Tag: Leviticus 19:18

A Short History of the Sadducees

On By Jovan PayesIn College Papers, Judaism, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Second Temple Judaism

The Sadducees are portrayed unfavorably in the canonical Gospels as one of the Jewish sects Jesus had adversarial encounters. The word Saddoukaios, translated as “Sadducee” in English, appears fourteen times in the New Testament.[1] Unfortunately, these references do not provide programmatic insight into the group’s backstory and role in the Second Temple Period. They simply appear in the New Testament as a given element of the diverse Jewish sectarian milieu of “Second Temple Judaism” (515 BCE–70 CE).[2] What is clear is the Sadducees emerged as part of a larger conversation within a “common Judaism” during this period.[3]

The goal here is to provide a short historical sketch of the Sadducees. This sketch will examine the ancient sources that provide insight into this group’s origin, and period of activity, and after this reconstruction, attempt to provide some contours of their beliefs.

Sources

Our “most reliable” knowledge regarding the Sadducees comes from secondary ancient literature. There are no extant primary sources that were produced by the sect. Of these secondary sources, the writings of Flavius Josephus prove to be the most insightful, followed by the New Testament and other Jewish writings of the period.

Primary Sources. Bluntly put, “the Sadducees left no writings,” as Günter Stemberger observes. Stemberger further notes that attempts have been made to appeal to the Apocryphal literature 1 Maccabees, Sirach, and Judith as Sadducean but these attempts “fail to convince.”[4] The important Damascus Document (CD) is thought to be Sadducean by some scholars (R. H. Charles, L. Schiffman), but the “majority” view sees it as Essene.[5] However, other Qumran literature provides only indirect insight from halakhic texts (i.e., legal interpretations of the law).[6] There are possible allusions to the Sadducean legal views in the “commentary” Pesher on Nahum (“Manassseh”), the Qumran Temple Scroll, and the halakhic letter 4QMMT.[7] In general, scholarly debate makes the likelihood these texts are primary Sadducean literature nearly impossible to confirm.

Secondary Sources. On the other hand, Josephus and the New Testament provide much clearer source material regarding the Sadducees. In both cases, these two different bodies of literature offer episodic profiles of the Sadducees. The profiles provided within these divergent sources are not straightforward, unbiased history, but are part of the promotion of their own agendas (respectively) and must be read with sensitivity to the hostile biases against the Sadducees. This is not to say they are untrue, but that we must account for the specific framing of these literary sources.

For example, the first-century CE historian, Josephus, arguably offers the most insight into the beliefs, historical personalities, and character of the Sadducees, but he is a stoic-leaning Pharisee writing Judean history of the recent period with a slant toward extolling the greatness of the Flavian family in military victory over the Judeans.[8]

Likewise, the first-century New Testament documents Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts also provide profiles of largely adversarial interactions between Jesus and the Sadducees. These reveal the doctrinal disagreements between the sect and Jesus primarily over the resurrection. It does not explicitly articulate areas of common ground, such as the authority of the Torah, which is implied in Jesus’ use of Exodus 3:6 to affirm non-physical life after death (Matt 22:31-33; Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:34-40). 

" 'I am,' He said, 'the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.' " (Exodus 3:6 NJPS)

Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:24–27 ESV)

John seems to refer to the Sadducean influence with implied references to figures of the temple (i.e., Levites, priests). In Acts, however, the Sadducees only appear in adversarial engagements with early Christianity in Judea (4:1; 5:17; 23:6–8). 

And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. (Acts 4:1–2 ESV)

But the high priest rose up, and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy they arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. (Acts 5:17–18)

Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (Acts 23:6–8 ESV)

The bias of the material in Synoptics and Acts documents the tensions between Christianity and the sect.

Origins

Time period. In the most basic sense, the historical origin of the Sadducees is a mystery. From the perspective of textual extremities, the sect, much like its counterparts, is not explicitly found in the Old Testament nor in the Hasmonean literature (e.g., 1–2 Maccabees).

They appear as a fully established and functional Jewish movement of the first century CE as documented in the New Testament and Josephus. In the first century CE, Josephus seeks to pinpoint the actions of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE), leaving the Pharisees to join the Sadducees (Ant. 13.288–98 [13.10.4-6]). Yet, Stemberger believes the Babylonian Talmud reproduces a version of this story, but at the time of king-priest Alexander Jannaeus (103-77 BCE; b. Qiddusin 66a).[9] Textually, there is no reliable explanation regarding the “when and how” of Sadducean origin. To account for Sadducean presence in Josephus and the Talmud, their origins are likely found in pre-Hasmonean movements along ideological debates found between other emerging sects, particularly those with the Pharisees.

Reconstructions. Scholarly reconstructions suggest a few theories. J. Julius Scott, Jr., notes that one theory uses the name Sadducee to etymologically connect it to the priestly family of Zadok (2 Sam 15:24–36). On this view, Zadok is Hebrew for “just” or “righteous” (saddiq) or even “court official” or “judges” as in the Greek syndikos.[10] Etymological views like this tend to be very problematic.

A related view looks at a Zadokite descendant named Boethius, whose family was responsible for several priests, as founding the Sadducees.[11] This historical speculation is from minimal evidence and is likewise problematic.

Our earliest historical literary source, Josephus, only provides the Sadducees as being active alongside Jewish “philosophies,” the Pharisees and the Essenes (Ant. 13.171 [13.9]).[12] 

At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes.

Lawrence Schiffman argued that the Sadducees were an offshoot breakaway group from the Qumran community as a result of an unwillingness to compromise over the illegitimate priesthood.[13] There is just enough information to make connections for a reconstruction, but not the sort of data that establishes a definitive model.

Period of Activity

Terminus 70 CE. It is clear from the available sources that any attempt to reconstruct the movements of the Sadducees within early Second Temple Judaism will be difficult. This is patently clear for the pre-Hasmonean period and for the early Roman Empire. One helpful limit is agreed on by all students of the Sadducees. The Judaism represented by this movement ceases to exist after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE.[14] Leading up to this terminus ad quem, the secondary sources present a picture of an aristocratic Jewish movement that was influential in politics (religious and civic), priestly, and held strong “restrictive” religious beliefs that made it uniquely stand out in its approach to public life.

Activity. Despite the limitations of the sources, then, this picture goes a long way to providing a lens into understanding their movements in the first century CE.

When Josephus (c. 93–94 CE) recounts the period of transition to Albinus following the death of the procurator Porcius Festus (d. 62 CE), he recounts that Ananus, a Sadducean high priest (Ant. 20.199 [20.9.1]; Luke 3:2), flexes his authority as a priest and executes James the brother of Jesus (c. 62 CE):

“he assembled the [S]anhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Ant. 20.200 [20.9.1]).[15]

While Josephus paints the unruliness of the Jewish aristocracy–even implying falsifying charges against James, and the harshness of Sadducean jurisprudence (Ant. 20.199 [20.9.1]), the portrayal is clear that Sadducean influence benefited from its association with the priests, the Sanhedrin, and the temple guards.

In Acts 4:1–3, this strong sense of deep-seated authority is also pointed to Peter and John preaching on the temple grounds (their turf!). The combined authority of priests and guards is used to stop their preaching: 

“the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came to them, much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead.”[16]

It must not be presumed that all high priests were Sadducees. Still, there was at least the perception that the Sadducees and the priests were strongly connected, along with the council, and had the authority to imprison those promoting contrary views, like the resurrection (Acts 5:17ff).[17] They seem to show interest in “new” teachers and investigate “new movements” as in the case of John the Baptist (Matt 3:7) and Jesus (Matt 16:1ff).

Gerousia. The Sadducean participation with the Sanhedrin and the Gerousia (“the council [synedrion] and the whole body [gerousia] of the elders”) in this matter of handling inquiry proceedings (Acts 5:21) is consistent with the presence of a pre-Hasmonean Jewish Gerousia (“senate”). This projection back to this historical period is speculative but not without explanatory power. Josephus “reproduces” a letter from Antiochus III to Ptolemy explaining the terms of their relationship, based on how he was welcomed fully by the Jewish “senate” (gerousia; Ant. 12.138 [12.3.3]):

“Since the Jews, upon our first entrance on their country demonstrated their friendship towards us; and when we came to their city [Jerusalem], received us in a splendid manner, and came to meet us with their senate, and gave abundance of provisions to our soldiers, and to the elephants, and joined with us in ejecting the garrison of the Egyptians that were in the citadel..."

Ancient Jewish sources connect political and civic power to a tight relationship between the priests and this “senate” of Israel (Jdt 4:8; 2 Macc 11:27–33). In fact, since “the Maccabean revolt (167 BCE) the power of the high priest increased” (1 Macc 12:6).[18]

The evidence is very tenuous and circumstantial, and its greatest weakness is that there is no explicit placement of a Sadducean priest at this early period.

Beliefs

Bruce D. Chilton observed that to understand the New Testament, one must become a student of Second Temple Judaism. Conversely, it would be that the student of Second Temple Judaism is well equipped to understand the New Testament.[19] This would seem to be a proper holistic approach. As previously mentioned, the available sources for understanding the Sadducean movement within a common Judaism are secondary and written in a way that potentially stereotypes them. They are still our best sources.

Josephus summarizes the religious beliefs of the Sadducees as he differentiates them from other sectarian groups, the Pharisees and the Essenes, whom he also calls “sects of philosophies.”[20] The Sadducean Judaism, though likely a minority sect, was a unique form within “common Judaism” as it shared the same basic worldview premises about God, the temple, and the Scriptures.[21] Thus, it was not something so distinct that it did not resemble its sectarian neighbors.

The picture from Josephus regarding the Sadducean belief system that distinguished itself from the “common Judaism” may be seen in the following four areas.[22] We must guard against treating this as a monolithic portrait of Sadducean belief (cf. Ant. 13.298 [13.10.6]).

First, Josephus claims they denied the resurrection and angels, “That souls die with the bodies” (Ant. 18.16 [18.1.4]). Additionally, “They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades” (J.W. 2.164 [2.8.14]). It does not seem fair to describe them as materialists, as if this view denies the spirit plane of existence. Nevertheless, their canon (the Torah) includes several stories that should have left them open to discussions about the soul, the afterlife, and what that may imply.

Genesis speaks of the cherubim guarding Eden (Gen 3:24), Enoch taken by God without the phrase “then he died” (Gen 5:21), the angels who visit Abraham and Lot (Gen 18–19), Jacob wrestles with an angel (Gen 32:23–33), and the angel of the Lord in the Exodus and Numbers. It is striking that Jesus cites Exodus 3:6 and affirms that God is the God of the “living” even though the bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead (Matt 23:31–32).

Other later texts outside their “canon” were more explicit regarding the resurrection. “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever” (Dan 12:2–3 NJPS). The emphasis of resurrection in the teaching of Jesus and the church would explain why the Sadducees are portrayed as adversarial in the New Testament (Matt 22:23; Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1, 23:7–9).[23]

Second, they denied fate. Josephus writes, “they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal…” (Ant. 13.173 [13.5.9]; J.W. 2.164–165 [2.8.14]). While the ancient world had a role for Fate, it would seem unlikely that Josephus would be using a pagan ideology when explaining the Jewish theologies of the Pharisees, Essenes, and the Sadducees. As Jonathan Klawans notes, this use of fate most likely refers to terms such as “determinism,” “predeterminism,” or “predestination.”[24] Basically, how is human free will compatible or not with God’s sovereign will?

The difficulty lies in the lack of Sadducean literature to explain what Josephus means. The Second Temple book, Ben Sira 15:11–20, is regarded as a possible illustration of Sadducean thought on their denial of fate:

Do not say, “It was the Lord’s doing that I fell away”; for he does not do what he hates. Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”; for he has no need of the sinful. The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved by those who fear him. It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given. For great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and sees everything; his eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every human action. He has not commanded anyone to be wicked, and he has not given anyone permission to sin. (Sir 15:15–20 NRSV)

In short, there is “freedom of choice” (15:14–17), a denial of destined behaviors (15:11–12, 20), and a clear affirmation of “God’s absolute opposition to evil” (15:13, 20).[25] This lines up with Josephus’s words, “they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please” (J.W. 2.165 [2.8.14]). But this is a possible lens for understanding what Josephus intended to suggest.

In the New Testament, there is no explicit debate between Jesus and the Sadducees regarding “fate” along the determinism-compatibilism dichotomy. Jesus tells his followers to be leery of the “leaven” of the Sadducees (i.e., their teaching; Matt 16:5–12), but this points to a criticism that Jesus raises against them. They do not know how to interpret what is clearly in front of them, so how can you trust their teaching (Matt 16:1–4).

Third, they denied the oral tradition held by the Pharisees. Josephus explains the Sadducean logic for rejecting the oral tradition, as such are “not written in the law of Moses” (Ant. 13.297 [13.10.6]). To be clear, the Sadducees had their own interpretive traditions and sectarian logics within Second Temple Judaism. The reason they rejected these oral traditions is that they were “esteemed those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers” (Ant. 13.297 [13.10.6]).

The authoritative word for the Sadducees was the Torah, yet they had their interpretive traditions and “great” internal debates (Ant. 13.297-298 [13.10.6]). Josephus then notes that this movement was popular among the rich and did not win over (peithõ) the “populace” (dēmotikós). Perhaps the picture he desires to set forth is that the Sadducees were not only restrictive and biblical minimalists, but also out of touch with the average Jew. As a former Pharisee, Josephus’s bias against the Sadducees is likely apparent.

Fourth, they limited their authoritative scripture to the Torah for Sadducees, “[do not] regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them” (Ant. 18.16 [18.1.4]). It is noteworthy that when Jesus responds to the Sadducean challenge against the resurrection, he responds from within the Torah to establish belief in the resurrection (Matt 23:31–32; Exod 3:6). The reality and viability of the resurrection is the core confrontation between the Sadducees and Jesus and the early church in the Gospels and Acts. Jesus uses their restrictive canon to affirm not only the existence of a spirit-afterlife but also the resurrection of the body.

It is difficult to determine whether this view is comparable to the Sola Scriptura formulation of the Reformation. Scripture Alone (or, Only) is the final authority for faith, doctrine, and practice over reason, experience, and tradition. The principle is mainly an attitude about the authority of Scripture over other competing regulators of faith and practice.[26] It does not necessarily offer a statement about the particular shape of the canon, nor does it mean an outright rejection of interpretive traditions (i.e., majesterial authorities). The secondary sources do suggest, at face value, that the Sadducees held a high view of the Torah’s authority, sharing similar logic as Sola Scriptura; they rejected that status of final prophetic authority for the rest of the Hebrew Bible of “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).

Despite the biased nature of these secondary sources, it is generally agreed that the Sadducean beliefs are reliably transmitted.

The Sadducees and Christianity

It is remarkable to consider that all of the significant features of Christian theology are rooted in the Torah: sin and redemption, the afterlife and resurrection (Exod 3:6), Abrahamic promises to bless all nations (Gen 12:1–3; 26:1–5; 28:13–15), the offspring (seed) promise and its victory over the serpent (Gen 3:15), the promise of a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–19), the passover lamb (Exod 12:1–28), the scapegoat theology (Lev 16:6–10, 20–22), the two great commandments (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18), the circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16; 30:6), the priesthood and atonement (Leviticus), the prophetic office and its proofs by signs (Deut 18:20–22), the use of wealth to help the vulnerable among the land (Lev 19:9–10), the requirements of a king, the sceptor of Judah (Gen 49:10), justification by faith before circumcision (Gen 15:1–6), and so many others. This is not to suggest the Sadducees held to all of these interpretations, only that Christian theology fits within the textual limits of their canon.

Perhaps these themes were part of the conversion of Sadducees, or those likely within Sadducean influence, like members of the Sanhedrin council and the priesthood. It was the wealthy council member (bouleutēs), Joseph from Arimathea, who used his political power and influence to petition to take custody of the body of Jesus and lay him in his own tomb before sundown in keeping the Torah’s instruction to bury the executed (Mark 15:43). 

If a man is guilty of a capital offense and is put to death, and you impale him on a stake, you must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury him the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess. (Deut 21:22–23 NJPS)

For he was “looking for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43; Matt 27:57; Luke 23:50). The early church made strong inroads among the priests, the narrator of Acts affirms, 

And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7 ESV)

It is not a foregone conclusion, then, that Sadducees were among the earliest members of the Christian faith. This should caution modern Christians from the convenient trope that the Sadducees were rigidly distinct without common ground.

Conclusion

This brief historical sketch of the Sadducees highlights four key points for a modern understanding of this ancient Jewish sect. There are no primary sources written by the Sadducees that are extant; all our information comes from secondary literature. The group emerged at some point during the Second Temple period and was active among the wealthy, the political and religious aspects of the Temple, and ceased at about 70 CE. Finally, the belief system of the Sadducees is explicitly stereotyped by Josephus and the New Testament; however, they reliably transmit core beliefs held by this movement. Early Christianity, as part of this period, anchored many of its core tenets from within the same religious literature the Sadducees regarded as their canon, that is, the Torah.

Endnotes

  1. The word appears seven times in Matthew (3:7; 16:1, 6, 11–12; 22:23, 34), once in Mark (12:18), and six times in Luke-Acts (Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1; 5:17; 23:6–8).
  2. Second Temple Judaism is the term I use for this period alternatively called Early Judaism by some. For dating, Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 17; for the term, see John J. Collins, “Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship,” Dictionary of the Early Judaism, eds. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1–2.
  3. Collins, “Early Judaism,” 6.
  4. Günter Stemberger, “Sadducees,” Dictionary of the Early Judaism, eds. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1179.
  5. For the Essene view as the “majority view” see Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature, 297.
  6. For this short definition of halakah, Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature, 66.
  7. Stemberger, “Sadducees,” 1179.
  8. Josephus, Life 2.12. Steve Mason observes that one of the agendas of Josephus is propaganda for the Flavian family, “In the domestic turbulence that followed Nero’s suicide (June 68), their claim to have conquered a foreign enemy gave them unique bona fides as men capable of uniting Rome in peace,” A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66–74 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 3.
  9. “Sadducees,” 1180.
  10. J. Julius Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 206–07.
  11. Stemberger, “Sadducees,” 1180.
  12. “Josephus is the primary source in every description of the Jewish religious parties of the first century,” see Günter Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 5.
  13. Michelle Lee-Barnewall, “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes,” The World of the New Testament, eds. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 221–22.
  14. Stemberger, “Sadducees,” 1180.
  15. The translation of Josephus is from William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, new ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
  16. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Bible are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1989).
  17. Scott, Jewish Backgrounds, 208.
  18. G. H. Twelftree, “Sanhedrin,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed, eds. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 837.
  19. Bruce D. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible (Wilmington: Glazier, 1984), 13. The quote is the opening line to his book: “Anyone who wishes to understand the New Testament is, consciously or not, a student of early Judaism.”
  20. He calls them “sects” (Life 2.10; Ant. 13.171, 293; 20.199) and philosophies in (Ant. 18.11).
  21. Josephus, Ant. 18.17. In comparison to E. P. Sanders who emphasized a “common Judaism” for understanding of the shared but diverse religious milieu of Second Temple Judaism, C. S. Lewis pleaded his case for the Christian faith by arguing for a “mere Christianity,” that is there are things that are “agreed, or common, or central” to the Christianity that is not bound to denominational lines, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1984), 8.
  22. I follow Stemberger’s discussion in “Sadducees,” 1180.
  23. Since the Torah mentions angels, scholars like Stemberger and N. T. Wright find it unlikely that Josephus is correct about the Sadducean view of angels (“Sadducees,” 1180; Contemporaries, 70). The book of Acts seems to clearly assert the same understanding of Josephus. Wright argues that this passage has been poorly translated and flattened, see The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 132–33.
  24. Jonathan Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56.1 (2009): 47–48.
  25. Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will,” 51–52.
  26. See, D. A. Carson, “Sola Scriptura: Then and Now.” The Gospel Coalition.

Works Cited

Carson, D. A. “Sola Scriptura: Then and Now.” The Gospel Coalition.

Chilton, Bruce D. A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time. Good News Studies 8. Edited by Robert J. Karris. Wilmington: Glazier, 1984.

Collins, John J. “Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship.” Pages 1–23 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Klawans, Jonathan. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.” Numen 56.1 (2009): 44–90.

Lee-Barnewall, Michelle. “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.” Pages 217–27 in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1980.

Mason, Steve. A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66–74. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. 1995. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000.

Stemberger, Günter. Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Translated by Allan W. Mahkne. Minneapolis: Fortress,1995.

_____. “Sadducees.” Pages 1179–81 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Twelftree, G. H. “Sanhedrin.” Pages 836–40 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2nd edition. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013.

Wright, Nicholas T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses: A Selected Comparative Look

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ANE, College Papers, Exodus, Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia, Old Testament Background, Women Studies

[Note: This was a comparative historical paper for a history course exploring ancient societies. It forced me to examine ancient literature–even the Bible–as a historical source. ]

If one were to think of the most significant influences in lawmaking one who be hard-pressed to consider two greater and oldest than that the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Even today, hanging above the gallery doors of the House Chamber in Washington, D.C., are twenty-three marble relief portraits of all those whose works have influenced the establishment of the principles of American law.

Among them are King Hammurabi and the prophet Moses (“About Relief Portrait” in SNT 36). Hammurabi’s Law ( or “Code”) is available today due to a monument relief and extant manuscript evidence (Roth 336). The Law of Moses has been preserved in the biblical manuscripts used for both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

In this paper, I focus on four touching points between the “Code of Hammurabi” (Roth) and the Law of Moses (Exod 19:3–24:8) by examining their similarities and suggesting some differences. These touching points are their sources of authority and their significance, the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people, the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws, and what both sources of the law reveal about their two societies.

While this is not an exhaustive evaluation, it is an attempt to understand from these literary sources insights helpful toward a historical understanding of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Israel. The most fundamental conclusion from this comparison and contrast may be that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the differences demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

Sources of Authority

The first touching point is their source(s) of authority and their significance. There are points of comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses when it comes to their sources of authority; however, there are significant contrasts that highlight the unique trajectory of each set of laws.

On the one hand, the preamble of the Code of Hammurabi and the beginning chapters leading to the specific Laws of Moses share a similar concern with establishing the view that each law has a divine source. Lockard points to a black basalt stone in the temple of Marduk (Babylon’s patron god) which pictures Hammurabi “receiving” kingship from Shamash (sun-god and lawgiver), and this provides the divine authority for the king to enforce his code of 282 laws upon his people (SNT 37). The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi likewise enlists this motif of the kings being “called” by name to bring justice and protection for the weak a reality. The laws of Moses, very similarly, presume the call of Moses for the Hebrews to be a “treasured possession” of the “Lord God” as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).

The very connection between man and the divine realm supports the shared worldview of theism and the order and accountability that follows from that view. Accordingly, then, such a relationship would make Hammurabi and Moses mediators of such divinely given laws rather than their chief architects.

On the other hand, the divine sources of authority are significantly distinct in their presumption of polytheism and monotheism. The first words in the “Code of Hammurabi” are, “When the exalted Anum king of the Annunaki.” Anum is the “sky god of the old Babylonian pantheon” of which the Annunaki were the “lesser Babylonian gods of heaven who served Enlil.” This demonstrates the full placement of the polytheistic belief system of Hammurabi and the Babylonian world (Roth 335). For example, Roth’s translation reads, 

“When the august god Anu, king of the Anunnaku deities” (335).

The preamble affirms that both gods Anum and Enlil gave all power to the god Marduk (son of Ea) and elevated him above the “Igigu deities.” It is this pantheon, as it were, of Babylonian and Mesopotamian gods that form the authoritative source for the call of Hammurabi as mediator of his law. The inclusion of these unifying acts in the heavens would create a significant plea for unity under this law on earth.

Yet, Moses and the laws in the Exodus record are based on a monotheistic view and this is significant since it ties in with their heritage. The Hebrews are believed to be descendants of a man named Abraham who departed from the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Gen. 12–13) and abandoned polytheism and idolatry. The Laws of Moses reaffirm this belief system, for example, in Exodus:

“You shall have no other gods besides me” (20:3 NJPS)

“With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold” (20:23 NJPS).

The monotheistic tone set at the beginning and throughout connects the Hebrews to their heritage, the sense that the God of Abraham has overthrown the gods of Egypt, and will be their only “LORD God” even in the future in polytheistic lands (Exod 23:23–24 ESV). This law will be their guide and source of unity in such conflicting environments.

Relationship with the Governed

The second touching point is the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people. On the one hand, Moses is described as a servant rather than a prince. Moses dialogues with the “LORD God,” and then is said to communicate the conclusion of that dialogue to the people. As briefly noted above, Moses was called by the Lord God; however, the Exodus narrative describes Moses as one who does not always have the trust of the people. Nevertheless, it is the exodus (mass migration) out of Egypt and the procession toward the mountain of the “LORD God” that establishes the relationship for which he is known most, the servant of the “Lord God,” mediator, and law-giver (Exod. 19; 20:19-21). It is through Moses that the Hebrews agree in the community to the Laws of the Lord (Exod. 24:3). Moses does not appear as an architect or prince, but as the mediator chosen by the people and by the Lord God.

On the other hand, Hammurabi’s relationship with his empire is distinct. He comes to the throne, according to Roth, as a descendant of Sumu-abum (c. 1894-1881 B.C.E.) and consequently has an established relationship with the Mesopotamian empire (Roth 335). It is clear from the Code of Hammurabi that the king was involved in the development of the laws:

When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. (Roth 337)

Lockard describes the significant career of the king as one who stabilized, maintained, and expanded his kingdom. Consequently, Hammurabi’s relationship was far more formal than that of Moses with the Hebrews.

The Status of Women

The third touching point is the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws. On the one hand, information in the “Code of Hammurabi” demonstrates a considerable need to regulate the treatment and care of women facing a variety of injustices. Lockard holds a similar view (SNT 36). Following Roth’s and Harper’s sectioning of the Laws, sections §131-136 demonstrate considerable regulations on how to treat an accusation of adultery. 

§131 If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house.
§132 If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.
§133a If a man should be captured and there are sufficient provisions in his house, his wife […, she will not] enter [another’s house].
§133b If that woman does not keep herself chaste but enters another’s house, they shall charge and convict that woman and cast her into the water.
§134 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, his wife may enter another’s house; that woman will not be subject to any penalty.
§135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another’s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father.
§136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another’s house — if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband. (Roth COS 343)

Apparently, there was such considerable mistreatment that legislation was provided to give the local judges the necessary guidelines to protect mistreated women and children.

Some of the more intriguing laws that deal with the protection of women are in the cases of abandonment and mistreatment (section 138-141). 

§138 If a man intends to divorce his first-ranking wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her silver as much as was her bridewealth and restore to her the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he shall divorce her. 
§139 If there is no bridewealth, he shall give her 60 shekels of silver as a divorce settlement.
§140 If he is a commoner, he shall give her 20 shekels of silver.
§141 If the wife of a man who is residing in the man’s house should decide to leave, and she appropriates goods, squanders her household possessions, or disparages her husband, they shall charge and convict her; and if her husband should declare his intention to divorce her, then he shall divorce her; neither her travel expenses, nor her divorce settlement, nor anything else shall be given to her. If her husband should declare his intention to not divorce her, then her husband may marry another woman and that (first) woman shall reside in her husband’s house as a slave woman. (Roth COS 343)

It is not that every law was written in the women’s favor because there appears evidence that a woman’s marital conduct can be actionable if abusive to her husband, but they implicitly suggest that these laws were needed in Hammurabi’s empire. Yet, this is only based on literary evidence. Nevertheless, it implies there was a negative treatment of women, so much so that it required legislation.

On the other hand, in Exodus 21:1–23:33 there are several sections addressing varying roles women were found in. Apparently, some fathers sold their daughters as slaves (21:7) but her potential manumission was legislated, as was legitimate marriage to the family’s son (21:7–11).

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (ESV)

There were also retributive laws of justice if a pregnant woman was hurt or killed (21:22–32). 

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (ESV)

Even in the case of consensual premarital sex, the Law legislated that the male “give the bride-price” for her to legitimize the marriage (22:16–17; NJPS 22:15–16). Sociological morés of promiscuity would have rendered the woman vulnerable to social scandal and familial shame. 

16 “If a man seduces [or, entices] a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (ESV)

Widows were to be cared for and never mistreated, and if so the perpetrators would receive the sword so their wives would become widows (22:22–24; NJPS 22:21–23). The language carries a passionate emphasis:

22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (ESV)

Related to the issue of adultery, there was a clear prohibition against such practices in the Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14). In contrast to the wide practice of polygamy (but not polyandry) in ancient societies of the Near East, the LORD God established monogamy as the mandated ideal of marriage (Gen 2:24). Consequently, adultery was viewed as a social wrong and a violation against God’s order. There was a concession for divorce and remarriage found in the teachings of Moses (Deut 24:1–4), but it is very restrictive.

Overall, such legislation in Israel was required because there were problems with the mistreatment of widows and slave girls, and also the abuse of rejection or abandonment of women after premarital sex.

If one is careful to read between the lines, Hammurabi and the Exodus Laws seek correctives on matters of injustice and oppression. These may not meet the modern social expectations regarding what are protective laws for women, but it should be noted different social norms and morés are being addressed in the ancient world than those of today.

Impact on the Society

The fourth observation focuses on what both sources of law reveal about these two societies. The earlier society of Hammurabi appears to have considerable social unrest and a sense of injustice in the air. The sorts of laws are of such a micromanagement level that they reflect a tremendous amount of abuse in society at large. The laws do cover more than just social matters, but it cannot be ignored that Hammurabi’s Code was, as he affirms, to: 

“make justice to appear in the land, to destroy evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak.”

This law reveals that retribution towards evil, the wicked, and oppression was not only viewed as a social necessity but was also a divine ruling. The gods will hold the mortals accountable for their mistreatment of others.

Likewise, in the emerging society of the Hebrews, it was expected that all previous and current expectations of justice and injustice must now be reevaluated from the perspective of the moral and religious expectation of the “LORD God.” One of the premises of the Exodus Law is their liberation from Egyptian slavery and its moral application to how a neighbor treats their neighbor. The case law nature of the Mosaic Law demonstrates this transition, especially in the Ten Commandments proper (Exod 20:1–17). The good standing in the Hebrew community was based upon how one interacted with their neighbor; consequently, it may be inferred from the law section of Exodus that Hebrew society needed much legislation to correct their conduct toward their neighbor: “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:18 ESV).

Observations

Initially, it may be said that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

This is seen in the following four areas as evaluated above. First, despite sharing a concern with connecting their source(s) of authority with the divine realm (i.e., the gods/God), and thus, making Moses and Hammurabi mediators of a law that centers on moral accountability and justice, they are markedly distinct in their theism.

Second, despite there being a common motif of mediation between the gods/God and the people they led, Moses and Hammurabi held distinct relationships with their people. Moses rose to leadership and was summoned to lead by the people; whereas, Hammurabi ascended to the thorn and had an established and formal regnal relationship with his empire.

Third, although the Hammurabi handout had selected sections on what is available shows that when compared to Exodus Laws, both were concerned with correcting and abolishing, through retributive legislation, the abuse of women in their communities in areas of sexuality, honor, abandonment, and humiliation.

Finally, both sources of law reveal that human societies always deal with matters of injustice and oppression, and these tend to be focused on the mistreatment of vulnerable women and widows. The consequences of such laws demonstrate the rough and violent nature of society and its expectations.

Bibliography

(ESV) English Standard Version of The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon About 2250. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1904.

(NJPS) TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jerusalem Publication Society, 1985.

(SNT) Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History. Volume I: To 1500. 3rd edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

(COS) Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” In volume 3 of The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. New York: Brill, 2002.

Spiritual Growth: The Ezra Principle (Ezra 7:10)

On By Jovan PayesIn Leadership Ethics, Male Spiritual Leadership, Old Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Spiritual Formation

In pursuit of my own spiritual growth (such as it is) as a man of faith, it took me a long time to figure out where my journey was supposed to find not just the goal, but the starting point and the road map for the pilgrimage. Spiritual growth is not the result of knowing where our faith calls us to, but from the arduous journey to get there.

My journey has been massively blessed. I have had mentors, mothers, fathers – at times, even grandparent – figures. They have all given me something for my journey (perhaps, sometime, I’ll write about that), but I was only walking with them on their journey. Still, I would not be where I am, spiritually, without them.

I tried education. I figured “if I could be smarter” then I could discover all of the secrets that others are keeping to themselves behind the walls of academia – the proverbial mountain top. I found the tools and methods instead to help me navigate “the strange and yet immanent” world of Scriptures. They helped me raise questions and look at God’s word from various new angles that have indeed helped me in my journey to God. Despite its benefits of making me feel closer to the text, however, it was not the “end all” solution to my spiritual needs.

My personal life experiences, training, and those mentors in my life, all pointed me back to one thing: my journey to God only makes sense when I invest in a lifestyle of discipleship that has a consequential impact on my life. This required me to take seriously the words of the Psalmists.

I needed my desire for wisdom to mirror the Psalmist’s outcry to the Lord: 

Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. (Psalm 119:18)[1]

In this great Psalm, David recounts the wonders of the Law of God and exalts its beauty, richness, guidance, and its loftiness as it is grounded in God’s righteousness. It begins with the words,

Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord! (Psalm 119:1)

One of the empowering aspects of this Psalm is not actually found in what is written, but in the very process by which we see the Psalmist’s love for living out the Word of God, the Law of the Lord. The entire Psalm flows with a powerful example of losing oneself in the world of God’s Law.

I am not at all surprised that Psalm 119 found a communal niche at the Feast of Pentecost, as Nancy deClaissé-Walford recounts:

It is recited at the Feast of Pentecost, the spring festival observed fifty days after Passover, which celebrates the giving of the torah to Moses at Sinai during the wilderness wanderings.[2]

Nancy deClaissé-Walford in The Book of Psalms (2014)

Psalm 119 called my attention to the only true path to spiritual growth: the transformative power of the world of the scriptures. Knowing God through the scriptures, however, must lead toward discipleship, toward obedience.

The Ezra Principle

The “Ezra Principle” sounds catchy and new doesn’t it. I guarantee you it is not. I have not discovered anything hidden in plain sight. In fact, the “principle” is not just one thing, but a commitment to five values of discipleship that Ezra pursued himself.

In the fifth century B.C. (c. 458 B.C.), Ezra is commissioned by the Persian King Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.) in his return to Jerusalem (7:1–28). It is a time of fresh opportunity to “get things right” following the seventy years of captivity in the Babylonian due to the corruptive influence of pagan idolatry.[3] In this context, Ezra had begun a process of preparation for the task before him:

Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel. (Ezra 7:10)

The grammarian in me is interested in the verbal phrases of Ezra’s commitment: (1) “set his heart,” (2) “to study the Law,” (3) “to do it,” and (4) “to teach… in Israel.” That’s powerful. You may find other ways to divide this passage, but we will separate “study” and its object, “the Law of the Lord,” into two values themselves.

This is one of those passages that made clear to me the connection between knowing God’s word and being an authentic follower of God: the connection between personal commitment to know and to do God’s word.

Knowledge and Discipleship

This observation shifted my thinking away from just being absorbed in the Word of God. Spiritual growth must embrace knowledge but that is not the entire picture. James warns us that a people of knowledge alone is useless if not insulting because knowledge (i.e., faith) is to demonstrate itself by good works (1:22-27).[4]

James weaves together the two themes of favoritism and faith in order to illustrate just how practical saving faith must be. He illustrates this by examining the relationship between the poor and the rich in the church:

If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (Jas 2:15–16)

What good is knowing that we are all saved in Christ, so goes the argument, if we do not care for each other in this life? How does God’s communal redemption of all impact our daily interactions? James argues that knowledge (faith) should be lived out in the community of the body of Christ in consequential ways.

For that matter, think about the community where the church meets. What good are we doing if we are strong on truth, but our community has never heard or seen us live out what the gospel is all about? The good we do should move people that thank God:

In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matt 5:16)

In other words, spiritual knowledge and discipleship are inseparable.

To return to our point, knowing is only the beginning, the end is discipleship. The process from point A to point B is our journey of applying the narrative of Scripture (how God redeems humanity through Jesus Christ) to our lives so that we may be transformed by it (Rom 12:1-2). This makes the Word of God the essential guiding force behind all of our actions.

This brings us to the “main event” of this discussion: something I call the “Ezra Principle.”

(1) We Must Set Our Hearts

is one of the clearest descriptions of a targeted mindset in the OT. If the heart is not “into it” the body and life will not follow. Paul, speaking of the Macedonian’s benevolent efforts despite their deep poverty, describes the basis of their commitment: “they gave themselves first to the Lord, and then by the will of God to us” (2 Cor 8:5). Great advancements always stem from great commitments.

In the study and application of God’s Word, the commitment which begins at our spiritual core – the heart – will continue to be the driving force throughout our life of service to God (Deut 6:5, Lev 19:18).

(2) We Must Spend Time in Study.

Near the end of the apostle Paul’s life, he requested that Timothy come to be with him and bring his cloak, his books, and the parchments (2 Tim 4:13).  There are many speculations about the nature of these last two items, but at the very least the books and parchments would include copies of his letters to other churches. Paul would spend the last days of his life with those volumes he penned through inspiration to those in need of strength and faith.

The point we draw from here is that Paul was a studying man. In fact, he would encourage Timothy to be well equipped in the word of God and aptly able to “divide” the Scripture clearly and carefully (2 Tim 2:15). Ezra likewise spent renewed focus on studying the Law as he found himself and Israel back in the Land of their faith. Ezra knew, as we ought to today, that in order to rebuild our lives it must be based upon God’s word.

(3) We Must Select Only God’s Word as the Object of our Study.

There are many philosophical writings and even religious “scriptures” in the world. They often have maxims, sayings, or verses with which we would agree and commend. When building a biblical worldview as for the foundation of our spiritual growth, however, the Bible is the only set of “Sacred Writings” which are able to make a person wise to obtain salvation (2 Tim 3:14-15).

One may argue that this is an arrogant statement; however, despite the fact that such “writings” may provide insight into our lives, they pale in comparison with the never surpassed guidance given in the divine books of the Bible.

When one analyzes the Bible from the vantage point of predictive prophecy, historical accuracy, scientific foreknowledge, and literary harmony of this great anthology of 66 books in contrast to such other works, the Bible stands alone.

(4) We Must Steadfastly Practice God’s Word.

It is only by the conviction that the words inscribed on the paper we read are not mere words of human beings, but are instead the very words that God himself would breathe out (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16–17). Jesus teaches quite clearly that our lives are to reflect this type of respect, for in our prayers we are to express the sentiment, “your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). The Lord declares: “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam 15:22)

(5) We Must Share both our Learning and Experiences.

In many ways, teaching is not only the sharing of facts and principles. In various instances, anecdotal interactions with God’s word can be very revealing and helpful in understanding and teaching God’s word. For example, consider all those who continue to leave the denominational world for the practice of pure New Testament Christianity.

The process of filtering out unbiblical accretions while adding to their learning and practicing the biblical faith can be a very helpful experience to teach others going through the same process. The bottom line is that God’s word was never designed to be a mental exercise to the exclusion of action and sharing; indeed, we must make “disciples” (Matt 28:19-20).

Steven Lawson, in his own words, calls attention to the advice of Walter Kaiser:

When a man preaches, he should never remove his finger from the Scriptures, Kaiser affirmed. If he is gesturing with his right hand, he should keep his left hand’s finger on the text. If he reverses hands for gesturing, then he should also reverse hands for holding his spot in the text. He should always be pointing to the Scriptures.[5]

S. J. Lawson, “The Pattern of Biblical Preaching,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001)

The advice is striking for those that proclaim the Word of God, but it is an excellent reminder to those would-be disciples interested in taking their discipleship to the next level, namely, to be teachers.

Studying is Complicated

This may seem like an aside, but it is not. I promise. We need to be very careful how we use scripture. Sometimes there are narratives regarding God’s people which seem contrary to the high moral calling which is expected of God’s leaders or people. Historical narratives need to be read with caution, as they often make their points indirectly (with no commentary). They are not always telling us something God wants us to imitate, but what God’s people have done.[6] It teaches me to be careful when seeking to “do” and “teach” God’s word.

I have often wrestled with some of the deeds of Ezra as recorded in the sacred record, particularly the covenant he seems to have initiated among the returning exiled Jews to “put away” all their foreign wives and children (cf. Ezra 10). Was this divorce en-masse commissioned by God? If one takes the view that whatever is written is positive teaching, as an authoritative command, then the text seemingly gives justification to divorce and remarriage on the count of practicing a different faith. This seems counter to the teaching of Jesus who affirms that there is only one justifiable cause for divorce and remarriage: adultery (Matt 19:1–9).

Yet, if one takes the view that each action must be taken into consideration on its own merits, then it is possible that Ezra was convicted by the significant teaching against inter-marriage with foreigners due to their influence on their spiritual corruption (Exod 34:12–16; Deut 7:1–6; Josh 23:19–23) that he overstepped its application and persuaded the men of Israel to do something not commanded of those who were already “married with children.” This would align with the fact that there is no explicit commentary nor “word from the Lord” to demand these families to be severed.

Providing an answer to this riddle is beyond the purpose of this essay. My point is in our commitment to setting the heart, studying the word, and living out the word in our individual lives, the weight of teaching is likewise an important discipline that should be taken with the heavy responsibility that comes with it.

The Lord’s brother James wrote:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. (James 3:1–2)

Humility must always accompany study and teaching (Rom 2:1–11).

Final Thoughts

I am forever grateful for those who took the time to encourage me, prod me, and guide me to appreciate the special place Bible study is in the spiritual life and growth of God’s people. I would like to give a quick hat tip to them at the close of this essay.

Donald W. Hinds (1922–2008) taught me and encouraged me to read daily and widely, to be challenged by what I read, and to meditate carefully on it. His son David Hinds taught me the importance of finding the right book and the right teacher (author), in that some have so prepared themselves that if I should listen to other voices beyond the Bible, I should find such authors. I am thankful to Wayne Jackson (1961–2017), a true preacher’s preacher, who probably shaped my passion for the study of the Scriptures more so than anyone else in my early formative years through his writings in biblical studies (The Christian Courier), biblical apologetics (Apologetics Press, Inc.), and while a member of the church where he richly and profoundly proclaimed the scriptures.

Others have guided me along the way as well. Earl D. Edwards was one of my instructors in college, an elder in the church while I attended college, and a personal mentor during my early academic development. In him, I saw how the power of God’s word can so shape a man’s life with dignity, scholarship, and humility.

I wish I could say more about others, but I’ll save that for another time. These are but a few personal encounters with those who have lived out and assisted me to see that the “Ezra Principle” is not a “cute” title, but essential for the spiritual formation that comes from following God and his word. I pray that you take its challenge.

Endnotes

  1. Unless cited otherwise, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2016).
  2. Nancy deClaissé-Walford, “Book Five of the Psalter: Psalms 107–150,” in The Book of Psalms, NICOT, eds. E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 870.
  3. M. J. Boda, “Ezra,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 278.
  4. Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, ZECNT, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 101.
  5. Steven J. Lawson, “The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1–18,” BSac 158 (2001): 451.
  6. I am reminded of an “authorized” campus flyer I came across advertising a community college course on “The Bible as Literature” at the City College of San Francisco. It had a picture of the Bible with a sticker label on it that read:

    —-
    WARNING: This is a work of fiction. Do not interpret literally.

    CONTENT ADVISORY: Contains verses descriptive of or advocating suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, rape, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, criminal activity, human rights violations, and crimes against humanity.

    EXPOSURE WARNING: Exposure to contents for extended periods or during formative years in children has been known to cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and in extreme cases, pathological disorders, hatred, bigotry, and violence including, but not limited to torture, murder, and genocide.
    —-

    Are there stories in Scripture that record horrific events? Yes. Are they documented to promote such behavior? No. They are recorded to document the fallen nature of the world we live in.

The Gospels: Reading Them Like a Gorilla

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Conversion, evangelism, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, John, Leviticus, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Personal Story, Urban Christianity

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:

  1. The genre of “gospel” is historical narratives comparable to the Greco-Roman bios.
  2. The gospels are a blend of theology and history.
  3. This blend of theology and history does not undermine their historical reliability.
  4. 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

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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]).
  4. 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).
  5. 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]).
  6. Dan MacGuill, “Did Lincoln Say, “If You want to Test a Man’s Character, Give Him Power?” Snopes.com. Accessed: 18 May 2022.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?“
  9. Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus, trans. John W. Doberstein (New York: Harper, 1959), 159.
  10. Tshego Letsoalo, “The History of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Neighborhood.”
  11. 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.

Church, Let’s be Gentle (Gal 5:22–23)

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Galatians, Holy Spirit, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Spiritual Formation

Hardships come in all shapes and sizes. They often harden the people that survive them. Sometimes we are surrounded by so many troubles, their downpour is palpable. Our political climate resides on a hairpin trigger; any response to the “pandemic” seemly places you at odds with various camps at once.

There is remote education, remote working, adjusted schedules, reduced workforce and its accompanying reduced income and on we may go. Never have we had to adjust so quickly in so many fields, and rethink all of our social/cultural connections at once. It has not been done without incurring major trauma and frustration. The medical sector has gone to such protective measures that people have died alone, void of human touch; people are fighting diseases without the side by side support of their loved ones and communities. Yet, we somehow find the strength to cheer, “we’re all in this together.”

Many of our churches have likewise had to adjust and adopt methods that have been viewed, for the most part, as luxuries, out of reach and impractical. Among the many churches, broadcasting sermons and worship is for the bigger, tele-evangelist type churches. Embracing a new way to gather together, embracing additional formats allowable in the scriptures for assembling and spiritual communion. This has not happened without various forms of turmoil, infighting, the testing of fellowship, and in some cases suspicion.

It makes me think that the church needs to be reminded to be gentle.

The Fruit of the Spirit

A study on “the fruit of the Spirit” is badly needed right now. It is the outflow of our relationship with God. These fruits provide us the resources for enduring and succeeding as God’s people during stormy weather.

What was Paul getting at in the “fruit” of the Spirit”? The word “fruit” (karpós) has a wide range of meaning: it may be translated as “fruit, grain; harvest; result, outcome; deed, action; return, gain, advantage; tribute, praise (of the lips); offspring (Lk 1:42) descendant (Ac 2:30).”[1] The word ranges from the literal to the metaphoric and context helps to limit how fruit should be understood.

Fruit is the natural outcome from a plant, a living being, or a process. Fruit bears the distinguishing characteristics of its source. A banana is the fruit of the banana tree, an apple is the fruit of an apple tree, etc. A child is the offspring (fruit) of her/his parents. An error is the outcome of misinformation or a distortion.

For example, Jesus speaks of the spiritual caliber of a person based upon the fruit of their actions and teaching:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15–20; English Standard Version)[2]

The Psalms, likewise, speak of one’s spiritual outgrowth based on a connection to the Word of God:

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:3–4)

These examples are samples of a greater body of biblical examples for the spiritual character of the fruit metaphor.

This metaphor directs our attention to a spiritual harvest procured from the child of God’s relationship with the Spirit. It certainly points to the important spiritual realm of our activity. Paul does not point to a spirituality detached from the world. No, God’s people must embrace that the spiritual realm bleeds over into our natural (flesh/human) world because our faith is grounded in both realms of activity.[3]

This means that Christians derive the wellspring for their actions from God’s leading, and this then frees us from any obligations to act like the customary fallen fleshly/human world. We are freed to live a life anchored to our relationship with God.

This is part of the big picture drama of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Throughout Galatians, he displays how freedom and obligation work together in tension as Christians live freed by Christ to be obligated by the ethic of love.

For freedom Christ has set us free [theology of freedom]; stand firm therefore [ethic of obligation], and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:13–15)

These are not competing themes. I like how Charles K. Barrett (1917–2011) puts it,

There is no conflict but rather an indissoluble union between the theology of freedom and the ethics of obligation. Nor is there any equation of a compromise between the two in which each is watered down so as to accommodate the other. Freedom is real freedom, and any attempt to restrict it must be firmly refuted. But obligation is real obligation too, and there must be no attempt to evade it.[4]

Freedom and Obligation (1985)

In other words, the regenerated child of God is freed by the gospel and a life that is lived in light of God’s redemption will their obligation anchored in loving others. God’s people must certainly live with this tension: (1) a theology of freedom to live out in the natural world the love of God bred by the gospel message, and (2) the ethic of obligation that a Christian and the church is bound by to embrace the grace of God and the purpose of Christ’s death.

Making Sense of Gentleness

The most important way to understand how a word is to be understood is its context, otherwise, we may import misleading ideas into a text. Word studies are additional way to appreciate the limits of a word’s meaning. I like to look at how the ancients used the words of the New Testament, as it often provides a better sense of what Paul is saying and means.

Secular Sense. New Testament Scottish scholar, William Barclay (1907–1978), was one of the best wordsmiths of his era. His knowledge of the classics and Greek literature was astounding. In his little book, Flesh and Spirit (1962), he illustrates six ways the concept of “gentleness” (praútēs) was used in ancient secular Greek.[5]

  1. Gentleness as a soothing quality in the face of difficulty, hardship, or bitterness.
  2. Gentleness of conduct breeds a spirit of cooperation, especially when those with the power to act behaved differently.
  3. In the midsts of any argument, gentleness is the attitude and culture created where “cooler heads” prevail without losing one’s temper.
  4. The ability to take things lightly, whether going through an unpleasant experience, or, to not overreact to important things.
  5. It is used to speak of animals which have become obedient and have learned control and discipline.
  6. The most common use: Gentleness is seen in the portrayal of a person’s character in which strength and gentleness go together, where passion and gentleness find a balance in high degree.

The modern sense of “gentleness” carries more of the qualitative sense of “mildness of manners and disposition” (Merriam-Webster), or being “kind, calm, or soft…” (Cambridge Dictionary). There is some similarity to the ancient sense, but as Barclay points out the ancients held a more robust sense of the power and impact of “gentleness.”

New Testament Usage. I want to use Barclay’s spectrum to illustrate how the New Testament uses “gentleness” (praútēs), a term that appears eleven times (1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:23, 6:1; Eph 4:2; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:25; Tit 3:2; Jas 1:21, 3:13; 1 Pet 3:15). We are illustrating here how to best understand the word in the context of four New Testament case studies, and then we will look at our passage in Galatians 5:23 (and 6:1).

1 Corinthians 4:21: What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

In a context of correction and restoration, Paul offers this rhetorical question. The phrase “spirit of gentleness” may be translated as “a gentle spirit” (cf. Gal 6:1). In other words, this is a question about the kind of “frame of mind” the Corinthians wish Paul to arrive in.[6] The emphasis is on either whether the Corinthians want Paul to arrive with a soothing attitude (1), or with a culture of love generated by a cool temper (3). These seem to be the better options of the sense here.

2 Corinthians 10:1: I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!

When Paul addressed a slanderous charge against him that in person he was timid and in letter he is aggressive,[7] the apostle appeals to the Corinthians by “the meekness of Christ” or “Christ’s meekness.” This is clearly a reference to the balanced character of Jesus Christ who is both meek (praútēs) and gentle/forbearing (epieíkeia). In the face of conflict, Paul will appeal to the disciplined character of Jesus to be his guide (6).

Colossians 3:12: Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved compassionate hearts kindness humility, meekness, and patience...

As in Galatians 5:22–23 and Ephesians 4:2, our word appears in a list of virtues of proper conduct. In fact, much has been said about the parallels between Colossians and Ephesians, where in the latter walking in a manner worthing of the Christian calling includes walking “with all humility and gentleness, with patience bearing with one another in love” (4:2). As part of a virtue list, these contexts provide a “big picture” character portrayal to which the child of God must endeavor to pursue. It is vital to breed unity and cooperation in the body of Christ by being actively gentle (2).[8]

2 Timothy 2:25: correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth...

Paul outlines a program for Timothy on how to engage his opponents. It should not be done through bitter quarreling (2:24) but through “correction… with gentleness” (2:25). Quarreling and correcting are opposites in this context, all quarreling is inconsistent with a servant’s method of engagement, but not all correcting is quarreling. Gentleness must shape the quality of the correction. The emphasis is perhaps on the cool headed attitude (3) or a lack of overreaction to these confrontations (4).

The key takeaway from these examples is that we must make an attempt to understand how the original readers of the text would have understood praútēs, the word often translated “gentleness” or “meekness.” It is not a passive “Clark Kent” unassuming mildness, instead it is a proactive personal virtue necessary to create a culture of community.

The Fruit of Gentleness (Gal 5:23; 6:1)

When Paul lays the vice list of the “works of the flesh” side by side with the virtue list of the “fruit of the Spirit,” he is outlining what freedom in Christ looks like. The realm of the flesh enslaves whether it be the Law of Moses or it be living exclusively by our natural conventions.

The realm controlled by the Spirit, provides freedom from such constraints. We are no longer bound by the Law (for the Jews) or our vice-filled conventions (for gentiles), but are lead by the Spirit to produce a new character (the fruit/outcome).

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:22–24

The character portrayed here gives us the content of the ethic of obligation. We are free in Christ to create a new creation, an Israel of God (Gal 6:15–16). This obligation has communal implications. God’s people are must look out for each other and hold each other accountable.

Paul moves quickly from “the fruit of the Spirit” to one example of application in Galatians 6:1 which has to do with restoration:

Brothers if anyone is caught in any transgression you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Galatians 6:1

I repeat what I said earlier, gentleness is part of a “big picture” character development necessary for the child of God. It must be pursued. When Christians are actively gentle its breeds unity, cooperation, and healing in the body of Christ. This fruit of the Spirit “enables the Christian to correct the erring brother without arrogance, impatience, or anger.”[9]

This fruit of the Spirit provides the gentleness and tolerance in the face of difficulties to do the better–often harder–thing.[10] Sometimes church discipline is practiced in such a punitive way that that permanent expulsion is the only outcome. We should meditate, however, on the following words,

Do not amputate [them], as a piece of gangrene flesh, from the church body, but so handle [them] as to restore [them]. Also do not do this in a proud, Pharisaical spirit.[11]

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Pendleton,
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916)

The process of restoration requires the connective tissue of a Spirit-led gentle community and a humble self-evaluation. J. Louis Martyn rounds out my thinking here:[12]

The restoration, then, is to be completely devoid of lasting stigma. It is to be carried out with the gentleness that is one of the marks of the Spirit-led community […] and also with circumspection. For, as the next clause indicates, all are subject to missteps. Indeed, because every member of the community […] is on the battlefront pictured in 5:17a, everyone is subject to the tempting power of the Flesh.

Galatians (2008)

Freedom and Obligation

Gentleness provides us with one virtue where the theology of freedom and the ethic of obligation are found in Christ is clearly illustrated. Here we conclude with a few examples.

  • When church controversies occur that leave us upset, heart broken, or disheveled, God’s people are free in Christ to break from the destructive behaviors we were once bound to. Our obligation is to be gentle in the face of conflict with those that have hurt us and that we disagree with.
  • When our society is embroiled in controversy and unrest, remember we have been liberated from any cultural tests of loyalty (political party, hashtag movements, etc.), because our obligation is to love our neighbor with cool-headedness and Christlike character.
  • When we are tempted to act out in self-righteous anger, we are freed to acknowledge our own sins that God has forgiven, and can then look in the mirror to see that our commitment to the gospel obligates us to treat others with Spirit-led community.

Love is the obligated ethic of the Christian (Lev 19:18) and it is the proving ground of true discipleship (John 13:35):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

Gentleness is the method and shape of how we administer love during the various difficulties the Christian faces.

This means I must learn to do things differently. I must learn to be cool headed and kind when dealing with fallen Christians. I must learn to face the prospect of things out of my control with the balance of calmness and patience.

All of God’s people must learn to reflect the character of Jesus described by Isaiah in the following way:

a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20)

Endnotes

  1. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 92.
  2. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
  3. Walter Russell, “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26,” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.
  4. C. K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 70.
  5. William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 112–14.
  6. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 378.
  7. Wayne Jackson, A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publication, 2011), 359.
  8. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 152, 334.
  9. Friedrich Hauck and Seigfried Schulz, “πραΰς, πραΰτης,” TDNT 6:650.
  10. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (1953; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 208.
  11. John W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916; repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950), 284.
  12.  J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 547.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5:19–23. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962.

Barrett, Charles K. Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1985.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Hauck, Friedrich, and Seigfried Schulz. “πραΰς, πραΰτης.” TDNT 6:645–51.

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB. Vol. 33A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

McGarvey, John W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. 1916. Repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950.

Newman, Barclay M., Jr. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to he Churches of Galatia. NICNT. 1953. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Russell, Walter. “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26.” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.