Q&A: May Women Teach Baptized Boys?

The following question comes up once and a while in various forms:

Is it permissible for a baptized boy to be taught by a woman in the church’s Bible School program?

Questions like this often emerge from the heart of a concerned Christian parent whose heart wishes to honor the Lord. I pray and hope that the following guide will be helpful to those seeking an answer to this question.

The question has several elements which much be addressed. They will form the headings of this brief response in the following order: (1) what is the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12?, and (2) does baptism make a person an adult?

The Prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12

Paul writes to Timothy,

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (English Standard Version)

If left alone an argument may be made to the effect that a woman can never instruct nor be in a position of authority over a man —never. This would, however, be stripping the passage from its larger context and thereby generating a dangerously misleading analysis of these words.

Paul’s prohibition is built upon two lines of reasoning: (1) the order of creation, and (2) the profile of the fall. Observe:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:13–14 ESV).[1]

Although some apply this passage to domestic relationships (husband and wife), or to relationships in the world, such as in business (no women bosses), Paul is specifically addressing the “places” of Christian assemblies. He is not addressing all interactions between women and men, Christian or otherwise.

In verse 8, Paul uses the phrase “in every place” (en panti topō) which is a short hand for “in every place of assembly.”[2] Thus, the focus of Paul’s prohibition has quite a limited application —the Christian assembly. This is further made clear by the mention of the males —as opposed to the women— who are to pray in the assembly (v. 8), and the emphasis on godly women as doers of good works (vv. 9-10) and as active learners in the assembly (vv. 11-15).

Perhaps a point of clarification is in order. Paul does base the “headship/respect” principle for married couples on the order of creation (Eph 5:22–33), but with a different focus. It would be inappropriate to argue —based on 1 Timothy 2:11–15 alone— that women are to be silent at home before their husbands, and contradictory to passages that assume women have administrative authority in their own home (1 Tim 5:14), which also includes martial rights and due consideration from the husband (1 Cor 7:4–5).

Thus, the prohibition in this passage addresses the particular setting of the worship assembly. This must be kept in mind.

Before we move forward. I know there are many genuine believers that would cringe at the notion that there are teaching limitations along gender lines within the church assembly. Yet, while I understand some do believe this instruction to be ad hoc —unique— and therefore, not normative, Paul’s argument is built on his apostolic application of Genesis 2:18-25 and 3:1-14 which refer to the order of creation and the order of the fall.[3]

This should never be confused with an emphasis on the superiority of men and the inferiority of women, both are equal image-bearers of God (Gen 1:27; 2:18).[4]

Is Adulthood Bestowed at Baptism?

This is the heart of the question. The New Testament, in no place that I have found, marks baptism as the transitional act which bestows not only forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) but also adulthood upon the recipient. If adulthood is bestowed at baptism, then, what of those who are baptized in their 30s or 40s — have these people been simply children up to this point?

I have heard it said before:

If a boy is ready to make the most important decision he will ever make, then should he not be regarded as an adult? Why not?

While the argument appears to have merit, such a view can have disastrous consequences. Let me further my point. Does this also apply to young baptized girls? Are they now adults ready to marry and bear children? Should the newly baptized boy be thrust into church leadership now because he is a “man”? Why not?

This is not New Testament logic on three grounds: (1) it is nowhere mentioned in the NT, (2) baptism is about the “new creation” and forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 5:17), and (3) baptism is about a “new birth” —a sort of spiritual infancy (John 3:3). So the logic of the gospel runs in the opposite direction of the above claim. Baptism is certainly the most important decision a person can ever make, but that by default does not make a person an adult. This is not what the NT teaches. The assertion is an opinion and we must be very careful with opinions.

Still, even in the New Testament world, there were different words used to describe age groups.[5] One key point to observe is that the ancient world held very a different view of children than modern times when it comes to concepts like merit and value, property, rights, etc. Nevertheless, we will survey these words quickly:

  1. Bréphos means “young” and “fruit of the body” and thus refers to small children/childhood (2 Tim 3:15), newborn infants (1 Pet 2:2), and those within the womb (Luke 1:41, 44).
  2. The words país (small, little), paidíon (little child) and paidárion (little boy, John 6:9) are bit interconnected. Paidion may refer to someone not yet 7 (Matt 2:11,13–14), which covers are large span of time; whereas, a child from the ages 7-14 would be called pais (Luke 8:51, 54). The “adolescent” (14-21) was called a meirákion but the word is not used in the NT (2 Macc 7:25).
  3. There is téknon and teknion: These terms generally reflect “origin” (descendent), the early dependent state of children, and those who are figuratively so (téknon: Luke 11:13; Mark 7:27; Phil 2:22). And teknion was a nursery term for “little child” and is often affectionately used for Christians (John 13:33; 1 John 2:12).

Even when Paul speaks to Timothy and speaks of his “youth” (1 Tim 4:12), he is speaking in relative terms. The word (neotes) itself is relative and often associated with a “youthful spirit” and being impetuous[6] and covered a period until the approximate age of 40.[7]

In no instance is there an example from Scripture that a child becomes an adult at the point of baptism, regardless of the important choice they have made.

Finally, let me add the following. Christians are often called upon to become mature or complete (teleios 1 Cor 14:20). Even the church universal is called upon to grow into “mature manhood” (teleios aner) in the Ephesian letter (4:13; cf. Col 1:28, 4:12). What is more to the flavor of NT teaching is that baptism begins a process of spiritual maturity. It is not a commentary on biological maturity (the brain is not fully mature until the mid-twenties), on legal maturity and accountability (nations and cultures differ), nor on the wisdom the church depends on from its mature leaders.

We should never crush the embers of zeal among our youngest believers and disciples. We need to encourage them and give them an environment for their faith to be nurtured and yield its fruit. I would stress, however, that we do not artificially affirm something upon them like adulthood that there is no biblical nor social basis to do. Furthermore, we should not sideline our teaching sisters, many of whom are mothers and grandmothers who administer their own homes with children under their authority (Tit 2:4; 1 Tim 5:14).

So Where Do We Go From Here?

I see no scriptural evidence to remove a young baptized boy from a Bible class taught by a Christian woman simply on the merit that the boy is baptized. But, this does not settle the matter in my view.

The Scriptures do not clearly define a line that distinguishes childhood from adulthood. We often use the phrase, “age of accountability.” Again, there is no general consensus. Is age twenty, based on God’s punishment upon the unbelieving Israelites at the precipice of the Land of Promise (Exod 14:29)? If so, then no youth is accountable before that age and, therefore, baptism would be inappropriate.

Yet, there are plenty of references of young people called by the Lord and brought into His service. Samuel’s call in his early teens to service (1 Sam 3). Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign as king (2 Kings 22:1). Mary was certainly “young” (11-13 years old?) when she conceived Jesus by the power of God while betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1). In her oracle, she acknowledges her inclusion in God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:49). So, it is not a tidy situation to say young people cannot come into God’s plan.

By and large, the conversion excerpts from the Book of Acts narrate responses from believing adults: (1) the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), (2) the Samaritan converts (Acts 8), (3) the conversion of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8), (4) the conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts 8), (5) the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9, 22, 26), (6) the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11), (7) the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16), (8) the conversion of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), (9) the Athenian converts (Acts 17), (10) the Corinthian converts (Acts 18), and (11) the Ephesian converts (Acts 19).

There may be some wiggle room in the reference to “household” in cases like Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34 to include younger believing members. R. C H. Lenksi, for example, viewed “household” (Grk. oikos) as a reference to Cornelius’ “family” in Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34.[8] In a study on the multi-functional social setting of the household in Luke and Acts, John Elliott notes that the term includes “family and kin,” but the term may also include “personnel and property.”[9] This may then include servants, slaves, and household managers who also responded to the gospel. At any rate, a baptized youth does not an adult member of a Greco-Roman household make.

At the heart of conversion, however, is the need for forgiveness of sin, the capacity for belief and obedience, and commitment towards discipleship. This would exclude the youthfully immature to the infantile of the house. So where do we go from here? Youths who respond to God in baptism are still youths subject to their own parents.

Concluding Thoughts

That being said, we concede that there is tremendous wisdom to maintain consistency in the church’s teaching program. Since there is no “clear-cut” age to gauge adulthood in Scripture, it would seem best for congregations and families to determine for themselves an age where the teaching program of the church exclusively selects male teachers during those transitional years from late middle school through high school. But, it should be clear that this is only a judgment call.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Everett Ferguson, “Tópos in 1 Timothy 2:8,” ResQ 33.2 (1991): 65–73.
  3. Bruce K. Waltke, “1 Timothy 2:8-15: Unique or Normative?,” Crux 28.1 (March 1992): 22-27. Repr., CBMW News/Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1.4 (Oct 1996): 4-7.
  4. Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 88.
  5. Albrecht Oepke, “pais…,” TDNT 5:636–39.
  6. H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (1888; repr., Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 529.
  7. Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), 124.
  8. “He was to tell Cornelius what would save both him and his house (family). It was a matter of saving this household.” R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 443. Later, regarding the Philippian jailor and his house: “The jailor and his family were baptized in the ordinary way by an application of water in the name of the Triune God” (Lenski, Acts of the Apostles, 683).
  9. John H. Elliott, “Temple Versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (1991; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 225. See also, Jovan Payes “Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus.”

Lecture: “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak” (Mark 10:14)

Audio Resources (1)

“Leaders Stand Up for the Weak (Mark 10:14)” was a part of The Master’s Plan for Leadership series for the 80th annual Freed-Hardeman University lectures.  The 2016 theme was In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark (Get book).

The Lecture Audio

Lecture Summary

In Mark 10:14, Jesus corrects his disciples for rebuking those that brought children to Jesus. In this kingdom saying, Jesus explains that he and the kingdom are at the disposal of those most vulnerable and often forgotten elements of our society. He sets the stage for a reversal of their rejection by receiving them into his arms (10:16). The passage is a powerful corrective and guideline for Christian servant-leaders, focusing on proper discipleship means to be at the disposal of those coming to Jesus, for to such belong the kingdom of God.

The Lecture Presentation Slides

Notes

  • The chapter for this lecture and the lecture follow different pathways but come to the same conclusion. Please read the essay “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak (Mark 10:14).”
  • The statement on aphesis/aphiemi in connection with Barabbas is a generalization of one of its meanings but is not technically used (apolūo is) in the passages discussing his release (Mark 15:6-15). Thayer has “release, as from bondage, imprisonment, etc.: Lk 4:18 (19)” (“aphesis,” Greek-English Lexicon, 88). The ESV renders aphesis as “liberty” twice in Luke 4:18 and refers to those liberated (released) from their bondage. Aphesis is quite significantly the term used to describe “forgiveness” in its redemptive sense predominately in the New Testament. The term used in the Barabbas texts is apolūo which more often than not is used in the sense of “release” from incarceration though it can have the sense of forgiveness. I apologize for the inaccurate portrayal on that point.

 

“Leaders Stand Up for the Weak” (Mark 10:14)

[Chapter submission for the 80th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2016), Henderson, Tennessee. This was a part of The Master’s Plan for Leadership series. In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered here.]


There are numerous moments in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus is involved in ministry towards children undergoing a variety of problems (5:23, 41; 7:24-30; 9:14-29). But it is in Mark 10:13-16 where one of the most memorable interactions with children take place. Jesus here declares, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.] Left alone, ripped from its context, these words stand as a tender and compassionate invitation to children to experience salvation in the kingdom of God.[1] Is this what the passage addresses? Or, is this passage another corrective to the well-intended but misguided actions of the disciples—the future leaders of the kingdom of God? The answer rests upon the latter.

There is no stated rationale for the disciples’ action of hindering and rebuking those who brought children to Jesus (yet many theories abound). When Jesus addressed his disciples for rebuking and hindering those who brought children to the home where he was (Mark 10:10), he set forth a principle which serves as a guide for servant-leadership in the kingdom of God. In Summary, the episode centers upon Jesus’ rebuke and the two kingdom sayings followed by his tender reception of the children; yet, in 10:14 he teaches that his disciples must not hinder those who are coming to him. Jesus, then, discloses that the rationale for reversing their actions is grounded in the fact that the kingdom is at the disposal of those that come to him (“for to such belongs”). The kingdom of God is, then, at the disposal of those that are willing to come into the presence of Jesus. Disciples must, therefore, realize that there can be no hindrance to that process. The narrative of Mark 10:13-16 sadly demonstrates that well-intended leaders and disciples can become roadblocks to those seeking Jesus. Instead of creating artificial barriers between those who seek Jesus and the Lord, disciples need to provide and create unimpeded access to Jesus and the kingdom of God.

There must be vigilance against good intended actions which may actually hinder those seeking the Jesus and the kingdom of God. To do so, there will be a consideration of Mark 10:14 to explore its exegetical content. Then, a consideration will be given to its implications for Christian service in the kingdom of God.

Exegetical Considerations

First, the broad context. There is general agreement that Mark 10:13-16 is found in the latter part of a broad context (8:26-10:52) concerned with discipleship in the kingdom of God (Stanton 50). Mark 8:34 anticipates the theological frame for discipleship, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” The movements in this section convey a series of tensions between the disciples who seem to never learn, and Jesus who is constant need to correct them. In the process, the “disciples —and the reader—are being taught the full implications of what it means to be a follower Jesus” (Stanton 50). Discipleship, and especially Christian leadership, comes then with the commitment to humility and self-denial, rejection and suffering. This observation is strengthened by the three announcements Jesus makes regarding his betrayal, death and resurrection (8:31; 9:30-31; 10:32-34). His death is a commitment to serve others so that they may benefit from his intercession (10:45; Isa. 53:12). The disciples, then, are often corrected for their misguided dispositions which hinder their service in the kingdom.

Second, the immediate context. Two themes within Mark find strong connecting points with Mark 10:13-16: kingdom of God and reversals in the kingdom. Mark is concerned with connecting the ministry of Jesus to the kingdom of God (basileia tou theou). The phrase is used fifteen times in this connection.[2] After the prologue (1:1-13), Mark begins with the transition to Jesus’ ministry where he announces that the kingdom of God “is at hand” (1:15). In general, kingdom in the teaching of Jesus is not a reference to a political system (its natural meaning), but instead, kingdom of God (Heaven) is “what the world would be if God were directly and immediately in charge” (Crossan 55). The ministry of Jesus demonstrates in profound ways the practical, transformative nature of the kingdom of God (Rochester 313-15). This plays an important role in understanding the Lord’s use of this phrase (10:14-15).

The kingdom of God is not only “at hand” (1:15), but it is “coming” soon (9:1), and is something one may “enter” (10:23-24), and be received (10:15). This demonstration of God’s sovereign presence brings about a series of reversals in Mark. Consider, for example, the disenfranchised leper who is returned to life within Israel (1:40-45), the dependent paralytic is made independent (2:1-12), the endowed apostles are powerless exorcists due to a lack of piety (9:14-29), the greatest among Jesus’ disciples are to be servants of all (9:33-37), the maxim of it being “better” to be crippled, blind, or missing a limb upon arrival into the kingdom, than to be completely healthy but lost (9:42-50), and the blind Bartimaeus can see the true identity of Jesus as the son of David (10:46-52). These reversals showcase the power of God’s kingdom.

Finally, the threefold literary flow of the episode where Jesus blesses the children (Mark 10:13-16). The first (10:13-14a) and the last (10:16) movements comprise the narrative framework which Mark was inspired to write. The second movement sets forth the Lord’s corrective teaching in two “kingdom of God” sayings (10:14b-15). The passage is lightning fast. The flashpoints are driven by Jesus’ anger (Spitaler 430-34), an emotion which runs deeper than indignation (ayanáktesen; Spicq 1:6-7). There is tension, correction, and resolution. The disciples hinder and rebuke. Jesus is furious, then rebukes and teaches them. Jesus undoes the actions of his disciples by embracing the children in his arms. If the disciples cannot receive children like Jesus wants them to, then they will be hard pressed to receive the kingdom or enter it (10:15). The rationale appears not to be about the quality of the children which one must take on, but upon one’s capacity to receive the kingdom “as though the kingdom were a child” (Eubanks 403).[3]

Leadership Considerations

Christian leaders must always consider their responsibility to represent Jesus, his interests, and his ethics. This requires at times a challenge to conventional ways of thinking. The early church struggled with realizing the global nature of the gospel until Peter broke through the conventional thinking about Jewish-Gentile relations with divine revelation (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:6-11). It would be a gross neglect to ignore that Mark 10:14 points to a social component in Jesus’ challenge regarding children. The challenge of Mark 10:14 will give Christian leaders the proper vision to lead God’s people in healthy ways to receive all those who would come to Jesus and the kingdom of God.

It must be pointed out, that children in the ancient Mediterranean world were esteemed quite lowly in many places. Instead of romanticized for their naivety, in most circles of the ancient world children were treated as “nobodies” until their father accepted them into the family (Crossan 62-64). As an example, an extant letter from a worker named Hilarion writes to his pregnant wife on June 17 in 1 B.C., “Above all, if you bear a child and it is male, let it be; if it is female, cast it out [to die]” (P.Oxy 4.744).[4] There was a tendency in Roman and Greek culture to practice the exposure of children if they did not provide advancement for the family (Bell 241).


There is no place for a bureaucratic barrier to those seeking Jesus and the kingdom of God.


Moreover, the word Mark uses for “children” (paidion) can extend to children from birth onwards (cf. Luke’s use of brephos), but it was also used as a term for “slave” (Moulton and Milligan 474). For example, “see that the slaves [ta paidia] give attention to the sowing of our private land.” A note requests that a “little slave” (to mikron paidion) named Artemidorus be placed under pledge. The word choice in Mark 10:13-16 is no accident. Jesus had previous affirmed, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant [diakonos] of all” (9:35). To illustrate this point of being “a waiting man” Liddell 189), Jesus embraces a child (paidion, 9:36-37). Likewise, in Mark 10:14, Jesus means to call attention to the most vulnerable, easily rejected and dismissed, an element of society who are often taken for granted—children/servant. Yet, they have a place in the presence of Jesus and the kingdom of God. The reversing power of the kingdom of God is again manifested in how Jesus receives the children.

Christian leaders must learn from the intention of those who brought the children to Jesus, not the disciples. First, there were some who brought children so that Jesus would touch them. Christian leaders must realize that Jesus is accessible to all those that seek an audience with him. Jesus clearly affirms that “the kingdom of God is for the benefit of such ones” (Mark 10:14b; author’s translation). There is no place for a bureaucratic barrier to those seeking Jesus and the kingdom of God. Good intentions which create bad barriers to blessings are not kingdom. Second, after Jesus rebuked and corrected the disciples’ behavior, he took them into the fold of his arms. Christian leaders must accept that servant-leadership in the kingdom is a hands- on flesh and blood ministry. Mark demonstrates that Jesus touched people in his ministry regardless of their condition, gender, or background. If hurting and vulnerable people cannot come to God’s people so that they may bring them to Jesus, the problem most likely does not reside with the seeker.

Third, it is within the arms of Jesus that he blesses the children. Jesus demonstrates that servant-leaders provide unfettered access to the transformative experience in the kingdom of God. The flow of Mark 10:16 demonstrates that Jesus was busy blessing the children. Those seeking Jesus should receive the benefits of finding Jesus no matter who they are, where they have been, or what they have done. Finally, Jesus lays his hands on them. Only Mark records this symbolic demonstration of his teaching. Christian leaders have an opportunity to show those coming to Jesus that, in a world gone wrong, Jesus can make things right again in his kingdom.

Conclusion

There is an irony to the story for had it not been for the misguided actions of the disciples such a lesson could have been lost. Mark 10:14 raises considerable questions at the practical level for how the church creates unfettered access to those who are seeking Jesus. How does the church receive those seeking the kingdom of God? Only the church can answer that question. Regardless, Jesus’ double command still stands: “allow the children to come to me” and “stop hindering them” (author’s translation).

On a personal note, I was sitting on my couch watching television when my youngest child Noah sat on my lap and cradled himself into the fold of my arm. Immediately, to use a Markan phrase, I asked myself, “am I receiving the kingdom of God as I have embraced my son?” Am I at the disposal of my children’s need for care, and if so, then I might just know how to be at the disposal of others seeking Jesus and the kingdom of God.

Endnotes

  1. Mark 10:14 is a launching point for many to promote infant baptism. Richard Lenksi argues for the baptism of infants. He imports Luke’s use of brephe, emphasizes the “bringing” of the little ones, Jesus’ “double command,” and the rationale “for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (425-28). Contextually, the problem is ultimately about the disciples’ danger of missing the kingdom due to their attitude. Others have argued there is an embedded baptismal tradition found in the use of koluein. However, Jack P. Lewis has ably demonstrated that such argumentations “readily lapse into fallacy” (129-34).
  2. Mark 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14-15, 23-25; 11:10; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43.
  3. Larry Eubanks observes, “Jesus does not call on the disciples to become children or to take on the qualities of children; he simply says that they must be willing to welcome children” in their circle (403; Spitaler 425). The view taken here is that paidion in 10:15 as an accusative of apposition with ten basileian makes the best sense of the grammar and expectations of Jesus.
  4. The letter is in Columbia University’s Advanced Papyrological Information System (http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/apis/item?mode=item&key=toronto.apis.17).

Works Cited

Bell, Albert A., Jr. Exploring the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide to the World of Jesus and the First Christians. Nashville: Nelson, 1998.

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.

Eubanks, Larry L. “Mark 10:13-16.” RevExp 91.3 (Sum 1994): 401-05.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel. 1946. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001.

Lewis, Jack P. “Mark 10:14, Koluein, and Baptizein.” ResQ 21.3 (1978): 129-34.

Liddell, Henry G. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. New York: American, 1889.

Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Rochester, Stuart T. “Transformative Discourse in Mark’s Gospel with Special Reference to Mark 5:1-20.” TynB 60.2 (2009): 313-15.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 1994. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.

Spitaler, Peter. “Welcoming a Child as a Metaphor for Welcoming God’s Kingdom: A Close Reading of Mark 10:13-16.” JSNT 31.4 (June 2009): 423-46.

Stanton, Graham N. The Gospels and Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.