Last week, we used background information to illuminate a famous passage from Matthew.  This week, we will attempt a similar approach to Mark’s Gospel.  We will examine Mark 4:35-41, where the evangelist (a term often used to refer to Gospel authors) records Jesus stilling the violent storm on the Sea of Galilee. 

Historical Background

Mark was the first Gospel written.  He was a disciple of Peter and likely received much of his material from him.  Matthew and Luke utilized Mark and other sources to write their Gospels.  The Gospels are not bland, neutral accounts of Jesus life and sayings. Instead, they are intentionally arranged to address the needs of the author’s intended reading audience. Mark’s readers are situated in Rome in the midst of an intense persecution. Nero’s violent attacks against the Christians are well documented.  He publicly burned many Christians.  He ordered the brutal deaths of Peter and Paul.  He actual burned Rome and blamed the Christians so that he would have liberty to persecute them more.  Therefore, Mark is writing to a disheartened and abused congregation.  His Gospel is aimed to encourage and uplift the persecution Roman Christians and to help them make sense of their situation.  This story of “Stilling the Storm”, then, takes on a great new meaning.  It is not just another miracle, another reason to say: “Wow, Jesus is awesome!”  It is much, much more.  It is a tangible reminder that: storms come (even when Jesus is on the boat!) and that Jesus is the Lord of the storm.

Literary Context

Remember that the original text of the Bible did not include chapter and verse divisions. Instead, it read as a single, continuous narrative.  Chapters and verses are helpful in organizing the text, but sometimes cause us to miss the natural, narrative flow.  For example, Mark 4:35-6:6 should be read a single unit. Though the stories are in different “chapters”, they are intrinsically tied together by a common theme and common vocabulary. 

In Mark 4:35-41, Jesus is portrayed as having authority over a natural disaster—He is Lord over the Storm.  His supernatural power over nature leads the disciples to ask: “What kind of man is this?”  In 5:1-20, Jesus steps out of the boat and casts out a legion of demons- He is Lord over the Demons.  Next, in 5:21-34, Jesus is confronted by an incurably sick woman.  He effortlessly heals her, indicating that He is Lord over disease.  In 5:35-43, Jesus raises Jarius’ daughter from the dead, showing that He is even Lord over death.  Finally in 6:1-6, Jesus returns to his home town of Nazareth and teaches so powerfully that the crowd echoes the sentiment of the disciples who witnessed the stilling of the storm.  The crowd in Nazareth asks: ““Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

Jesus’ stilling of the storm is much more powerful in this context—it is part of Mark’s larger argument. Jesus is stronger than any other force, any other power.  He is Lord of the storm; he is more powerful than demons; He has dominion over disease; He defeats death with a single word.  This message certainly resounds with Mark’s audience. Jesus was stronger than Nero and his cronies.  Jesus was capable of delivering them from persecution.  No matter what might come their way—Jesus could handle it.

To underscore the importance of the literary context, it is worth noting that Matthew places the story in a slightly different context.  Jesus’ stilling the storm is placed right after a this discourse on discipleship:

Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” (Matt. 8:18-22)

This challenges us to interpret the story in light of discipleship.  Immediately following the conversation, Jesus and his disciples board the boat and set sail. Discipleship is a journey with Jesus, one that demands that you leave the safety of dry ground and set sail on uncertain waters.  Discipleship is costly and is often accompanied by severe storms. But ultimately, disciples can rest in the knowledge that Jesus will ultimately prevail.  As you can see, Matthew and Mark’s versions of the story contain mostly the same content but we can discern nuances of meaning by their different contexts.

Exegesis (Examination of the Passage)

Shortly after Jesus and the disciples set sail for the other side, a “a great windstorm” came.  These storms on the Sea of Galilee were especially fierce.  Mark points out that it was “great.”  Matthew actually uses the Greek word “seismos,” from which we get earthquake words like “seismograph” and “seismology.”  This underscores the severity of the storm—it was not a rain-shower but an earth-shaking storm.  Furthermore, many of the disciples were fishermen so they understood the situation better than most.  They would have been intimately familiar with these violent Galilean storms.  Therefore, their panicked search for Jesus was well-founded.  The danger was real.  They had no way to rescue themselves.  There was no hope that it would just “get better.” It was a bad storm and they uniquely understood their potential plight.  Mark’s readers understood the storm.  They were in a bad situation, and there was little hope that it would get better.  And all of Jesus’ followers will eventually find themselves in an equally hopeless situation.

The disciples hurriedly sought out Jesus, who was asleep on the boat.  We often overlook the significance of this simple fact. Jesus was asleep.  Because He was completely human, he was tired from a hectic ministry itinerary.  Passages such as these remind us of Jesus’ humanity and comfort us when we feel exhausted and in need of sleep.  As beautiful as this sounds, I doubt the disciples were in a mood to reflect on Jesus’ humanity.  Instead, they were frantically fretting about their situation.  The passage tells us that boat was “already filling” with water.  When they needed Jesus the most, he was asleep.  Maybe, that’s how Mark’s audience felt.  In the midst of their persecution, Jesus seemed distant, absent, even asleep.  And all of Jesus’ followers will eventually find themselves in a situation where Jesus seems to be unconcerned, afar, aloof.

The disciples ask: “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?”  In Greek, the form of a question presupposes either a positive of negative answer.  In other words, the expected answer to the question is built into the question itself.  The disciples expected an affirmative answer-- Lord, surely you care that we are perishing, don’t you?  This shows the disciples with a measure of faith—they knew that he cared.  But, maybe, they weren’t sure that He was able to intervene. Or, perhaps, they knew He could but weren’t convinced that He would.  And, once again, we see the significance to Mark’s situation. His readers’ were in a dire situation and found themselves in a place of fear and faith.  They believed Jesus could help, but would He? And, once again, we can apply the situation to our own storms.  I know Jesus can heal, deliver, save, rescue—Can’t He?

Jesus responds to the disciples’ request with a rebuke.  He challenges their lack of faith.  They had seen him heal the sick and cast out demons.  They should know that he was capable, willing, and able. Despite the rebuke, He still calmed the storm.  He responded to their deficient faith and performed a miracle.  God is not handicapped by our weaknesses and insufficiencies. With a single word, Jesus calmed the storm.  The “great storm” was immediately replaced by a “great peace.”  The disciples can only mutter: “Who then is this man?”  Psalm 107 provides the answer.  Speaking of God, the Psalmist says: “He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.  Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.”  This man is more than a man- He is God.  

Today’s blog takes us into Matthew’s Gospel.  We will take a look at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin in Matthew 27:57-68.  It’s pretty long so grab a big cup of coffee and dive right in.  Our goal is to apply some of the principles and historical background that you have been learning and to go a little bit more in-depth than your workbook and DVD’s.

Jesus’ fate was sealed at his trial before the Sanhedrin.  Since entering Jerusalem, he had been engaged in a seemingly irresolvable and bitter power struggle with the Jewish hierarchy. They were greatly offended by his authoritative teaching and his bold claim that He shared a unique relationship with God.  The religious establishment of Jerusalem had the upper hand in this conflict because they had the power of legal process on their side.  With the assistance of one of Jesus’ former disciples, they devised a plan to finally defeat the Galilean preacher. 

While Jesus was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, He was arrested by Jewish authorities.  His disciples attempted to fight back, but He forbade them.  Then He is led away, alone, to the high priest’s house.  Throughout His ministry, He was always accompanied by his disciples.  However, He must now face his accusers alone.  This was to be no fair trial, however.  The verdict had already been decided. This scene of hopelessness and despair is paradoxically also the fullest exposition of who Jesus is. He may be defenseless against the schemes of the Sanhedrin, but this passage also reveals that he is the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Son of Man.  The messianic secret that has defined his ministry is now lifted, for his special status could only be understood in light of the cross.

Caiphas hastily convened available members of the Sanhedrin in order to determine Jesus’ guilt and to specify the charges against him. Most commentators concur with John’s proclamation that the Jews were not permitted to carry out the death penalty at that time (John 18:31).  The lynching of Stephen recorded in Acts 6 and the martyring of James the Just recorded by Josephus were unofficial aberrations.  Because the Sanhedrin lacked the authority to issue punishment, this trial of Jesus was akin to a preliminary hearing where the charges were merely delineated. Nonetheless, the Sanhedrin was given significant latitude in local affairs, especially in regard to religious matters, in the 1^st century.  Pilate would likely accept whatever verdict they reached here.  The hearing then is less than a formal capital trial but more than an innocuous information-gathering session.

Interestingly enough, almost every component of Jesus’ “trial” contradicts the guidelines of a capital trial laid in the 2^nd century document m. Sanhedrin, which listed the rules of the Sanhedrin counsel. Jesus was tried in the middle of the night; the document requires trials to be held during daytime.  The setting of Jesus’ hearing was Caiphas’ house; the tract demands that all trials be held in one of three appointed courtrooms.  The defense should have had an opportunity to speak first, but Jesus was not given opportunity to speak until after the two false witnesses brought their charges. The crude violence of spitting, slapping, and striking would have unquestionably violated the m. Sanhedrin.

Although the m. Sanhedrin (a 2^nd century document) probably represents what was customary in the 1^st century practice, there is no way to know how strictly these rules were applied in Jesus’ day.  It is always misleading to apply a later document to an earlier situation.  Furthermore, this was not a formal, capital trial so the council would not have technically been required to follow those guidelines.  On the other hand, Jesus’ hearing does maintain a sense of formality.  For example, two witnesses with agreeing testimonies were required before the trial could continue.  The chief priest tore his garment when he pronounced the charge of blasphemy as he would in a legitimate hearing.  Matthew goes to great pains to present the legitimacy of the Sanhedrin trial. He wants his readers to understand that it was the religious authorities, not just Pilate and the Romans, who were responsible for the death of Jesus. This perhaps reflects the hostility between Judaism and Christianity in the age of Matthew’s church.

The high priest’s house was certainly not the usual meeting place of the Sanhedrin.  They usually met on the western end of the temple mount. However, this is a hastily called “trial” in the middle of night to deal with what they considered to be an emergency.  Caiphas was the high priest from 18-36 AD.  He obtained his position through his father-in-law Annas, and many still considered the latter to be the “high-priest emeritus.”  Therefore, it is fitting that John records that Jesus was first taken to Annas.

The Sanhedrin was composed of three components: chief priests, scribes, and elders.  Only two of the three are mentioned here.  It is unlikely that the entire Sanhedrin had at this time convened because the hearing was called at short notice at an inconvenient time. Matthew may not have mentioned the “chief priests” here because it was assumed that the high priest would represent their interests.  The presence of the scribes at the hearing is indispensable because they were the legal experts. They would specify which laws Jesus violated.

Although many witnesses came forward to testify, they could find no testimony to admit.  Jewish law required at least two witnesses in agreement to establish a charge.  This is an egregious example of adhering to the letter in the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.  It mattered not whether the testimonies were true as long as they could find two people to say the same thing. 

Mark indicates that the accusation of the two witnesses concerning the temple was inadmissible because “even their testimonies did not agree. (Mk 14:57-59)” According to Mark’s account, the Sanhedrin settled on the subjective charge of blasphemy because they were unable to find credible witnesses to uphold the temple charge. 

The witnesses took exception to Jesus’ claim to be able to destroy and rebuild the temple.  The saying attributed to Jesus seems to be convoluted from some things that he actually said.  In John 2:19, he speaks of the temple of his body being destroyed and raised again in three days.  Even though Matthew does not record this, it is possible that the witnesses had that expression in mind. 

Explicitly in Matthew, Jesus had predicted that the temple would be destroyed but never claimed that he would be the one to do it (Matthew 24:1-2).  He claimed to be greater than the temple in 12:6.  These sayings combined with his acted parable in 21:12-17 could easily be misconstrued into a threat against the temple.  It was apparently a popular misconception. On the cross, Jesus was taunted, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself!  If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross. (Mt. 27:40, NASB)" The stigma followed the early church as seen in the lynching of Stephen in Acts 6:13-14.

The charge against Jesus had been established by two witnesses and required a response from the defense.  He could have easily explained that He never personally threatened the temple, but he remained silent. Jesus does not defend himself.  Aside from the defiant outburst coming in verse 64, Jesus is done speaking.  He will only utter a two-word response to Pilate before his cry of dereliction from the cross.  Jesus understands that his death is inevitable and necessary; there is nothing left to say. The reader is expected to see Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah here. Like Isaiah 53:7 records, “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers; he did not open His mouth.”

The recent events in Jerusalem would have been enough to motivate the chief priest to ask Jesus if He was indeed the Christ, the Son of God.  Jesus approached the city as the messianic king of Zechariah 9:9 (21:1-11), cleansed the temple (21:12-13), and refused to silence those crying Hosanna before him (21:15-16). His teaching had been pointed especially in the question about Messiah as the Son of David (22:41-46) and the Parable of the Landowner’s Son (21:33-46).  Furthermore, the betrayer Judas could have intimated Peter’s confession and Jesus’ claim in 11:27.

The chief priest, hoping to bait Jesus into blasphemy, asks: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Living God? In 2 Samuel 7:14, God promises David that He would take David’s son as His own.  According to Jewish literature found at Qumran, the title Son of God was associated with the Messiah in Jesus’ day.  To the Jews, the term Son of God denotes a filial (family) relationship rather than an ontological (essence or being) reality. They had not conjectured that the Messiah would actually partake in God’s divinity.  In a sense, the terms “Messiah” and “Son of God” were synonymous. However, Jesus’ following statement shows that Jesus believed he had an inimitable relationship with the Father.  There was nothing blasphemous about claiming to be the Messiah (people did it quite often), but claiming to be the type of Messiah that shares the prerogative of God was indeed unacceptable.  In this case, it seems that Son of God means something more than Messiah.

Jesus finally breaks his silence; however, he does not provide a defense.  Instead, he exacerbates the problem by making the boldest public claim of his ministry.  Jesus responds: “you said it”, to respond to the high priest’s question.   He uses the same evasive language in response to Pilate’s question: “Are you the King of the Jews? (Mt. 27:11).”  It is seems to be a qualified affirmative answer.  He is the Messiah, the Son of God, but not in the way that the high priest is suggesting.  In other words, Jesus is saying “yes, but no.”

Jesus acknowledges that he is the Messiah and the Son of God, but reformulates those terms based on his understanding.  He chooses to refer to Himself as The Son of Man rather than the Christ or the Son of God.  The Son of Man, according to Daniel 7:13, is brought to God’s throne as a representative of the saints.  Based on 1 Enoch (a Jewish book written during the intertestamental period), the Son of Man came to be associated with the messianic deliverer. The term can simply mean “human” or “man”, but modern scholarship has generally concurred that Jesus used it in an official sense to describe his mission.  He preferred the title because it was not as easily misinterpreted as “Messiah” or “Son of David.”  

As the Son of Man, the Sanhedrin would soon see him sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Jesus brings Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14 together to make a remarkable statement: “From now on, you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (27:64, ESV).”  The right hand symbolized power and privilege and testifies of his special status with God.  He is more than the Messiah; he will soon reign alongside God. 

Jesus’ claim here is the immediate cause of his death. His bold proclamation has put the final stamp on his fate.  However, the phrase “from now on you will see” puts everything in perspective. The Sanhedrin may have the advantage temporarily, but the reader knows by this statement that the story is not over.  Regardless of what happens next, it is only a matter of time before Jesus can say: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (28:18b)” The Sanhedrin would witness his vindication through his resurrection. 

The chief priest finally has what he needs to convict Jesus.  It was beyond blasphemy for a poor Galilean preacher to claim to sit at the right hand of God. The tearing of the robe was a highly symbolic act that accompanied the charge of blasphemy in the Jewish court.  It was a traditional gesture of mourning or displeasure.  However, it was especially remarkable when the chief priest tore his robe.  Leviticus 21:10-22 forbade priests from tearing their garments while mourning the death of a friend or close relative.  This reinforces the severity of the blasphemy charges!

At the very beginning of the pericope, Matthew informs the reader that the Sanhedrin intends to kill Jesus (v. 59).  It is now official.  All semblance of a formal trial is lost when the council engages in ignoble physical abuse. Mark says that only “some” along with their “servants” engaged in the violence.  Luke blames only those holding Jesus. Typical of the love-hate relationship Matthew seems to have with Judaism, he makes no such concessions.  He depicts a mob scene; the quasi-official trial has descended into a predictably undignified end.

Isaiah 11:3 records that Israel’s deliverer would be able to recognize an attacker by smell only, and Mark mentions that Jesus was blindfolded.  It is likely, then, that they were mocking his messianic status when they demanded that he prophesy concerning who was striking him.  Paradoxically, he had prophesied in 16:21 that he would experience this rejection.  The gift of prophecy they were mocking had predicted that he would find himself in this predicament.

Last week, we looked at the importance of studying background information to get a proper understanding of the New Testament.  We continue to lay the foundation of New Testament study this week with a brief look at the reliability of the text. 

Many modern people, including some Christians, have grave misgivings about the integrity of the New Testament text.  In today’s blog, we look at common objections to the New Testament’s accuracy and briefly address each one.  Keep in mind that entire textbooks have been written on this topic, so our efforts will be cursory at best.  Here are the frequent objections and their rebuttals:

Some uninformed objectors argue that the New Testament text was written long after Jesus died, so that enough passed for myths to develop. 

This is simply untrue.  Scholars are able to date all of the New Testament writings (with the possible exception of Hebrews) to the first century.  Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus. Mark was a companion of Peter, a disciple of Jesus.  Luke was a contemporary of Jesus (though, it is unlikely that he knew Him) and a travel companion of Paul.  Myths take hundreds and thousands of years to develop.  Therefore, there was insufficient time for a myth to develop, which leads to the next objection.

Since it is established that writers were first-century eyewitnesses, objectors often fallaciously paint the Gospel writers as generally unreliable.  They were either incredibly naïve, in that they wrongly believed that Jesus was supernatural or incredibly deceptive, in that they purposefully distorted the evidence to fool people.

First, it is not possible that Jesus’ followers were all naive enough to believe that He was the Son of God and was raised from the dead. Because all of the New Testament writers (excluding Luke) were Jewish, they would be the last people on earth to believe that a human could be God. Jews were known throughout antiquity for their fierce monotheism. Therefore, this is the least likely lie for which a Jew could fall.  The experience of Paul underscores this point.  He was a brilliant, fiercely zealous Pharisee trained in the law, but came to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. 

Second, the New Testament writers did not intentionally craft false accounts.  They had no motivation to do so. In fact, they all died martyr’s deaths for what they believed. If it was false, at least one of them would have recanted and admitted that it was all a lie.  Also, if they were all conspiring to write a convincing fiction, they might have left out a few rather embarrassing parts. For example, the Gospels record that the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were women. In that era, women were not considered reliable witnesses, and their testimony would not be received in the Roman courts. So, in a purely made-up account, the writers would have placed reliable men at the tomb first.

Another objection is that there is no way to know that the text we have today is the same text that was originally written.  After all, no original manuscripts of any New Testament text exists.  All we have available are copies of copies.

It is true that we have no autographs (technical term for original manuscripts) available.  We do not have a parchment directly from the hand of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul. However, we do have over 5000 manuscripts that contain various New Testaments texts.  In comparison, Homer’s Iliad is only verified by 600 manuscripts.  Yet, no one every questions the integrity of the Iliad.  The New Testament manuscripts are remarkably consistent, and reflect great care by generations of scribes.  Additionally, the church fathers of the first four centuries quoted the New Testament throughout their writings.  Even if we had no manuscripts, we could reconstruct the New Testament from their writings alone.

The final, and perhaps most common, objection to the integrity of the New Testament text is metaphysical.  Since the Enlightenment era, many people believe that miracles cannot happen because they are contrary to nature.  The Bible is full of miracles, thus cannot be accurate.

I have done all the heavy lifting to this point, so now it's your turn. How would you respond to this objection?  What about the other objections?  Do you feel more confident in the New Testament text after reading this blog?  I can’t wait to read your responses.

Your studies this week have centered on New Testament background.  Check out the following blog by Dr. Brassfield.  He masterfully uses NT background information to illuminate the Day of Pentecost.

So to get to the real meaning of Pentecost, lets first look at the location of the outpouring. I believe that the where will answer the why and help us understand that first outpouring at a much deeper level.

First it is a general assumption among most Pentecostal and evangelical groups for that matter, to believe that the Holy Spirit fell in the Upper Room. This is probably because of the biblical references to the upper room in other New Testament passages such as; Luke 22:12 and Mark 14:15 which speak of a common event, the upper room of the “Lord’s Supper”, and Acts 1:13 which speaks of an upper room where the disciples of Jesus were staying during the Feast of Pentecost. It is logical, though not expressly indicated in Scripture, that this accommodation would have been one and the same place. And there has been much speculation as to the relationship that Jesus and His disciples might have had with the particular owner of this upper room. Maybe it was a familiar place that they often used when visiting Jerusalem. Perhaps they rented it? Or, it might have been simply loaned to them by a family member or friend. Jewish residents of Jerusalem would often offer hospitality to pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem for the three chief Feast of Israel. Whatever the case, we have traditionally assumed that it is there, in the upper room, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on that day. But does the Scripture actually say that? No!

Luke in Acts chapter one tells us that they return to Jerusalem, after Jesus ascension to heaven from the Mount of Olives, to the Upper room, “where they were staying” (Acts 1:13) While there, they conducted the business of replacing Judas position of leadership with another of their number who had been faithful and had been with them since Jesus baptism in water by John and we are told that they continued in one mind and one accord. 

But Luke uses a Hebraic-styled narrative break[1] to introduce chapter two and the events of chapter two. This in other words changed the flow of the story and disconnected everything going on in chapter one from that of chapter two.

Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.”This change let’s the reader know that where the disciples were and what they were doing in chapter one is not necessarily where they are and what they are doing as chapter two opens.

Now let’s remember that they are devout Jews. And this fact has to be accounted for in the story of Pentecost. We must assume that they continued in their Jewish traditions after Jesus Ascension. They did not understand, as of yet, the distinction that would develop between Judaism and Christianity. They, during feast times and regularly scheduled prayer times would have almost certainly followed their Jewish traditions. Luke tells us as he closes his gospel in chapter Luke 24: 52 and53 “And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the Temple praising and blessing God. Amen.” No doubt when it was time to pray they would have went to the Temple for their normal prayer times. We even see that evidenced later in Acts chapter 3 verse one when Peter and John encounter the lame man at the gate called Beautiful, begging. He is of course healed in the encounter but Luke tells us they are there presumably to pray because its prayer time, “…the hour of prayer, the ninth hour”. Acts 3:1

This understanding gives us a bit more insight into the Acts chapter two story. Being devout Jews and clearly seeing that they demonstrated no apparent reason to reject the Temple or their associated Jewish customs, where are they likely to have been when the “Day of Pentecost had fully come?”

Pentecost is the only one of Israel’s chief feast that was celebrated on a single day as opposed to a week or at least over several days. The doors of the Temple opened just after midnight to allow the visiting crowds to have their sacrifices inspected by the priest. The services began with the morning sacrifices being offered and then prayer time followed around the third hour of the day, between 9 to 10 am. Large numbers of Pilgrims, perhaps ten of thousands, [2]would have been there having traveled from all over the World. Luke gives us a list of the different nationalities present. Acts 2: 5-13.

It is unthinkable that the disciples would miss the morning ceremonies associated with the Feast of Pentecost. Indeed it would have been disobedient to the command of the Lord from the Torah. Exodus 34:23-24. So for them to have been in a neighborhood near but not present at the Temple is not realistic.  

Yes the scripture does say that the Spirit “filled the house where they were sitting” Acts 2:2. But the house referred to was most likely the Temple.

The Center for Holy Land Studies of the Assemblies of God suggest, that in Hebrew, the moscommon term used to refer to the Temple is “house”.  The Temple Mount is referred to as “the mountain of the house”; cf. m. Bikkurim 3:4). At this point within the Greek narrative of Acts, Luke often preserves Hebraic-styled syntax and idiom.  His narrative mention of the “house” in which the disciples sat quite likely reflects this Hebrew idiom referring to the Temple, which is where one would expect to find Jesus’ disciples on the festival of Pentecost as well as the crowds they encounter.[3]

So to set this possibility in motion lets imagine the scene. Tens of thousands of devoted Jews from all over the World have gathered for this one-day grand celebration that was both a celebration of the first fruits of the Barley harvest and the commemoration of the giving of the law to Moses at Mt Sinai. The sacrifices have been offered, sections of the Torah recited and songs sung. The people have gathered in ethnic groups to read the Torah and pray when suddenly the place is shaken by the sound of a rushing mighty wind. All the believers in Christ who were present, mostly from the regions of Galilee, begin to speak loudly giving glory to God and testifying of his wonderful works; speaking in the diverse native languages of the pilgrims who were present at the Feast.  The people are amazed!

Peter the Apostle stands to speak and explain what they are witnessing. Luke records his message for us in Acts 2: 14-39. He explains that they are not drunk as some had supposed since it is the third hour of the day, (prayer time by the way), but rather he attributes the outpouring as the fulfillment of the prophet Joel. He then preaches the gospel of Jesus to them as a suffering Messiah and the savior who had been crucified and resurrected from the dead. At the end of his message some 3,000 people respond to the gospel and are baptized. The only place in Jerusalem that could have accommodated that many hearing and being baptized was the Temple with its large outer court and ritual baths that were located at the southern entrance at the pilgrim’s gate to the Temple Mount. [4]

When we settle in our mind that the most likely place for the outpouring was the Jewish Temple and that God had purposely orchestrated the place and the time with such careful planning, I believe it helps us understand the why. And the why was so much greater than just the experience of power received by 120 gathered in an obscure upper room, it was to ignite a movement around the World in a single moment, as people were undoubtedly converted from all over the world at that one great event. It is as if God planned this moment to assist the fledgling disciples who had just received the Great Commission to take the good news all over the world to every creature. Pentecost was God’s sovereign way to override racial prejudice, ethnic barriers, gender issues and the natural resentment that the disciples must have felt toward the people of Jerusalem who had just participated in Jesus crucifixion. When many of them came to faith as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit all questions were answered; forgiveness was for everyone-even those who had participated in his death, and that every person from any country who called on the name of the Lord could be saved.  The where answers the why.

The Spring semester is approaching, and we want to welcome all of our new students!  We have 12 new students joining the 30 from last semester! Now it is time to get to know one another.  Click here to read up on the students who started last fall. 

My name is Landon, and I currently live in Tupelo, MS. Obviously, I am the Director of Education and Development at Destiny and oversee Destiny Leadership Institute. 

I enjoy reading—I read mostly biblical studies and theology, but I also enjoy philosophy, history, and biographies.  I love football, especially my Alma Mater, Mississippi State University.  I am a long distance running and am currently training for my first marathon.

I am passionate about educating and empowering Christian leaders to reach their full potential.  I know many educated leaders that lack the passion and spirit-empowerment. I also know many fiery, Spirit-filled leaders that lack basic biblical and theological knowledge.  It is my dream to bring balance to both of these camps. 

What about you?  Who are you?  Where do you live? Where do you serve?  Tell us about your family, your interests and hobbies, and your perceived ministry calling. 

I can’t wait to get to know you all better.

New Year’s resolutions usually don’t work.  A 2008 study by Steve Shapiro (available here: http://www.steveshapiro.com/2008/12/11/interesting-new-years-resolution-statistics/) shows that 75% of Americans “almost never” keep their resolutions. Furthermore, the small minority that claim to meet their goals do not attest to being any happier.  We all believe that we can do things to improve ourselves, thus becoming healthier and happier.  If I just lose the weight.  If I just could find the time to read more.  If I had quiet times on a regular basis.  If I ran that race.  If, if, if, if…. 

The fact is that New Year’s resolutions profoundly misunderstand human nature. As the English reformer and archbishop Thomas Cranmer said: “What the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.” We often think that we can will our way into happiness, that we can decide to be more committed, that we can rigorously rearrange our schedule to love Jesus more.  But, true change starts in the heart, rather than the mind.  Jesus is not a resolution to be checked off; He is a person to be loved. Time and time again, we find ourselves at the well of self-reliance when Jesus has offered a bubbling, flowing, living spring.

We are familiar with the story of the “woman at the well.”  I propose, however, that we file for a name change.  Although she was “the woman at the well” when she first met Jesus, she became “the woman at the spring” after their encounter. Jesus left the province of Judea and headed to the province of Galilee.  He had to leave because some of the Pharisees were upset that He was gaining and baptizing many disciples. 

The region of Samaria was directly between where Jesus was and where He was going.  Most Jews used alternate routes to avoid passing through the region.  The Samaritans were considered to be “half-breeds” and “mongrels” by the Jews.  After King Solomon’s reign, Israel divided into two separate kingdoms.  The Northern kingdom eventually fell to the Assyrians who brought in foreigners to settle the land.  The conquered Jews of the Northern Kingdom intermarried with pagan foreigners.  The result was the Samaritan race.  In New Testament times, the Samaritan faith had evolved into a blend of Jewish monotheism and pagan superstition.  The conflict between the Jews and Samaritans is convoluted and multi-faceted and could fill pages.  But suffice it to say: these two groups of people hated each other.  The Samaritans lived on the “other side of the tracks,” and respectable Jews avoided contact with them.  As usual, Jesus did not allow Jewish rules and customs to deter him from mission.  Our passage says that He had to go through Samaria.  Jesus was motivated by mission rather than geography.  He had to find the lost, thirsty Samaritan woman

After a long journey, He stopped for a rest at Jacob’s Well outside the town of Sychar, also known as Shechem.  Jacob was the Father of Israel and was revered by Jews and Samaritans alike. At noon, a woman came to draw some water from the well. Noon was a strange time to come for water.  People usually came to the well in the morning or in the evening.  Maybe she was an outcast and did not want to see others. Maybe she had an immediate need for water.  The point isn’t why she came but that she came.  She was running an ordinary, mundane errand when she met the man that would change her life. She wasn’t at a conference.  She wasn’t in a healing line or on a victory march.  She was just living, doing the things that people did every day.  And Jesus met her there.  You see, Jesus came to seek and save those which were lost.  He came to find her; she was not looking for Him.  He comes to find us even when we are not looking for Him.  This thirsty person approaching was a Samaritan woman with a horrible reputation.  We find out later in the story that she had been married five times and was living with number six at the time.  According to some sources, a Jewish rabbi would not even speak to his own wife in public because she was a woman.  Jesus ignored the religious rules and started a conversation that would result in salvation.

“Will you give me a drink?” Jesus asked. This could have been the first time that a Jewish man had addressed the Samaritan woman in a friendly fashion. She was shocked.  She responded by saying, “You are a Jew, and I am a Samaritan.  How can you ask me for a drink?”  Jews would be declared ceremonially unclean if they drank from the same vessel as a Samaritan.  Why would this Jewish man want to take a drink from her vessel?  And as a Samaritan, why should she be willing to share with this Jewish stranger?  Jesus completely disregarded this ethno-religious controversy.  He didn’t give it the time of day; he went straight to the Gospel message.  He said, “If you knew the gift of God and who it was that asked you for a drink, you would have asked him, and He would have given you living water.” This is Salvation 101. Jesus told her about the things of God, who He was, and what He can do.

Jesus is not only willing to “defile” himself by drinking from the Samaritan’s cup.  He is willing to allow this unworthy, sinful half-breed to share in His inheritance.  He offers her living water.  In ancient times, “living water” was used to describe a stream or a fountain. It was “living” because it was always moving and bubbling up.  Let’s contrast that to the water found in Jacob’s Well.  By definition a well is “an artificial shaft sunk to reach underground water, percolating or collected, or to reach a natural underground spring.”  Archaeologists have discovered Jacob’s well to be 138 feet, and it only collects rain water and dew. There is no aquifer or underground stream that feeds the well.  The water that Jesus was offering was fresh and flowing; it was not a stagnant build-up of rain water.  Later in the conversation, Jesus adds: “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 

So here we have it: Jesus offers us a spring instead of a well.  At the well, the woman came on daily basis to labor for something that would only satisfy her needs temporarily.  She toiled for stagnant rain water.  As human beings, we can all relate to this.  This is why the bars have “regulars” and the xxx websites have “members.”  Sin is a repeat business; you will never be completely satisfied.  You will come to the well again and again. No matter how hard you toil to become wealthy; money will not be enough.  No matter how long you go to school; education will not be enough. No matter how many partners you go through; sex will not be enough.  Our fellow members of the animal kingdom remain content if they can acquire enough food, water, a stable environment, shelter, and opportunity to breed.  Humans, on the other hand, have infinite desires that can not be filled with this world’s finite resources.  We were made by God in love and for love.  Our desires can only be filled by Him. 

So, this year, don’t buy into the lie that you have to work harder to be happier, that you need to frequent the well more often to find your purpose.  Put down the water bucket and pick up the garden hose.  Drink freely and deeply of his love. 

Last week’s blog introduced an interesting tension in our Christian life.  The heart of the Protestant Reformation (and, at this point, we are all Protestants) was the claim sola scriptura—Scripture alone!  Every believer should have access to Scripture, and the right to interpret Scripture.  Creeds, councils, and clergy could no longer dictate Christian belief. Since we are all wired differently with varying worldviews and intellectual capacities, how do we establish what a particular text means?  Does a new Christian with no background in the Bible have the same “right” to interpret Scripture as a life-long pastor or accomplished scholar?  And, if everyone has a different interpretation, then who is right?  Is it possible to be right?

In some ways, it would be easier if there were no grey areas.  This is why strict denominations sometimes have success.  Just tell me exactly how to live, how to dress, and how to think so I can go to heaven.  Some days, I would love to have a manual.  Is salvation primarily a manner of divine determinism or human choice? Check page 873.  Is it ok for infants to be baptized?  Look at page 94.   I could browse the table of contents and discover how to think about: secular media, social drinking, and spiritual gifts.  It just doesn’t work that way, though. Scripture is God’s eternal word, but was delivered at specific times in specific contexts to specific people. As our context changes, we must attempt to decide what the Bible speaks in our situations, in our lives.

Many Christians summarily dismiss the question.  I am just led by the Spirit; or, I just pray about it and God tells me, they say. I believe that the Holy Spirit is integral to the hermeneutical process.  However, what happens when loving Spirit-filled Christians differ?  Is one hearing the Spirit, and the other in rebellion?  In sum, we all hear the voice of God through our broken paradigms.  We all know only in part because we are ultimately fallen, which clouds our reason.  Rightly dividing the word of truth is an imperative.  The Word of God is too rich, too meaningful, and too beautifully complex for us to butcher because of our fragile understanding. 

Now, that we have sufficiently diagnosed the problem.  Here is my approach to responsibly interpreting Scripture.  I, by no means, have it all figured out. But, I’ll share what I do know in the hope that is helpful to your ministry.  

Be a student. It is impossible to really be “The Bible Answer Man” (Sorry, Hank Hanegraaf).  The more you study, the more you realize that you don’t know.  You can’t expect to know the meaning of every verse.  The key, then, is having a “working knowledge of Scripture.”  A good mechanic can fix a problem with your car that he has never encountered because he has a working knowledge of cars in general.  The best way to understand a passage of Scripture is to have a comprehensive understanding of the Bible in general.

The only way to obtain this “working knowledge” is the hard work of reading and studying.  Read the Bible for devotional purposes. Then read the footnotes.  Browse commentaries, biblical dictionaries, and concordances. Stretch yourself beyond popular Christian books, like “90 Minutes in Heaven” and “The Shack.”  Read those if you want, but also try more substantive things.  Set a goal of at least one substantive book per month.  I am currently reading books covering Church History (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath), Biblical Studies (Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition by Martin Middlestadt), and Christian Apologetics (Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli).  Though I am more interested in some areas of Biblical Studies/ Theology than others, I try to read enough to maintain a robust understanding of Scripture.

Go through the responsible steps.  We have discussed hermeneutics at length, so I can be brief here. Every passage of Scripture requires careful and intentional study.  Determine the context, the genre, the historical and cultural background, etc.

Find a couple of leaders/teachers that you trust.  But, know them—both their fruit and their presuppositions. When I am preparing to preach/teach something and need understanding, I normally consult ministers that I respect.  Have they taught on this passage before?  What did they say?  Some of them I know personally, such as my father and Dr. Brassfield. There are others that I have never met, such as John Piper and Mark Driscoll.  I access their printed material online, download their sermons from iTunes, or browse through their books that I own.

When consulting others, consider their lifestyles and their presuppositions.  I can’t view someone as an “authority” on Scripture if his life does not reflect Christian character. Similarly, I research his presuppositions and perspectives.  We all see the world through our biases.  Know the “biases” of the teacher, and try to filter through them.

The blog returns.

I have been reading the book, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea” by Alister McGrath.  It is a history (and a commentary) on the Protestant Movement from the Reformation period until the present.  I love the Reformation era, and McGrath tells the story as a skilled and insightful historian.  Martin Luther and the other reformers revolutionized the shape of Christianity by their duel insistence that the Bible should be available in the vernacular (the native tongue) of the people and that each Christian has a right to interpret the Bible.  Prior to the Reformation, the Bible was only available in Latin. Thus, only the educated clergy had access to the Scripture.  The Church also reserved the right to interpret Scripture.  Since the Bible can be interpreted differently, the Church saw itself as the standard.  Luther insisted, however, since all Christians belong to “a priesthood of believers,” they should all have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves.  He seemed to be surprised by the ramifications of his conclusions.  Soon, some of his followers engaged in a dangerous and irresponsible battle, that became known as “The Peasants War of 1525.”  When Luther tried to convince them that Scripture taught subjection the governing authorities, the peasants responded: “That’s your interpretation, not ours.”  In Switzerland, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin worked to reform the Church. They came to some different conclusions than Luther and their respective followers eventually developed serious animosity towards one another.  The story continues today.  Because we all have the right to interpret Scripture, we continue to split and schism and start new denominations and new churches.

I had a chance to ponder this topic with a few pastors over breakfast recently.  Somehow, the movie “Twilight” came up in conversation (Grown men talking about Twilight.  I know.  Take a break from reading and laugh.  Done laughing yet? Ok, let’s move on).  Some guys felt strongly against it—others thought it was harmless.  And the Bible doesn’t really deal with teenage vamplre and werewolf movies.  Then, we started to talk about movies, music, and literature.  How do we know what is right and what is wrong?  There are a million issues about which reasonable and devoted Christians disagree.   So, I ask you—who gets to set the standard? How do you understand the Bible? Do you completely trust a pastor or a mentor?  Do you insist on the right to draw your own conclusions?  Do you read or listen to certain people who have earned your respect? 

Let’s discuss these issues for a week or so.  Then, I will post my method of ensuring that I am rightly understanding and applying Scripture.

Go. 

Recently, my father and I took a little vacation out west.  We travelled from Phoenix to the Grand Canyon, through the Mojave Desert, to the Bay of San Francisco, down the Pacific Coast to sunny Los Angeles.  It was a week full of once-in-a-lifetime experiences.  We took a 4X4 Jeep through the mountains, hiked the Grand Canyon, sailed around the Golden Gate and Alcatraz, cruised through Pebble Beach, and walked the streets of Hollywood. 

Of all the exciting moments, one event stands out.  We were in Sedona, AZ at the Chapel of the Holy Cross.  It is a small sanctuary snuggly situated in the mountains, overlooking some of the finest scenery nature has to offer.  Dad and I reverently entered the chapel and briefly bowed at the prayer bench.  The serenity of the moment was interrupted by the sobbing of a woman seated nearby.  We quietly moved outside to allow her some privacy and to take in the breathtaking view, which can neither be described in words nor captured in images.

The lady from the chapel soon came outside, her makeup smeared and her eyes swollen.  She took a seat close to us and gazed ahead with a melancholy stare.  Soon, the tears resumed.  A little later, the stream of tears transformed to a river and her body shook as she wept.  My dad, who is nonintrusive by nature, could no longer remain idle.  He took a seat beside her, introduced himself as a pastor, and asked if he could help her pray.  I eavesdropped on the conversation and my heart slowly broke as she began to tell her story.

“Two years ago,” the lady explained, “my daughter was murdered.  I need closure, to move on. I just don’t know how.  I have this box of her belongings, and I want to bury it.  But, I don’t know where.  I have been all over town, and I can’t find the right place.  I’m a Christian, but I have no peace in this situation.  I just don’t know what to do.  Will you pray that God will give me direction?”

As I listened in on the conversation, I continued to breathe in the crisp air and stare across the beautiful landscape.  The gravity of the moment struck me, and I began to theologize. I reflected on our beautiful and broken world.  I recalled how God made the world good, and how Adam and Eve lived in utopian paradise. They were whole physically, spiritually, emotionally, and relationally.  Then sin entered in and broke God’s good world.  The beauty remains, but it is tarnished by brokenness.  Thus, this poor soul can gaze across the most beautiful scenery in the world while simultaneously experiencing the most intense grief in the world.  Indescribable beauty.  Indescribable brokenness.

We have to accept this reality—we live in a beautifully broken world.  Some Christians focus on the brokenness and depravity of the world, haplessly waiting on a “gospel ship” to take them to the “other side of Jordan.”  They fail to appreciate the natural grace granted by God and miss the beauty of this world.  Other Christians deny the brokenness of this world.  They believe that their faith will keep all sickness, suffering, and sorrow far away.  They fail to acknowledge that this world is imperfect.  They don’t understand that the battle cry of the early church was “Maranatha (Lord come!)” because the Spirit-filled followers of Jesus recognized that this world is seriously flawed and awaits the final redemption of the Son. 

The streams of beauty and brokenness that implicitly define our reality explicitly converged in Sedona. 

What do you think? Do you have a “theology of suffering”?  How do you explain bad things that happen to good people?  How do you counsel a sincere Christian that is going through an especially difficult trial?

It has been said, “When it all is said and done, more gets said than done.” I guess this has been the frustration of millions of leaders since the first tribal chieftain held the first campfire council. It has been my experience that Leaders as a rule have plenty of vision. We love to dream. But learning to take a vision and manage the process toward its completion is something else. So it is all right to ask, even shout the question, “How in the world do you get a vision from the drawing board to the boardroom, and from there to the people who are going to be benefited by it?” The answer is found in the partnership that must be made between Leadership and Management. 

Leadership can cast a vision, motivate, even inspire, but management must put the action, materials, and manpower into motion to produce the desired result. Leadership and management are not the same thing, and I think we have yet to understand that in ministry. Therefore, small ministries with big dreams seem to be the best that many can produce. In ministry today we often have truckloads of vision and spoonfuls of management skills. As a result, our impact is negligible at best and destructive at worst, leaving us with our leadership numbers in decline. Why? Because when a visionary leader fails to partner with people who possess management abilities, he quickly overheats and burns out as a result of the flaming passion for his vision and no mechanism by which to bring it to pass. 

Leadership and Management…

While both leadership and management are executive functions, leadership is about where you are going, management is about how you get there; leadership is about progress, and management is about performance. We must have them both to achieve, and they must work together and not against each other. How? I’m glad you asked.

 The process of leadership in an organization normally involves several steps, including:

 •   A foundational set of guiding and defining values.

•   A clear vision that answers the “why do you exist?” question.

•   A mission that answers the “what are you going to do?” question.

•   A strategic plan that answers the “how and when are you going to do it?” questions.

 The first three are essentially leadership responsibilities. But the fourth, the strategic plan, is the step where management becomes urgent to the process. It is the strategic plan step where people must now engage in purposeful action if success is to be achieved. Here the process ceases to be visionary and abstract, and now becomes measurable. Here the subjective becomes objective and it is time for management to step in and execute. This is the pivotal place where leadership must shift to management, and management must put the nuts and bolts together to make the vision vehicle run down the road to achievement.  Often it is in this step that ministry vision comes apart at the seams because visionary leaders are often poor managers. If you are a visionary leader you must recruit managers who can assist you in implementation.

 The challenge of ministry management…

In business the vision of a company is a type of vehicle. It is a vehicle made up of supply and demand, leverage, margins, and materials combined to produce results, and ultimately upward movement in the bottom line. This nuts and bolts metaphor is a good analogy in most arenas, but not in ministry. There is a difference between getting the job done in the secular and getting the job done in the sacred. While I’m preaching, we must have management type people. We must train them with a ministry mindset and keep them filled with the Spirit. I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush here, but often management types bring with them their own set of challenges. Management people tend to be more analyst than leadership types. Therefore they tend to be fairly detail oriented, can be possessive, territorial, and lack the people skills needed to motivate the troops. That may be OK in manufacturing, but not in ministry. Let me explain.

For example, in businesses like manufacturing, if there is a problem with the leadership or with production, the assembly line or in sales, you can take the system apart, isolate the defective component and fix it. Then you can put it back together and get going again. But you can’t always do that in ministry. Why? Because when we talk about ministry we are really talking about the Body of Christ. In other words, it is a living thing. Everything relates to something else. I tell pastors all the time, ministry is more like medicine than business. We must always remember that when a doctor treats a patient he is well aware that everything he does affects something else. Treat one area and the other areas experience the pain, or even the side effects of the medication. And often while treating one illness we can create another.

In all, the relationship between visionary leadership and executive level management can be a challenging one because we see things through different lens. The first, progress  (forward movement through change); the second, performance (systematic operations and maintenance of the status quo). It can be very difficult to be constantly moving into new territory while performing at a high level. But if both are committed to the vision and understand the real value that each brings to the team, balance can be achieved. When it happens it is a beautiful thing.

Coaching Tips For Leaders & Managers:

1.  Share the vision and the passion for the goal! Focusing on the same goal helps, even if you see it from different perspectives.

2.  Collaborate: consistent communication is the first priority in every effective and productive relationship.

3.  Celebrate wins together, carefully highlighting the part each role played in the success.

4. Practice looking at goals and systems through the lens of the other team member’s perspectives. Understanding is critical to cooperation.