was called a meirákion but the word is not used in the NT (2 Macc 7:25).
There is téknon and teknion: These terms generally reflect “origin” (descendent), the early dependent state of children, and those who are figuratively so (téknon: Luke 11:13; Mark 7:27; Phil 2:22). And teknion was a nursery term for “little child” and is often affectionately used for Christians (John 13:33; 1 John 2:12).
Even when Paul speaks to Timothy and speaks of his “youth” (1 Tim 4:12), he is speaking in relative terms. The word (neotes) itself is relative and often associated with a “youthful spirit” and being impetuous[6] and covered a period until the approximate age of 40.[7]
In no instance is there an example from Scripture that a child becomes an adult at the point of baptism, regardless of the important choice they have made.
Finally, let me add the following. Christians are often called upon to become mature or complete (teleios 1 Cor 14:20). Even the church universal is called upon to grow into “mature manhood” (teleios aner) in the Ephesian letter (4:13; cf. Col 1:28, 4:12). What is more to the flavor of NT teaching is that baptism begins a process of spiritual maturity. It is not a commentary on biological maturity (the brain is not fully mature until the mid-twenties), on legal maturity and accountability (nations and cultures differ), nor on the wisdom the church depends on from its mature leaders.
We should never crush the embers of zeal among our youngest believers and disciples. We need to encourage them and give them an environment for their faith to be nurtured and yield its fruit. I would stress, however, that we do not artificially affirm something upon them —like adulthood— that there is no biblical nor social basis to do. Furthermore, we should not sideline our teaching sisters, many of whom are mothers and grandmothers who administer their own homes with children under their authority (Tit 2:4; 1 Tim 5:14).
So Where Do We Go From Here?
I see no scriptural evidence to remove a young baptized boy from a Bible class taught by a Christian woman simply on the merit that the boy is baptized. But, this does not settle the matter in my view.
The Scriptures do not clearly define a line that distinguishes childhood from adulthood. We often use the phrase, “age of accountability.” Again, there is no general consensus. Is age twenty, based on God’s punishment upon the unbelieving Israelites at the precipice of the Land of Promise (Exod 14:29)? If so, then no youth is accountable before that age and, therefore, baptism would be inappropriate.
Yet, there are plenty of references of young people called by the Lord and brought into His service. Samuel’s call in his early teens to service (1 Sam 3). Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign as king (2 Kings 22:1). Mary was certainly “young” (11-13 years old?) when she conceived Jesus by the power of God while betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1). In her oracle, she acknowledges her inclusion in God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:49). So, it is not a tidy situation to say young people cannot come into God’s plan.
By and large, the conversion excerpts from the Book of Acts narrate responses from believing adults: (1) the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), (2) the Samaritan converts (Acts 8), (3) the conversion of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8), (4) the conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts 8), (5) the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9, 22, 26), (6) the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11), (7) the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16), (8) the conversion of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), (9) the Athenian converts (Acts 17), (10) the Corinthian converts (Acts 18), and (11) the Ephesian converts (Acts 19).
There may be some wiggle room in the reference to “household” in cases like Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34 to include younger believing members. R. C H. Lenksi, for example, viewed “household” (Grk. oikos) as a reference to Cornelius’ “family” in Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34.[8] In a study on the multi-functional social setting of the household in Luke and Acts, John Elliott notes that the term includes “family and kin,” but the term may also include “personnel and property.”[9] This may then include servants, slaves, and household managers who also responded to the gospel. At any rate, a baptized youth does not an adult member of a Greco-Roman household make.
At the heart of conversion, however, is the need for forgiveness of sin, the capacity for belief and obedience, and commitment towards discipleship. This would exclude the youthfully immature to the infantile of the house. So where do we go from here? Youths who respond to God in baptism are still youths subject to their own parents.
Concluding Thoughts
That being said, we concede that there is tremendous wisdom to maintain consistency in the church’s teaching program. Since there is no “clear-cut” age to gauge adulthood in Scripture, it would seem best for congregations and families to determine for themselves an age where the teaching program of the church exclusively selects male teachers during those transitional years from late middle school through high school. But, it should be clear that this is only a judgment call.
Endnotes
Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Bruce K. Waltke, “1 Timothy 2:8-15: Unique or Normative?,” Crux 28.1 (March 1992): 22-27. Repr., CBMW News/Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1.4 (Oct 1996): 4-7.
Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 88.
Albrecht Oepke, “pais…,”TDNT 5:636–39.
H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (1888; repr., Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 529.
Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), 124.
“He was to tell Cornelius what would save both him and his house (family). It was a matter of saving this household.” R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 443. Later, regarding the Philippian jailor and his house: “The jailor and his family were baptized in the ordinary way by an application of water in the name of the Triune God” (Lenski, Acts of the Apostles, 683).
John H. Elliott, “Temple Versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (1991; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 225. See also, Jovan Payes “Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus.”
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are four stories about Jesus that offer four broad perspectives from which they tell specific stories with a “powerful realism” about his ministry, teaching, healings, rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection.[1] This much is very clear. Questions emerge about the genre, historicity, chronology, stages of oral transmission, and history of literary dependence (e.g., “did Matthew and Luke rely on Mark?”), but at the heart of what the gospels are is Jesus and the stories told about him.
I have been reading and studying the four gospels for about a quarter-century, first, as a young Christian, then in my on and off again academic pursuits, and as a local preacher. During this time I’ve arrived at some important conclusions about them:
The genre of “gospel” is historical narratives comparable to the Greco-Roman bios.
The gospels are a blend of theology and history.
This blend of theology and history does not undermine their historical reliability.
The gospels provide a holistic view of Jesus, we cannot pick and chose what is the “authentic” Jesus.
But there was a time I was unaware of Rudolf Bultmann’s (1884–1976) demythologizing existential approach to redefining the meaning of the supernatural elements from the Gospels, and other approaches birthed by liberalism and modernism to reading them. It was a time when I was oblivious of the historical/grammatical-critical approach to studying them with the tools of form criticism, oral-tradition criticism, literary criticism, and so on. I’ve benefited deeply from the types of questions they raise and the kinds of answers they seek to provide.
This essay is not about this process, however. Instead, I am sharing what I can recall from my experience of reading the Gospels as “a knucklehead from the streets” searching for God. I want to share this personal journey while I can still remember how reading the gospel lead me to find God in Jesus Christ and how Jesus’ life and teachings made me want to follow him.
My Background
Here are my “credentials” for the spring of 1996 when I was seventeen: A high school dropout, a three-year freshman, most days starting with cutting school, drinking, smoking weed, and roaming the parks or streets (in that order). In the columns for attendance and absences on my report cards, my poor mom thought they made an error because the numbers looked swapped.
Then there was my street life in a gang. Street fights and violence, jumping over backyard fences running from the police (and dogs), plotting to hurt “heads” from other gangs, all-nighters, drug use, sex, and on and on it went. I am not proud of it, but I ran with my homies and we were “tighter than a glove,” I had my “street-cred,” I earned my stripes, and many can vouch for that.[2] They called me, “Gorilla.”
I grew up in Roman Catholicism. I was christened as a baby at St. Charles on South Van Ness in the Mission District of San Francisco, CA. Although my family is from the Mission, my Abuela brokered a deal so I could attend an Irish Catholic parochial K-8 school in Noe Valley. I wish I could tell you anything I learned in religion class to help me read scripture but I can’t. I can say, the rituals really stuck. I was an altar boy. I know the “Our Father,” the “doxology,” the two “Hail Marys,” parts of the Catholic Apostle’s Creed, and I can genuflect with the best of them. I did my confirmation. I prayed my penance prayers after confession.
I do not however recall ever being taught how to read Scripture, that was the priest’s job. So when I started reading the Bible years after leaving the Roman Catholic Church following 8th grade and diving right into drug use that summer with acid, I had no strategies to work with except my basic education and common sense. I was seventeen years old, getting sober, and walking away from vice and violence. I cried out to God in prayer on the corner of 24th and Mission Streets: “I don’t know how to do this, but I’m going to look for you…. Can you meet me halfway?”
Things did not immediately change for me outside of me stepping away from the streets until one night I went out with my boys. While I was scrambling to get my outfit right, I looked under my bed to find my shoes: Air Griffey Max 1. Behind my shoes, under my bed, was a small Gideon New Testament I had no idea was sitting there amidst the dust and trash. I took the discovery as God prodding me, in effect saying, “I just did my part, now you do your part and start reading it.” I grabbed it. Looked at it with a smirk. Looked upwards and said, “Okay, God, I’ll start reading it.”
I started reading the Gospels and after a few months of reading the stories about Jesus, in December 1996, just after Christmas, I gave my life to Jesus and submitted to baptism in an outdoor hot tub (to learn more read: “Leaving a Street Gang for Jesus“). Up to this point, I had not entered a church, I had not participated in any evangelistic study material outside of some creepy Jack T. Chick (1924–2016) “Gospel” Tracts. I simply read the Gospels and they were sufficient to guide me to obey God.
So here are some things I recall from this several-month journey as a street gang knucklehead,[3] with an eighth-grade education, working through a period of “getting clean.”
Reading the Gospels at Face Value
Let me be clear, I have always been a believer even when I left God and did my thing. If I ever was going to return to religion it was either going to be Christianity (starting point) or Islam (due to some of my closest Egyptian, Palestinian, and Persian friendships at the time). If God exists, then the miraculous is possible. When I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then, I believed the miracles contained in them were possible. I read them at face value.
Today, naturalism may be how many more approach a book like the Bible. For them, the door is closed to anything miraculous in the literal sense (i.e., the blind will never see, the cripple will never walk, demons are not exorcized, water is not turned to wine, the resurrection of a corpse does not happen). I did not approach the Gospels with this assumption. How could I, I called on God to find me!
Today, I recognize such an approach may be called a supernatural naivete (superstitious), but after studying worldview, the logical consequences of naturalism/materialism on ethics and morality, and dealing with the dismal outlook of living in an indifferent universe, keeping the door open to the possibility of the miraculous continues to make the most sense of the evidence in this world.[4]
Today, having worked through issues surrounding the critical study of the Scriptures, along with its anti-supernatural biases, its “mythology” and de-historicizing its narratives, it is clear that such a folklore Jesus would be a dead end. If the Jesus of the gospels does not exist then there are plenty of other historical fictional, or sci-fi, figures of virtue on their own “hero’s journey” I can enjoy instead. A fictional gospel reveals a powerless Jesus.
I believed God was working through Jesus in reality, and it led me to believe that his power could be applied to my own life in some healing way.
Jesus was Compassionate and Morally Firm
I had never read the gospels. I grew up on liturgy and tradition. Liturgy and tradition can be helpful as a tool for theological reinforcement, but it has significant limitations. For the most part, I just “knew”–as best I could know–Jesus loved me and died for me. But why, and why the cross? And is this what Christianity is all about, the story of an executed man? What about this has to do with me? And what would I learn about Jesus?
Again, I was, in the words of Ben Witherington, III, living a “Jesus haunted and biblically illiterate” life.[5] At the time, Jesus was the guy that died for me. I grew up reciting the “Stations of the Cross” every year in Mass. These 14 liturgical meditations commemorate the condemnation, death, and burial of Jesus (though I distinctly remember meditations of his resurrection).
So, I opened up that little New Testament with the small print to see where it would lead me.
I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was however truly surprised by the Jesus I was reading about. He drew me in. I was slightly expecting Jesus to be like the street preachers on my block. Those “bullhorn guys” yelling at the top of their lungs, telling us all that we are sinners, that we are all under the judgment of God, that regardless if you were eating donuts, McDonald’s, a burrito, going to the market, or selling weed, it didn’t matter because God hated us until we repented.
That is not at all what I found!
The Jesus of the gospels did not shy away from pointing to sin in people’s lives, but when he did so you knew he cared about you, you knew he had spent days with the sick to heal them, with the crippled making them walk, with the demon-oppressed liberating them of these evil spirits. He spent time with the kind of people the “really religious” types pushed aside, like the prostitutes and tax-collectors who wanted God.
In one instance, a woman from the city, known as a “sinner” (she likely had a bad reputation as a violator of the law of Moses), came to Jesus to show gratitude because he had forgiven her of her sins (Luke 7:47–48). The Pharisee who hosted Jesus in his home for dinner when this happened, reacted: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). She was undesirable, not to be engaged. Jesus however acknowledged her morally troubled past, accepted her, and forgave her of her sins.
Like a protector walking among his people, Jesus offered those that would listen to him a better way of life.
Again, Jesus healed a man who could not walk and had been that way for thirty-eight years (John 5:1–9). Later He ran into him when the man was under scrutiny by some Jews because it happened on the Sabbath. “Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, ‘See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you’ ” (John 5:14 ESV). Jesus heals the man, helps the man, forgives the man (implied), but is morally firm: sin no more.
I really needed and wanted a guide out of all the darkness and evil I was in. I knew I had dug a deeply immoral hole. I said to myself, “Jesus has gotta know my situation… and he knows what it’s going to take to get out of it.”
Meeting Jesus in the Gospels was a real turning point for me. I was moved. Reading that Jesus was the type of person that got to know you, your life, your darkness, and was not afraid to touch it as he embraced you, and then led you out of the sin in your life so you can live a liberated life before God. He was compassionate and morally firm.
Jesus’ Inspiring Inner Strength
The 1990s rap scene was flooded with “gangsta rap.” It was not the only form of rap, but like the “consciousness” of hip hop, this movement provided a peek into the mind and mental of street life. It spoke to what many of us were living through to different degrees. In 1995, the Westcoast hip-hop artist Coolio released the massively successful commercial single, “Gangsta’s Paradise” the theme song for the film, Dangerous Minds (Buena Vista Pictures). I recall me and my homies could not get enough of it. In fact, I called the hip hop station 106.1 KMEL on the request line just to hear it again. It was “the jam.”
It was more than just music, it was a mirror of our experiences. I say that because Coolio says what we all understood about respect in the street. Respect and honor were set on a hairpin trigger. When Coolio dropped this line, it was “gospel”:
But I ain’t never crossed a man that didn’t deserve it Me be treated like a punk, you know that’s unheard of You better watch how you talkin’ and where you walkin’ Or you and your homies might be lined in chalk
Coolio, “Gangsta’s Paradise”
This was not mere poetry this was street truth. Outside of joking around, you don’t cross your boys or disrespect people. Did it happen? Sure, but there were consequences.
So when I read the gospels, I brought this attitude with me. Call it machismo, call it pride, call it hubris. Somebody hurts your kin, the next time you see that person you confront them, punk them (embarrass them), and flex your muscle.
I was impressed with Jesus. When he interacted with the religious leaders of his day–the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees–who constantly poked at his school, his teaching, his methods, and his compassion, I stood amazed at how he handled these tests with an inner strength of truth and grace.
I definitely rallied behind him when Jesus flipped over the moneychangers’ tables at the temple, they had turned the place into a “den of robbers.” That language made sense to me. But Jesus was mild compared to what power he clearly had.
And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold access to God, saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” (Luke 19:45–46)
He made a statement. He didn’t end them. That’s the difference.
But for every other challenge, every criticism, every rejection, every attempt on his life, every time Jesus was made out to be crazy, a fraud, a violator of the Scripture, or liable as an ally of Satan, Jesus responded with words to clarify, words to unite, words bluntly stating the obvious, and words that demonstrate the faulty logic, scriptural inconsistency, or the like.
Basically, Jesus was full of zeal but kept his cool nonetheless (John 2:17).
Consider the fact that the gospels report that Jesus could walk on water, make water into wine, give people their sight back, restore the skin of leprosy, and revive the dead.
A man with that kind of power could be tempted to abuse it, but as the temptation in the desert points out, Jesus’ power did not outpace his character (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–12). When Jesus was rejected by the Samaritans, he rebuked his disciples for suggesting he retaliate with fire from the sky.
And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village. (Luke 9:54–56)
Jesus showed strength in order to protect people, in order to speak truth to error, and authenticity to hypocrisy. I was captivated by his ability to hold it together when he was betrayed by Judas, when he was lied about in his Jewish “trial” before Caiaphas, when he was publically humiliated by the Romans, publically rejected by the Jewish mob with their frenzied chant, “crucify him, crucify him.” Jesus clearly stated he had the power and authority to be delivered by an overwhelming show of heavenly force (John 18:1–19:16a), but he did not.
I stood in awe at Jesus’ character. Jesus was dismissed by those who knew the Scriptures until the only way they thought they could silence him was to kill him. Here’s the part that really put this strength in context: Jesus predicted his betrayal, his rejection, and his death. John foreshadowed this in his prologue: “He [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (1:12). He walked right into the fire.
I never heard of anyone who lived like that. Jesus was street-level “hard” (tough) in a way I had never seen. Jesus’ inner strength told me I could trust him. That’s the point.
In describing Abraham Lincoln, Robert G. Ingersol (1833–1899), was recorded in Wisconsin State Journal (16 January 1883) saying,
If you want to find out what a man is to the bottom, give him power. Any man can stand adversity — only a great man can stand prosperity. It is the glory of Abraham Lincoln that he never abused power only on the side of mercy. [Applause]. He was a perfectly honest man. When he had power, he used it in mercy.[6]
Robert Ingersol, Wisconsin State Journal (1883)
Whether that was always true of Abraham Lincoln, I’ll never know. But I trusted what I saw in Jesus’ use of power and in the realism of the stories of the gospels. I needed to trust him. I grew to trust him. I trust him still. And in the quarter-century of serving him, he has done no wrong.
Spending Time with Nobodies
In the 1991 urban drama, Boyz n the Hood (Columbia Pictures), director and writer John Singleton (1968–2019) presented a raw depiction of urban violence, racism, and gang culture as the backdrop for the coming of age stories of a group of childhood friends, notably two brothers (“Doughboy” and Ricky) and their close friend Tre. The impact of drugs and violence on the black community of South Central Los Angeles is seen as we follow these friends who grow up fast to survive–only to become victims of their own turbulent world.
After a confrontation between Ricky–a high school football star on track to receive a college scholarship– and a local gangster, the matter escalates into Ricky being gunned down in an alley while coming home from the liquor store. Doughboy and his own crew retaliate that night by killing the gunmen and his posse for killing his brother. In the next scene, the next morning, Doughboy comes out of his home, sells some crack as he crosses the street, and sits with his friend Tre.
In one of the most memorable moments in the film Doughboy says:
Turned on the TV this morning. Had this s— on about how we’re living in a violent world. Showed all these foreign places. How foreigners live and all. I started thinking, man. Either they don’t know… don’t show… or don’t care about what’s going on in the ‘hood. They had all this foreign s—. They didn’t have s— on my brother, man.
“Doughboy” in Boyz n the Hood
Although I was twelve when the movie came out, the movie has the proven realism of its era. What Singleton is voicing through Doughboy is that even though there is violence in the street of our communities, nobody cares about it. It is happening over there, not in our backyard. We put a spotlight on global violence but not in our own communities. We know it happens and the police are doing “something” about it. But it is not worth talking about or getting involved with.
Here’s my point: street life is a very different world. No matter what your starting point is, once you commit to it you live a life on the fringe. The police are not your friends. You can easily lose trust with your own people. You’re the boogeyman parents warn their kids about, “come home soon so nothing happens to you.” You are the reason they need to be careful.
For example, one day I was detained with a group of “us” by the San Francisco Police Department on 24th Street. Officer Callejas who put the twist on me was the father of a childhood friend. A bunch of us were thrown into a “patty wagon,” taken to the Mission station on Valencia Street. You really get a sense of how you are thought of in situations like this. Any mistreatment was seemingly justifiable because we were thugs who likely assaulted a little boy for his shoes. No one really cares when you are a thug. I get why, but it is still the truth.[7] We were probably guilty of something and the pain was just part of the business of the street: we felt like nobodies cause we were treated like nobodies.
Liberal New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan (1934–) once described the “kingdom of God” Jesus focuses on as “a kingdom of nuisances and nobodies.”[8] That description really gets the point across. Crossan points to the fact Jesus spends a lot of time with the kinds of people the “clean” religious people would not associate with. The tax-collectors, the prostitutes, the sinners, the Gentile-tainted, the Samaritan, the lepers, the poor, etc., are all the kinds of people Jesus spend time with at the expense of criticism. This really spoke to me.
German theologian, Helmut Thielicke (1908–1986), really puts into words what I saw in Jesus:
[A]n ineffable love radiated from him, a love that quite obviously attracted from their usual haunts the very people whom nobody else cared for: people with loathsome, repulsive diseases, sinners who cowered before the contempt of society, the dejected and dismayed who normally concealed their misery from the eyes of others.[9]
Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father (1959)
Reading how Jesus ate with sinners just made me think that there was hope that he would share a seat with me at the dinner table. That he would come to my house and eat with me and my friends. Jesus put to those that criticized him for eating with sinners. He said,
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:31–32)
Would Jesus visit with me so he could heal me? I believed he would. He did. He continues to do so.
I am always amazed at the power of grace that allows us to be “other than we are.” God’s grace and forgiveness have empowered me to live a different life. No story Jesus told tells it better than the parable of the two sons:
“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him. (Matt 21:28–32)
Fringe people have an opportunity to be at the heart of what Jesus does. I wanted that.
Jesus Taught about Loving People
Sometimes I would leave the Mission and go with some of my fellas to the Tenderloin District of San Francisco at night. We had a friend with a car and we had a friend with a shop out there. The “TL” is a neighborhood district right in the heart of downtown. It’s the part of the city no one wants to get lost in, but so many people do. Legend has it that the name goes back to the largest bribes and police corruption, big cuts. In reality, it’s the home of “outcasts and outlaws, but it has also served as a welcoming home to the downtrodden and out of luck.”[10] It has been that way for a long time.
You always had to be on your guard in the streets but it felt that way even more so in the TL. I got into plenty of fights over misunderstandings. Sometimes you had to “knuckle up” to prove your point. Every now and then, something would happen that would disarm you. One time a parade of prostitutes hurried single-file by me into the back of the pizzeria I was eating at because the police were cracking down outside. That stuff makes you want to lose your appetite. Sadly, I eventually saw a few girls I went to high school with, out there in the TL “walking” the streets.
One situation really struck me. One night I watched a young girl call home to tell her folks that she was not coming back. A pimp had flipped her, she was gonna become of his girls. I can see her standing in a MUNI bust stop phone booth, surrounded by a bunch of guys as she said the following words:
Momma, don’t worry, I’m fine and I’m gonna make a lot of money…. No, tell dad I’m gonna be fine… he’s gonna take care of me, I’m going to be just fine… No, I’m not telling you where I am… he’s gonna take care of me…
Jane Doe calling home
“No, girl,” I said to myself, “No, he’s not.” You learn to get cold to things like this. I didn’t want to get played but if someone else did, that was on them. This moment, though, would eventually make me really question what it is I was becoming. One thing was certain, I was losing my humanity piece by piece I just did not know it yet.
So when I asked God to find me, and I started reading the Gospels, I learned that Jesus was all about loving his neighbor. What surprised me the most, and continues to be the challenge, is how Jesus applies the “love your neighbor” ethic. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:43–48)
When Jesus applies Leviticus 19:18 (“you shall love your neighbor as yourself”) to life, he said my neighbor was not just people I know but even people I hate, and people that hate me. That was a bitter pill to swallow. Looking back, even now, I have learned that this love even protects the vulnerable people in society (the poor, the blind, the deaf; cf. Lev 19:13–14). In a world where hate and anger were the fuel that drove my choices, I thought about how different my choices were going to have to be. I realized that I could not follow Jesus and stay in the gang, that I could not be in a “me vs. them” world. Most of the time I did not even know who the people I hated were.
I was starting to see that the world could be different. That I could be different. God was good to me despite all the things I had done. He gave me the sun, the rain, the wind and rain, different escapes from certain death, and my close trusted cholos over Frisco. I did not know it then, but I had just opened my heart to a very different way of living. Of all the things that changed my life nothing so drastically changed it as learning to love my enemies, people who hurt me, people I had come to hate, and learning to have grief and shame for the joy I got out of hurting people.
Here’s another significant point, Jesus was not teaching some kind of fluffy love. It is a rugged love. It is a love that is independent of what others do. We wait for people to love us and never hurt us, in order for us to love them back. That’s not the kind of love Jesus talks about. We treat people with love even when it might cause hatred, persecution, or attempts on your life. Jesus went through all of that when he lived out God’s love by dying on the cross for all humanity.
That type of love motivated me to learn to forgive those who hurt me, molested me, abandoned me, fought me, or betrayed me; positively, I learned to feed hungry people, give money to needy people, to care for those that struggle, treat people with kindness and patience. Most importantly, I learned to forgive and love myself. Remember, Jesus said the second great commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39)–as yourself, as myself. It was a new day in my life when I received Jesus’ words to love my neighbor.
Jesus inspired me to look at loving others in such a way that challenged what it means to love, who are the others and even to love myself.
Ready for the Next Step
Reading the Gospels lead me to take the next step to follow Jesus. While I no longer remember how each Gospel spoke to me, I remember the example of Jesus already making a big impression on me. I also began to see how it affected other people when I quoted Jesus or imitated Jesus, often without even telling them I was. A homeless lady on the BART even asked me, “are you a Christian?”[11] I didn’t even know what that meant. She had to tell me: someone who follows Jesus. I was that “unchurched.”
Still, I was still wrestling with drinking, smoking cigarettes and weed, and I was building my fortitude against sleeping with anyone. Over the months of reading the Gospels, I desired but I didn’t exactly know what the next step was. After all, I had not entered a church during this time. There was no preacher or evangelistic crusade that was guiding my journey. It was quite literally, me and the Gospels, and me and my demons.
I remember talking to Mormon missionaries at this time and they said, “Cry out to God for an audible answer that the Book of Mormon was true, and you will hear him.” I spent many nights crying out to God in tears, scared that I was so close but so far. Never heard a voice. I remember receiving a bunch of creepy Chick tracts that told me to give my heart to the Lordship of Jesus or I would be roasted by Satan in Hell. I wandered into books and advice from outsiders.
My big brother, however, brought me back to the Gospels. “Have you read the Gospels?,” he asked. “Yes,” I responded. “What does Jesus tell his disciples when he sends them out at the end of Matthew?” I opened the text and it was right there:
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 16–20)
That told me everything I needed to know and do next. I knew I wanted to be a disciple, this text told me how. I knew I wanted to submit to the Lordship of Jesus, this text told me how. I knew I wanted to keep having a relationship with Jesus even though he was not “here” anymore, this text showed me he was still with us. And I wanted to still study under Jesus, and he showed me that it was in the teaching of the disciples. So, I knew I would have to change my life and I made that commitment in a personal hot tub a few days after Christmas in December 1996. The “Gorilla” was “gone” and Jovan was reborn.
Endnotes
See Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1984), 132. I highly recommend Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007).
As you may see in this essay, rap lyrics speak for me at times and so it is here. In Eazy-E’s comeback response album, It’s On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa (Woodland Hills, CA: Ruthless, 1993), to Dr. Dre’s The Chronic album (Beverly Hills, CA: Death Row Records, 1991), the song “Real Muthaphukkin G’s” features Dresta who says, “I did dirt, put in work, and many n—- can vouch that; So since I got stripes, I got the right to rap about [gangsta life].” I wasn’t the worst thug out there, and I can only speak for myself, but I did my thing.
I use the “knucklehead” phrase because that’s what Mr. Cee from the RBL Posse said in his rap rhyme: “I’m just a knucklehead from the streets, All I want is a mic and some of that funky a– beat” (“A Part of Survival,” A Lesson to be Learned [Oakland, CA: In a Minute Records, 1992]).
One should read the opening chapter of William Lane Craig’s The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1981; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000). Consistently, atheist Richard Dawkins wrote, “…if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life [New York: Basic Books, 1995], 132–33; bold added).
The actual quote is, “In America we live in a Jesus-haunted culture that is biblically illiterate. Jesus is a household name, and yet only a distinct minority of Americans have studied an English translation of the original documents that tell us about Jesus, much less read them in the original Greek. In this sort of environment, almost any wild theory about Jesus or his earliest followers can pass for knowledge with some audiences, because so few people actually know the primary sources, the relevant texts, or the historical context with which we should be concerned” (What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History–Why We Can Trust the Bible [New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006]).
I can only think of one organization that was brash enough to try to disrupt our comfort with street life, and that was RAP. Unfortunately, there were not a lot of encounters.
John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 61–84. While I am critical of many of Crossan’s proposals about the historical Jesus and his trance and mythic theory of the resurrection appearances of Jesus, he rings true here. See my, “Did Paul Hallucinate the Resurrection?“
Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus, trans. John W. Doberstein (New York: Harper, 1959), 159.
BART stands for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. It was a subway/train system that connects various cities in the San Francisco/Oakland/East Bay/North Bay areas.
At 18 I began in earnest to expand my reading beyond the Bible and gathered literature to inform my studies of the Scriptures. Months after my conversion to the Christian faith, I began transforming my bedroom so that I could study. My main hurdle was that as a high school drop-out I had no “equipment” that I imagined other kids my age would have had at the time: a desk, a bookshelf, highlighters, paper–you get the picture–study stuff.
On top of that, I felt I had a lifetime of study to catch up on. After reading the gospels and coming to faith in Jesus, I wanted to know more. Sermons and Bible classes seemed to talk about things that just went over my head, and I had more questions than the preachers had time to sit with me. I had great teachers and they often answered my questions, but like Johnny Five–a warbot that became alive–I needed “more input.”
Back then Bible tracts were the best way to share Bible studies, essays, and mini-monographs. Today we would call these blog posts. As I collected, collated, and created a cache of these tracts I had a problem of organizing and housing them. My solution was to repurpose something from my gaming life.
I remember it well. It was an old Nintendo Entertainment System Cartridge Library. Originally, it was designed to hold 18 NES games on three columns with six slots. It was my first “bookshelf” dedicated to my training and knowledge building as a young Christian interested in biblical studies.
Above: This is not my original shelf, but someone on eBay is selling theirs if you’re in the market.
How My Library Began
My modest library began with tracts and booklets. An older preacher encouraged me to collect tracts and booklets on whatever topics I could find. Church foyers were like scavenger hunts in my quest to stockpile tracts on subjects I had not heard of before, or topics I wanted multiple studies on. The best part of it is they were free for the curious student.
Back then I used to don a moss green pullover jacket with a kangaroo pouch from Abercombie and Fitch. I would always find a way to “smuggle” some tracts out of every church service I attended. The outcome: a pile of tracts began to collect upon my desk.
There came a point when I did not know where to place my cache of tracts and booklets. So what was an eighteen-year-old, new convert, who had not grown up on Bible lessons and sermons to do? I needed to find a better way to organize my pile. Remember, the internet was still a hit-and-miss resource, and pretty much the wild, wild West when it came to content. Google would not be born, so no real search engines. If I wanted a digital encyclopedia I needed a computer and a CD-ROM. AOL reigned supreme. Amazon wouldn’t be consequential for years.
Amid the chaos of my childhood relics came the NES cartridge library case. It had served me well in the past to house my games. Now it would be my “little library” bookshelf to fuel my newest interest of reading a variety of theological topics.
And so it was; I began to organize my little volumes in alphabetical order. The tracts that would fit I kept organized within the NES Library, and as my library expanded the more I became resourceful to contain it (the larger ones when into my drawers). Not only would I be able to house and organize them, but I began to strengthen my reading muscles that had atrophied.
Today, I have a couple thousand volumes in my library. At times, I am surprised to think that it started with this little box about a foot long by 10 inches tall. Now I have books on shelves and in boxes, journals, and magazines in filing cabinets, the near-limitless possibilities of software and the internet allow for e-books and audiobooks.
In the process I have learned that some books are worth keeping, others reading and passing on, and still others worth discarding. Books are much like selecting fruit: the joy is all in picking and savoring. But the rotten ones need to be tossed away!
Everyone Needs a Biblical Library
I firmly believe that God intends for His people to be readers, thinkers, and meditators:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:5 ESV)[1]
Simply looking at the word “heart” (lēbāb) should cause us to consider that it is “the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature” by which God’s people must love God.[2] Its root lēb refers to three elements of this inner world: emotion, thought, and will.[3] Much like its counterpart in the Greek Old Testament and New Testament, the metaphoric use of kardía points to the center of “the whole inner life.”[4] The heart controls the spiritual culture of one’s inner world, and love for God leverages such control.
Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. (Proverbs 4:23)
It is then important to inform the heart, guide the heart, and supply the heart with the meditations which will strengthen our faith. Reading is an essential aspect of our faith. There is no way around that. The content of the faith reaches the heart through the mind. To do that God gave us a collection of sixty-six volumes mediated through a wide range of literary genres and styles, each with different rules of engagement.
To be ignorant of God’s word is to be in a dangerous position. Hosea lamented saying that his people are destroyed due to a lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). To be ignorant of how to approach scripture may equally be disastrous.
Moreover, the maintenance of our faith and impact upon our salvation is also to be accomplished through the “public reading” of the Scriptures. Paul makes this abundantly clear to Timothy (1 Tim 4:13; Col 4:16). And while the Bible is a book that can be understood by the average person, any astute reader of this small library will acknowledge that sometimes we need help to guide us through the text (Acts 8:30–31).
To be a diligent student of God’s word requires us to explore other areas of knowledge. From Geography to regional political backgrounds; or from linguistics to religious thematic studies, etc., – good resources are essential to illuminate the text to promote an accurate understanding. Helpful resources prevent us–readers separated by thousands of years–from making uninformed conclusions.
This principle has been well stated:
[I]t is the epitome of folly to ignore the labors of countless Bible scholars across the centuries who have made available, by means of the printed page, the results of their research.[5]
Wayne Jackson, A Study Guide to Greater Bible Knowledge (1986)
There seems to be a connection, then, between being “people of the book” and being “book people.” It is one of the tragic currents of contemporary Christianity that it has become of religion that embraces being “people of emotion” rather than God’s written word–the subjective over the objective.
Every Christian and Christian home should have a budding romance with good literature which reinforces an understanding of God’s word, the Christian worldview, and engage reading that critiques our views.
Build A Library
There is a sense in which we will always be learning. In the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, the grandson of Jesus ben Sirach (c. mid-second century BC) writes about the importance of reading for spiritual growth:
Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them, and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom. Now, those who read the scriptures must not only themselves understand them, but must also as lovers of learning be able through the spoken and written word to help the outsiders.So my grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law. (Ecclesiastes/Sirach Prologue, NRSV)[6]
Reading the scriptures and “other books” can be very helpful. They create dialogue partners. When I opened those little tracts, I would often think what can this person add to my thinking about this topic. Sometimes I learned how to best summarize an idea, other times I learned about an approach to avoid. Some tracts proved outdated in the examples, but strong in the timeless instruction. There were plenty of times, the author would address the topic so firmly and with the conviction it was of “vital importance” but I left the conversation unconvinced or worse confused. Reading is a battlefield, but that is where we learn.
I soon began to find authors who had a gift for writing and I began to single them out. There is something artistic and soul-nourishing to be found in good writing–whether I always agree with the author(s) or not in every detail.
I started going to used book stores to find books and authors referenced in my little library. I found a small paperback copy of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) for a few bucks. I bought that and a Bible–the shop owner gave me the Bible. I found his writing style so compelling and personal. Lewis had a knack for not just pulling you in with his preliminary words but he could hold you together disarmingly well as he made his case for Christian theism or philosophy.
At a Gospel Meeting in South San Francisco, CA, I heard a preacher–Wayne Jackson (1937–2020)–who I had only read in his articles. I purchased a copy of his A Study Guide to Greater Bible Knowledge. To this day, it is probably one of the most important books in my personal developement as a young Christian. Jackson had a crisp, no fluff, popular writing style which made reading an enjoyable experience. Whether you agreed with him or not, he never left you to wonder if you understood his conclusion.
There is little doubt in my mind that reading is an experience of the soul, and we should do what we can to have the best, brightest, and engaging soul experiences possible. Reading has been my main strategy for fulfilling Paul’s command:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1–2)
For this reason, I encourage everyone to build their own personal library.
Some Suggestions
I offer five (5) suggestions about what types of books should be included in a personal Bible-focused library. Solomon reminds us, “of making many books there is no end” (Eccl 12:12).
(1) Choose materials that respect biblical inspiration and authority.
Moses told the Israelites not to “add” or “take from” the Lord’s word:
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
John closes the Revelation with the same sobering warning (22:18–19).
God’s word is to be respected and observed without any intrusion of human opinion. It is a hard task to limit our opinions but if we are vigilant we can acknowledge them or debunk them in our study. Every word within the sacred text is from God (2 Tim 3:16–17). Consequently, it is important to select literature that is in keeping with these truths.
(2) Choose materials that have ongoing usefulness.
Not one can be expected to know everything, not even the expert. One of the keys to learning is to know where to locate information.
For this reason, I highly recommended getting access to Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks, and Bible atlases. Most of these types of resources are available digitally.
Use them to refresh your mind, to introduce you to a topic, or expand your thinking. These resources are indispensable.
(3)Choose materials that illuminate the biblical text.
There is too much spiritual fluff peddled in the “Christian” markets. They do little to help understand the Scriptures. They may provide personal inspirational value, but they do not offer textual insight.
In his book Making Sense of the Old Testament, Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman, III, reminds us to respect the fact that the Bible we read is an ancient text, translated from an ancient language, set in an ancient world with ancient socio-economic customs. We would be wise to recognize the danger of imposing our own modern perspective when reading them.[7] This caution applies for both testaments.
It is important to include special background studies which will improve one’s knowledge of the world of the Scripture (archaeology, word studies, culture, and religion, etc.). These often contain information that is often inaccessible. Today, however, specialty blogs, background Study Bibles, and websites provide greater access to this information.
(4)Choose materials that have practical importance for a life of faith.
It is important to obtain practical and useful volumes which address marriage and the family, Christian Apologetics, how the Bible came to man, Christian history and denominationalism.
Books on doubt, the problem of pain and suffering, moral issues, or matters of personal nature are also important for faith development; issues that confront our faith daily.
In an age when we often feel our way to a conclusion, we must fight against the current and reason our way to solid ground.
(5)Choose faithful authors who are experts in their field.
An important criterion for selecting books is that they are written by those of proven worth, ability, and faithfulness. Some authors are well known for their knowledge depth on particular matters – experts.
No one would want a self-trained novice operating on them; but rather, a board-certified surgeon. So it is with those authors we invite into our minds and engage in our studies in the Scriptures.
Concluding Thoughts
As we conclude, we pray that our readers will begin to build a useful faith-building library. It does take time and money to accumulate the needed volumes, but the results of such an investment are tremendous. As Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536) once said, “When I get a little money I buy books, and if any is left I buy food and clothes“.[8] Only someone who knew the value of study and learning could make such an irrational statement.
In the shadow of Paul’s final days, he asks Timothy to have John Mark accompany him on Timothy’s visit to the imprisoned apostle in Rome (2 Tim 2:11). Among the items Paul requests is a cloak, “the books” (to biblia), and “the parchments” (tas membranas; cf. 2 Tim 2:13).
There is no telling exactly what “the books” are but evidence shows that the apostle was quite familiar with a wider world of literature (cf. Acts 17); yet, “the parchments” is a unique technical term referring to a codice (a bound volume like a book) which retains copies of letters – possibly his letters.[9]
The point we conclude with is that as Christians we have a long tradition of reading and studying. Let us not lose sight of this noble task. Let our homes be a place where we may have access to resources to better inform our faith in order that we may do the most important work ahead of us – understanding and applying Scripture.
Sources
Unless otherwise stated all quotations of The Holy Bible are from the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
Andrew Bowling, “lēbāb,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 466.
TWOT 466.
Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003).
Wayne Jackson, A Study Guide to Greater Bible Knowledge (Stockton, CA: Apologetics Press, 1986), 83.
New Revised Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1989).
Tremper Longman, III, Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006).
N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), pb, 210 pages.
In his volume, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, the former Bishop of Durham (2003–2010) and Anglican scholar, Nicholas Thomas Wright (1948–), argues in close quarters (200 pages) that the “authority of God” is mediated in the scriptures and this authority is properly accessed today when the church takes the biblical narrative seriously—Jesus redeems, renews, and completes the human story—as the rubric by which it engages today’s meaningful questions in face of God’s victory revealed in the gospel.
Book Summary
Wright argues that God is the only authority that can be spoken of concretely and that the authority of God manifested in the world is a necessary reality in way of sin’s corruption of creation in the fall. This assertion of divine authority is realized by the concept of rulership and kingdom. The written word, properly understood as the scriptures (i.e., the Bible), is not authoritative in a moralistic sense as being a scrapbook of good ideas, but instead communicates God’s authority in a narratival sense. For Wright, the flow of this story is played out in five acts (creation, the fall, Israel, Jesus, and the church) revealing the way in which God plans to heal and renew his image-bearers and the creation itself through the work and person of Jesus Christ. The scriptures, therefore, mediate God’s authority in the same way as revealed in the work of prophets as they spoke and proclaimed his word. Today, that same authoritative word is mediated properly to the church—the Bible reading community—when this overall message is narratively understood, contextually appreciated, and Christologically applied.
The overall purpose of the book is to provide a remedy to the “bible wars” in which the question and place of the scripture’s authority have lost their fixed placement in the “culture wars.” The church has always been a “Bible reading” entity and its history reflects this point; however, the church interacts with culture as well as the Bible and must constantly apply afresh its narrative to the church’s ever-changing setting and questions. The areas of contemporary tensions (culture, politics, philosophy, theology, and ethics) the church faces “interlock” with how the Bible-reading church applies the scriptures.[1] The most important resource which sets the scriptures apart as a unique source of Christian guidance is that the Bible is “the authority of God.” This is, as Wright describes a “shorthand” to help densely pack into a phrase that the narrative of the scriptures has an effect upon its readers because it carries a transcendent narrative that reveals the only true authority—God—as one who has created, and is now confronting the fall of his creation by the manifestation of his kingdom through Jesus Christ.
In this significant sense, the Bible reveals that in the kingdom (the kingship), in Jesus, God is confronting a fallen world in order to redeem, renew, and complete it in him. To do so God not only enlists his image-bearers (humans), but must also in the process redeem, renew, and complete them to be those who embrace the kingship of God. Authority, according to Wright, is not static nor flat but must be understood within the conflict of the biblical narrative. The authority of God includes the scriptures, but the scriptures do not exhaust God’s authority. In other words, “the authority of God” resides in the scriptures because it is the form God has chosen to mediate his kingship authority to his bible reading image-bearers, who will be redeemed, renewed, and completed in Jesus Christ. The narrative of scripture as alluded to above, unfolds in five stages, beginning with the good creation, the fall of humanity, the call of Israel, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the full consumption of God’s plan in the church. God’s authority in scripture only makes sense within that narrative.
Wright conceives of a theological foundation for his approach to the authority of scripture. This approach brings his main purposes and overarching points into focus. Much of what Wright sees in the broader church culture are significant influences and forces on the academic study of scripture that undermine its authority and accessibility to the church—the intended Bible reading community—and therefore his proposal. Wright spends a major part of his proposal engaging and providing clarifications based on his extensive body of research (which he self-references) to highlight the lingering benefits and problems from the Enlightenment (i.e., Age of Reason), and the influence of the Reformation. Negatively, the development of scientific tools of historical research birthed a movement of pure rationalism, and with it an accompanying skepticism of the divine (or tendency toward deism). This has created a polarization within the theological academy which is still felt to this day represented in his catalog of various “misreadings.”[2] Wright argues that good historical criticism and the Bible can co-exist without the loss of the scripture’s supernatural authority. It is not only possible but necessary for the church to contextually understand the Bible’s story.
Meanwhile, the celebrated Reformation period has likewise contributed to contemporary problems in Bible reading. In particular, Wright culls out the mantra of the Reformation—sola scriptura—and contextualizes it. The slogan was not intended to eviscerate any appreciation for the history of how the historic church had responded to the authority of the scriptures. Wright affirms the Reformer’s “insistence that scripture contains all things necessary to salvation… was part of their protest against the Roman insistence on belief in dogmas like transubstantiation as necessary articles of faith.”[3] The slogan was to affirm a limit, namely, that “nothing beyond scripture” could be taught as an article of salvation.[4] The need to stress this speaks to the “muddled” understanding of the “protest” theology behind the slogan. Furthermore, Wright goes on to underscore a common misunderstanding of another term reaffirmed in the Reformation period, being on insisting on the “literal” sense of scripture. This phrase does not pursue “the sense of the letter” but instead it means “the sense that the first writers intended.”[5] For Wright, this is crucial because it underscores the importance of historical criticism in understanding the text, and it discards a misunderstanding of a hermeneutical principle.
A Brief Evaluation
Wright argues that the question regarding the “authority of scripture” is not a flat discussion, and must take into account more than a book citation by observing how a text of scripture fits within his five-act biblical narrative, and how the trajectory of the “new creation” frames an important narratival hermeneutical context to understand the relevance and application of these texts.
Simply because there may be a “proof text” of an idea found in the Bible does not provide sufficient warrant that the notion is provided positive authority for the practicing Christian today. More is required. This is certainly an important point which Wright demonstrates in the two case studies that Sunday is not the new Sabbath and that the Sabbath ultimately speaks to the coming divine-human co-habitation,[6] and on how to establish the proper basis for male-female monogamy in the face of considerable evidence that the Old Testament tolerated polygamy.[7] What is extremely helpful in Wright’s model is how it grounds the textual and the application of the text in the renewing story of the gospel, and in this way provides God’s authority mediated through these scriptures.
If there is any drawback to Wright’s argument it may be found in his writing style. Granted, it is refreshingly straightforward, but the inclusion of caveats and parenthetical notations can detract from the argumentation. It is not so much of a drawback in Wright’s argument, but the writing style of a very aware scholar seeking to maintain in every statement an accurate reflection of the substance of his thesis. More significantly, Wright does not spend any time working through 2 Timothy 3:16-17, being by his own admission, “the famous passage about scripture.”[8] His only observation is that the passage is not about the nature of scripture but an encouragement to study the scriptures. Certainly, Paul’s focus the usefulness of “all scripture” to make its students “proficient, equipped for every good work” (3:17 NRSV).[9] Nevertheless, “all scripture” is both “useful” (ōphélimos) and “inspired by God” (theópneustos) which are both adjectival statements in the same clause about scripture in general, and are affirmations of their origin (theópneustos) and purpose in particular (ōphélimos). The explanation for this lack of attention is probably because the work presupposes the Bible as God’s mediated authority on the one hand, and that Wright is focused on how to appropriate this authority.
Finding Application
The thesis of Wright’s work has proven to find an immediate application in my life. First, the emphasis on the renewing work in Christ as the “end game” of the theological trajectory has an immediate and personal application in how I process scripture. Second, recognizing that scripture still mediates God’s authority has invigorated my confidence in the theological process.
First, Wright’s work has significantly challenged how I apply the same principle behind the transformative “renewing” of my mind principle of Romans 12:2 to the trajectory of the gospel narrative. As Paul says, “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (2 Cor 5:17). It has certainly made me more aware of the need to ground my conclusions to what Christ is renewing in the world. The narrative framework looks at the promises of God as “speech acts” wherein he heals not only me, but the world around me.
Second, even in the wake of its historical, occasional, culturally bound essence which requires reason and the Spirit to evaluate my experience(s) and church traditions, God’s authority is still mediated in the scriptures. This has re-invigorated my confidence in the theological process. Wright’s survey of biblical interpretation and authority was extremely helpful in providing better clarity of how authority and scripture have been connected over the centuries.[10] Wright also called attention to the importance of private and communal study, not just in the academic context but also in the congregational setting. Since our insights are limited, it is worthwhile to gain insight from what others see in their in-depth study of God’s word.
Conclusion
What Wright accomplishes in Scripture and the Authority of God is to chart an important course that affirms that “the authority of God” is mediated in the scriptures, and this authority is properly accessed and applied when the redeeming, renewing, and completing work of Jesus Christ is applied to understanding the narrative of scripture as the church answers its call today.
Endnotes
Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 4–18.
107–14.
72.
72.
73–74.
143–73.
176–95.
97.
New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible.
Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 61–81.
The seventeenth-century “non-conformist” English pastor, Ralph Venning, is famous for immortalizing the following line regarding Scripture:
it is deep enough for an elephant to swim in, and yet shallow enough for a lamb to wade through.
No truer does this speak to both the complex richness and visual clarity of the Gospel of John. John is traditionally regarded as one of the last written books of the New Testament canon at the tail-end of the first-century CE. When compared to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John is written in a style all its own — comparable only to the letters of John.
Of the significant unique features of John is the tightly bound chapters, known by many as Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (John 14-16). It is prudent to consider a few preliminary matters to appreciate the way John 16:12-15 delivers on the themes of John and the coming of the Holy Spirit with a view to some application for the modern church.
Genre and Interpretation
John, as the so-called Fourth Gospel, has presented itself with challenges of every kind. As Gary M. Burge observes, the study of what is a gospel genre and its interpretation has been an intense one, especially as it relates to the Gospel of John.[1] The nature of the genre of the gospel as a narrative is still in somewhat of a debate, and in particular how John’s structural stability or instability is appreciated and explained.[2]
The question about gospel genre speaks to what is its purpose and goal(s). This has troubled the academic community for some time. For example, a gospel is a biography but it is not what a modern person thinks of as a biography since so many anticipated features are missing. An examination of the early chapters of each Gospel reveals a thumbsketch history of Jesus’ “early years.” As Craig Blomberg demonstrates, modern perceptions of biography are misleading and resulted in earlier scholars questioning the historical value of the Gospels on false assumptions.[3] However, Blomberg continues, “when they are set side by side with various ancient sources, the Gospels compare quite favorably”:
Ancient historical standards of precision in narration and in selection and arrangement of material were much less rigid than modern ones. Few, if any, ancient works were written merely for the sake of preserving the facts; almost all were trying to put forward and defend certain ideologies or morals. But propaganda need not distort the facts, though it sometimes does. Of course, any genre may be modified, and there are uniquely Christian features in the Gospels.[4]
Craig Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres in the New Testament,” Interpreting the New Testament
Consequently, while scholars acknowledge the formal critical parallels between the Gospel accounts and other ancient historical and biographical documents, there are unique features in matters of content and emphasis.[5] Some students have even cautioned that there are significant variations even between the four Gospels based on their own internal agendas, sufficient enough to make Larry Hurtado caution, “it wise to treat them individually.”[6]
John on His Own
The Gospel of John bears features that stand uniquely against the Synoptics. This, however, does not suggest a contradiction. This proclivity of John to emphasize unique material does not disassociate itself with the themes of the Synoptics. For example, instead of a nativity narrative, there is an emphasis on the pre-incarnate narrative (John 1:1-14ff) serving as a prequel to their nativity storyline (Matt 2:1-23; Luke 1:26-52). Moreover, an emphasis upon miracle narratives and extensive dialogs and discourses, take precedence over parabolic instructions and pronouncements.[7]
Despite the material that is unique to John, C. K. Barrett calls attention to the fact that events in John and Mark “occur in the same order.”[8] And while Barrett stresses that John most likely borrowed from Mark, Leon Morris responds that such features found to be common with John and the Synoptics “is precisely the kind that one would anticipate finding in oral tradition.”[9] In short, John is certainly unique in many significant ways, but it follows the same structure of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
A Broad Layout for John
John may be divided broadly into two thematically arranged halves (1:19-12:50; 13:1-21:25), despite some disagreement regarding the structural integrity of the fourth Gospel, due to certain aporia (i.e. any perplexing difficulty).[10] Jeffrey Staley suggests these tendencies are set forth in the prologue (John 1:1-18) and bolsters the viability of the approach taken here.[11] John 1:19-12:50 (“book of signs”) and John 13:1-21:25 (“book of glory”) are consequently the main divisions taken in this study.
The last nine chapters focus great attention upon the last few days of Jesus’ life,[12] where the focus is on the “Upper Room” and his “Farewell Discourse” (13-17), the crucifixion and resurrection narratives (18-21). Even more specifically, the text under consideration (John 16:12-15) finds its niche as the last of five discourses that speak of the Spirit as the Paraclete (John 14:15-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11, 12-15):[13]
Book of Glory 13:1-21:25
Upper Room/Farewell (13-16)
Prayer (17)
Crucifixion and Resurrection (18-21)
A Brief Exegetical Walkthrough
This paper sets out to examine John 16:12-15 as the last of five segments that place emphasis upon the Paraclete’s role in the ministry of the apostles; furthermore, to examine the nature of the Paraclete’s role in the early church, as set forth by Jesus, as an apostolic “Aid,” guiding them in the ways that pertain to truth.
Verse 12: I have many things left to say to all of you, but you are not able to endure it at the present time. (Author's Translation)[14]
Following George Beasley-Murray’s lead, the final Paraclete passage brings the discourse to a “climax” emphasizing the role the Spirit’s ministry.[15] The adverbial eti here takes the sense of “what is left or remaining”[16] and in concert with all’, which contextually appears to function as a transition marker placing emphasis on “the other side of a matter or issue,”[17] suggests that verse 12 begins to further demonstrate the importance of the Spirit’s coming presence. Etiand all’ are pivotal phrases for they describe the tension of the situation in which the disciples are to be found. Consequently, this climactic Paraclete discussion may be viewed in terms of two perspectives: the disciples’ and the Lord’s.
First, from the disciple’s perspective, one wonders how much more Jesus withheld from them during his personal ministry. However, earlier in this context Jesus clearly told them, “I did not speak about these matters to you, because I was among you” (John 16:4b). As a result of disclosing the impending future events, Jesus observes their plight and says, “pain has filled your hearts” (16:6b). The thought of loss and loneliness, without access to the presence of Jesus, made the disciples at that moment (arti) incapable (ou dúnasthe) to carry the burden (bastádzein) of what appears to be doctrinal and prophetic significance (14:26; 16:14). The anarthrous adverbial infinitival construction ou dúnasthe bastádzeinstresses purpose; namely, the disciples do not have adequate capacity in order to “sustain the burden” of what Jesus has left to teach them.[18] Thus, in essence, because the disciples are currently unable to carry more weight (upon the sorrow?) in their hearts, there remains future spiritual growth.
Second, from the Lord’s perspective, he looks forward to a future event. This observation is made on the basis of the present lack of capacity of the disciples to carry the burden of what Jesus has to further instruct them in. If ou dúnasthe bastádzeinarti is to be taken as a present reality, then Jesus looks forward to a future reality-event when they will have the capacity to bear his teaching. This is one of the blessings already referred to previously that flow from the arrival of the Paraclete (14:25-27; 15:26-16:11).
The Paraclete[19] is viewed as an “Aid” in John 14:25-27 as one who will “teach” the disciples and “remind” them of the teaching of Jesus eventuating in “peace”; in contrast to the “sorrow” that they are now experiencing (16:6). And with the arrival of the Paraclete, the disciples will have an “Advocate” for their defense from the world (15:26-27), and a “Counselor” to give guidance in accusing the world (16:8-11).[20] In each circumstance, Jesus says, “the Father will give you another Paraclete” (14:16), “the Father will send” (14:26), “but when the Paraclete comes” (15:26), “when he comes” (16:8), “when the Spirit of truth comes” (16:12). Hence, Jesus already anticipates a time when the disciples overcome both their sorrow and the corresponding incapacity to bear more of his teaching.
Verse 13: However, when that one has come – the Spirit of Truth – he will guide you in all the truth; for he will not speak from himself, on the contrary, to the extent of what he will hear, he will speak. And he will announce to you the things that are to come.
Preliminary to discussing the continued flow of thought from verse 12, there is a text-critical matter that needs some attention. Verse 13 bears two significant variants. The first is the dative construction en te aletheía páse (dative of sphere) following hodegései humas, which according to other textual traditions has an accusative construction eis pasan tèn alétheian(spatial accusative). The committee of the UBS4 textual apparatus has given en te aletheía páse a B rating; meaning, that they view the dative construction as is almost certain,[21] being witnessed by notable uncialsAleph1 (4th century), W (4/5 centuries). Meanwhile, the accusative construction is witnessed by notable uncials A (5) and B (4th century) with variation, and 068 (5th century). Along with early translations and early patristic witnesses, the evidence appears somewhat fairly divided. Bruce Metzger suggests, however, “the construction of eis and the accusative seems to have been introduced by copyists who regarded it as more idiomatic after hodegései”[22] than en with the dative.[23]
Despite the pain that filled each disciple’s heart, the disciples were directed to a future event – the work of the Spirit of Truth (16:13ff.). “However” (dè) marks that Jesus is developing a new topic (dè of “switch subject”).[24] Moreover, this contrast is temporal as demonstrated by hótan élthe (“when that one has arrived”). Furthermore, following Buth’s discussion on δὲ as a mark of switching subjects, it is proposed that the new subject is ekeínos, which refers to ho parákletos. Daniel Wallace proposes that this is a more solid linguistic connection between this pronoun and its antecedent (ekeínos = ho parákletos).[25] Consequently, tò Pneùma tès aletheías serves as an appositional phrase expanding and further defining ekeínos; hence the translation, “when that one has come – the Spirit of Truth […]” (John 16:13a). Instead of the present reality of pain that the disciples feel, Jesus focuses on the guidance that ho parákletos[26] will bring to the disciples.
Ancient sources point to a Jewish background the Spirit of Truth motif. This vocabulary was typical when admonishing obedient and moral lives by using concepts that are dualistic. For example, we find a proverbial discussion of “the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” with “the spirit of discernment” standing between them urging there to be a selection of truth (T. Jud 20). Observe the full quote:
Learn therefore, my children, that two spirits wait upon man—the spirit of truth and the spirit of error; and in the midst is the spirit of the understanding of the mind, to which it belongeth to turn whithersoever it will. And the works of truth and the works of error are written upon the breast of men, and each one of them the Lord knoweth. And there is no time at which the works of men can be hid from Him; for on the bones of his breast hath he been written down before the Lord. And the spirit of truth testifieth all things, and accuseth all; and he who sinneth is burnt up by his own heart, and cannot raise his face unto the Judge. (italics added)[27]
Moreover, in the Qumran cache there is a discussion of God allotting two spirits to humanity, “the spirits of truth and perversity” in between which humanity must walk, again choosing between the two. As a result, walking with the truth is to “walk in the ways of light,” and the converse is true of walking with perversity – to walk in darkness (1QS 3:18-21). Again, observe:
[God] allotted unto humanity two spirits that he should walk in them until the time of His visitation; they are the spirits of truth and perversity. The origin of truth is in a fountain of light, and the origin of perversity is from a fountain of darkness. Dominion over all the sons of righteousness is in the hand of the Prince of light; they walk in the ways of light. All dominion over the sons of perversity is in the hand of the Angel of darkness; they walk in the ways of darkness. (italics added)[28]
These resonate strongly with the positive guidance the disciples will receive from the Paraclete.
The source of the Paraclete’s teaching is external to him, “for he will not speak from himself, “on the contrary” (all’), to the extent of what he will hear, he will speak.” Since earlier the Paraclete is said to be like Jesus (14:16-17), and Jesus also said that his teaching was not his own (3:32-35; 7:16-18; 8:26-29, etc.), it would make sense that the teaching of the Paraclete would originate from the Father. As F. Moloney observes, “neither Jesus nor the Paraclete is the ultimate source of the revelation they communicate.”[29] And his work is, in part, to remind the disciples of the teaching of Jesus (14:26).
In addition to this call to remembrance, “he will announce” (lalései) to them “things that are to come” (tà erchómena anangeleì), which presumably are the things that he will also “hear” (hósa akoúsei). Some view this last phrase (tà erchómena anangeleì) as eschatologically prophetic.[30] Others view it as instructional content yet to be expanded upon.[31] D. A. Carson proposes that this phrase has to do with “all that transpires in consequence of the pivotal revelation bound up with Jesus’ person, ministry, death, resurrection and exaltation.”[32] These matters, Carson views, are the subject of what we now call the New Testament Canon; consequently, this anticipates further canonical development by the new prophetic office – the apostleship.[33]
Verse 14: That one will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and he will report it to you.
Still looking to the arrival of the Paraclete (e.g. ekeínos), Jesus expands further upon his ministry – he will glorify Jesus. The word doxásei was often used in LXX to glorify God (2 Sam 6:20; 1 Chron 17:18), so also is used to describe one of the roles the Paraclete will have.[34] The term hóti has been ignored somewhat here among commentaries, where it could potentially be employed epexegetically; saying, “the Paraclete will glorify (honor) Jesus; namely, by taking the teaching that goes back to the Lord’s ministry and announcing it afresh to the disciples.” Such is not an unlikely view of the grammar; however, viewing hóti as causal (i.e. “because”) the sense changes slightly. Overall, the idea that the Paraclete’s glorifying of Jesus directly relates to him taking the teaching that was Jesus’ remains the same.[35]
This is borne out by Carson in three related ways. First, the Paraclete’s work is Christ-centric. Second, based upon the implication drawing from ek tou emou lépsetai“from what is mine,” Carson draws the conclusion that “the Spirit takes from this infinite sum and gives that truth to the disciples.” Third, Christ is the center of his teaching ministry, and it is through the Spirit’s work that Jesus is glorified.[36]
There is a rather important emphasis that should be laid upon the phrase ananggelei humìn. The term has to do with providing information; hence, may be translated “disclose,” “announce,” “proclaim,” or even “teach.”[37] What is contextually significant is that ananggéllōα carries an implicit understanding that it is a report of what one has heard.[38] Incidentally, the Paraclete will speak whatever he has heard (hósaakoúsei lalései 16:13), and here Jesus says that the Paraclete will take from what is his (Jesus), from where he will provide information to the disciples. Again, this highlights two matters: first, that the Paraclete will not speak independently; and second, the content of his teaching is all truth and Jesus. As Barrett observes, in John, ananggéllō (4:25, 5:15, 16:13-15) “is applied to the revelation of divine truth, and it is apparent that it is so used here.”[39]
Furthermore, Lawrence Lutkemeyer observes, thatananggéllō is “never” used in a predictive sense; instead, it is employed to report the way things were, are, or as they come into realization.[40] Therefore, what is under consideration is a reporting of the teaching and implications that flow from Christ and the Gospel message. This reporting is deposited within the pages of what is now the New Testament canon and serves as demonstrative proof that they have understood the Lord’s teaching.[41]
Verse 15: All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; for this reason I said, [hóti] “he takes from what is mine and will report it to you.”
When Jesus says, “All things whatsoever the Father has are mine,” it is in a sense logical to deduce that the content of what the Spirit is to announce or report to the disciples is under consideration. Carson again observes:
Therefore if the Spirit takes what is mine and makes it known to the disciples, the content of what is mine is nothing less than the revelation of the Father himself, for Jesus declares, All that belongs to the Father is mine (v. 15). That is why Jesus has cast the Spirit’s ministry in terms of the unfolding of what belongs to the Son: this is not a lighting of God, or undue elevation of the Son, since what belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Spirit’s ministry be designed to bring glory to the Son (v. 14).[42]
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Piller New Testament Commentaries
It is precisely because they share this content and revelation (dià toùto) that the Paraclete will draw out from what belongs to Jesus (16:14), and that he will only speak what he has heard (16:13). There is a very similar statement in Luke, but here it speaks in reference to Jesus as he was sent from the Father (Luke 10:16).[43] The parallel is striking to this context regarding the Paraclete, of which Jesus by implication is the first and the Spirit is the second (14:16).
Precisely because of this shared content and revelation (dià toùto), Jesus retrospectively points out that he had spoken certain words to them (eìpon).[44] And here, John employs the recitativumhóti, meaning that the use of this conjunction is designed to introduce a direct quotation and is usually left untranslated.[45] Often hóti functions as an indicator of direct discourse.”[46] It serves only “to call attention to the quotation,” thus it functions in the same fashion as do quotation marks;[47] hence, in the translation above, hóti is emboldened and bracketed to demonstrate the origin of the quotation marks. What Jesus points to then, is the role of the Paraclete, “he takes from what is mine and will report it to you.”
It is interesting to note that the first quotation, “he takes from what is mine” (ek toù emoù lambánei) is a present indicative as opposed to the future indicative in 16:14 (lémpsetai). The shift in the tense of activity to the present as Christ views the Spirit’s work retrospectively may point back to 14:17, where Christ apparently speaks in both present and future tenses. Jesus says, “You know (present) him, for he dwells (present) with you and will be (future) in you” (14:17b). However, to be fair, the UBS4 committee had difficulty deciphering between a variant here (giving it a C rating) that relates specifically to the tense of both verbs ménei and éstai. If the wording of 14:17 stands as the majority of the UBS4 committee suggests,[48] then the Spirit was already in some sense active in the apostolic circle, and will in the future be in them.
This reflects what is happening here. Jesus notes that the Spirit is, in some sense, already taking (lambánei) from the reservoir of revelation and that he will when the time is ready, report this information to them (ananggeleì humìn). There is little by way of academic support for this approach to provide a resolution for the tense change from lémpsetai to lambánei (except Moloney).[49] Barrett’s terse statement, “the change of tense (cf. lémpsetai, v. 14) does not seem to be significant,”[50] needs revision on the grounds that 14:17, assuming its textual basis is the weightiest available, transitions from present to future with reference to the Paraclete’s work as does the tense shift in 16:15.[51]
Endnotes
Gary M. Burge, “Interpreting the Gospel of John,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001), 357-70.
Burge, “Interpreting,” 376-78.
Craig Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres in the New Testament,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001), 274.
Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres,” 274.
Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres,” 275.
Larry W. Hurtado, “Gospel (Genre),” DJG 278.
Hurtado, “Gospel (Genre),” 281.
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1978), 43.
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 45.
Burge, “Interpreting,” 376-78.
Jeff Staley, “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure,” CBQ 48.2 (April 1986): 241-49.
Burge, “Interpreting,” 382.
C. H. Dodd takes note of the significant fact, that John 15.1 to 16.15 is a pure monologue, and is in fact, the longest monologue in the entire Johannine Gospel (The Interpretation of the FourthGospel [New York, NY: Cambridge at the University Press, 1965], 410).
The translations are the author’s unless otherwise noted.
George R. Beasley-Murray, Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1991; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 78.
BDAG 400.
BDAG 45.
BDAG 171; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 590.
“The principal difficulty encountered in rendering parákletos is the fact that this term covers potentially such a wide area of meaning. The traditional rendering of ‘Comforter’ is especially misleading because it suggests only one very limited aspect of what the Holy Spirit does” (L&N 12.19). There are three semantic domains in which it overlaps: (1) psychological factors of encouragement, (2) definite communication aspects, and (3) intercessory aspects leading toward certain legal implications and procedures (L&N 35:16, fn. 4).
Beasley-Murray, Gospel of Life, 71-72.
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society, 2001), 14*.
Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 210; cf., Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005), 151-52.
Interestingly, Stanley E. Porter discusses the morphological connection between eis and en, noting that eis “may have been formally derived from the preposition ἐν, through the process of adding a final sigma (ens), the nu dropping out, and compensatory lengthening of the vowel from e to ei” (Idioms, 151) As a result, there is evidence of a connection, observing that “eis in its basic meaning is concerned with the movement of the sphere toward and into” a location, “as if this were the action that resulted in the condition of en” (Idioms, 151). There is much, therefore, to agree with Barrett’s observation that: “The difference in meaning between the two readings is slight, but whereas eis t. al. suggests that, under the Spirit’s guidance, the disciples will come to know all truth, en t. al. suggests guidance in the whole sphere of truth; they will be kept in the truth of God […] which is guaranteed by the mission of Jesus” (Gospel According to St. John, 489).
Randall Buth, “Oun, De, Kai, and Asyndeton in John’s Gospel,” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, eds. David Alan Black, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992), 145, 151.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,331-32.
That one who is ho parákletos will come as a guide in all truth, and it is only fitting then that ho parákletos is called “the Spirit of Truth” (tò pneùma tés aletheías). The two titles are complex conceptions; however, they appeal to certain Hebrew motifs that need some attention here. Without developing too deeply some of the backgrounds of each of these phrases, John employs the phrases ho parákletos (5 times) and tò pneùma tés aletheía (4 times) exclusively among New Testament authors. However, cognates are used by other authors.
T. Judas 20, ANF 8:20.
1QS 3:18–21 as quoted in Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, JSNT Supplement 89 (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 147.
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 441.
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 490.
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2d ed., WBC 36 (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1999), 283; Rodney A. Whitacre, John, IVPNTC, eds. Grant Osborne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 392-93.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 540.
D. A. Carson, The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Exposition of John 14:-17 (1980; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988), 149-51.
Ceslas Spicq, “dóxa, doxádzō, sundoxádzō,” Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. James D. Ernest (1994; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 1:376-78.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 459-60.
Carson, The Farewell Discourse, 150.
BDAG 59.
BDAG 59.
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John,490; Carson, According to John, 540.
Lawrence J. Lutkemeyer, “The Role of the Paraclete (John 16:7-15),” CBQ 8.2 (April 1946): 228.
Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 173-74; Lutkemeyer, “The Role of the Paraclete,” 228; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 490-91.
Carson,According to John, 541.
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 16.10 ESV).
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 333.
Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 107.
James Allen Hewitt, New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar (1986; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 52.
A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979), 364.
Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 208.
Moloney, The Gospel of John, 447.
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 491.
Moloney, The Gospel of John, 447.
Bibliography
Barrett, Charles K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2d edition. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1978.
(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, F.W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Beasley-Murray, George R. Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel. 1991. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
Blomberg, Craig. “The Diversity of Literary Genres in the New Testament.” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001.
Burge, Gary M. “Interpreting the Gospel of John.” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001.
Buth, Randall. “Oun, De, Kai, and Asyndeton in John’s Gospel.” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Edited by David Alan Black, et al. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992.
Carson, Donald A. The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Exposition of John 14:-17. 1980. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988.
—-. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.
DeMoss, Matthew S. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. New York, NY: Cambridge at the University Press, 1965.
Evans, Craig A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue. JSNT Supplement 89. Library of New Testament Studies. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Hewitt, James Allen. New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar. 1986. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.
Hurtado, Larry W. “Gospel (Genre).” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
(L&N) Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.
Lutkemeyer, Lawrence J. “The Role of the Paraclete (John 16:7-15).” CBQ 8.2 (April 1946): 220-29.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d edition. 1994. Repr., Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society, 2001.
Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Revised edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2d edition. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005.
Robertson, Archibald T., and W. Hersey Davis. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament. 10th ed. 1958. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979.
Spicq, Ceslas. “dóxa, doxádzō, sundoxádzō.” Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by James D. Ernest. 1994. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Staley, Jeff. “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure.” CBQ 48.2 (April 1986): 241-63.
biblicalfaith.online 