Tag: Synoptics

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.

Jesus: Only a Moral Teacher?

On By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, C.S. Lewis, Christian Evidences, Christology, Christology, Essays, Gospel Studies, Jesus Studies, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Miracles, New Testament, Popular Essays, Theology

A few years ago the Barna Group published the results of 2014 survey of “2005 web-based and phone surveys conducted among a representative sample of adults over the age of 18 in each of the 50 United States.”[1] The results showed that while a strong 93% believed Jesus was a historical figure, they held various views of his nature:

  • 43% believed he was “God living among us”
  • 31% believed he was “uniquely called to reveal God’s purpose in the world”
  • 9% he “embodied the best that is possible in each person”
  • 8% he was “a great man and a great teacher, but not divine”

These are the signs of the time. Across generational lines people accept the historicity of Jesus rather than believe he never existed (See my research paper: “Regarding the Divide between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History“). The perception that Jesus is God, however, is questioned more by Millennials than their predecessors.

We have to come to grips with the reality that even some “Christians” believe Jesus as only a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders in human existence. They praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule) recorded in the Gospels. The New Testament, however, adds a unique dimension to his nature that make it impossible to accept his teachings while at the same time ignore the deity of Jesus Christ affirmed in its pages.

I will look at one historic figure who felt he could separate the ethical teacher, Jesus, from an enfabled supernatural Christ, and then demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching ministry was tightly interwoven with the miraculous.

The Case of Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), a “Founding Father” of the United States of America, is an interesting case study. He profoundly shaped the United States as drafter of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809). And while he was a self-proclaimed “Christian” and even promoted Bible literacy, Jefferson regarded all the miraculous elements in the Gospels as supernatural “rubbish” which must be removed from Jesus’ teaching, as one does “a diamond from the dung heap.”[2]

Jefferson was a theist and often used the language of Natural Theology/Philosophy (i.e., evidence in nature of a Creator-God) when speaking of his belief in God. For example, in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson appeals to “Nature’s God,” other times, “Infinite Power, which rules the destinies of the universe,” “overruling providence,” and a “benevolent governor.”

Jefferson did believe that God actively engaged in time, sustaining creation on an ongoing basis; yet, in his rejection of Biblical miracles and belief that natural laws were the language of God, he certainly is deistic.[3]

“Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

As a product of these tensions, Jefferson was a hybrid rationalistic-deist with a Jesus twist. There is God (without miracles), there is providence (without intervention), and there is the mind God gave humanity to bring about good into the world.

To Jefferson, then, one of the greatest harms that ever happened to Jesus was the corruption of his teaching with the additions of “fabrications… of their own [i.e., disciples’] inventions [of miracles].”[4] This conviction led Jefferson to “edit” the Gospels by cutting out–literally–the teachings, sayings, and discourses of Jesus and then pasting them into his “wee little book.”[5] This project finalized in The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820), today known as, The Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson affirmed that his work was “proof,” as he wrote to Charles Thomson, “that I am a real Christian… a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”[6] However,

In neither the eighteenth century nor today would most people consider a person with [his] views a “Christian.”[7]

“Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org

Certainly not an orthodox Christian. The problem with Jefferson’s estimation of Jesus as a moral reformer is its inconsistent denial of all the accompanying miraculous elements the Gospels often safeguard interwoven with his mission, nature, and instruction. As I shall illustrate below.

The Authority of the Son of Man

The Gospels reveal that the teaching ministry of Jesus cannot be divorced from their miraculous components without doing damage to our understanding of the nature and mission of Jesus.

The story of the healed paralytic is one of the most touching miracle stories in the Gospels. This miracle in Galilee event is recorded in Matthew (9:1–8), Mark (2:1-12), and Luke (Luke 5:17–26). Jesus had returned to his home in Capernaum, Galilee (Matt 4:13, 9:1; Mark 2:1) where crowds found him once again and flooded the domicile as he was preaching (Mark 2:2). As there was no room, the friends of a certain paralyzed man creatively removed the tiles of the roof so they could drop the man down for healing (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3–4; Luke 5:18–19). What happened next was a game changer: Jesus doesn’t heal the man, he forgives him (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20).

This episode instructs on the authority and divinity of Jesus. The narrative provides an unexpected conclusion in the first act (forgiveness): forgiveness of the invisible ailments of paralyzed man; after all, they came for healing. This declaration, however, raised the ire of the “scribes and the Pharisees” who were offended at the very idea. This was a blasphemous scandal: 

“Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21 ESV; Mark 2:6–7; Matt 9:3)

Jesus had committed a spiritual offense of highest magnitude in the eyes of the “scribes and Pharisees.” By declaring forgiveness he claimed a Divine prerogative to forgive sins (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33, Jer 31:34). Remember, for the scribes and the Pharisees Jesus was just a freelancing rabbi, nothing more than a Jewish man.

In the second act (miracle), Jesus called out their inner monologue regarding his sacrilege (Matt 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 5:22), and then raised the stakes. Jesus has entered into the spiritual “kill box” of Jewish orthodoxy: a human cannot forgive sins, only God does that; a human cannot claim deity or Divine prerogative, to make the claim is to blaspheme. Jesus then utters an “either…or” challenge like the prophet Elijah against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20–40).

“Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (Luke 5:23)

The rhetorical question answers itself. If he can do the “harder” thing that requires an empirical/visible demonstration (“rise and walk”), then he can do the “invisible thing” which is to forgive sins. The entire ethical validity of Jesus’ teaching depends on this challenge. In a public demonstration Jesus tells the paralyzed man: 

“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home.” (Luke 5:24)

The miracle was immediate (Luke 5:25), the crowd was amazed (Luke 5:26), and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possesses both the ability and right to forgive sins!

Therefore, in this instance, Jesus exercises his privileges showcasing his God-nature. In the third act (reaction), the people respond with:

“We have seen extraordinary things today.” (Luke 5:26; Mark 2:10; Matt 9:8)

This miracle shows just how impossible it is to sever the miraculous from Jesus’ teaching ministry. Jesus taught and preached on moral excellence, this much is true, but he acted clearly as one who is more than human. As John says it, Jesus is “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The New Testament documents, if they are going to be read properly, must be read on their terms not what we think has happened to the text.

Lunatic, Liar, Lord… Legend?

We conclude this piece with a challenge from C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) in his work, Mere Christianity. Lewis goes into considerable length in calling attention to a problem of viewing Jesus as “a great moral teacher” and rejecting “His claim to be God.” As Lewis sees it:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[8]

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan)

Lewis offers three basic options when it comes to Jesus: He is either (1) a lunatic, (2) a liar, or (3) the very Lord and God revealed in the documents of the New Testament. In Jesus’ words, he affirms his own claim: “unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Jefferson, and many who follow in his footsteps, however, would suggest at least a fourth option about the Jesus of the New Testament: (4) legend. If the disciples embellished his divine nature, then, why not embellish his teaching ministry, his compassion, or for that matter his ethics? I wish to press this clearly, one must receive Jesus en toto–that is, completely (miracles and all)–for to accept him partially (only a moral teacher) is to have no Jesus at all.

The strong reliability of the transmission of the New Testament demonstrates that the miraculous elements of the Gospels are original to their presentation of Jesus, which strengthens the internal eyewitness testimony of the New Testament’s message about the Deity of Jesus. Furthermore, the small interval between the events of Jesus life to written accounts is too brief for legend to so transform the “truth” of the historical Jesus. The legend claim is simply not enough.[9]

A Concluding Plea

The biblical accounts leave the issue clear that Jesus pre-existed before coming to minister on this soil. From the outside, he looked and lived as a human; but, inwardly and also through demonstrations showed himself to be the Divine Word (John 1:1–3).

So what will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Give Him one real, genuine inquiry. He will not disappoint you.

As for me, I will serve Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). May the Lord bless you in your quest to learn about Jesus and his message, and the salvation that he alone can offer.

Endnotes

  1. “Jesus: Man, Myth or God?,” Barna.com, accessed: 26 January 2021.
  2. “Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.org (Charlottesville, VA: Monticello and the University of Virginia), accessed: 25 January 2021; “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed: 25 January 2021.
  3. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
  4. “From Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 31 October 1819.”
  5. “Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816,” Founders Online, National Archives.
  6. “Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, 9 January 1816.”
  7. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs.”
  8. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (repr., New York: Macmillan, 2001), 53.
  9. To read a succinct argument in support of these statements, read John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law, and Christianity (1964; repr., Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 3–44.

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

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Church Leadership, Freed-Hardeman University, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, Lectures1 Comment

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)

On By Jovan PayesIn Church Leadership, Freed-Hardeman University, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, Lectures, Technical Studies1 Comment

[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.