God In The Box

When I started Seminary back in 2001, I knew exactly what I believed and why I believed it. After all, I had known God my entire life. In fact, I didn't have some dramatic conversion experience. I can't tell you of a time when I didn't believe in God even if it wasn't always evident by my words and actions. I believed that God called me to Seminary in preparation for a life in vocational ministry. I believed that all I really needed were the technical aspects of my faith. You know, big words like sanctification and formal doctrines like the doctrine of atonement. I soon realized that while God was certainly calling me to a life of ministry, what he really wanted was to be let out of the box I had placed Him in. Gradually, over my years at Seminary, God, with the faithful help of all my professors, tore down the walls of that box. It was an uncomfortable and scary experience. After all, I was very comfortable with my God In The Box. He didn't really ask much of me and I really didn't need Him for much-I had it covered. However, once He was out of the box, life would never be the same for me. I reached a point where I questioned everything I previously believed about my God In The Box. I was now ready for God to begin writing Truth on my heart. When I graduated from Seminary earlier this year, I wrote a card of thanks to the Seminary President for my transformational experience at the Seminary. I told him that when I entered Seminary I felt I knew pretty much everything about my God In The Box. However, after the many years of study, I came to understand that what I knew about God I could fit in a thimble compared to what there was still to know about Him. And that's exactly the way it should be!

Maybe you're a little like me at times. When my life feels like a hurricane, I long for something I can control-something like my old faithful God In The Box! Well if it's any comfort, we're not the only ones to revert to the comfortable God In The Box. All four of the Gospel writers record the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. With the whirlwind of events inaugurated by Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of the week that would end...well, I'm getting ahead of myself. It's safe to say that there is so much going on that we miss some of the smaller details. It's one of those small details that's recorded from a slightly different perspective in each of the Gospels that I'd like to look at specifically in Luke’s Gospel. The detail I'd like to focus on is the actions of the disciples at Jesus' resurrection.

Luke 24:1-39

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words.

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

If you read the parallel accounts of this in the other three Gospels, you will notice a recurring theme. The disciples doubted Jesus' resurrection in spite of the fact that Jesus told them he would rise from the dead and in spite of the eyewitness testimony! No! He was dead and buried! They thought he was the One. They thought they had it all figured out. The thought they had God In The Box! But their picture of God In The Box didn’t include a Cross! Instead, while they were hiding away afraid that the Jews would come looking for them next, Jesus appears to them behind locked doors (John 20:19)! After inspecting the wounds in his hands, feet and side, they ate a meal together. From that point forward, even though some still had doubts, nothing would ever be the same again! How? History tells us all but one of those frightened and doubting men hiding away after Jesus' death, died a martyrs death while proclaiming the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Certainly they were empowered by the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), but that didn't make torture and death any less painful. What was different? The answer: Their God was no longer in the box! With the Truth in their hearts, they knew everything else Jesus taught was true as well. Including the truth that all those who put their trust in Him would receive the gift of eternal life (John 3:16). With the God of eternal life by their side and living in their hearts, who needs a God In The Box?

This practice of letting God out of the box is a daily and intentional mindset. Over a period of time our spiritual lives become...I want to say “complacent,” but “safe” is probably more accurate. The days pass by and we never wonder what if. What if: We trusted God with our jobs, family, friends and finances; or We loved one another unconditionally; or God is calling me to something more; or God is back in the box? I recently asked myself that last "what if" question as it relates to this blog. Let me explain.

When I was planning this blog, I had in mind that it would be something I shared with my friends and family. I hoped that the link would get passed along but I suspect my readership would remain relatively small and localized. Even though Jesus' Great Commission to take the Gospel to all the nations heads my blog page, I didn't fully see my part in that commission. That's because I had God In The Box! Well God has broken through the walls of that box in a way that only God can do. While I don’t know exactly how many people are reading this blog, I would like to give you an update of the blog's current geographical readership:

United States

Mexico

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Russia

Germany

Ukraine

Israel

Praise God! Since I only announced the blog to my personal contacts, it is clear that it was forwarded (perhaps many times) from there. I am humbled and grateful that God would use this ministry in this way and I am grateful to those of you who have taken the initiative to forward the link to your family and friends. Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations was not only directed at me, it was directed at all those who claim Him as their Lord and Savior. I know it can be intimidating at times to share your faith with someone. But when you share this website with someone, then we're doing it together. Imagine the possibilities if, together, we let God out of the box! If you haven't already done so, please take a minute to share this blog with your family and friends and say "good-bye" to God In The Box!

Christ and Culture

Book Review

Niebuhr opens his book by introducing the reader to what he has titled; “The Enduring Problem.” In short, the “problem” lies specifically in the Christian’s effort to reconcile Christ and culture. Niebuhr categorizes a Christian’s response to the problem into five possible answers: “Christ against culture,” “Christ of culture,” “Christ above culture,” “Christ and culture in paradox” or “Christ the transformer of culture.” Niebuhr then takes one chapter each to expand his view on the respective answers. In his final chapter, Niebuhr concludes that there is no single answer and that all answers may apply depending on the situation at hand. Niebuhr’s assessment borders on something akin to situational ethics. Although there is biblical evidence to support each of Niebuhr’s answers, it is difficult to accept that there is no clear answer. This would imply that Christian’s are not able to know God’s will. God reveals and has revealed his will through Christ, Scripture and the Holy Spirit. The fact that we are not able discern exactly what that is at all times does not necessarily imply that there are multiple answers to “The Enduring Problem.”

Niebuhr first reviews the “Christ against culture” answer. A radical separatist answer, its view is that Christ is the absolute and sole authority in a Christian’s life. Consequently, its call to withdraw from society presents an ‘either-or’ choice for the Christian: Either we follow Christ and reject the culture or we are loyal to culture and reject Christ. In part, this view does seem to have biblical support. The Apostle John says; “Do not love the world or anything in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.” (1 John 2:15-16) However, there is nothing explicit in that text that is an imperative instruction for Christians to separate themselves from the world. The implication of the “Christ against culture” answer is that the farther a Christian separates himself from culture, the less likely he will be to sin. This is clearly a fallacy. One needs only to look at the various monastic orders of the Medieval Church with their many rules and disciplines as a testimony of the pervasiveness of man’s sinful nature within a formally separated community. Being completely separate from culture is a hypothesis that can only be accomplished in a vacuum. In reality, it is not possible to completely separate from culture. At best, even the most radical withdrawal from culture would only create a radical subculture it would not be acultural.

More importantly, the “Christ against culture” answer is not consistent with Christ’s Kingdom of God perspective. Jesus teaches that the commands to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself are a summation of the Law and the Prophets. This shows Jesus’ perspective on his Kingdom as being both vertical in its relation to God and horizontal in its relation the man.[1] Jesus’ vertical (God) perspective is clear in the verse from the First Letter of John referenced above. However, Jesus also demonstrates his horizontal (man) perspective in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus admonishes the priest and Levite in the parable for keeping themselves separate in order to preserve their holiness. The Samaritan in the parable, crosses cultural barriers lined with cultural barbed wire in order to care for a man beaten, robbed and left to die. The latter is commended by Jesus as an example of the appropriate model for [Christian] behavior. The “Christ against culture” fails to properly address the horizontal (man) aspect of Jesus’ teaching and is therefore not an appropriate answer in any culture where there is an opportunity to serve those in need.

Niebuhr’s second answer is “Christ of culture.” This answer claims the supreme fulfillment of culture’s aspirations interpreted through Christ.[2] If Niebuhr’s first answer was the extreme boundary in one direction, the “Christ of culture” is the extreme boundary in the opposite direction. This answer affirms both Christ and culture while denying any tension between them. Niebuhr restates Oman when he writes; “This Christ of religion does not call men to leave homes and kindred for his sake; he enters into their homes and all their associations as the gracious presence which adds an aura of infinite meaning to all temporal tasks.” (p. 93) Clearly, this view is an accommodation. It is saying; “Jesus, do not ask me to follow you, just bless me where I am.” Niebuhr makes a statement that Jesus was; “Relevant to his time.” (p. 105) However, in order to support his theory, he neglects to expand the context of some of the examples he uses. In one such case Niebuhr writes; “He [Jesus] affirmed the laws of his society.” (p. 105) Unfortunately, Niebuhr fails to support that statement specifically. It is possible that he is referring to Christ’s instruction affirming the payment of taxes in his statement to, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” (Matthew 22:21) Jesus, however, follows this statement with, “And to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) This is a perfect example of Christ’s horizontal (man) and vertical (God) perspective. Niebuhr also writes that Jesus; “Showed concern for the peace of his own city.” (p. 105) Yet Jesus himself said; “Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) I doubt the moneychangers thought Jesus was concerned with peace when he overturned their tables in the temple and then drove them out with a whip. (Mark 11:15-17) The “Christ of culture” answer, in its opposite extreme to the ‘Christ against culture’ answer, so elevates the horizontal (man) aspect of Jesus’ perspective that culture begins to direct the actions of the Christian to the virtual exclusion of a vertical (God) perspective—a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Every social action begs the Church to take some action either in support or in opposition.

To mitigate these two extremes, Niebuhr suggests the “Christ above culture” answer. In this view, the Christian neither withdraws from culture nor fully embraces it. It is an attempt to synthesize Christ and culture. Although this answer appears to be appealing theoretically, it seems impossible to apply practically. Niebuhr is correct when he writes; “When we begin with the distinction between black and white, most of the shades we are asked to identify will be grays.  When we start our analysis of Christian communities with the church-sect division, most of them will seem to be hybrids. It is so with our present procedure. If Christ and culture are the two principles with which Christians are concerned, then most of them will seem to be compromising creatures who somehow manage to mix in irrational fashion an exclusive devotion to a Christ who rejects culture, with devotion to a culture that includes Christ.” (pp. 116-117) The late Medieval Church is a relatively good example of a failed synthesis between Christ and culture as represented by Church and State. The result of man’s sinful nature ultimately led to compromised teachings, abuses of power and widespread corruption. The sword instead of the Word was used to bring people into submission.[3] Consequently, the flaw in the “Christ above culture” answer is the failure to recognize the pervasive nature of man’s sin and its destructive power on even the healthiest synthesis.

Niebuhr’s next answer of “Christ and culture in paradox” also falls between the two extreme answers of “Christ against culture” and “Christ of culture.” It is, however, different from the “Christ above culture” answer in that it recognizes that no synthesis can adequately reconcile the tension between Christ and culture. The strength of this answer lies in its reliance on God’s grace as the bridge between Christ and culture. Man is both saint and sinner at the same time.[4] The Christian, as a sinner, lives in a world governed by the Law. Simultaneously, the Christian, as a saint, lives in a state of redemption governed by God with grace as the bridge. Although they exist together, they can never be fully synthesized in this life. As a result, since man is saved by and lives under the constant state of grace, he has been set free to interact with the world. Martin Luther was a proponent of this answer. Niebuhr writes; “Luther affirmed the life in culture as the sphere in which Christ could and ought to be followed.” (p. 174) Mengue writes; “Since one is saved by grace, not works, there are no grades of holiness, or any need to separate oneself from culture.  This means that any vocation (provided it is a true vocation, a station instituted by God) can be pursued for the glory of God. In that sense, Christians can participate fully in what is best in culture: we are ‘set free to serve.’”[5] The question however arises; how can we know what is “Best in culture?”  In this vain Niebuhr writes; “From Christ we receive the knowledge and the freedom to do faithfully and lovingly what culture teaches or requires us to do.” (p. 175) Additionally, Niebuhr restates Kerr that; “In a person ‘regenerate and enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the Word’ the natural wisdom of man ‘is a fair and glorious instrument and work of God.’” (p. 174) Since the strength of this answer is rooted in God’s grace, the anxious development of a perfect synthesis between Christ and culture is recognized as practically unattainable and any actions taken in the pursuit to be obedient to God are therefore subject to God’s grace. This view fully validates Christ’s vertical (God) perspective in its complete reliance on God’s grace while fully validating Christ’s horizontal (man) perspective by freeing Christians to act within their culture under that grace.

Niebuhr’s final proposed answer is; “Christ the transformer of culture.” Foundationally, the answer is rooted in the principle that all things have been created good and that due to the “Fall” they have become tarnished. Therefore, since all things are inherently good, they can be reformed.[6] This is a utopian view of the relationship between Christ and culture. It supposes that the reformation of culture is the purpose behind Christ’s redemption of man. Niebuhr writes; “To mankind with his perverted nature and corrupted culture Jesus Christ has come to heal and renew what sin has infected.” (p. 213) This view seems bent on conveying the idea that given enough time, Christians can transform the world into a community of believers cured of their sinful nature. The transformation of culture ultimately becomes the means and the end for the Christian. Mengue writes; “The ‘social gospel’ may quickly replace the true gospel of grace and promise with a works-righteous religion of Law, a danger which has been clearly realized in the strident, coercive activism of some of the main-line Protestant churches.”[7] Furthermore, “Such earthbound hopes tend to undermine the belief in an afterlife by seeking a heaven on earth.”[8] The “Christ the transformer of culture” answer is more appropriately an outcome to any one of the other four answers. Any Christian action in obedience to God will ultimately have a transforming effect on culture. Christ died for the redemption of man. Until Christ returns, the transformation of the world in terms of culture occurs through the actions of Christians engaged in the culture. This cultural transformation is seen as a by-product of Christ’s work on the Cross. While that is a positive result, it is nevertheless a by-product.

It is unfortunate that Niebuhr cannot seem to find a position to take with respect to his proposed answers to what he calls “The Enduring Problem.” However, given his relativistic views, it is understandable. Niebuhr weaves his way through his treatise on relativism then arbitrarily defines God as “Absolute”. (pp. 238-241) What Niebuhr fails to acknowledge is that the will of the “Absolute” as revealed through Christ, Scripture and the Holy Spirit is, as a consequence, equally absolute. Niebuhr’s relativism is simply an accommodation for the inability of sinful man to clearly discern the will of the “Absolute.”

As a literary piece, Christ and Culture is painfully confusing. Theologically, the book addresses an extremely important topic even while doing little to help sincere Christians solve “The Enduring Problem.” Such is the case with all relativistic thinking. Relativism either paralyzes a person to inaction for fear of making the wrong decision or liberates a person to any action because no decision is wrong. This state of confusion is uncharacteristic of the God of order. Jesus said that he would send a Helper that would teach us, remind us and lead us into all truth—Truth is not relative. (John 16:13) As an American theologian, Niebuhr’s inconclusive conclusion seems in itself to be an accommodation to the general American attitude of equality and individual rights. Niebuhr’s approach gives Americans obsessed with “freedom of choice” a potpourri of options to choose from. Obviously, Americans do not need more choices—they need direction. The foundation of the “Christ and culture in paradox” is built on the grace of God and recognizes that the tension between Christ as the ideal and a culture that has been distorted by sin can never be perfectly synthesized. Consequently, taking into consideration both the implicit and explicit Biblical evidence, it appears that the “Christ and culture in paradox” serves as a trustworthy guidepost for those seeking to integrate their faith into their everyday lives.

Born in Wright City, MO in 1894, Helmut Richard Niebuhr is an American theologian. Niebuhr graduated from Elmhurst College in 1912 and Eden Theological Seminary in 1915. He received an M. A. from Washington University in 1917. He received and B. D. from Yale Divinity School in 1923. He received a Ph. D. from Yale in 1924. He was ordained a minister in the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1916. He is the younger brother of author Reinhold Niebuhr. H. Richard Niebuhr died in 1962.[9]

---

[1] Angus J. L. Mengue, Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture Reexamined, (Online: http://www.kfuo.org/bissar26.htm), p 2

[2] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 4

[3] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 7

[4] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 8

[5] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p 8

[6] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 9

[7] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 10

[8] Ibid., p. 10

[9] The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 (Online:  http://bartleby.com/65/ni/NiebuhrH.html)

To Fight or Submit

If you're in the mood for a fight in mixed company, bring up the subject of politics! Democrat, Republican, Independent, Occupy Wall Street, The Tea Party, National Debt, Taxes...need I continue? Pick a topic and you can start a fight. Add to these things the politics we function within at home, school and/or work and we shouldn't be surprised that our lives are marked with conflict and strife. At its core, I submit that these conflicts are a struggle against authority. For example, the political party in the minority struggles against the political party in the majority because of the relative shift in the majority holder's authority to make policy. At home, husbands and wives struggle to find a balance in who is the final authority on matters affecting their home and family. At school, students resist the authority of teachers and administrators because they feel rules are often arbitrary and infringe on their personal rights to do as they please. At work, labor resists the authority of management because labor believes management is lining their pockets using the sweat and blood of labor. If you're still not convinced, let's go back a few years when God told Adam and Eve that they could eat from any tree in the garden but from the tree in the middle of the garden they were not allowed to eat. The first rebellion against the ultimate Authority served to lay the foundation for all subsequent rebellions to our present struggles with authority. So what is the proper response to authority? More specifically, what does the Bible teach about our response to governing authority? And is there a principal of submission that governs other areas of our lives and relationships?

To begin with, let me give you a hypothetical situation: You’re the founding pastor of a number of church plants along the front-range. About 25 years ago, the founder of your denomination was brutally murdered by some government officials over some trumped up charges. Now, you find yourself under arrest and in jail for being too public with your preaching. While in jail, you’re given the opportunity to communicate with your congregations. Here’s your chance. What would you write? Maybe something like this:

“Dear brothers and sisters, as you know, I am writing to you from jail where I stand convicted for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Haven’t I warned you that the end times will soon be upon us? Can there be any clearer indication that the end times have in fact arrived when our once great government would imprison its own citizens for preaching the gospel? Brothers and sisters, the time has come to lay aside your Bibles, take up arms and oppose this evil government! Certainly you can no longer be justified in paying taxes to support a government that oppresses its own citizens. It is time to revolt in the name of our great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who, as you know, also fell victim to a similar evil government!”

Is that the kind of letter you would write, or is it a bit zealous for your liking? Then how about something like this:

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another.”

PS: “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

Is this more like the letter you would write, or does it seem naïve or idealistic? As you might recognize, the first part of the letter was from the 13^th chapter of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. Keep in mind, in addition to being Jewish, Paul was a Roman citizen! Paul wrote this particular letter while in Corinth preparing for his trip to Jerusalem. Does it seem like Paul is being a bit naïve or idealistic in his instructions? I mean, he’s not even in Rome at this point so how would he know what the people there are experiencing from the local government! That’s why I included the postscript. You see, the postscript is part of a letter written to Timothy just a few years later. It wasn’t written during one of Paul’s famous world tours. No, it was written while Paul was in a Roman prison awaiting his execution. See, Paul wasn’t naïve or idealistic. I’m sure it didn’t escape his attention that this was the same government that crucified Jesus. Instead, he was reinforcing a Biblical truth about submission and respect for authority. That begs this question: Why should Christians submit to authority in general and civil governments more specifically? Let’s let Paul answer the question.

            Beginning with Romans 13:1 Paul says; “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” Paul’s not making this stuff up! There’s ample Biblical evidence to support his statement. For example, Daniel 2:21 says “He [God] sets up kings and deposes them.” Clearer still is the interchange between Pontius Pilate and Jesus in John 19:10-11; “’Do you refuse to speak to me?’ Pilate said. ‘Don’t you realize that I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?’ Jesus answered, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.’” But even with ample Biblical support, this verse is still a stumbling block for many when they consider governing authorities such as Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. They insist that there has to be some exception to rule. But Paul makes no exceptions. Brutal regimes existed long before these evil men and yet God’s sovereignty and glory were always ultimately displayed for all to see. Pharaoh’s bitter enslavement of Israel and subsequent refusal to release them from their bondage inevitably led God to demonstrate his overwhelming saving power by emancipating Israel and destroying the Egyptian army. King Herod’s order to kill all the boys two years old or younger in Bethlehem and its surrounding regions in an attempt to kill Jesus only served to further fulfill the prophecies about Jesus as the coming Messiah. At times, Emperor Nero lined the streets of Rome with crucified Christians set on fire as street lights. Yet despite Nero’s best efforts to wipe out Christianity in the 1^st century, he simply managed to drive the roots of the early church’s faith even deeper. The logical mistake is to assume Paul’s statement means that all governments are intrinsically good. Instead, while government may be a servant of God, it often fills that role unwittingly and unwillingly. Ultimately though, God doesn’t ask you to consider whether or not governing authorities are worthy of submission but simply that we submit to them as his established servants.

            Paul goes on to say in verse 2: “Consequently, he who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so bring judgment on themselves.” Clearly, rebellion has some extremely serious consequences. Satan rebelled against God’s ruling authority and we all know what’s ultimately in store for him. Adam rebelled against God in the garden and death entered the world. Continued rebellion is evidenced in our society by our burgeoning prisons. But is all rebellion condemned by God? The answer is no. Since governing authorities are established servants of God, it is logical to insist that God is the highest authority. Consequently, opposing orders that conflict with God’s requirements is not condemned by God. For example, in Acts 4:19, Peter and John are brought before the Sanhedrin where they are ordered to stop preaching the gospel. Here’s what Peter says: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” Now Peter’s not talking about disobeying them in all things, but simply in the things that contradict God’s requirements. A better question to ask would be; is it possible to submit and to rebel at the same time? In a sense it is. Let me tell you a story about Private Ivan Moiseyev.

Ivan Moiseyev was an 18 year old Private in the Soviet Red Army. The Communists were endlessly calling him to headquarters for talks, trying to “re-educate” him, to talk him out of his faith in God.  On this day, however, one of Ivan’s commanding officers was determined to succeed. Major Gidenko was the head of the Political Directive Committee and he was certain he could break Ivan. When Ivan entered his office and was seated, the Major said to him;

“Moiseyev, you don’t look like a poor pupil to me. Why are you not learning the correct answers?”

“Sometimes there is a difference between correct answers and true ones,” Ivan answered. “Sometimes God will not allow me to give the correct answers.”

The Major interrupted; “Yes, yes, I know all about the Christian teaching. But what has that got to do with being a soldier? Do you disagree with the teaching of the glorious Red Army?”

No sir,” answered Ivan.

“But you do not accept the principles of scientific atheism upon which is based our entire Soviet state and the military power of the army?” Said the Major.

Resolutely, Ivan said; “I cannot accept what I know to be untrue. Everything else I can gladly accept.”

For his continued refusal to recant, the Major order him to stand overnight outside the barracks. Since it was expected to be 13 degrees below zero, before private Moiseyev was dismissed, Major Gidenko stopped him and said;

“You will obey my instructions in summer uniform.”

Private Moiseyev was then dismissed. He would stand outside every night for 12 nights. During the day, he would still preach to the comrades in his barracks. Many came to faith after seeing his courage. His continued rebellion, however, would cost him his life. At age 20, his dead body was pulled from the river. He had been beaten, stabbed and was finally drowned. Soviet Colonel, Malsin, said;

“Moiseyev died with difficulty. He fought with death, but he died a Christian.”[1]

Private Moiseyev is a great example of someone who found a balance between rebellion and submission. Note that he was always respectful and honoring in his speech and followed every order except the one that contradicted God’s order to share the gospel. In short, not all rebellion is condemned by God. Nevertheless, all rebellion has its consequences and sometimes those consequences can be dire--as in the case of Private Moiseyev. But that’s the exception not the rule. In general, those who submit to the governing authorities live in relative peace. Here’s why I can say that. Paul says in verses 3 and 4: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Submission is necessary to avoid punishment. Here’s a quick test: What would be your immediate reaction if you were served with an IRS audit notice? Panic or ambivalence? What about this: What’s the first thing you do when you see flashing lights in your rear view mirror? After that initial wave of panic passes, you look at your speedometer don’t you? Were you speeding or not? What was the speed limit anyway? Wait a minute were you driving faster than anyone else? Let me ask you this, would you have the same reaction if you always obeyed the speed limit? (I’ve heard it said that the right foot is the last part of the body to be saved!) Here’s the principle that Paul’s trying to convey: Honest, law-abiding citizens generally don’t have anything to fear from governing authorities. Simply put, government is God’s way of protecting us from chaos and anarchy. Fundamentally, that means government is charged with establishing proper social boundaries and appropriate consequences for those who cross those boundaries. Paul’s reference to “bear the sword” conveys the idea that government has the God ordained authority to dispense earthly justice. I assume many if not all of you have heard the term “legislate morality.” That’s what many people think the government is doing during its legislative process and its subsequent enforcement of social boundaries. However, people often miss the point when they insist that “Government can’t legislate morality!” It is true that there is no law that can make a person moral. Nevertheless, laws are introduced to battle immorality. It’s true that there is no law to make people love each other. Therefore, laws are introduced to keep people from killing each other. It’s true that no law can make people honest. Therefore laws are introduced to keep people from stealing. In essence, government isn’t there to make people good but to keep people from evil. To a limited degree, government’s authority to dispense earthly justice does that. But is the threat of punishment enough?

Paul continues in verse 5: “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.” Not only has God ordained government as an external protection, he has likewise given us a conscience as an internal protection. That can be a bit confusing but here’s what Paul is saying: Fear of punishment can’t be the only motivation for doing good. Submission merely out of fear is as incomplete as the desire for sexual purity simply out of fear of contracting AIDS. Considering the proliferation of AIDS in our world, that motivation isn’t working very well. Submission based on fear is an external force and is a minimum standard for all people—including unbelievers. Paul is insisting on something more here—the desire to maintain a pure and undefiled conscience. The standard set by the conscience is personal and hopefully higher than the standard set by government. But, you might be asking, how does the failure to submit to authorities affect our conscience? On one level our conscience is disturbed when we rebel against authorities, because we know they are appointed servants of God and we are in fact rebelling against God. More specifically, however, our conscience is the God-given mechanism to alert us to transgressions. Did you know that the government has established the Government Conscience Fund? It’s for people to send in money anonymously to clear their conscience if they have cheated the government in some way. At one point they received an anonymous letter accompanied by a check. The letter read; “The enclosed check is for money that I owe you for taxes I didn’t pay. I have been losing sleep over the matter. If I continue to lose sleep, I’ll send the rest.”

Lest you think that the issue of paying taxes is an all-American past time, you might be surprised at what Paul says next. In verses 6 and 7 Paul says: “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full-time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Paul may be including this material because of the growing resistance in the middle 50’s to paying taxes, which would eventually lead to a tax revolt in A.D. 58. More importantly, however, Paul is trying to demonstrate that the payment of taxes is not unbiblical. Interestingly, in earlier verses, Paul uses the more common Greek word, διάκονος, meaning, “servant” when he is speaking of government authorities. But in verse 6 he changes to, λειτουργοὶ, which is used in the Old Testament in its Hebrew form for those who served in the temple of God. Servants of the temple were paid out a fund from the contributions of the rest of the population—a simple form of taxation. Through this change in terminology, Paul is making the analogy that taxation to pay government authorities is similar to the principle of paying servants of God’s temple. Both are full-time servants of God and have no other means of financial support. Whatever Paul’s precise motivation may have been with respect to paying taxes, he follows that with a more general principle of paying everyone what is due them. Paul is subtly implying that the service rendered by government authorities ultimately obligates those who are served to some form of repayment.

The same principle of submission to authority is consistent throughout Scripture with respect to all areas of life and relationships. Jesus submitted to the will of the Father to the point of death on the cross (Phil. 2). Believers are to submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church (Eph. 5:23). Wives are to submit to their husbands as they do to Jesus (Eph. 5:22). (For all you wives and feminists out there who are reaching for your lanterns and pitch-forks, read all of Ephesians to understand the full context of Paul’s instructions.) Children are to submit [obey] their parents (Eph. 6:1). And slaves [employees] are to submit their master [employer] (Tit. 2:9).

To summarize, if we accept the premise that God is sovereign and the final Authority of our lives, then we have a duty to humble ourselves in submission to those God has placed in authority over our lives (except in the case where that authority contravenes the authority and instruction of God). In view of the Biblical evidence, are there areas in your life where you are resisting, or perhaps rebelling, against ligitimate authority in your life, instead insisting on your personal rights or having your own way? What will you do? Return to my original hypothetical situation—be honest, which letter would you have written? To fight or submit?

---

[1] dc Talk and The Voice of the Martyrs, Jesus Freaks, (Tulsa, OK: Albury Publishing, 1999), pp. 30-35.

The Son of God, Pt. 4 (Conclusion)

A Titular Study In Spiritual, Judaic And Hellenistic Context

Part Four

Conclusion

As demonstrated by this survey, there is no shortage of opinion as to what the title, “Son of God,” meant in various spiritual, Judaic and Hellenistic contexts. The only clear consensus is that the title, in and of itself, was not fully understood by anyone in conveying God’s true purpose in sending Jesus. The demons in the spiritual realm understood who he but did not understand what he was doing there. Judaism had a preconceived, nationalistic notion of who the Messiah would be and Jesus did not fit the bill. Greco-Romans on the other hand found deification in the display of earthly power and might both positionally and militarily. Is it therefore necessary to assert that the Christological significance attributed to the title was a later development of the New Testament church? Probably not. The demons call him Son of God and fear him because of who he is. The Jewish leadership ask if he is the Son of God and then hate him and have him killed for saying he is. And the Roman centurion professes him to be the Son of God and shifts his allegiance because of who Jesus demonstrates to be. The result of this survey demonstrates that the Christological significance of the title Son of God articulated by various biblical characters during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the New Testament Church after Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection is in fact quite consistent with Jesus’ teachings about himself. The resulting actions of those who observed his behavior and heard his teachings are so extreme that they clearly betray a much deeper understanding of the significance of the Son of God title.

Application

             This series has been packed with considerable information. However, the purpose of this blog is not to simply be a resource to gather information. At its core, it is intended to be transformational. Therefore, what should we do with the information from this series. Nearly two thousand years have passed and people still respond to Jesus’ claims in the same way today as they did during his earthly ministry.

Fear

There are countless many who, after having heard the message of the Son of God, spend the rest of their lives running from him. They recognize who he is yet fear the commitment to “forsake all” to follow him. They fear the changes he may ask them to make in their lives. They fear the intrusion he may make into their lives. Ultimately their fear leads them away from God as they run their lives over the edge of the cliff to drown in their personal lake of sin. Tragically, their fear only serves to hurt themselves. God remains unchanged no matter how far we run. Fear, however, leaves us with a choice. It can either drive us away from God were we will continue to live in fear of him. Or, it can drive us toward him where we can live without fear of condemnation in the safety of his salvation. (Romans 8:1)

Hate

Hate, however, leaves us with no choice. In our pluralistic culture, with its emphasis on “tolerance,” it is amazing to watch the reaction of those same proponents of tolerance when they are offered the truth about the Son of God. Tolerance very quickly turns to anger and hate. Intolerance spews out objections against Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life. Any evangelist quickly sees the truth in Jesus’ words that “They will hate you because of me.” Yet these same people do not insist that there is no God. On the contrary, they insist specifically that there is a God. They simply refuse to recognize him as having been revealed in Jesus Christ. To them, as long as God remains a nebulous concept that any and all can shape into their own image, then they are accountable to no one but themselves. However, if God should ever “put on a face,” then the rules governing their lives would no longer be based on their own imaginings. Instead, they would have to face the scrutiny of truth—perhaps even admit that they were wrong. No! Better to put an end to such nonsensical ideas as Jesus as the Son of God. Through their hate and anger they unwittingly replay the events that centuries ago would find the Son of God nailed to a cross. However, not all who witnessed the actual events at the Cross, were filled with hate and anger. Some were simply doing what they were told—doing their jobs—doing what they thought was right—until, that is, they came face to face with the Son of God.

Surrender

            In stark contrast to those who fear Christ and those who hate and reject Christ, stand those who accept his claims to be the Son of God and surrender to him. Successful, important and powerful, the centurion is the least likely candidate to confess Christ as the true Son of God. Yet the centurion’s response is an object lesson that Christ’s work on the cross is for the benefit of everyone who accepts him. Not his position, his reputation, nor his power were as important as this lone man dying on a Roman cross as he confesses “Truly this was the Son of God.” We would be wise to learn the lesson that God’s revelation of himself through Jesus Christ is his effort to reach everyone. Often, the people who are in an obvious position to accept his claims do not and those in the least likely position to accept him do: Peter, a brash fisherman and liar; Matthew, a hated tax collector and cheat; Mary the Magdalene, a prostitute; Paul, a Pharisee, an accomplice to murder and a fervent persecutor of the Church—an unlikely group of followers to say the least. Yet all would leave their unique mark on God’s Kingdom. So too it is today for all who would surrender and confess that Jesus Christ truly is the Son of God.

The Son of God, Pt. 3

A Titular Study In Spiritual, Judaic And Hellenistic Context

Part Three

            In Part One of this series, we looked at how the title of the “Son of God” was understood within the spiritual realm. In Part Two we sought to understand what the title meant from a Judaic perspective. Now we will investigate how the title was perceived and understood within the Hellenistic culture of that time.

Hellenistic Perspective

            The claim to be the Son of God may have been blasphemy to the Jews, but to a Greco-Roman audience it had nothing to do with blasphemy and presented no threat to Roman authority. Carson writes; “It placed Jesus in an ill-defined category of ‘divine men,’ gifted individuals believed to enjoy certain ‘divine’ powers. If Jesus was a ‘son of God’ in this sense, Pilate might feel a twinge of fear; he had just had Jesus whipped.”[1] However, is it necessary to insist that all Greco-Romans who encountered Jesus understood his claims in the same way? Some scholars claim that Greco-Romans could not have understood the true meaning of the Son of God title against the backdrop of their polytheistic pagan culture. Wilhelm Bousset in his work titled Kyrios Christos writes; “This title [Son of God] originated on Greek ground, in Greek language…the confession of Jesus as the Son of God by the Gentile centurion in Mark 15:39 cannot be understood as a recognition of Jesus as the Jewish messiah.”[2] Adela Yarbro Collins appears to concur when he writes; “Those familiar with Greek polytheistic traditions, however, were likely to associate the Jewish or Christian term ‘Son of God’ with terms like ‘son of Zeus and ‘son of Apollo.” Collins continues;

“It is highly significant for our purposes that kings and other rulers were consistently portrayed as descended from gods or as ‘son of god,’ ‘son of Helios,’ son of Zeus.’ This was especially true of Egypt in the Hellenistic period. At the oracle of Ammon in the Libyan desert, Alexander the Great was called ‘son of Ammon,’ ‘son of Zeus’ in Greek. From the beginning, the Ptolemies, the successors of Alexander in Egypt, claimed the same title. And in the early Roman imperial period, the title son of god was used for Augustus. Doubtless, residents of the Mediterranean world familiar with the ruler cult would have associated the idea that Jesus was the messiah, the king of Israel, with this usage…From the point of view of traditional Greek religion, the identification of Jesus in this scene [Mark 9:7] as God’s son is equivalent to identifying him as a divine being.” [3]

Without denying the fact that some, if not many, familiar with Greek polytheistic traditions understood the term Son of God as comparable to those found in Greek mythology, it is unnecessary to paint all Greco-Romans with that same broad brush. For example, Matthew 8:5-10 records a significant event. Upon entering Capernaum, Jesus encounters a Roman centurion;

“When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.’ Jesus said to him, ‘I will go and heal him.’ The centurion replied, ‘Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.’ When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, ‘I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”

Some would argue that the centurion’s actions were consistent with the belief that Roman emperors, because of their divinity, could also perform miraculous healings. And Roman emperors, especially as propagated by the emperor Nero, would often be referred to as “son of god”, “lord”, “saviour” and “benefactor.”[4] However, in this event recorded by John in his gospel, the centurion obviously knows that Jesus is not the emperor and yet he still addresses him as “Lord.” The centurion appears to know enough about Jewish customs not to insist that Jesus, a Jew, defile himself by entering a Gentile residence. Consequently, there is no reason not to think that he is not familiar as well with Jewish monotheistic theology. Significantly, Jesus does not rebuke the centurion for his comments but instead applauds him for his faith. While in other instances, Jesus consistently rebukes those who misunderstand him—including his disciples! It is unlikely Jesus would hold the centurion up as a model of faith if the centurion did not know in whom he had faith. Otherwise it would imply that it is not necessary to recognize Jesus for who he is, but that any kind of nebulous or arbitrary faith involving Jesus in some way is acceptable. As opposed to the Apostle Paul’s encounter in Lystra were the inhabitants lauded him as Hermes and his fellow traveler, Barnabas, as Zeus because of his miraculous healing (Acts 14:12), the Gospels do not record a single incident where Jesus has to correct anyone who attributes divinity to him in terms of traditional Greek religion. Consequently, in contrast to Collins’ previously stated position, there is no reason not to think that some Greco-Romans had a more than cursory understanding about the principles and practices of the Jewish monotheistic theological system and how Jesus as the Son of God fit into that system. It is perhaps prudent at this point to take a closer look at some key verses to add some clarification to this position.

Matthew 27:54

          Chapter 27 of Matthew’s gospel narrates the horrific events of Jesus’ final hours of life, his death and finally his burial. Powerfully moving, upon his death, numerous apocalyptic signs occur. Including earthquakes and complete darkness covering the entire land for three hours during the middle of the day. Professor Craig Blomberg eloquently writes; “Whatever its cause, it is clear that “nature” was in sympathy with the horror of the Son of God being put to death.”[5] Also included in this chapter, Matthew records the centurion’s confession upon Jesus’ excruciatingly painful death as; “Surely he was the Son of God.” An interesting note in Matthew’s account includes this confession not only by the centurion but also by the others that were guarding Jesus. As noted earlier, some scholars insist that these Greco-Romans could not have fully understood the meaning of that title. Additionally, proponents of that position point at the word “was” in the centurion’s confession as proof that the past tense reference to the Son of God is consistent with the Hellenistic tradition of post death deification of great leaders.[6]  That, however, seems like a stretch to prove a particular position. It assumes that only Greco-Romans, after having either witnessed or heard of the death of Jesus, would have referred to him in the past tense. However, the gospel writers do not record anyone believing Jesus was anything but gone for good.  A good example is Luke’s account of the resurrected Jesus addressing Cleopas and his unnamed traveling companion on the road to Emmaus.  Jesus prompts Cleopas to tell him of the things that have transpired in Jerusalem in the past few days.  Without recognizing Jesus, Cleopas exclaims; “About Jesus of Nazareth…He was a prophet…and they crucified him; but we had hoped he was the one who was going to redeem Israel (italics added) (Luke 24:13-35).” As with the past tense usage of “was” by the centurion, the only thing the past tense usage of “was” by Cleopas reveals is that neither fully understood who Jesus claimed to be—either through the Son of God title or any other title he claimed for himself.

            Having established that it is not necessary to insist that all Greco-Romans understood the title Son of God in the same way, Donald Hagner writes with respect to the centurion’s statement; “There is irony and tragedy in the fact that the statement is made by Roman soldiers and not the Jews to whom Jesus had come…anticipating the salvation-historical shift that will be articulated in [Matthew] 28:19.” Hagner continues; “The soldiers in their fear mouth words whose real significance they could hardly have known.  What they had seen was enough to make them receptive to Jesus’ claim (which they would have heard from the Jewish authorities).”[7]  Important to note as well is how the supernatural events witnessed by the centurion and his soldiers elicited the identical confession as expressed by Jesus’ disciples after they witnessed him walking on the water and calming the storm earlier in his ministry. Blomberg is not nearly as definitive in his understanding of the centurion’s statement when he writes; “Perhaps the best explanation is that which interprets the confession as meaning, ‘He was a good man, and quite right in calling God his Father.’”[8] However, this may be a minority view as Craig Keener goes on to write; “These Gentiles recognize Jesus’ sonship in the cross rather than by ignoring the cross, all the more remarkable because this defied Gentile models of leadership.”[9] Based on these findings and at the risk of being redundant, there is no reason to insist that the statement made by the centurion and his men had a substantially different meaning than that which would come to be understood by those who were witnesses to Jesus’ ministry prior to his crucifixion.[10]

 

Mark 15:39

In this parallel account to Matthew 27:54, Mark records the identical confession by the centurion. Notably however, Mark records that as opposed to the confession in response to the supernatural events surrounding the death of Jesus as in Matthew’s account, the centurion confesses Jesus as the Son of God when, “He stood in front of him, heard his cry and saw how he died.” Craig Evans writes; “Impressed by the manner of Jesus’ death and the signs that attend it, the Roman centurion confesses of Jesus what he should only confess of the Roman emperor.” Evans continues; “In calling Jesus the ‘son of God,’ the centurion has switched his allegiance from Caesar, the official ‘son of God,’ to Jesus, the real Son of God.”[11] Considering the likely severe consequences of such a shift in allegiance, why the sudden change of heart? Undoubtedly, this hardened soldier was not moved by sentimentality. Instead, he probably heard what the Jews said he claimed about himself and he possibly even heard Jesus telling Pilate; “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above (John 19:11).” As a consequence, what the centurion observes through Jesus’ death elicits a complete philosophical reversal. The centurion would have understood successful leadership in terms of power and might and the degree to which an opponent is crushed. Instead, what he saw was the power of Jesus’ leadership through his tenacious obedience to the point of allowing himself to be crushed by his opponents and then petitioning the Father to forgive them for their ignorance. William Lane writes; “The centurion proclaimed that the crucified Jesus (and not the emperor) is the Son of God.  His words provide a discerning Gentile response to the death of Jesus.”[12] David Garland offers an extremely poignant summation to this section of our survey as he writes;

“To make this confession, the centurion must have changed his perception of the basic things that governed his entire life. As a centurion he has sworn allegiance to the emperor, and he represents Roman imperial power. For Romans, ‘the notion of power was central to the definition of deity,’ and the title ‘Son of God’ properly belonged only to the emperor, who embodied Rome’s majesty. Remarkably, this soldier bestows the title on a Jew who has just been executed. He must have changed his mind not only about Jesus but also about what it meant to be son of God. Divinity was no longer associated with splendor and military might of an empire. It resided where there was no apparent splendor or might.”[13]

Finally and most importantly Garland writes, “Faithful obedience unto death, not wondrous works of power, can convert even the executioner.”[14] Part Four of this series will conclude our titular study of the Son of God in the Spiritual, Judaic and Hellenistic context with a look at how this understanding applies to our lives today.

---

[1] D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary-The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 600.

[2] Adela Yarbro Collins, “Mark and his readers: the Son of God among Greeks and Romans”, Harvard Theological Review v. 93 no2, (Apr. 2000), p. 1.

[3] Ibid., p. 2.

[4] T. Desmond Alexander & Brian S. Rosner, (eds.), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 2000) pp. 269, 272.

[5] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville, TN:  Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), p. 348.

[6] Collins, “Mark and his readers…”, p. 4.

[7] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28-Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas, TX:  Word, Inc., 1995), pp. 852-853.

[8] Blomberg, Matthew, p. 422.

[9] Craig S. Keener, Matthew-The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, USA, 1997), p. 391.

[10] Hagner, Matthew 14-28, p. 853.

[11] Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN:  Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), p. 510.

[12] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Willam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 576.

[13] David E. Garland, Mark-The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), p. 604

[14] Ibid.