We all love to hear good news. You go to the doctor and get a healthy diagnosis. You get a pay raise or promotion at work. Your mortgage is paid off. Your child is born after 9 months. We all know what it’s like to receive good news!

And many times, what makes good news really good news is when there’s a problem that has been overcome. Being cancer-free is good news after overcoming the painful experience of fighting cancer. Paying off your credit card debt is relieving after facing years of that financial burden. Good news is often good news because it’s a better reality.

And there’s a word that we use in churches a lot; if you’ve ever been in church for more than 30 minutes, you’ve heard that word before. The word “gospel.” It comes from a Greek word that more directly means “good news.”

And when we talk about gospel in our circles, we’re talking about the gospel of Jesus! That there is good news with Jesus! In fact, everything about Christianity hinges on this good news of Jesus Christ.

But before we can talk about why Jesus is such good news, we have to answer an even more basic question: why do we even need good news?

Because if everything is fine, then the story of Jesus is just nice information. But if something is wrong with us, or even beyond us and with our world, then the gospel becomes the greatest announcement we’ve ever heard!

And deep down, we can feel that something isn’t right. We feel it every time another war breaks out. Every time a family falls apart. Every time a disease takes someone we love away. Deep down, something feels off about the world we live in.

But that wasn’t always the case. You see, back when there was nothing, an all-powerful and eternal being began the story of the universe. He began to create the cosmos!

Genesis 1:1-2: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

God set the universe into motion. With his power and his imagination, he begins to create all things. But God, he doesn’t just create out of nothing. He doesn’t simply let the universe combust into chaos. Instead, we see that he creates the cosmos with order.

And that’s what we really see in Genesis 1, God ordering the cosmos. The first half of creation is him forming: he creates light, and then a firmament, and then he separates water from dry land and allows plants to flourish. Then in the second half, God begins filling. He fills the cosmos with the sun, moon, and stars, and they will act as lights. He fills the sky and waters with creatures. And then finally, he creates creatures to dwell on the land.

And by creating and ordering the cosmos, God enacted his rule over it all! He revealed himself as the sovereign king over all of creation! It’s why the Scripture says things like…

Psalm 103:19: The Lord has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.

God is king over all things, and creation was the first thing to demonstrate his royal authority. And a good king, a good ruler, would bring about order, peace, and flourishing to his land. And that’s exactly what God does.

And the way God completes this ordering of creation is by making one more creature, human beings. But humans are not ordinary creatures. God gives them a distinct identity and a distinct responsibility:

Genesis 1:27-28: So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth.”

God makes humans his image, which means that we reflect God in the world. What do we reflect of God? We reflect his kingship. God creates us to co-rule and continue ordering his creation. What an amazing privilege, for God to delegate his authority to us!

All He asked in return was that we honor his order and respect his rule as king of the cosmos.

And for a moment, imagine a world where everyone and everything lived under the wise and loving reign of God. A world full of peace and order and flourishing. A world where humanity works with God rather than against him. That’s the world Genesis opens with! A world where God reigns. And where God reigns, creation flourishes.

But every kingdom reaches a defining moment. Will its people trust the wisdom of their King, or will they seek to rule on their own? We get our answer rather quickly. The first image bearers are told they could eat of any fruit in the garden, except for the fruit of a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To submit to God’s ways would be continuing flourishing; to subvert his rule would lead to death.

And a deceiver in the form of a dragon, a serpent, whispered deception into the ears of the humans. But really, he told them what they wanted to hear: that eating the tree would make them like God. That they could define good and evil for themselves.

Genesis 3:6: The woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

The humans believed that they did not need God to rule. They wanted to be the kings and queens of their own lives, so they pridefully rebelled against God’s ways, they dethroned him.

This moment was not simply just disregard for God’s command. This was an act of treason against God’s kingdom!

And when God’s reign is rejected, chaos follows. And that’s what happens here! Everything gets turned upside down. Every sphere of creation is thrown into chaos. When God confronts the man and the woman, he curses the serpent to be in conflict with humanity; the man and woman face hardships, and they are destined to die. But God even curses the ground, causing thorns and hardship.

And ultimately, the first image bearers are exiled from the garden, from the very presence of God:

Genesis 3:23-24: So the Lord God sent him away from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove the man out and stationed the cherubim and the flaming, whirling sword east of the garden of Eden to guard the way to the tree of life.

When God’s reign is rejected, order turns into chaos. And with the cosmos cursed, it seems like there is no clear path back.

In fact, humanity will make sure that doesn’t happen, because we will continue to reject God’s reign. We’ll continue to bring more and more chaos. Humanity continues to follow the legacy of the first image bearers. In our pride, we believe that God is not a good king. In our pride, we believe we know better than God. So we dethrone him from our lives. We define good and evil by our own terms. We commit treason against God’s kingdom.

And those acts of treason, of dethroning the king of the cosmos, we call that sin. And rejecting God’s kingship, we have an empty throne, waiting for someone or something to rule. Humanity continues to try to assert false kings and worship false gods. We place our hopes and dreams into rulers, believing that they will make the world better. And we as individuals sometimes place ourselves as the kings and queens of our lives.

Rather than a good God maintaining order, humanity gladly submitted to rival powers that are competing for rule, whether that’s corrupt earthly rulers, or sin, or death, or spiritual realities. From this point on, the biblical story, the story of human history, is filled with slavery, idolatry, violence, oppressive kingdoms, injustice, and spiritual forces that seek to keep God’s world in bondage. By rejecting God, we find our own lives are filled with chaos.

But despite the best efforts from those rival powers, God never actually stops ruling. He is the sovereign creator who is enthroned over all things. It’s against his nature for things to remain in chaos. So instead, he seeks to bring about order again. He seeks to reestablish his rightful rule as king before all and bring order to all things.

And the amazing thing is that he didn’t want to do it alone. God always wants to partner with his image-bearers to bring about flourishing. So not only does he want to reestablish his throne, but he wants to restore us back to our vocation of co-rulers. So he begins to reclaim the world through humans.

His ascendancy to the throne happens with a man named Abraham, a man whom he told:

Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you, I will curse anyone who treats you with contempt, and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Abraham would eventually have descendants who would be called Israel. God tells Israel:

Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you will carefully listen to me and keep my covenant, you will be my own possession out of all the peoples, although the whole earth is mine, and you will be my kingdom of priests and my holy nation.”

By God calling Israel a kingdom of priests, he’s saying that they’re God’s representatives to the earth. By being the nation that submits to God’s reign, by following his commands, they will be a kingdom that brings God to the nations and brings the nations to God! God gave Israel the vocation to spread his reign throughout the earth once again!

But unfortunately at this point, Israel failed in their vocation. Instead, they followed the pattern left by the first image bearer, Adam. God placed Adam in a land, and God placed Israel in a land. Both were given divine commands, both were called to submit to God’s kingship. But both failed to keep God as king. As soon as they could, Israel demanded that human kings rule them instead of God. They worshipped other false gods. And just like Adam was exiled from the land, Israel was also ultimately exiled. Where God’s reign is rejected, chaos follows.

And through Israel’s story, I think we learn two ideas. First, it is impossible for humans to truly bring order on their own. They will always fail. They will always find a way to bring about more and more chaos.

But second, Israel shows us that God refuses to abandon his plan. Instead, he uses it as an opportunity to deepen his promise. Even while under human kings, God speaks to and works through Israel. He even says to one particular king named David that through his lineage there will be a good king to come that will have an everlasting rule. And even as Israel is about to faced with exile, God promises that he is going to send them a king, a king who is anointed by the Spirit of God, a king who would restore Israel and have a good rule.

Isaiah 9:6-7: For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on his shoulders. He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. The dominion will be vast, and its prosperity will never end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever.

Isaiah 61:1-2: The Spirit of the Lord God is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of our God’s vengeance; to comfort all who mourn

Israel is waiting for God’s reign to break into history. They wait for an anointed one, a king that God would send. We call this person the Messiah because in Hebrew that means “anointed one.” And through this king, the nations would be blessed like promised through Abraham. This king would have a rule defined by peace and justice. This king would bring order to the nations.

Isaiah 52:7: How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the herald, who proclaims peace, who brings news of good things, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!”

For Israel, the announcement of good news was not simply that they’ve been forgiven. It meant, “The king has arrived!” It meant that their messianic expectations had been fulfilled. It meant that they would finally be liberated from the evil powers. God would defeat the nations, end exile, and establish his reign once again!

And we live in a world that longs for this good news as well because we live in a world that is out of order. We feel the chaos every time that we bury loved ones, every time relationships break, every time there is injustice, every time we find ourselves falling into the same toxic patterns. But these aren’t isolated problems. This is the continued result of rebellion against God. And we are left unable to heal ourselves or the world.

We desperately need good news! We need good news that…

• Restores God’s reign over his world

• Defeats the evil powers in rule

• Brings order to the cosmos

• Restores rebels to their rightful King

• Fulfills Israel’s messianic expectations

We need good news because where God reigns, creation flourishes, and where God’s reign is rejected, chaos follows. So right now, humanity desperately needs good news. The entire world is groaning in anticipation for this good news. And you as an individual, who has committed treason against the sovereign king, you need good news, too.

While we’ll talk all about this good news next week, I don’t want to leave you in the dark. Because the good news is that this king from Israel has arrived, and his name is Jesus. And through Jesus, God is bringing about his good reign. Jesus has reversed the curse of the cosmos, he has brought victory over the evil powers, and he has cleared our charges of treason!

Subscribe now

If you would like to read more about my approach the gospel, check out this series I did in the past, starting with this post:

Despite some who say otherwise, Jesus and the Pharisees are clearly in conflict with each other in each of the Gospels.1

Why?

Their conflict is often portrayed as being about theological frameworks— law and legalism vs grace. The problem with this, as I have extensively argued in a previous article, is that this contrast was foreign to Jewish conversations and not at all what Jesus was teaching. No Jew believed that they had to “earn” their good standing before God, and Jews recognized that they were graciously God’s chosen.

What caused conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, then? Many theories have been given— I would like to offer my own suggestion. I think there were three main areas of conflict that collided together in a perfect storm: conflict over influence, conflict over halakhah, and conflict over eschatological timeline.

Conflict Over Influence

While the political power of the Pharisees waxed and waned, they were consistently shown to have been influential with the general populace: “their influence was with the masses, the bulk of common Jews, farmers, merchants, traders, manual laborers, etc.”2

When Jesus arrives on the scene, he begins to rise in prominence— he is regularly seen teaching large crowds, healing the sick, and being followed by the masses (Matt 4:23-25; 9:35-36; Mark 3:7-10; John 6:1-2, etc.). The Pharisees avoid taking too swift an action because of Jesus’s popularity with the masses (Matt 21:43). But there is only so much influence that can go around, which is why they say to each other in dismay, “Look, the world has gone after him” (John 12:19b).

Based on other historical efforts for influence in their time, the Pharisees were likely protective of what they’d gained. Saldarini believes this is the central area of their conflict: “Jesus and the Pharisees did not argue over theological issues which were of interest to a limited number of Jews, but rather competed for control over the community.”3

While their quest for power and influence is likely a prominent aspect of their conflict, other additional layers are key.

Conflict Over Halakhah

Halakhah is how one lives out the instructions of God, particularly in the areas where the Torah is “silent.” During Second Temple Judaism, there were many halakhic disputes, arguments on how to faithfully live out God’s ways.

These disputes happened between different Jewish groups (as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls) and within Jewish groups like the Pharisees (as evidenced in later rabbinic literature).

So when we look at the Gospels, it shouldn’t surprise us to find halakhic disputes. In fact, it would be suspect to not find any! However, Jesus and the Pharisees find themselves in constant conflict over how to interpret the Torah faithfully. As a result, Jesus participates in normative halakhic conversations— this is why different people seek to test Jesus (Matt 19:3; Luke 10:25).4 Thus, we see classic halakhic disputes such as what constitutes working on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6; John 9:1-34) or what are grounds for divorce (Matt 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18).

What made Jesus’s halakhah and the Pharisees’ halakhah cause such strong conflict? In a previous article, I argued that the Pharisees had a reading of the Torah that was relatively relaxed (at least compared to the Essenes)— they wanted all of Israel to follow God’s ways faithfully. But when Jesus enters the scene, he has serious concerns with such an approach. He finds that their halakhah went too far from God’s intent, so he develops a halakhah that is more rigorous. This is perhaps most evident in the Sermon on the Mount, particularly Matthew 5, but we’ll have to save that for another time!

Jesus and the Pharisees oppose each other because how they teach to live out Torah looked different. The Pharisees were more relaxing, and Jesus was more rigorous. However, there are also times when Jesus appears to be more relaxing of Torah, and the Pharisees look more strict! This is partially due to the nature of interpretation— language like “relaxed” and “strict” are relative terms, and the complex weave of theology does not easily allow for such consistency.

But I think the other reason Jesus might sometimes have a more relaxed halakhah than the Pharisees is due to the final reason for conflict: eschatological differences.

Conflict Over Eschatological Timeline

Israel maintained a covenant with God. If they maintained their part of the covenant by being obedient to God and his ways, then they would be promised various blessings (Deut 28:1-14). However, if they did not obey the commands God gave them, they would receive covenantal curses (Deut 28:15-68). Among these curses is the promise to “be ripped out of the land you are entering to possess. Then the LORD will scatter you among all peoples from one end of the earth to the other (Deut 28:63-64).

The Prophets speak against Israel’s unfaithfulness to God, and they warn that unless they repent, they will receive judgment from God through these curses. That is ultimately what ends up happening. The Assyrian army invades Israel and scatters them, and then later on the Babylonian Empire takes the people of Judah into exile. Eventually, they are then taken by the Persians, who then allow them to return to Israel.

As much as God promised curses, he also promised that restoration would happen out of his compassion, that he “‘will restore the fortunes of my people Israel and Judah’” (Jer 30:3) and return them out of exile (Isa 27:12-13; Zech 8:7-8). That seemed to be what happened, right?

The problem is that even upon returning from their exile, Israel was still under a sort of spiritual exile— the covenantal curses were still at work. They were enslaved within their promised land, unable to receive the fruit of their harvest (Neh 9:36-37). The temple was rebuilt, but it was seemingly insignificant and filled with dissatisfaction (Hag 2:3; Ezra 3:12-13).

By the time we reach the first century, the common notion was that Israel was still under their covenantal curses— the restoration had not yet taken place, and it would not happen until the Messiah came to usher in this era. This would only happen if Israel repented:

¹“When all these things happen to you—the blessings and curses I have set before you—and you come to your senses while you are in all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, ²and you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and all your soul by doing everything I am commanding you today, ³then he will restore your fortunes,, have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. (Deut 30:1-3)

When all of God’s people return to him in faithfulness, then God will restore Israel. This is the basic premise that explains why the Pharisees teach how they teach and why their halakhah is as lenient as it is: they wanted as many people to follow God faithfully, which led to an often more relaxed interpretation of the Torah.

On the other hand, Jesus and his ministry declared that the restoration of Israel was not a future hope but a reality that was arriving soon:

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15)

¹⁷The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him, and unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written: ¹⁸The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, ¹⁹to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.,

²⁰He then rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. And the eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. ²¹He began by saying to them, “Today as you listen, this Scripture has been fulfilled.” (Luke 4:17-21)

²⁰When he was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; ²¹no one will say, ‘See here!’ or ‘There!’ For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21)

The Pharisees and Jesus had a fundamental disagreement over God’s eschatological timeline. For Jesus, this creates urgency and explains why he is often more relaxed about how to keep the Sabbath, matters of table fellowship, and fasting practices (Matt 9:14-17). Jesus was announcing the inbreaking of God’s Kingdom, and one’s faithfulness should result in present attentiveness. The Pharisees saw Jesus as a dissident who was causing Israel to stray away from faithfulness, therefore delaying God’s promised restoration.

Inescapable Conflict

Jesus found himself in conflict with the Pharisees for a variety of reasons. As his ministry continued, the conflict deepened, the temperature began to rise, and this eventually escalated in plots for destruction and arrest (although, interestingly enough, the Synoptic Gospels never depict the Pharisees as being involved with Jesus’s arrest, trial, or crucifixion).

But it’s within these conflicts that the Gospels present who Jesus is: he is God’s Messiah who is teaching people how to faithfully follow God’s ways as he brings about God’s Kingdom to the world.

Last week, the United States celebrated 250 years of independence and other freedoms. Many have offered their own reflections on the nation, and today I would like to offer my own.

We (Americans) often approach The Revolutionary War matter-of-factly: there was a need for independence, war happened, it led to independence, so the war was good and celebrated. In Christianity, some may argue that the American Revolution was a necessity in order to bring about Christian virtue and principles, that since America is/was a “Christian nation,” the events leading to independence were good and justified.

But I would like to press some of those assumptions with a question: Should Christians have participated in the American Revolutionary War?

We might arrive at some assumed conclusions. However, I believe it’s still worth pondering. History is a complex weave of cause and effect relationships— it’s sometimes difficult or unfair to judge decisions based on our modern lens.

But by sincerely and transparently evaluating the past, it may help inform our present cultural moment, how we navigate the world today.

Let me reframe the question theologically to put more pressure on the issue: Would our kingly Lamb Jesus have expected Christians to participate in the American Revolution project?

Arguments Then

Before we even dare suggest an answer, perhaps we should be aware of the positions around the time of the War.

We might think every person (or at least every Christian) was pro-revolution. But the landscape was much more varied. Some were certainly in support of fighting for independence— the Patriots. Others, the Loyalists, believed it best to avoid dissension and remain with (or fight alongside) Britain. Many other colonists didn’t have a clear side and instead simply desired peace.

The Christian voices of the day (and yes, there were many who were not Christian) were also diverse. You can find various primary sources on the matter from the Library of Congress exhibit.

Loyalists

One of the key passages that Loyalists (those who were in favor of British rule) use to make their case was Romans 13:1-7, which reads:

¹Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God. ²So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. ³For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. ⁴For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. ⁵Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath but also because of your conscience. ⁶And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s servants, continually attending to these tasks. ⁷Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor. (CSB)

Loyalists objected to the resistance of the Patriots. They believed such violent acts violated the command to submit to governing authorities. The matter becomes messier, however, when it comes to the Anglican denomination. Clergy were required to swear an oath to the King of England, and they therefore couldn’t join the Patriots. Rebellion was not simply an act of resistance but perjury or schism. Some Anglicans fled to England, others joined the Patriots, and others remained steadfast in their convictions that the Revolutionary War was unjustified.

Patriots

Christians who believed it was just to resist the British through violence and war had a particular approach to interpreting passages. Submission was only required for rulers who actually fulfilled the image described by Paul in Romans 13, and the King of England did not fulfill that image. Rather, the colonists were under abusive, tyrannical power, and it was just to oppose such rule to establish a just government. Jonathan Mayhew, a Presbyterian minister, was probably the most influential voice at this time. In a cornerstone sermon (found here), he challenged the idea that Christians were to suffer under and submit to tyrannical rule. It was a Christian’s “glorious” duty to oppose such evil, and he effectively gave moral sanction for political and military resistance. He called resistance to tyranny “glorious” Christian duty, Romans 13 did not apply, and it would be just and right to overthrow tyrannical, abusive rule. Another minister named Abraham Keteltas also argued (found here) that God approved of the war because it would bring justice to evil and bring about good. Their moment was a moment of “heaven against hell.” Surely such tame rhetoric would foster cool heads, right?

Pacifists

Finally, there was a minority of Christians who refused to fight in the war at all— it was unjust to use any form of violence. Quakers, along with Anabaptist camps like Mennonite and Amish communities, held the view that Christians should not bear arms (although a minority group within the Quaker movement supported independence). The additional layer was concern about giving oaths of allegiance (they took Jesus’s command “Do not swear” literally), which placed churches from these groups in difficult positions when the United States ultimately won and required giving allegiance to the newly founded country. You can read more of the pacifists’ calls for tolerance and the consequences for refusal to take oaths here.

Survey Says…

The Christian’s place during the American Revolution was complex and far from uniform. While the Patriot position is the one that ultimately succeeded in convincing the populace, the diversity of views should give us pause. Just because a majority holds a political-theological position does not necessarily mean it is the correct position. We must look further for our own conclusions.

Share

Reflections Today

As I begin to consider the question of Christians and participation in the Revolutionary War, I want to carefully position myself. I am far removed from them. I did not experience what they have experienced, and perhaps my position would be different if I were there. All I can do is approach the texts of Scripture from my interpretive lens and humbly attempt to apply them to a particular context with wisdom.

With that in mind, below are a few of my ever-evolving thoughts.

Submission

I think the Loyalists, regardless of their bias, best approached Romans 13 and similar passages. Whenever Paul calls for the church to “submit to governing authorities,”1 he doesn’t add any qualifiers. He doesn’t say “if they are worthy of submitting” or “if they align with God’s values” or “if the authority fulfills the role of government well.” Rather, Paul condemns those who “resists the authority” because such a resister “is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves.” That’s pretty striking! I think it is also particularly damning that Paul calls for Christians in Romans 13 to pay taxes, yet colonists refused to pay taxes (although this element is more complex, because it wasn’t necessarily about taxes; rather, it was a lack of legal respresentation. That nuance should be recognized even if one ultimately believes the refusal to pay taxes to Britain was unjustified).

Additionally, consider the context in which Paul writes. The Roman Empire is at its height in power. Nero was in rule, he would use Christians as a scapegoat a few years after the Letter to the Romans was written. The Roman Empire brought “peace” through militant coercion (much of the British Empire’s methods were borrowed from a longer legacy of evil abuses of power that could be traced back to Rome and other empires before).

And yet, Paul never called for Christians to rise up and revolt. In the midst of such rule, he called for the church to take a posture of submission. Although injustices would happen, personally or nationally, he instead demanded that believers not seek vengeance but to “leave room for God’s wrath” (Rom 12:18). And as long as the Empire existed, Christians never did institute an organized uprising.

If that was the case for the Christians under the evil rule of Rome, I am skeptical that Christians under British rule would be justified either.

Submission Doesn’t Equal Silence

I’m comfortable establishing that Christians are called to obey and submit to authorities, even if the authority is evil. But if that’s the case, what of other movements in history that may not be revolts, like the Civil Rights Movement or other peaceful protests? Are Christians never allowed to speak against injustices from higher authorities? And what if the government demands a believer to do something that opposes their religious convictions?

If we are to ever read Romans 13 to understand a Christian’s place in a nation, there are other passages that need to be read next to it, particularly Revelation 13. In this chapter, John presents the Roman Empire and the Imperial cult as demonically empowered beasts that directly oppose God and the Lamb. The rest of the book shares heavy critiques of empire and the powers of empire. And ultimately, the empire and those who have given their loyalty to the beasts are judged. Revelation instead demands that Christians not compromise their faith and their loyalty, even if that means facing various forms of social and economic affliction.2

Although Paul calls for Christians to submit to governing authorities, submission does not equal silence. Christians were not called to obey any and all commands of the state, particularly if they opposed God’s will— we might recall the principle used by the apostles in Acts 5, to “obey God rather than people” (Acts 5:29). If something opposes God’s commands or Christ’s ethics, we do not submit to such authority because we have a higher authority and another king to whom we bow.

Christian Resist Differently

Okay, at this point, it may seem like I am going back and forth. It’s a game of tug-of-war, with one side arguing that we should resist authority when it is evil and against God, but another side calls for submission that allows God to be the justice bringer. I imagine many Christians during the American Revolution felt that same tension.

But I think we can satisfy that tension: Christians are called to resist, but they resist differently.

Violent Revolt?

For the Patriots, some believed they were fighting more than just a political evil but a spiritual evil against God. And although they attempted to resist the British Empire in legal ways, we know that the ultimate result was war— violent revolt to force independence.

Many Christians in history operate under an understanding of Just War Theory. If a war is just based on certain criteria, then Christians may be permitted to participate. Here are the traditional criteria3:

1. Wars must be fought on legitimate authority

2. The cause for the war must be just

3. The war must have the right intention

4. War must be a last resort

5. There must be a reasonable hope for justice

6. There must be discrimination (citizens should not be attacked)

7. There must be proportion (good achieved vs harm done)

For those who agree that some wars can be just, we might ask, “Was the American Revolutionary War a just war?” I am not a historian or a political theologian, so this is beyond my capability to discern, as there are many moving pieces. But it is a serious question to consider.

Instead, I’d like to briefly suggest an alternative question: “Can a Christian ever participate in war?” Let’s assume that the American Revolution was justified on a political-governmental level. Are Christians allowed to participate in violence as a form of resistance?

While I respect the tradition of Just War Theory and those who hold it, I find an alternative position more personally convincing.

When we see the ethic of the New Testament, it is unashamedly nonviolent. The authors practically bash us over the head with it! Below are just a select few excerpts:

Luke 6:27-29a: Love your enemies, do what is good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other also.

Romans 12:14: Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Romans 12:17-21 (relevant elements): Do not repay anyone evil for evil… live at peace with everyone… do not avenge yourselves; instead, leave room for God’s wrath… If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink… Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good.

1 Corinthians 4:12b-13: When we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we respond graciously.

Philippians 4:5: Let your graciousness be known to everyone.

Hebrews 12:14: Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness—without it no one will see the Lord.

1 Peter 2:21-23: Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth; when he was insulted, he did not insult in return, when he suffered, he did not threaten but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.

This doesn’t even touch on the teachings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount, where he makes statements like “Blessed are the peacemakers” and “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” In the book of Revelation, one of the strongest critiques against the Roman Empire is its use of violence (Rev 13:7; 17:6; 18:24). I just can't escape the conclusion that the ethic of King Jesus and his kingdom is one of nonviolence!

How far does nonviolence stretch? Is this just a general principle? Are there exceptions made for self-defense? What of war? These are questions that have been debated for centuries, and it is probably worth another article in the future.

For today, however, I would like to cautiously suggest that violent revolt against a government, even if a government is evil and abusive, does not fit within a Christian ethic. And if we were to return to Christians who lived under the Roman Empire, we don’t see a movement of armed revolt. Instead, the earliest Christians regularly opposed Rome through faithful witness— steadfastly following the ways of God regardless of consequences.

Civil Disobedience

Violence is not the only way to resist evil. Another option is what we could call civil disobedience. This is the intentional, nonviolent refusal to obey a law or command because it violates religious obligation or morals. When the government commands something that God forbids (or forbids what God commands), then resistance via disobedience is justified. We might consider Shiphrah and Puah refusing to kill Hebrew boys in Exodus 1, or Daniel continuing to pray despite the king’s decree in Daniel 6, or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to worship the golden statue in Daniel 3.

When we read Revelation’s critique of the Roman Empire, we find that just as it critiques the Empire’s violent tendencies, it also calls for God’s people to resist. But the resistance is not through violence— the call is to follow their kingly Lamb’s nonviolent posture, resistance through faithful prophetic witness. The response to the violence is endurance (Rev 13:10), and to remain faithful to Jesus despite affliction and social pressure (Rev 2-3). Christians do not incite vengeance because God is the bringer of justice and vindication. But we resist by being faithfully disobedient, bringing light to darkness, and being God’s prophetic mouthpiece to the nation where we reside.

The Means of Christ's Kingdom

As Christians, we do not operate under the maxim “the ends justify the means.” Rather, we follow “the means must model the kingdom.” Our model for resistance is not a violent revolutionary in history but the Lamb who willingly gave up his life. We resist evil courageously, prophetically, and through faithful disobedience. We resist not with closed fists but with open palms. We resist through a life of steadfast faithfulness.

Should Christians have participated in the American Revolutionary War? Would Jesus the Lamb have expected Christians to join? We can say with some confidence that the British Empire abused its power and acted in ways that were against the Christian ethic. However, I do not believe Christians were justified in fighting in the War. I am grateful for the country I reside in, and much good resulted in the United States gaining independence. But the ends do not justify the means for a Christian; the means must model the kingdom. So War? No. But resistance to the Empire via faithful disobedience and prophetic witness? Certainly! Perhaps such a posture would have led to a gradual, peaceful independence that other countries experienced in later centuries.

As we follow the Lamb today, may we strive not to hide in silence when we see evil and injustice, but may we also not resort to justifying violence. Instead, let us take up bold faithfulness, modeled by the cross-shaped life of Jesus.

Share

Subscribe now

There are many misconceptions about the movement. I argued that they were not legalistic or hated by the public. Rather, they were popular and well-respected, and legalism was not a practiced concept.

Today, I will be offering a reconstruction of the Pharisees. This is not an exhaustive exploration— instead, I want to share three insights that are important to interpreting them well in the Gospels. While last time we looked at what the Pharisees were NOT, here we will consider what they WERE.

To begin, the Pharisees…

WERE Precise

In the last post, we noted that one of the common terms Josephus uses to describe Pharisees is akribeia, a Greek word (and its family) that carries the idea of strictness or exactness. When we assume that Second Temple Judaism was legalistic, we might see the Pharisees being labelled “strict” or “exact” confirming this view. Akribeia becomes a negative term; the Pharisees are splitting hairs and being unnecessarily meticulous when it comes to following Torah.

But as I previously argued, STJ was not legalistic, and the Pharisees were not, either. What, then, do we do with the seemingly negative akribeia?

In reality, akribeia was a positive quality to possess. This is how Josephus uses it in reference to the Pharisees. He says that they “seem to interpret the laws more accurately (akribesteron) (J.W. 1.110), and they “esteemed most skillful in the exact explication (meta akribeias) of their laws” (J.W. 2.162).1 Josephus attributes the word to various people 134 times as a label for honorable people.2 This includes Josephus himself (Life 9)!

Paul also uses the word positively when he describes his education as a Pharisee. He was “educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strictness (akribeia) of our ancestral law” (Acts 22:3, CSB), and he calls the Pharisees “the strictest (akribestatēn) sect of our religion” (Acts 26:5).

Finally, if we were to explore the later rabbinic literature, we find that the conversations are often quite thorough—this may be the result of following a Pharisaic legacy that cared for precision.3

The Pharisees valued following God’s law accurately. “Strictness” has negative connotations, so perhaps a more helpful translation would be along the lines of “precision” or “exactness.” It wasn’t that the Pharisees tried to be nitpicky or overly fastidious; they were attempting to be faithful. All Jews—not just the Pharisees— strove to be as faithful to God’s ways as possible. The Pharisees attempted exact faithfulness through deep precision. What sounds nitpicky to some is piousness to another.

It was this precision, this akribeia, that led to the Pharisees internally debating how to interpret Torah. How do they follow God’s ways in parts of life that God doesn’t give exact instructions? What qualifies as working on the Sabbath? When is divorce permissible? How do we follow purity laws under certain conditions? These discussions were debates on halakhah, a term that describes living out the Torah.

These debates resulted in interpretive conclusions that “added” to God’s law. They were not totally made-up rules to build themselves up, though. Rather, the Pharisees were bringing clarity in how to live out God’s ways precisely and faithfully. Kent Yinger helpfully illustrates this in a Christian context: Should Christians tithe their income before taxes (gross) or after taxes (net)?4 Scripture doesn’t give a black-and-white answer on such a modern issue, so believers would have to interpret Scripture by other means.5

Share

The Pharisees pursued precision when following Torah. However, in a seemingly oxymoronic fashion, they…

WERE Lenient Interpreters

When we hear that Pharisees added to the Law, many immediately assume that they intended to make it harder to follow. In other words, they set a strict, narrow, high standard for what it means to follow God’s ways faithfully.

Such assumptions are a downstream effect of seeing the Pharisees as a legalistic movement. But they weren’t legalistic—Pharisees were precise, desiring to accurately follow God faithfully. They also wanted to help others follow God faithfully, not as a way to earn salvation, but as a response of obedience (and perhaps a desire for God to restore Israel). Certainly, the Pharisees could have developed a strict and burdensome halakhah. And if we started with a few small claims in the Gospels, that may be our conclusion.

But is this what happened? We don’t have a lot of data to consider, but there are two important pieces of evidence that may help clarify the halakhah of the Pharisees.

Josephus

Josephus recounts a conflict between Pharisees and John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean ruler and high priest, in the late second century BC. A group of Pharisees is eating with Hyrcanus at a feast— at this point, he followed the Pharisees and desired them to help him please God and provide correction (A.J. 289-90). But another guest was a man named Eleazar who falsely accuses Hyrcanus’s mother of being sexually violated while held captive under Antiochus Epiphanes. This would ultimately disqualify Hyrcanus from being high priest (see Lev 21:14). Immediately, Hyrcanus and the Pharisees had deep indignation against Eleazar (A.J. 292).

At the same time, a friend of Hyrcanus, a Sadducee named Jonathan, suggests that the Pharisees and Eleazar were actually working together, and this would be apparent when seeking a punishment. Hyrcanus asks the Pharisees what punishment Eleazar deserved, and they suggest stripes and bonds but certainly not death (A.J. 294). Because of this, Hyrcanus believes Jonathan and joins the Sadducees, going as far as removing the Pharisees’ observances given to the people (A.J. 295-96).

Here’s the interesting detail: when Josephus describes the punishment suggested by the Pharisees, he says that “indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments” (A.J. 294). I think there are two conclusions we can make. First, Pharisees were lenient in punishments. We do not know if this speaks of all punishments for breaking God’s Law, or Josephus could be suggesting that the Pharisees eased the usage of execution as punishment. But we can say that the Pharisees’ living out the Torah included, minimally, lenient punishments. Second, the Pharisees punished more leniently than the Sadducees. Sadducees and Pharisees were often in opposition with each other, and in this instance, a Sadducee is using a distinctive element of Pharisaic halakhic conclusions against them. If this was not distinctive, Jonathan would not have been able to weaponize it.

Dead Sea Scrolls

The documents from Qumran are perhaps the most helpful indication of how the Pharisees interpreted the Torah. They often criticize a group labeled “seekers of smooth things,” and this is widely accepted as a reference to the Pharisees. The label is a negative charge that criticizes the group for smoothing over God’s commands with easy interpretations.6 It also may act as a pun: “‘seekers of smooth things’ are in Hebrew dôrshê ha-ḥalaqôt, apparently a pun for ‘seekers of correct behaviour’, dôrshê ha-halakhôt. The latter phrase is a good description of the Pharisees, and the Qumran sectarians, by changing two letters, accused them of being too lenient in their practice of the law.”7

The document 4QMMT (also known as the “Halakhah Letter”) describes legal controversies between the Qumran community and lenient interpreters of Torah. The opponents were likely Pharisees. In 4QMMT, we see the Qumran community argue that flowing liquids offer no purity (B 55-58). the stream effectively connects the two vessels together, making them one.8 On its own, there is not enough to inform us much. However, later rabbinic literature fills in the context— the Pharisees taught the opposite! A stream of liquid flowing downward from a higher, pure vessel to a lower, impure vessel would not cause impurity to travel upward (m. Yad 4:7; m. Tehar. 8:9; m. Maksh. 5:9).9 Those at Qumran believed the Pharisees were too lenient in their halakhah when it came to purity practices.

While I think the evidence in the DSS is strong, a brief caution: a term like “lenient” is a bit subjective. What might seem relaxing to one party may still seem restrictive to another. Of the various Jewish sects, the Essenes at Qumran seem to have the most resitrictive halakhic practices. In a sense, everyone else would be too lenient! However—and I believe this is important— it is notable that they felt the need to label a particular group as “smoothers.” The Pharisees seem to have went beyond what others did, at least in the way of purity regulations.

What we have is a picture of the Pharisees. They were precise— they wanted to accurately observe God’s Law. At the same time, they were relaxed— their halakhah was often more lenient and compromising than other Jewish sects of the day. Their righteous zeal paired with accessible teachings made them popular among the general populace.

Despite this, though, the Pharisees…

WERE In Conflict with Jesus

Up to this point, we have interacted with the Gospels very little. That is not to say that the Gospels are necessarily contradictory to what we know about the Pharisees from other sources. Rather, any reading of the Pharisees will be influenced by outside assumptions. In the future, we’ll look at some examples in the New Testament that support the portrait I have painted.

In any case, we find Pharisees interact with Jesus quite regularly. We often stereotype the movement, assuming that if a few Pharisees were bad, then the entire movement was evil. But is this actually the case? Let me provide two brief considerations.

Not All Bad

First, like other ancient texts, the Gospels provide a limited scope in historical documentation. They give limited details to support a narrative about Jesus. Within this narrative, the Pharisees are characters that are intended to be Jesus’s foil. Therefore, there may have been (and I would argue there certainly were) many nuetral-positive interactions between Jesus and Pharisees that are not recorded— they would not further the story being told.

Second, the Pharisees in the Gospels themselves are not depicted as a complete evil group! A Pharisee named Nicodemus seeks a private and earnest conversation (John 3:1-21). In Luke, Jesus is warned by Pharisees to leave the area to avoid Herod (Luke 13:31)— were they trying to help Jesus, or were they selfishly trying to get him (and his influence) out of their area of power?10 Jesus also dines in the homes of Pharisees on multiple occasions (Luke 7:26-50; 11:37-39; 14:1-6), an unusual circumstance when considering some Pharisees were troubled with Jesus dining with the wrong people (Luke 5:30). Jesus even goes as far as encouraging people to listen to what the Pharisees teach, a positive imperative immediately contrasted with the negative imperative for the crowd to not follow their hypocritical practices (Matt 23:2-3).

So before we even think about Jesus and the Pharisees, the above instances should make us pause our tendancies to stereotype.

Yet Tensions Remain

Now although it sounds like I’m building a case against myself, the Gospels are prettly clear that Pharisees were overhwhelmingly in conflict with Jesus. They dispute over the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-14; Mark 2:23-3:6), Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners (Matt 9:10-13; Luke 5:29-32), circumstances for divorce (Matt 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12), and hanwashing practices (Matt 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23). At one point, the Pharisees “were filled with rage” (Luke 6:11) after a conflict with Jesus, and they planned to destroy him (Matt 12:14; Mark 3:6). Matthew even records that the Pharisees accuse Jesus of using dmeonic power to cast out demons on two separate occasions (Matt 9:34; 12:24)! Jesus also teaches against the Pharisees on various occasions with harsh criticism (Matt 5:20, 23:1-36; Luke 12:1-3; 18:9-14).

I completely agree (with the Gospel authors, with what is often taught) that Jesus and the Pharisees were in conflict with each other. However, I disagree with why they were in conflict. Too often, people teach that the Jesus presented a different faith, one of grace, free of works, in contrast to the Pharisees who upheld legalism via the Law. But the Pharisees were not legalists. Why, then, did Jesus and the Pharisees butt heads so often? We will have to explore this avenue more closely in a future article.

These are the Pharisees

Here is my historical reconstruction: The Pharisees were a group of Jews who attempted to precisely follow God’s ways faithfully. They sought exact meaning of Torah in all areas of life, and their interpretations were often relaxing rather than restrictive. In a desire for more people in Israel to live faithfully to God, they made faithfulness easier, not harder, to accomplish. And although they were loved by the masses, they often found themselves in conflict with a teacher from Nazareth named Jesus.

If this reconstruction is accurate, it will force us to adjust our teaching on various passages in the Gospels. In fact, I have already made one of these corrections. And perhaps you have different passages in the Gospels that cause you to question this reading. We’ll get to them in due time, but you can also interact with me in the comments of this post as well!

Leave a comment

Even if you aren’t totally convinced (at least, convinced yet), I hope this provacative dualogy of articles has given you pause to reflect on what you’ve been taught. But if you believe something within these articles would be valuable to someone, please consider sharing it!

Share

And if you want to look more into the Pharisees, consider checking out the following recent books:

• The Pharisees by Kent L. Yinger. Probably my favorite and the most comprehensive book on the Pharisees. He presents a pretty convincing picture (although, I do have a few minor disagreements with him). This is the gold standard resource for any understanding of the Pharisees.

• The Pharisees edited by Joseph Seivers and Amy-Jill Levine. A collection of essays on various specific topics related to the Pharisees related to historical reconstruction, reception history, and thinking to the future. If you want a detailed examination on a particular aspect of the Pharisees, this is the resource you need.

See you again soon!

Subscribe now

From a purely narrative standpoint, they’re amazing foils to Jesus. They push the story forward, but their conflicts further reveal Jesus and what he believes.

They’re quite mysterious. We really don’t know a lot about them beyond a few ancient documents. Trying to fill in all the gaps can be quite fun at times.

But the Pharisees are also often misunderstood. A history of inaccurate reconstruction has led to harmful stereotypes and bad readings of passages in the Gospels. If we want to honor history and faithfully read the New Testament, we must better understand the Pharisees.

In this series, we’re going to unpack what we can about the Pharisees. This will require some deconstructing and reconstructing. And today is demolition day! In this article, we’ll focus on what the Pharisees were not. We’ll be looking at some key scholarship and ancient sources.

When it comes to the ancient literature for Pharisaic studies, I have a priority system for reliability:

1. Josephus

2. Dead Sea Scrolls

3. Rabbinic Literature

If you want to better understand why the sources are in this order, consider reading my previous article on the subject:

Okay, let’s get started! Our deconstruction is not exhaustive, but it will be a starting point in correcting key misconceptions about the Pharisees. Let’s start with the most foundational misconception. Pharisees…

Were NOT Legalistic

One of the most common assumptions about Pharisees is often the least accurate: they were not legalists.

It is commonly taught that the Jewish people held to legalism— that they believed they had to merit God’s favor through following the Torah. This then bleeds into every facet of reading the New Testament: Jesus brings about a system of grace that does not require works for salvation; instead, salvation is offered freely by his obedience to God. Jesus then finds himself in conflict with the Pharisees because Pharisees were legalistic to the nth degree. In fact, they would add rules to and around the Torah so that they could prove themselves even more righteous in front of others, and they would judge others’ righteousness based on these arbitrary rules.

But upon a closer examination of Scripture and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars in the mid-1970s disproved the notion that Second Temple Judaism was a works-based religion. Instead, STJ was a grace-based, covenantal religion (E.P. Sanders, who helped correct the standard Christian interpretation, coined this “covenantal nomism”1). Faithful Jews believed that they were recipients of God’s grace—God graciously chose them to be his people, he had made a covenant with Israel, he gave them the Torah so that they could learn to live faithfully to his ways, etc. And as a response to God’s gracious covenant, Israel obeyed the Torah. Obedience led to covenantal blessings while disobedience led to covenantal curses.

Now at this point, most people turn their attention to Paul’s letters: if the concept of earning salvation through works was foreign to Paul (in that it wasn’t baked into Jewish faith), then what issue is healing dealing with in Romans and Galatians? Those are important issues to explore, but we’re going to take a more leisurely pace and remain with the Pharisees.

Is it possible that Pharisees, rather than being exemplars of Second Temple Judaism, are outliers? Even though Judaism as a whole was grace-based, had the Pharisaic movement distorted their faith, making it works-based? There are three key elements in understanding the Pharisees that lead some to this reading.

Akribeia

Setting aside rabbinic literature about the Pharisees, which is largely legal interpretation and dated much later than the Pharisees, our main consideration is Josephus’s usage of the Greek word akribeia— often translated as “strict” but often better “precise” or “exact.”2 He says that the Pharisees “seem to interpret the laws more accurately (akribesteron)” (J.W. 1.110), and they were “esteemed most skillful in the exact explication (meta akribeias) of their laws” (J.W. 2.162).3 At first glance, this sounds like a negative trait— that they were splitting hairs and being unnecessarily meticulous.

Traditions of the Elders

Additionally, the Pharisees were known for their received traditions, and they held those traditions in high authority (Josephus, A.J. 13.297, 13.408; see Mark 7:3). These traditions were likely seen as oral laws that stretched back to Moses himself, information that was implicit in the text.4

Halakhah

Finally, there are the legal disputes and interpretations of the Torah, wrapped up in the term halakhah. Halakhah describes one’s way of living out the Torah— how to apply it to the “gray” areas of life that God’s commandments didn’t explicitly address. These may include topics like permissibility for divorce, what it means to rest on the Sabbath, and various purity regulations. But Jewish groups often disagreed with each other, leading to halakhic disputes. Examples of these disagreements are located throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls— including one document, 4QMMT (or the “Halakhah Letter”) that seemingly pits the Qumran community’s interpretation against the Pharisees’! Later rabbinic literature also shows that there may have been different schools of halakhic thought within Pharisaism as well— Hillel and Shammai (b. Shabb. 30B). Halakhah was central to the heart of Judaism, and as interpreters of the Torah, it is central to understanding the Pharisees.

Still Not Legalistic

These three ideas— akribeia, received tradition, and halakhah— are the vital concepts when reconstructing who the Pharisees were and what they believed. When we start with the assumption that Jews were trying to “earn their way into heaven,” it’s easy to conclude that the Pharisees cared only about making a bunch of rules, following a bunch of rules, and holding everyone to their standard of rules. As my Sunday school teacher used to say, the Pharisees were “fair, you see.” In a legalistic religion, Pharisees would stand on top in every way, and they become everything that Jesus sees wrong with the Jewish faith.

But what happens when we remove the legalism cornerstone in the home that Christian thinkers built for their Jewish relatives? The rest of the house falls! Removing that vital interpretative element forces us to reconsider the concepts that build our understanding of the Pharisees. It doesn’t seem possible that the Pharisees could even be legalistic outliers. The available evidence leads us somewhere else.

When we read the Jewish faith as covenantal and grace-based (because it is), we can better understand why the Pharisees were known for their strictness or precision and why they went to such lengths in interpreting the Torah through halakhah. But you’ll have to wait until the second part of this series to see my proposal. For now, we can say with some confidence that the Pharisees practiced under a grace-based system of faith with the rest of Second Temple Judaism.

If there is one thing that you take away from this article, I’d like it to be this: Pharisees were not legalistic. This misconception needs to die.

How about their reputation? From what we know, they…

Were NOT Elitists or Hated by the Public

Another misconception often shared is that the Pharisees, in their religious zeal, were disliked by the public. They turned their noses up at the average person, believing themselves to be elite. And in adding their rules through their teachings, they actually made following the Torah more burdensome.

Much of this is speculative and assumptive about certain stories in the Gospels (some of it may also be retroactive: the Pharisees are often the enemies of Jesus in the Gospels, and that becomes a filter of interpretation). When we turn to Josephus, we hear a different perspective. The Pharisees were popular and well-loved— at one point, he says that “the Pharisees have the multitude on their side” (A.J. 13.298). We could go as far as to say that Pharisees were the people’s teachers— Pharisees were seen as faithful followers of God, and their teachings allowed others to be faithful as well.

Part of the popularity with the public is likely due to their relatability. Unlike Sadducees, who were socially elite (A.J. 13.198), the Pharisees lived a life of simplicity (A.J. 18.12). We don’t know much about their social standing; Saldarini, who takes a sociological approach in considering the Pharisees, determines that being a Pharisee was not one’s primary role in society.5 Most Pharisees probably had to make a living outside of professional teaching. Some may have been leatherworkers, farmers, or other “blue-collar” occupations.6 Others may have been involved in civil customs as “retainers who were literate servants of the governing class.”7 Although marriage was not required to be a Pharisee, it was a normative expectation in the larger society to marry and have children.

Pharisees were popular with the masses, and they lived among the people. They certainly were not (at least, not usually) socially elite. Furthermore, Pharisees…

Were NOT known for Hypocrisy

In our world, to call someone a “pharisee” is to call someone a religious hypocrite. But our available ancient literature does not make this claim (outside of the Gospels, but more on that later). As noted previously, Pharisees had a generally positive reputation in society. If we were transported back to AD 20 and told a man named Eleazar, “You’re just like one of those Pharisees,” he would be honored! He’d blush, shuffle his feet, and say, “Oh, shucks!”

And yet, the Gospels repeatedly show Jesus calling the Pharisees hypocrites, especially in Matthew. This comes to a climax in Matthew 23, where Jesus lambasts the Pharisees for failing to practice what they teach. This is a tension we should take time to consider in a future article. But perhaps to satiate your appetite for the moment, here are a few quick thoughts:

• We are too quick to stereotype based on limited details. Perhaps some, but not all, Pharisees were hypocritical. Maybe Jesus only has a subset of Pharisees in mind.

• We need to accurately define “hypocrite” based on ancient usage rather than modern standards. This creates more nuance.

• The tension may be a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that Jesus perceived hypocrisy from some Pharisees while the broader public did not. If true, this may reveal more about their conflict with Jesus than about the Pharisees’ reputation among the people.

• Jesus is using a type of speech genre in Matthew 23 known as invective (insulting speech). This was a common speech that used stereotypical language intended to “discredit, warn, and persuade.”8 Just like Jesus will use hyperbole as a rhetorical tool to make a point, he uses invective as a way to critique. This might mean that the language within his speech, particularly the charge of hypocrisy, should not be taken literally.

Regardless of how you read the charges against the Pharisees, they did not carry the reputation of hypocrisy— and this makes Jesus’s critique a unique outlier that should draw us in.

Share

Pharisees: Not What You Might Expect

If you have been taught about Pharisees in churches, some of what I have shared may be surprising. You may still be skeptical— the evidence is a little thin. Or it might even make you a little uncomfortable because I have largely ignored the Gospels, which provide significant details about the Pharisees.

These are valid reflections, and I found myself at each stop along my own research journey. In the second part of this series, I’ll begin reconstructing the Pharisees, what they were. And although I don’t want to give away too much for the future, here’s the cool thing: I believe that the Gospels strongly affirm my proposed reconstruction! We’ll get there eventually, and I hope you consider hopping in for the ride!

Subscribe now

If you have any thoughts, questions, or reflections, I’d love to engage with you in the comments!

Leave a comment

This last week, I preached on Joshua 1:1-9— words of encouragement from God to Joshua as Joshua prepares to lead Israel into the promised land— in a sermon titled, “Confusing Courage.” Today, I’d like to reflect on a few interesting details that did not quite fit the purpose and flow of the message.

Be Strong and Courageous

One of the key phrases in this passage is “Be strong and courageous.” It is repeated three times, and then Joshua echoes the call to the Israelites at the end of the chapter (1:18). But this actually isn’t the first time it is used. Moses says the same phrase to Israel when he is preparing them for what is to come (Deuteronomy 31:6). In fact, much of Joshua 1 is quite similar to Deuteronomy 31.

This phrase was used in military settings as a sort of “pep talk” for an army about to go to battle.1 And at first, we anticipate this will be the case as we read Joshua 1. But then God clarifies where Joshua should direct his strength and courage: faithfulness. He must obey God’s ways well. God subverts expectations in an amazing way!

Right or Left?

God calls for Joshua to obey his instructions, telling him to “not turn from it to the right or the left.” This is the idea of complete obedience, of “wholehearted commitment to study the law that leads to right action that eventuates in success.”2 But this phrase is also used in other contexts. Most notably, God’s expectation of kings was the same:

Deuteronomy 17:18-20: ¹⁸When he is seated on his royal throne, he is to write a copy of this instruction for himself on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. ¹⁹It is to remain with him, and he is to read from it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to observe all the words of this instruction, and to do these statutes. ²⁰Then his heart will not be exalted above his countrymen, he will not turn from this command to the right or the left, and he and his sons will continue reigning many years in Israel.

The leaders of Israel were called to not stray to the right or the left, but instead they were to completely obey God’s law. Joshua is held to the highest standard of leadership in Israel!

And from 1 Samuel to 2 Chronicles, the authors give summary statements when a king reigns— usually, these statements reflect on legacy and faithfulness. And although many kings were considered “good” kings who followed God, none of the kings is said to have “not turned from God’s commands to the right or the left.” Not even David, who is often referenced as a positive example, gets this commendation! He gets close, but with a qualifier: “he did not turn aside anything he [Yahweh] had commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hethite” (1 Kings 15:5).

None of the kings fulfill the expectation in Deuteronomy until the reign of Josiah:

2 Kings 22:1-2: ¹Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath. ²He did what was right in the LORD’s sight and walked in all the ways of his ancestor David; he did not turn to the right or the left.

Subscribe now

But this stereotypical depiction of the Pharisees is misguided and historically inaccurate. My master’s thesis was on examining the Sermon on the Mount with the Pharisees. I attempted to reconstruct a faithful depiction of this religious group by reading ancient primary sources and a variety of scholarship with much more expertise and qualifications. By the end of the project, I came to realize that we (Christians) have gotten the Pharisees wrong! And by having the wrong portrait of Pharisees, we end up misinterpreting and misapplying the text of the New Testament.

So how did this happen?

Subscribe now

It’s All About the Sources

We’ll look at what the Pharisees were and weren’t in a future post, but we have a different path for the present moment.

You see, reconstructing the historical Pharisees is quite challenging because little ancient literature even talks about them. We don’t have any documents written by a Pharisee (other than the apostle Paul, who likely still considered himself a Pharisee even after following Jesus).4 And the few sources outside of the New Testament that reference Pharisees have their own biases that could form an imprecise sketch alone. There are even some documents that don’t even mention the Pharisees directly by name but appear to talk about them! What do we do with that?

For us to know how we got where we are with the Pharisees, we have to have a better understanding of the ancient primary sources available. And if I’m correct that our modern picture is inaccurate and needs adjusting, that will also be the result of studying these ancient texts. We must examine the literature, note the biases, and then properly weigh the sources based on their reliability.

There are three main categories of sources at work in reconstructing the Pharisees. Below are summaries and the strengths/challenges that come with each group.

Dead Sea Scrolls

The oldest sources available come from Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), written between 200 BC and 70 AD. While the DSS are known for the preservation of Old Testament manuscripts, the 900+ document collection includes rules and practices of the sectarian community (known as the Essenes). Even more fascinating is that we have the community write critiques of other Jewish movements as well! And even though the term “Pharisee” is never mentioned, scholars largely agree that they are the targets of the name “seekers after smooth things.”5 There could be other hints toward Pharisees in the DSS through labels such as “Ephraim,” “builders of the wall,” and “sages.” However, there is much less consensus on this.6 I prefer to err on the side of caution in this case and limit myself to the “seekers” label.

• Source Strengths: early date period; provides direct insight into legal disputes with Pharisees; might preserve Pharisaic language and concepts

• Source Challenges: authorship is from a critical perspective and could misrepresent Pharisees; Pharisees aren’t explicitly named; the Essene community’s sectarian nature could skew comparisons

Josephus

The second source is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing between AD 75 and 96. At various moments, Josephus describes the main sects in Judaism, including the Pharisees. Through Josephus, we retain much of what the Pharisees practiced and believed. He also helpfully traces some of their history. Of the sources available, Josephus provides the most detail about the Pharisaic movement, although he is not comprehensive. Kent Yinger says that Josephus’s writings “are without doubt our richest source of information about the pre-Christian history of the Pharisees.”7

• Source Strengths: provides most information about the Pharisees; lived in Israel when the Pharisees were present; is recognized to be historically reliable in other areas

• Source Challenges: may have a negative bias against Pharisees;8 writes under social pressure that may influence his documentation

Rabbinic Literature

The third and final source of information on Pharisees is the near descendants of the movement: early rabbinic literature. As Second Temple Judaism adapted into rabbinic Judaism, the Pharisees died out and were replaced by rabbis. The earliest rabbinic literature includes the Mishnah and Talmud—these documents are collections of Jewish oral traditions and teachings, and some traditions are seemingly linked with Pharisees of the first century and before by referencing Pharisees.

• Source Strengths: claims to have a direct line of tradition from the Pharisees

• Source Challenges: written after the Pharisees existed and likely edited over the centuries

What Happened? Imbalanced Scales

How did scholars weigh the reliability of these different sources? For much of modern history, the claims in the sources were taken at face value. At first glance, it seems as if rabbinic literature would be the standard for reconstructing the Pharisees because they claim to be the direct descendants of the movement! Early scholarship assumed that rabbis followed the Pharisees’ practices and beliefs. In other words, whatever rabbinic literature taught was likely what the Pharisees taught. Under this assumption, rabbinic literature holds far more information about Pharisaic practices and beliefs than even Josephus. This is where we ultimately receive the portrait of Pharisees being legalistic, obsessive, closed-off, viewing their oral tradition as equally authoritative as the Torah, and more.9

On the other hand, the Dead Sea Scrolls remained undiscovered for the majority of history— it wasn’t until 1947 when the first wave of manuscripts were found, and the following decades of exploring the Qumran caves located additional manuscripts. So this data point was unable to even be considered.

So the commonplace weighing of the three sources (from most reliable/important to least) would look like this:

1. Rabbinic Literature

2. Josephus

3. Dead Sea Scrolls

But here’s the problem: Rabbinic literature is far less reliable for Pharisaic reconstruction than what was assumed. Jacob Neusner was the first to challenge these assumptions with a series of books and articles in the 70’s. Using historical-critical methods, he noted the difficulties of oral transmission in the literature.10 Neusner’s work was groundbreaking for the field, and others would follow his challenge.11 This is the most important conclusion: rabbinic literature was written and edited over several centuries, and this makes it difficult to determine whether material attributed to earlier sources actually originates with pre-AD 70 Pharisees.12 AD 70 is significant in that Judaism began to radically transform its practices and beliefs with the fall of the temple.13 So while there is some link between later rabbis and the Pharisees, we should not assume the oral traditions in rabbinic literature equate to the traditions of the Pharisees.

How To Fix It? Weigh the Sources Well

So with the uncovering of the DSS paired with the weaknesses of rabbinic literature, here is how I would suggest the sources should be weighed:

1. Josephus

2. Dead Sea Scrolls

3. Rabbinic Literature

Josephus may have some bias and intentions, but it is no more than the other sources available. Of our ancient sources, he contains the most detail about the Pharisees while living within the time period that they existed. Whenever we want to understand something about what the Pharisees, whether it is their history, their practices and beliefs, or their reputation, we should begin with the question, “What does Josephus share?” This is not to say that his information is infallible— it is merely a reliable starting point.

Although the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t directly use the term “Pharisee,” there is enough evidence (along with scholarly consensus) that some of the legal disputes involve Pharisees. It is certainly possible that the Pharisees are mischaracterized due to the stringent Essene community, but there are enough details in the legal critiques to offer a good idea of the opposing side. When paired with Josephus, we uncover some fascinating insights!

Then there is the rabbinic literature— oh, how far it has fallen! What purpose do these documents serve us now? The usage of rabbinic literature in historical reconstruction is a debated topic today— some reject it entirely, while others are much more favorable toward it. I have already shown my hand by giving it the third slot in priority; for the purpose of understanding the Pharisees, I think information from rabbinic literature should be used cautiously, if only to affirm what is seen in earlier, more reliable sources.

Share

What Happens When…

What happens when rabbinic literature is no longer the main source of data about Pharisees? What happens when texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls are incorporated into the reconstruction process?

We will find ourselves with a different portrait of the Pharisees. This is a portrait that challenges the stereotypes, preserves history more faithfully, and forces us to reconsider the moments when Pharisees show up in the Gospels.

In an upcoming series of articles, I will share the results of this reconstruction by describing what the Pharisees were and were not. But for right now, I am curious: how have you heard the Pharisees be taught or used?

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

When we follow the Gospels, we don’t get much information about Jesus’s physical appearance. To our best estimation, he probably looked like the average Hebrew of his day.

But there is a small story that might actually suggest Jesus’s height.

In Luke 19, Jesus encounters a man named Zacchaeus. We’ll only look at the first few verses, which read:

¹He entered Jericho and was passing through. ²There was a man named Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector, and he was rich. ³He was trying to see who Jesus was, but he was not able because of the crowd, since he was a short man. ⁴So running ahead, he climbed up a sycamore tree to see Jesus, since he was about to pass that way.

When you read this story, you may notice that it isn’t explicit who was short because of the pronoun “he.” This is the case in the Greek text as well: ōti tē ēlikia mikros ēn (“he was”).

For us to determine who or what a pronoun (or ambiguous verb) refers to, we have to locate its antecedent— the phrase or noun that the pronoun is replacing. In English, this is often the last referenced noun. In Koine Greek, a pronoun must match the antecedent’s gender and number.

In the case of Luke 19:1-4, it is grammatically plausible that Zacchaeus or Jesus is the one being called short! While it’s possible Zacchaeus couldn’t see Jesus past the crowd, perhaps Jesus was so short that the crowd made it impossible for Zacchaeus to find Jesus.

Share

The Text Isn’t Always Clear

Textual ambiguities are not uncommon in biblical studies. Sometimes words have a wide semantic range, and the context isn’t clear what the word should mean (e.g. katalambanō in John 1:5 could be translated “overcome,” “comprehend,” or “grasp”). At other points, we do not have enough ancient literature that uses a word, making it difficult to translate (e.g. authenteō in 1 Tim 2:12 could be translated “exercise authority” or “assume authority”). Additionally, Koine Greek (regarding the New Testament) does not include helpful literary tools like commas, punctuation, or quotation marks, and this can cause its own set of issues (e.g. in John 3, it is notoriously difficult to determine when Jesus stops speaking and the Gospel author begins commenting)! Scholars will examine evidence and argue with each other, but sometimes there is no decisive answer.

Share

It’s fun to poke and question some of the grammatical possibilities in the New Testament. Isaac T. Soon wrote a recent journal article that argues that Jesus is the short one.1 It’s an interesting read.

But virtually all scholars agree that Zachaeus is the one who is short. Luke gives us some clarity in consistently using Jesus’s name through verses 2-4, while pronouns (or the ambiguity resulting from verbs) are used for Zacchaeus until verse 5— we can ignore verse 1 since our tax collector friend had not entered the story yet.

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if Zacchaeus or Jesus was short, but pondering Jesus’s height could be helpful. One could delve into Christology and reflect on Jesus’s short stature in relation to the Incarnation. One could explore the wonder that is God taking on human flesh to live as one of us. One could even show how Jesus taking on qualities deemed “lesser” by society shows his care for the ostracized.

But this post is not that serious; I’ll let someone else take on that task.

Instead, I’ll remain here: while it’s likely that the children’s song is correct that “Zachaeus was a wee little man,” it’s possible that Jesus may have been a short little guy. And I can’t help but smile at the thought!

Subscribe now

So how did we get from there to here? This would require a complex answer that stretches across 2,000 years of history. But perhaps we can satisfy a portion of our curiosity by considering the earliest generations of the church. How did the writers of the New Testament view the crucifixion of Jesus? And what do we do with the cross now?

What we’ll find is that the first believers present a shocking reversal of societal expectations.

Subscribe now

From Scandal to Glory

Today, we take the cross for granted as a symbol of worship, but we must make something clear: it would have been absurd to worship a crucified victim in the first century! The cross was an emblem of shame, a marker of societal ostracization. The earliest Christians must have had deep convictions for the cross to pioneer such a transformation!

Under a Curse

Jews believed that a crucified person was cursed by God (an interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:23). Christians also believed that Jesus was cursed by God on the cross. Two authors reference the Deuteronomy passage: Luke (in a sermon from Peter in Acts) and Paul.

Acts 10:39 (CSB): We ourselves are witnesses of everything he did in both the Judean country and in Jerusalem, and yet they killed him by hanging him on a tree.

Galatians 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.

The early church recognized Jesus as being cursed by God. But instead of it leading to further condemnation, Paul finds the curse to be the mechanism for redemption.

God’s Wisdom and Power

In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes (bolded emphasis mine):

1 Corinthians 1:18-25: For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is the power of God to us who are being saved. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the intelligence of the intelligent. Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

Much could be extrapolated from this passage, but here is what I want us to observe today: the death of Christ (the Messiah) on the cross would be seen as a stumbling block and foolishness. But Paul reverses these concepts, declaring that Jesus’s crucifixion is a display of God’s wisdom and power. God flips culture’s power and honor on its head.

Slave to King, Shame to Glory

The cross is rightfully recognized as shameful and humiliating. Yet, this reality becomes the path to greatness. Notice the v-shaped (or perhaps checkmark-shaped) trajectory in Jesus’s story here:

Philippians 2:5-11: Adopt the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a [slave, AT], taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross. For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Upon Jesus’s obedience to death on the cross, God exalts him to the status of King over all kings, Lord of and lords.

Or consider the connection between shame and kingship from the author of Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:2b: For the joy that lay before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Upon enduring the cross (and the same associated with it), Jesus would ascend to God’s right hand.

Cosmic Reconciliation

We noted the theme of redemption earlier, but matters of reconciliation extend to the rest of the cosmos.

Ephesians 2:16: He did this so that he might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross by which he put the hostility to death.

Just before this, Paul describes Jesus bringing peace between Jews and Gentiles. The cross brings not just reconciliation between God and us; it reconciles humans. We become united as one people.

Colossians 1:19-20: For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile everything to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Paul depicts the crucifixion of Jesus as a cosmic-transforming event. All things have become reconciled, peace is fully realized, because of the cross.

Worthy of Boasting

After reading the above, it is no wonder that Paul writes near the end of his letter to the Galatians:

Galatians 6:14: But as for me, I will never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The world has been crucified to me through the cross, and I to the world.

The end of this letter is particularly striking, and here Paul finds the cross to be boastworthy. This stands in stark contrast to the deeply taboo nature of crucifixion in the Roman world!

Share

Carry the Cross

What about followers of Jesus today? How do we live between the attitudes toward the cross in the Roman world and among early Christians? Where do we go from here?

Perhaps our study can better inform our pathway for discipleship. The Gospels echo a call to action from Jesus:

Matthew 16:24-27: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me will find it. For what will it benefit someone if he gains the whole world yet loses his life? Or what will anyone give in exchange for his life? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each according to what he has done.

Mark 8:34-38: Calling the crowd along with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me and the gospel will save it. For what does it benefit someone to gain the whole world and yet lose his life? What can anyone give in exchange for his life? For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Luke 9:23-26: Then he said to them all, “If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me will save it. For what does it benefit someone if he gains the whole world, and yet loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and that of the Father and the holy angels.

Luke 14:27: Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

And even though the Gospel of John doesn’t use this language directly, he does provide his take on the “carry you cross” speech when Jesus restores Peter. Notice the execution-type language and its ending with a call for Peter to follow Jesus:

John 21:18-19: “Truly I tell you, when you were younger, you would tie your belt and walk wherever you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will tie you and carry you where you don’t want to go.” He said this to indicate by what kind of death Peter would glorify God. After saying this, he told him, “Follow me.”

To carry a cross did not describe some sort of personal or annoying burden— it was a promise of death! It was an association with shame. Jesus is really saying here, “Follow me to death. Share in my suffering and shame.”

For us, the cross is a radical call to discipleship! When we first know the cross by its historic roots, we can better hear the demand for allegiance to Jesus and Jesus’s ways. And when we see the reversal of the cross in the New Testament, we can realize that sharing in Jesus’s crucifixion is a promise of sharing in his glorification. May we do our best to live in that tension!

Discussion Questions

• How has this study on crucifixion affected your understanding of discipleship?

• Why do you think it is important to sit between the suffering and glory of the cross? Which are you more prone to lean toward?

• Is there a particular facet of Jesus’s crucifixion that resonates with you most?

Leave a comment

If you haven’t read it already, it would be beneficial for you to check out the last post before continuing on!

In this exploration, we won’t be looking at an individual Gospel but instead focus on the intertextual details of what happens in Jesus’s pre-crucifixion, crucifixion, and post-crucifixion experiences. I’ll jump around from Gospel to Gospel and provide the parallel passages (PP) after each quote when needed.

The Gospels (individually and collectively) give us the longest and most detailed account of someone’s crucifixion. And the details in the Gospels align fascinatingly well with what we would expect of crucifixion from other ancient sources.

Subscribe now

Why was Jesus Crucified?

I am not posing this question from a theological standpoint. When we examine the Gospel accounts, why was Jesus executed by Roman crucifixion?

It doesn’t seem that his death was for religious reasons. Certainly, the Gospels depict Jesus being interrogated by various Jewish religious leaders, and he is charged with blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-66). We would expect him to be stoned like Stephen (Acts 7), yet that does not happen. Instead, Jesus is taken to the Roman governor, Pilate, who ultimately charges him with a crime and sentences him to be executed by crucifixion.

Perhaps there are reasons the religious leaders didn’t execute Jesus. Maybe they did not have the legal authority to perform capital punishment (John 18:31), and maybe Stephen’s death was not an official execution. Nevertheless, Jesus did not die because of a religious dispute. Instead, the Gospels record that he is taken to the Romans. Roman crucifixion requires other crimes

Let’s consider the evidence and determine just why Jesus was crucified.

Pilate’s Question

When Jesus is brought before Pilate, the accusations against him shift. No longer are there charges of blasphemy. Instead, Pilate only cares about a single question:

Matthew 27:11 (CSB): Now Jesus stood before the governor. “Are you the king of the Jews?” the governor asked him. Jesus answered, “You say so.” (PP: Mark 15:1-2; Luke 23:1-2; John 18:30-33)

Pilate has a question related to authority: Is Jesus king of the Jews? Is he claiming to be the one who rules over Israel?

Pressure on Pilate

In John’s Gospel, we get a longer account of Jesus’s interaction with Pilate. Pilate attempts to release Jesus, but notice what the Jews (that is, those who brought Jesus before Pilate in the Gospel) say in response:

John 19:12: From that moment Pilate kept trying to release him. But the Jews shouted, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar!”

The Jews pressure Pilate to execute Jesus. Why? Because Jesus has made himself king. By implication, he is usurping power over the Roman emperor, Caesar. And if Pilate allows a self-made king to live, he’s put in a dangerous position!

Following this, notice the exchange Pilate makes with the Jews:

John 19:14b-16: Then he told the Jews, “Here is your king!” They shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Should I crucify your king?” “We have no king but Caesar!” the chief priests answered. Then he handed him over to be crucified.

The focus is once again on Jesus’s kingship. But this passage reveals an additional layer: allegiance. Will they be loyal to Jesus, the alleged king of the Jews, or will they be loyal to Caesar? Ultimately, the chief priests choose the Roman king.

The Formal Charges

As Jesus is being crucified, Jesus’s crime is effectively the same in each Gospel:

Mark 15:26: The inscription of the charge written against him was: The King of the Jews. (PP: Matthew 27:37; Luke 23:38; John 19:19)

Here's Why Jesus was Crucified

When examining the evidence, the Gospels share that Jesus was executed by Roman crucifixion because he made himself King of the Jews (not just that he claimed to be king, see John 19:18-22). This was a political crime, a form of sedition and a threat to Roman rule, which means Jesus faced a political execution.

So when we consider why Jesus was crucified specifically, we should first perceive this as a politically-charged death. The claim to kingship carries political undertones, and this is most evident in the fact that Jesus was crucified. While Jewish leaders brought religious crimes against Jesus as well, that is not what ultimately led him to the cross.

Pre-Crucifixion of Jesus

Before a criminal was crucified, they would suffer various forms of torture— suffering and shame were a victim’s close friends. So it should not surprise us to find that Jesus also faced torture leading up to his death.

Scourging

Like many others before him, the Gospels describe Jesus being scourged.

Matthew 27:26: Then he released Barabbas to them and, after having Jesus flogged, handed him over to be crucified. (PP: Mark 15:15; John 19:1)

Stripped of Clothes and Beaten

The Gospels also note that Jesus was beaten before being taken to the cross.

Mark 15:16-19: The soldiers led him away into the palace (that is, the governor’s residence) and called the whole company together. 17 They dressed him in a purple robe, twisted together a crown of thorns, and put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 They were hitting him on the head with a stick and spitting on him. Getting down on their knees, they were paying him homage. (PP: Matthew 27:27-30)

Matthew and Mark both note that he is stripped of his clothes, bringing him shame and vulnerability to the beating. In both accounts, he is reclothed before being led away.

Carried Cross

Now this is where things start to get interesting (and perhaps challenging as we explore intertextual harmonization). Each of the Gospels describes Jesus being led and paraded through the city to the place of his death. In John’s Gospel, we find that Jesus also carries his cross:

John 19:16b-17: Then they took Jesus away. Carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called Place of the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.

Such a practice was normative, as we noted in the previous post. Rather than imagining the entire cross being dragged, we should instead picture the horizontal crossbeam on his shoulders. However, the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) give a different perspective:

Luke 23:26-27: As they led him away, they seized Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country, and laid the cross on him to carry behind Jesus. A large crowd of people followed him, including women who were mourning and lamenting him. (PP: Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:20b-21)

Rather than Jesus carrying the crossbeam, a passerby named Simon is pulled out of the crowd and forced to help Jesus out. Even onlookers could be susceptible to Jesus’s shame.

My goal isn’t to harmonize these texts together in this post, but it is possible that Jesus began carrying the crossbeam before his exhaustion forced the soldiers to bring another person along to help. Regardless, Jesus follows the practice of being led to his death.

Share

Crucifixion of Jesus

When Jesus arrives at the cross, what happens? Many micro-details are worth noting.

Executed Near the City

Crucifixions took place on well-travelled roads to be viewed by those entering and exiting the city. John affirms this happens with Jesus:

John 19:20:Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.

Clothes Divided

As Jesus hangs on the cross, his clothes are removed once more, being divided amongst his executioners. I especially appreciate John’s note:

John 19:23: When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, a part for each soldier. They also took the tunic, which was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. (PP: Matthew 17:35; Mark 15:24)

Jesus is stripped completely of his clothes— his outer garments (which may have been torn into pieces) and his undergarment (the tunic, clothing that was worn next to the skin, Greek chitōn).

Christian art often depicts Jesus as wearing a loincloth while being crucified, perhaps to protect some of his dignity, but this is an unlikely picture. All signs suggest that Jesus, like other victims, wore the totality of the cross’s shame in his complete nakedness.

Charges Above Head

We noted the charges earlier, but it is worth highlighting here that they were placed above Jesus’s head.

Matthew 27:37: Above his head they put up the charge against him in writing: This Is Jesus, the King of the Jews. (PP: Mark 15:26; John 19:19-20)

This might indicate that Jesus was crucified on the traditional lowercase t-shaped cross (crux immissa).

Nailed (?)

This particular detail is fascinating: despite the detailed account of Jesus’s crucifixion, it is never explicitly stated that he is nailed to the cross! The Gospel authors are uninterested in describing how Jesus is placed on the cross (by ropes or nails). Instead, they simply reiterate that he was crucified.

However, Luke and John both imply later that he was nailed to the cross because Jesus has nail wounds in his hands and feet after his resurrection:

Luke 24:39: “Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself! Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.”

John 20:20: Having said this, he showed them his hands and his side. So the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

John 20:27: Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Don’t be faithless, but believe.”

Post-Crucifixion of Jesus

After Jesus breathes his last, we find additional details related to his post-crucifixion. The legs of the other criminals next to him are broken (John 19:31-33), and his side is pierced to confirm that he was dead (John 19:31-33). But allow me to highlight three other details.

An Unusually Quick Death

This verse never stuck out to me until after I studied crucifixions. But now it might be one of the most intriguing details. Notice Pilate’s reaction after finding Jesus had died after a few hours:

Mark 15:44: Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had already died.

It could sometimes take days for a crucified victim to finally die. For Pilate to learn that Jesus had died the same day he sentenced him would be shocking!

Body Removed From Cross

While many bodies would remain on the cross to be devoured by beasts, some bodies would be removed and dealt with. This is what happens with Jesus.

Mark 15:45: When he found out from the centurion, he gave the corpse to Joseph.

Body Buried

Finally, Jesus’s body is given a proper burial. This was not an unusual (though perhaps uncommon) practice, particularly for Jews.

Matthew 27:59-60: So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in clean, fine linen, and placed it in his new tomb, which he had cut into the rock. He left after rolling a great stone against the entrance of the tomb. (PP: Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:38-42)

Conclusion

Upon examining the Gospels, we find an account of crucifixion that aligns well with other ancient accounts. This means that either (1) the writers were familiar with crucifixions and used familiar details to create this death or (2) they were writing about an actual crucifixion that took place. In my opinion, there doesn’t seem to be a reason to deny that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.

In the final post in this series, we will consider how our historical examination of crucifixion influences our theological reflections on Jesus’s death.

Discussion Questions

• What detail about Jesus’s crucifixion stood out in light of what we’ve learned about Roman practice?

• Why do you think it is important to see Jesus’s death in political terms?

• How do the accounts of Jesus’s death affect your view on the reliability of the Gospels?

Leave a comment

Today, we will explore how the Romans practiced crucifixion.

Subscribe now

Overview of Roman Crucifixion

Before we look at the particulars of how crucifixion was practiced, there are a few general ideas that may be helpful first.

Why was Crucifixion Practiced?

There were various forms of capital punishment practiced in the ancient world. Why, then, would Romans resort to such a horrific, inhumane execution method?

First, crucifixion became a method to deter the masses from committing similar crimes.1 If Marcus saw a man nailed to a cross for starting a revolt in the city, he’d be less inclined to do the same. Or if Felix saw another slave being crucified for running away from her master, he might feel the need to be more submissive. The Romans celebrated order, and capital punishment was just one means to their end.

Second, crucifixion was a means to further shame the individual. The entire execution was a celebration of humiliation. Every step of the process from the moment someone was convicted “was done to humiliate and dishonor the victim in addition to torturing him or her to death.”2 Crucifixion cemented one as being an outcast from society and stripped of legal rights.3

Third, crucifixion was a means of causing someone pain through various means of torture. This would feed into the themes of deterrence, shame, and domination.

What was the Order of Events?

Below is a general sketch of how crucifixions were practiced:4

1. Victim tortured by various means

2. Victim carried the crossbeam to the place of crucifixion

3. Victim fastened by ropes or nails to the crossbeam

4. Crossbeam and victim raised to a wooden post or tree

What did the Cross Look like?

There were 4 different shapes:

• Vertical stake (I) (crux simplex, “simple cross”)

• Two diagonal beams (X) (crux decussata, “X-shaped cross”)5

• Vertical stake with crossbeam (T) (crux commissa, “joined cross”)

• Vertical stake with intersecting beam (t) (crux immissa, “inserted cross”)

Pre-crucifixion Practices

Tortures

Before crucifixion would take place, victims would be tortured by different methods. A commonly referenced method was scourging (Josephus, J.W. 5.449; Cicero, Verr. 2. 5.62.161). A wooden handle would hold together strips of leather with metal balls or even bones tied into the strips. As the leather lacerated the body, the results could be quite severe. Eusebius describes victims of scourging having their inner organs exposed (Hist. eccl. 4.15), and Josephus notes that of those whose bones were left visible (J.W. 6.304).

Other torture methods could also take place before crucifixion. Plato says, “[A man] is racked, mutilated, has his eyes burned out, and after having had all sorts of great injuries inflicted on him, and having seen his wife and children suffer the like, is at last impaled [i.e., crucified] or tarred and burned alive.”6

Location

Before a convicted criminal was executed, they would be paraded to the location of their death, carrying the horizontal crossbeam.7 Criminals would usually be crucified on well-travelled roads as a way to symbolize ostracization from society (Quintilian, Decl. 274; Appian, Civil Wars 1.120; Josephus, J.W. 5.449-51). Charges would sometimes be placed above the crucified’s head or around his neck.8 The former element shamed the victim while the latter deterred the onlooker.

Crucifixion Practices

While modern forms of capital punishment often have specific procedures to maintain consistency and abide by humane ethics, this was not the case with crucifixion. Executioners used crucifixion as an expression of artistic creativity. This led to methods often being quite varied. Victims could be hung upside down, stakes driven through genitals, or arms completely extended across the crossbeam. Seneca writes:

“I see before me crosses not all alike, but differently made by different peoples: some hang a man head downwards, some force a stick upwards through his groin, some stretch out his arms on a forked gibbet. I see cords, scourges, and instruments of torture for each limb and each joint: but I see death also” (Marc. 20.3).”

Attached to the Cross

After being nailed or tied to the horizontal crossbeam, the criminal would then be lifted to the vertical post. This is often artistically depicted as being several feet off the ground, but it is more likely that an individual would only be raised up a foot or two. Doing so allowed charges to be read by travellers entering and leaving the city. Additionally, dogs and wild beasts could gnaw on the legs of the corpse.9

When a victim was nailed, it would be on their wrists and heels. Victims would almost always be executed naked, making them more susceptible to blows. However, the greater purpose of nakedness was to further the shame of the victim.10

Cause of Death

Various theories have been given for the medical cause of death. These include:

• Asphyxiation

• Hypovolemic shock

• Heart failure

• dehydration

• Loss of blood (from pre-crucifixion tortures)

More than likely, people died from different causes when crucified, especially with the various techniques employed.11 Oftentimes, the road to death was a long process, lasting several days before the victim died.12

Share

Post-crucifixion Practices

After someone died, what would happen to their bodies? There were three possibilities for body disposal. First, the body could be dumped into a mass grave. These were a normative part of Roman society, and they were employed for the poor or criminals.13 Second, the body would be left on the cross to rot. Vultures, dogs, and other animals would then eat the corpse as it decomposed. This seems to have been a common practice.14 Third, bodies of crucified victims could be returned to the family for burial.15 This particular method was less common, but it was more common among Jews due to particular burial practices (Philo, Flacc. 83–86).16

Archeological Discoveries

Outside of literature, what else has been uncovered about Roman crucifixion? Allow me to highlight three examples.

Jehohanan Remains

In 1968, the remains of a crucified Jewish man named Jehonanan were found in an ossuary buried north of Jerusalem. A 7-inch nail was driven into his right heel, but there were no signs of nail marks in his wrists— this suggests that his arms were probably tied with ropes. He was crucified sometime in the early first century, perhaps in the AD 20’s.17

What makes this particular discovery exciting is that this body was the only remains of a crucified person to be found until 9 years ago!

Cambridgeshire Slave

In 2017, another crucified body was located in a Roman settlement cemetery. Dating back to the second to fourth century, this is the only example of a Roman crucifixion in the British Isles. The skeleton shows signs of trauma before death— thinning shin bones (likely from being bound or shackled) as well as a possible leg infection or inflammation.18

Alexamenos Graffito

Found on the Palatine Hill in Rome, a 1st-3rd century graffito depicts a man worshipping a crucified human with a donkey's head. The writing says, “Alexamenos worships [his] god.” This graffito is apparently mocking a Christian— donkey worship was mistakenly associated with Judaism (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.112-2.115; Tacitus, Hist. 5.4-5.5) and then transferred onto Christianity (Tertullian, Apol. 16).

Conclusions

Crucifixion was a thorough means of execution. Each element of the practice had a purpose. Victims would face a long, painful death, and there was no guarantee that they would be honored posthumously.

In the third part of this series, we will compare the posture and expectations of Roman crucifixion with the death of Jesus.

Subscribe now

Discussion Questions

• How does the emphasis on shame affect the crucifixion process?

• What part of the crucifixion process most struck you and why?

• How does archeological evidence reinforce the historical reality and scandal of the cross?

• If crucifixion stripped victims of dignity, what does it mean that our faith centers on a crucified Messiah?

  Leave a comment

When we think about the cross in the 21st century, a variety of different images may come to mind. For example, you may think of the different forms of jewelry that contain a cross— necklaces, bracelets, earrings. Crosses are used in various media and artwork. And, of course, crosses are plastered in various forms in church buildings: paintings, steeples, church logos, stained-glass windows, etc.

In our day, the cross is a positive symbol, an icon of the Christian faith. It is also a tool used for virtue-signalling. But is the proper place for the cross? Or have we made the cross too pretty? Have we glamorized and beautified crucifixion to the point that we misrepresent its gravity in the earliest believers?

This will be the first in a brief series of articles on Roman crucifixion. Before we can understand what the cross and the crucifixion of Jesus mean for us today, we must first explore their first-century context.

Here, we’ll look at crucifixion more generally and the attitudes people had toward the practice. And we’ll discover that there is a vast chasm between the people living 2,000 years ago and us.

Subscribe now

General Information on Crucifixion

As we begin to wade into this world, it might be helpful to lay out a basic foundation. I’ll answer a few key questions related to crucifixion below.

What is Crucifixion?

Our English word “crucifixion” originates from the Latin crucifixus, a word that combines crux (“cross”) and figere ("to attach”). Crucifixion was a violent, cruel, torturous, and agonizing form of capital punishment.

What are the Origins of Crucifixion, and Who Practiced It?

Persians are often considered the inventors of crucifixion, and the Greeks and Macedonians adopted the practice from them.1 Others who used it as a form of capital punishment included the Assyrians, Indians, Scythians, Taurians, Thracians, Celts, Germans, Britons, Numidians, and Carthaginians.2 However, the most prolific users of crucifixion were the Romans. Because Roman crucifixion is the form that concerns the New Testament, it will be our focus for this series from this point forward.

Who Were Executed by Crucifixion?

Cook gives a modest estimate of at least 30,000 individuals crucified in the Roman world.3 However, this should probably be seen as the bar that the Romans vaulted over.

The Roman Empire used other methods of capital punishment, but crucifixion was so severe and shameful that it was reserved for particular use cases— criminals, rebels, noncitizens, and treasonous soldiers were often crucified.4

It has often been believed that Roman citizens were never executed via crucifixion, but this overstates reality. Although it was a rare occurrence, we have recordings of Roman citizens being crucified (see Cicero, Verr. 2.5.64.165–70). Citizens were protected from torture practices, which led to the exemption of crucifixions.5

On the other side of the spectrum, if a slave was executed, they would always be crucified. Slaves were at the bottom of the social ladder, which paired well with a form of execution that would bring about further shame to an individual and those associated with them. Even Paul draws out this connection in Philippians 2:7-8, in which he describes Jesus taking on the form of a slave (v. 7) and humbling himself to not just death, but death on a cross (v. 8).

We popularly picture only men being crucified, but this is inaccurate. Crucifixion did not discriminate based on gender— men and women both faced Roman crucifixion. Jospehus describes a freedwoman named Paulina who was crucified (Ant. 18.66-80), and Tacitus notes of a case in which all slaves in a household, regardless of sex, were crucified. He writes:

“While no one member ventured to controvert the opinion of Cassius, he was answered by a din of voices, expressing pity for the numbers, the age, or the sex of the victims, and for the undoubted innocence of the majority. In spite of all, the party advocating execution prevailed; but the decision could not be complied with, as a dense crowd gathered and threatened to resort to stones and firebrands.”6

What Crimes Led to Crucifixion?

What would cause someone to face such a severe form of capital punishment? After all, there were other methods of execution, such as beheading. When would crucifixion be employed?

Crucifixion as the mode of execution was often reserved for political crimes. This would include “high treason against the state (such as desertion from the military), perceived threats to Roman rule and social order, brigandage and especially for sedition against the empire.”7 This will become significant for our study later when we consider Jesus’s own execution.

Share

Ancient Perspectives on Crucifixion

Below are a few different ancient sources that give a sobering perspective on crucifixion. As we will see, the cross was seen as taboo, shameful, and cruel.

Cicero

• · “For until now the witnesses I have called have been chosen not from among those who were to state that they knew Gavius personally, but from those who were to state that they saw him when he was being dragged off to be crucified in spite of his proclaiming himself a Roman citizen… this mention of his citizenship had not even so much effect upon you as to produce a little hesitation, or to delay, even for a little, the infliction of that cruel and disgusting penalty.” (Verr. 2.5.165)

• “…his victim, as he died in pain and agony, might feel how yonder narrow channel marked the frontier between the land of slavery and the land of freedom, and that Italy might see her son, as he hung there, suffer the worst extreme of the tortures inflicted upon slaves.” (Verr. 2.5.169).

• “Let the very word ‘cross’ be far removed from not only the bodies of Roman citizens, but even from their thoughts, their eyes, and their ears.” (Pro Rabiro, 16).

Josephus

• A man suffered “the most pitiable of deaths” (J.W. 7.203)

Miscellaneous collection (Hengel, Crucifixion, 7-8)

• “Infamous stake”

• “Criminal wood”

• “Most evil cross”

Deuteronomy 21:23b

• “anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse.”

• This declaration was originally in reference to hanging corpses, but by the first century, interpretations included those crucified.8 See the Temple Scroll from Qumran, in which the curse includes those hanged on a tree while still alive (11QT 64:7-13). This interpretation is further reinforced by New Testament authors who reference the verse in connection to Jesus’s crucifixion (Acts 5:30; Gal 3:13).

I ask once more: Have we made the cross too pretty?

Share

Discussion Questions

•What detail surprised you?

•What do you think most people today miss about crucifixion?

•Why do you think Rome reserved crucifixion primarily for slaves, rebels, and noncitizens? What message was the empire sending?

•Have we made the cross too pretty?

Leave a comment

In the second part of this series, we will take a detailed look at crucifixion in practice. This will include pre-crucifixion, crucifixion, and post-crucifixion procedures.

Sunday, I preached a sermon on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector from Luke 18:9-14 titled “Two Praying Men” (click to watch). Unique to this message was that I preached it first-person from the perspective of the Pharisee. I don’t employ this method often, but I think it allowed us to live in Jesus’s story and feel the power of his message accurately!

This sermon directly encounters Second Temple Judaism and the Pharisees. Christianity often mischaracterizes both, and I hope to share more on these subjects in the future. For today, I want to focus on how our assumptions color how we read certain texts.

Subscribe now

Assumptions Affect Our Readings

Many times, we arrive at this passage with a picture of Pharisees and Judaism. The common assumption is that Jews follow a works-based religion where they are attempting to merit God’s favor. The Pharisees are the pinnacle of this problem, which is why they run into trouble with Jesus. Jesus is dismantling a works-based system in favor of a grace-based system.

When these are the underlying assumptions, we will assume that this Pharisee is entirely self-centered. He is self-righteous, he is seeking attention, so on and so forth. Scholars will make this suggestion, noting details in the text like how the majority of the Pharisee’s prayer is focused on what he does. For example, David Garland says,

“He asks nothing from God because he thinks he needs nothing. Seeking God’s mercy and forgiveness seems unnecessary. From what follows, he has already made out the exam, graded it himself, and given himself as A+.”1

These assumptions can even bleed into the translation of a particular passage. In the CSB, Luke 18:9 is translated in a way that implies that the passage will be about self-righteous legalism (Pharisee) vs genuine seeking of God’s mercy (tax collector). But even just a subtle (and valid) shift in translation can make a complete difference. Kent Yinger argues that a better translation of the verse is “They were ‘confident about themselves that they were [among the] righteous.’”2 It’s a subtle shift, but it reframes the entire parable to be less about the Pharisee’s self-righteousness before God and more about how the Pharisee looked down upon the tax collector in confidence.

If we want to read a text faithfully, we must understand the culture it was in accurately. And what we might discover is that some of the assumptions we bring to the text are not correct.

The Pharisee’s Prayer: Attention Seeking or Normative Posture?

The Pharisee’s prayer takes up the majority of the space in this parable, so we must approach it accurately. Because the Pharisee is the negative character in the story, we like to over-villainize him. We’ll argue that his prayer has nefarious motives—he wants to highlight how much better he is than others and is just seeking praise and recognition from people rather than humbling himself before God.

But to be clear: the text doesn’t actually portray him this way. The only suggestion that this might be the case is one’s reading of Luke 18:9 and Jesus’s mention of exaltation/humility. Perhaps a better view is that this Pharisee is actually following a normative praying posture at this time.

Notice how he begins the prayer: he is praying, thanking God. We can read this negatively or ironically, but it isn’t required. This is especially true when we compare this prayer to other prayers in Judaism, which follow very similar postures. We could look at different examples in Second Temple literature, but let’s just focus on a few texts from the Old Testament:

Psalm 17:1-6: LORD, hear a just cause; pay attention to my cry; listen to my prayer—from lips free of deceit. Let my vindication come from you, for you see what is right. You have tested my heart; you have examined me at night. You have tried me and found nothing evil; I have determined that my mouth will not sin. Concerning what people do: by the words from your lips I have avoided the ways of the violent. My steps are on your paths; my feet have not slipped. I call on you, God, because you will answer me; listen closely to me; hear what I say.

Psalm 119:30-32: I have chosen the way of truth; I have set your ordinances before me. I cling to your decrees; LORD, do not put me to shame. I pursue the way of your commands, for you broaden my understanding.

Deuteronomy 26:12-15: “When you have finished paying all the tenth of your produce in the third year, the year of the tenth, you are to give it to the Levites, resident aliens, fatherless children, and widows, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. Then you will say in the presence of the LORD your God: ‘I have taken the consecrated portion out of my house; I have also given it to the Levites, resident aliens, fatherless children, and widows, according to all the commands you gave me. I have not violated or forgotten your commands. I have not eaten any of it while in mourning, or removed any of it while unclean, or offered any of it for the dead. I have obeyed the LORD my God; I have done all you commanded me. Look down from your holy dwelling, from heaven, and bless your people Israel and the land you have given us as you swore to our ancestors, a land flowing with milk and honey.’”

It seems to me that a more responsible reading of the Pharisee’s prayer is not that he is attention-seeking or dismissing God; rather, he is following the practice of giving genuine thanks to God for remaining on the righteous path proved by his obedience to God’s ways. Jesus’s point with the prayer is not to point out the Pharisee’s self-saving attitude (because that is non-existent); it’s that the Pharisee is treating the tax collector with contempt by playing the comparison game.

Subscribe now

Share

Last month, I joined the launch team for Preston Sprinkle’s latest book, From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Church Leadership. In this book, Preston journeys through the Bible in chronological order, sifting through key passages about leadership, women, church roles, and ministry.

The subject of women’s roles in the church is a fiery “in-house” debate across denominations. There are two main positions: complimentarianism, which teaches that men and women have different roles in the church (specifically, women cannot lead and teach men), and egalitarianism, which teaches that men and women both can participate in any church role.

This book is the culmination of Preston’s three-year study on the subject of women in church leadership. I am a regular listener to his podcast, Theology in the Raw, and his previous book, Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of Empire, was helpful and timely. Because I appreciate what Preston has said on other topics and share his love for biblical studies, I have eagerly awaited the release of this book to see his conclusions.

Below is an overview of the book followed by some reflections.

Subscribe now

Book Overview

Preston frames this book as an exploratory journey, each step taking him closer to a conclusion on the roles of women in the church. Each chapter focuses on a particular topic or passage of Scripture.

By the end of the journey, Preston makes his position clear, and the book is written in a way that it feels like a natural conclusion.

Below, I’ll give a 30,000-foot view of each chapter, but you will have to read the book itself for more of Preston’s particular conclusions (more on that later).

Chapter 1

In this chapter, Preston examines Genesis 1-3. Because these passages deal with the creation of humans and their Fall, this is a natural starting point. Preston considers questions like: Does creation order pertain to leadership? Does Adam naming Eve signify authority? Does Genesis 3:16 suggest that men should rule over women?

Chapter 2

Although Preston’s focus is on women’s roles in the church, he takes Chapter 2 to survey women in the Old Testament. He first explores women generally— their role, power, and societal need in an agrarian context. The majority of the chapter is spent looking at particular women in the Old Testament, such as the midwives in Exodus 3, Ruth, Abigail, Esther, Huldah, and Deborah. He engages with various scholarship and debates as to whether certain women would have been considered leaders or authoritative. The final Old Testament consideration he makes is about the all-male priesthood.

Chapter 3

This chapter looks at the Gospels and the women involved in Jesus’s ministry. Preston explores how the Gospel authors present women, how they function within the overall context of the stories, and how Jesus views them. As he questions whether any of the women would be considered leaders, he turns to Jesus’s definition of leadership. The last quarter of the chapter is dedicated to the twelve apostles being men— is this because men could only be leaders, is it because of cultural context, or is it for symbolic purposes?

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 is dedicated to how the New Testament defines leaders and how the early church functioned. Various terms are applied to leaders, and the New Testament shifts away from society’s perception of a leader. Considerable time is spent looking at house churches, homes in the first century, and house church hosts.

Chapter 5

Preston looks at the women named in Romans 16. More specifically, he looks at the various scholarship and debates surrounding Phoebe (was she a leader as a deacon/servant?), Priscilla (did she teach Apollos?), and Junia (was she an apostle that had authority?).

Chapter 6

In this chapter, Preston dedicates time to considering female prophets in the New Testament. He defines New Testament prophecy, its function, and whether or not prophets played authoritative roles in the early church.

Chapter 7

This chapter looks at Ephesians 5:21-33, a passage that speaks about submission and a husband being the head of a wife. Preston explores Greco-Roman household codes, what the word “head” (Greek kephalē) means as a metaphor (does it describe authority or does it simply mean “source”). The chapter ends with an interpretation of what Paul is teaching in this passage.

Chapter 8

In continuing to explore the idea of headship, Preston moves to look at 1 Corinthians 11:3-12, a notoriously difficult passage to parse—he even acknowledges it as “the most difficult passsage I’ve ever studied in my twenty years as a Pauline scholar” (193). This chapter looks at various interpretive options for the passage. While Preston makes conclusions, he also shares challenges to how he reads it.

Chapter 9

This chapter explores the first of two places that seemingly bar women from teaching or leading: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. He considers the 4 popular interpretations in scholarship.

Chapter 10

The final chapter of the book focuses on 1 Timothy 2-3, the location where most debates on this subject find themselves. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 seemingly teaches that women are not to teach and have authority over a man, and 1 Timothy 3 describes church office qualifications like “the husband of one wife.” The majority of the chapter is spent carefully walking through the various sections of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and then the qualifications of an overseer take up the final portion.

Reflections

As expected, Preston’s writing style is engaging, clear, and effective. While he inevitably tackles technical subjects that involve cultural context and original languages, he handles the material in an accessible fashion. Most people should be able to follow Preston along well.

The book is filled with credible academic scholarship from complementarian and egalitarian scholars, and Preston isn’t afraid to push back when evidence is weak on either side. This results in an intellectually honest, balanced read. As someone who loves the realm of biblical studies, I really appreciated this aspect!

One of the most refreshing aspects of the book is its framing as a journey. The introduction is literally called “May 2022: My Journey into the Women in Leadership Debate.” As the book develops, it feels like we are following beside Preston as he discovers for himself what he believes the Bible says about women in church leadership. Once you reach the conclusion, his stance is not unexpected, but it is satisfying. While most books of this type are often used as reference material, or you come in knowing the author’s conclusions, I think this book is best read not knowing Preston’s conclusions ahead of time. It will allow you to follow his thought process and the intention behind the “journey” literary device. That is why I have elected to avoid “spoilers” in this review— perhaps I will do a more detailed analysis later on once Preston’s position is more widely known (and I have spent more time studying the subject). With that said, I will share a few other reviews that cover the details extensively at the end of this review.

A Few Quotes

• “Midwives, a mother, a sister—all female slaves—and even Pharaoh’s own daughter pave the way for God’s redemption. The agency of women dominates the first two chapters of Exodus. All the male characters are passive, fearful, or profoundly evil.” (47)

• “The biblical authors don’t divide prophecy into categories of public and private— they only distinguish between true prophets and false prophets.” (60)

• “It’s actually quite rare for Jesus to commend someone for their actions. He did so only twice in Mark’s Gospel. And both times, he commended women: the widow, who gave all she had, and this woman, who anointed him.” (72)

• “Jesus overturns a secular understanding of hierarchical rulership. In his kingdom, it’s the ‘servant,’ the ‘slave,’ and the one who ‘serves’ who are ‘great among you’— not the one who acts like a pagan ruler wielding power over people.” (86)

• “Christians didn’t just gather for church in a home. They believed the church was a home, which is why the New Testament so often describes church as a family. Sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers— the early Christians didn’t think church is like a family. They believed it is a family. It is, as Paul says, ‘the household of God’ (1 Tim. 3:15 ESV).” (108-109)

• “But my complementarian seminary professors under the leadership of John MacArthur always taught me to figure out a Greek word’s meaning by looking at how it’s used elsewhere in the Bible, especially by the same writer. The fact that Paul uses kopriaō throughout the rest of the New Testament to describe the minister of church leaders— and never once to describe the ministry of non-leaders— is significant.” (121)

Verdict: Recommend

Most people would benefit from reading From Genesis to Junia. It is a readable, comprehensive study on the subject. While it does favor a particular reading of Scripture (this should not be a surprise), Preston’s conclusions are grounded in careful examination of the text and its context. If you want to begin a study on women in church leadership or on the fence, this book will be a beneficial starting point— and if you want to go deeper, Preston’s scholarly work will provide a bibliography of additional resources to check out. For those who have done serious study, From Genesis to Junia may affirm some of your conclusions and challenge you in other areas.

I think New Testament professor Craig Blomberg put it well in the opening endorsements:

“Few recent Christian books on gender roles in home and ministry have done the tough, needed work on all the key biblical texts and themes to come to their conclusions. Preston Sprinkle has done his homework in this area, and whether one agrees with every view he articulates, his careful and detailed handling of Scripture is exemplary. Gracious in tone and measured in his exegesis. A model for us all.”

Subscribe now

Share

If you would like to know more specifics about the content of the book, below are a few reviews:

• In favor of the book, Bobby Gilles’s review from Your Sons and Daughters will Prophecy: New Creation Musings

• Against the book, Thomas Schreiner from The Gospel Coalition

• Preston Sprinkle also wrote a response to Thomas Schreiner’s critique

I was recently reminded of a story sometimes shared about the high priest and the Most Holy Place. Along these lines, Jewish traditions say that before a high priest would enter the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, a rope would be tied around his ankle. The logic goes that because only the high priest was allowed in the Most Holy Place, if he were to die while there, the rope could be used to drag the body out. Some variants of this tradition will include bells attached to the rope: if the bells stopped ringing, the high priest had died.

Apparently, a few of my friends have heard of this idea before as well as my wife, and I remember hearing this tradition growing up. Perhaps you are aware of this story as well. I’m sure it has been repeated in dozens of sermons and even more devotional books.

While it is a vivid visual, where does this tradition develop? Is there support in that this was truly practiced?

As we’ll see, the evidence is… not great. In fact, everything points to the tradition being a later fictional development. We’ll explore the different sources available, but I think this myth ultimately points to a larger issue found within Christianity.

Biblical Data

I will be plain: there is no textual support in the Bible that a rope was tied around the ankle of a high priest to drag his carcass out of the Most Holy Place if he died. There is no command in the Torah for this to take place, and we don’t read of this ritual being performed by any priest.

High Priestly Clothing

The garments of the high priest are given special attention in the Torah, which is quite helpful for us. It would be here that we’d expect to see some mention of this practice. While the ankle rope does not appear, we do have some other interesting details.

The high priestly garments are first described in Exodus 28. Let’s look at what is mentioned about the robe:

Exodus 28:31-35 (CSB): ³¹“You are to make the robe of the ephod entirely of blue yarn. ³²There should be an opening at its top in the center of it. Around the opening, there should be a woven collar with an opening like that of body armor so that it does not tear. ³³Make pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn on its lower hem and all around it. Put gold bells between them all the way around, ³⁴so that gold bells and pomegranates alternate around the lower hem of the robe. ³⁵The robe will be worn by Aaron whenever he ministers, and its sound will be heard when he enters the sanctuary before the LORD and when he exits, so that he does not die.

While we don’t see the mention of a rope being tied around the ankle, we do have a mention of bells being worn! This is likely where the variant tradition comes from. However, the purpose of these bells seems to be in conflict with the tradition: in the ankle rope tradition, the bells stop ringing to let people know the high priest died, but in Exodus, the high priest wears bells so that he doesn’t die!

Why would the sound of the bells keep the high priest from dying? I found this consideration from Carpenter helpful:

“The question is, “Why?” Many answers have been given. The generic one that is true no matter what additional reasons may be given is that no one can enter Yahweh’s presence unannounced and inappropriately. He is the King of the world, the God of Israel, and has carefully defined how persons may approach him. The sound probably also alerted the other priests, as well as the people within hearing, of the solemn process that was going on. By giving care to his approach and by alerting others to the solemnity of the occasion, the high priest was less likely to approach Yahweh in a way that could result in his death.”1

Another view by Stuart suggests that it might have been a way to symbolize Yahweh’s privacy and dignity because “his house could not be invaded without proper warning. A house that could be entered and exited casually would hardly constitute a royal domicile for the Lord of Glory.”2

High Priest Wardrobe on the Day of Atonement

The above description was the high priest’s normal attire. However, the rope tradition is said to take place when the high priest enters the Most Holy Place. This takes place on the Day of Atonement, and on this day, the high priest would wear different clothes:

Leviticus 16:3-5 (CSB): ³“Aaron is to enter the most holy place in this way: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. ⁴He is to wear a holy linen tunic, and linen undergarments are to be on his body. He is to tie a linen sash around him and wrap his head with a linen turban. These are holy garments; he must bathe his body with water before he wears them. ⁵He is to take from the Israelite community two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.

On the Day of Atonement, the high priest (Aaron, in this case) would ritually cleanse himself by bathing, and then he would wear linen garments set apart for this particular day. These garments were simpler, less extravagant than the normal attire. No pomegranates, no bells, and once again, no rope around the ankle to rescue his dead body.

Origin of the Tradition

While the Bible is silent on this subject, we cannot conclude that this was not practiced. It is quite possible that tying a rope around a high priest’s ankle in case he died was a tradition that developed over time (perhaps a high priest did die in the Most Holy Place at one point, and this resulted in a future practice).

If this happened, we would hope to locate extrabiblical evidence. Perhaps we’d find mention of this in intertestamental literature, or perhaps there’s a fresco that artistically depicts this. Perhaps we’d even see a mention of this tradition in rabbinic literature a few centuries after the temple was destroyed!

To my best knowledge, there is not a single mention of this practice in any literature before or around Second Temple Judaism (the latest time period that this could have been practiced). Rabbinic literature also does not mention the rope-ankle tradition.

The temple was destroyed in AD 70. How many years later do you suppose is the first mention that this tradition is practiced? 300 years later? 500 years later?

The Zohar

Try 1,200 years later. In the late 13th century, a piece of Jewish literature called the Zohar. This literature is part of Kabbalah, a form of Jewish mysticism. If you are unfamiliar with Jewish mysticism (like I was), you can find yourself down quite the rabbit hole on Wikipedia. For our purposes, the author of the Zohar claimed that it was passing on teachings from a Jewish sage in the 2nd century. This origin is universally rejected by scholarship.

But it is in the Zohar where we locate the first recording (to my knowledge) of the rope-ankle tradition. Below are two different English translations:

Zohar.com: Acharei Mot: Verse 198

Afterwards, he washes his body and sanctifies his hands to enter into another holy service. Then he aims to enter another most holy, lofty place; NAMELY, THE HOLY OF HOLIES. Three rows surround THE HIGH PRIEST-his colleague priests, Levite and the rest of the people. THEY REPRESENT THE THREE COLUMNS, PRIEST AND LEVITE REPRESENT RIGHT AND LEFT AND YISRAEL REPRESENT THE SECRET OF THE CENTRAL COLUMN. They raise their hands towards him in prayer. A knot OF ROPE of gold hangs from his leg, FROM FEAR PERHAPS HE WOULD DIE IN THE HOLY OF HOLIES, AND THEY WOULD NEED TO PULL HIM OUT WITH THIS ROPE.

Sefaria Library

Then he bathed himself and washed his hands in preparation for another service, in which he was to enter into a place more holy than all. The other priests, the Levites and the people stood around him in three rows and lifted their hands over him in prayer, and a golden chain was tied to his leg. He took three steps and all the others came to a stand and followed him no further.

In the first text, the capitalized text indicates later commentary added to the text. The second translation is a more straightforward translation. A golden chain (or rope) was said to be tied around the ankle of the high priest, presumably to save the body if he was to die in the Most Holy Place.

Eventually, this tradition makes its way into Christian literature where it is accepted and embellished today. Any reputable commentary will not mention this tradition or reject it explicitly, but the myth lives on in popular writings.

Based on the above evidence, I am confident in stating that high priests never tied a rope around their ankles when entering the Most Holy Place. This was a later fabrication from poor historical sources.

The Larger Issue: Fiction as Fact

The “rope around the high priest’s ankle” myth is a microcosm for the epidemic that surrounds popular-level Christian teaching. Scattered throughout Bible devotionals, sermons, and even poorly researched commentaries are various claims and traditions that are assumed to be factual. But upon scrutiny and tracking down the footnotes, much of it turns out to be later fabrications. Here are a few examples that come to mind:

• Gehenna (“hell”) is often said to have been a dump where Jerusalem’s garbage was burned, and that’s why Jesus links both fire and worms to it. There is no evidence that this is the case, and its origin begins in an 11th-century commentary on Psalm 27:13 by Rabbi David Kimhi (read his commentary here).

• When Jesus says it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (Matt 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), some state that Jesus is referring to a first-century gate in Jerusalem that had the nickname “Eye of the Needle,” and camels would have to bend their knees to be forced through. While this explanation completely ruins the intent and hyperbole of Jesus’s illustration, it just isn’t historically accurate, either. There is no evidence of a gate with this name. This likely originates from Thomas Aquinas’s gloss from Anselm of Canterbury (read more about the origins of this myth here).

• Mary Magdalene is often said to have not only been demon-possessed (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2), but she is also often portrayed as a prostitute. The New Testament never states this. The first mention of this idea is by Pope Gregory I in a sermon preached during the year 591, who seemingly merges Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany (John 12:1-8) and the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 (read the sermon here). Later medieval concepts probably developed this theory further

When studying ancient texts, we must do our due diligence to read them in their original context, gathering whatever data is available for us to best envision the scene.

Whenever you see a claim being made about something in the ancient world, it’s wise to ask the question, “What is the source for this?” Is the source an archaeological discovery or a preserved ancient text? Or is it someone who quotes someone who quotes someone who quotes someone who lived centuries after the event? Let us take care to never let fiction become fact.

Share

Subscribe now

This post was originally a research paper written for a class in seminary. I have adjusted formatting and material to fit this Substack. It is more technical than my usual posts, but I thought it was important to preserve the content as much as possible.

Subscribe now

Introduction

When it comes to the debate regarding the roles of women in ministry and church leadership, one verse that has undergone considerable examination is Rom 16:7. Below is the Greek text along with different translations (emphasis added):

• Greek: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ.

• CSB: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews, and fellow prisoners. They are noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

• NIV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

• NASB (1995): Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Most popular translations align with one of the three above approaches.1 While some find the Greek unclear, probably the most influential factors for the variety are the theological convictions of the committee. Egalitarian scholars have no issue with a woman serving as an apostle, while many complementarians do not believe that is possible.2

Setting presuppositions aside, what does Rom 16:7 reveal? Who was Junia(s), and what is their relationship to the apostles? What does the Greek text tell us, and what does church tradition share? My aim will be to answer these questions. In this article, I will build the case for why it is likely that Junia was a female apostle.

It seems that the debate about Junia can be boiled down to three main questions that I will use in this project to build a cumulative case. The questions are as follows: (1) Was Junia(s) male or female? (2) Was Junia an apostle? (3) What does it mean to be an apostle?

Was Junia(s) Male or Female?

The history of Junia(s)’s gender has experienced an interesting evolution. For the greater length of church history, this individual was assumed to be Junia, a female. But by the 20^th century, it was not uncommon to find arguments in favor of a male Junias, appearing in various commentaries and Bible dictionaries.3 However, the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship agrees with church history that the individual is a female named Junia.

The reason for the differences in opinion is two-fold: (1) one’s definition for “apostle” may or may not limit the role exclusively to men,4 and (2) the original Greek is unclear, as the accent marks that would normally determine a masculine (Ἰουνιᾶν) or feminine (Ἰουνίαν) name in the accusative did not exist in the earliest manuscripts. With the former observation discussed in detail later below and the latter a dead end, scholars have turned to other forms of evidence to argue for “Junias” or “Junia.”

Evidence for Male Junias

The only Greek where we find a masculine interpretation is Epiphanius in Index Disciplulorum, but various factors lead most to dismiss this text as unreliable.5 Giles of Rome in the thirteenth century is often considered the first to label Junia(s) as a male.6 Despite “Junias” being technically possible, there are several weaknesses with this conclusion. The most striking blow against the masculine is a survey of names in Rome that found the Latin name “Junias” to not be attested anywhere.7

A more recent theory for the masculine “Junias” is that the name is a shortened form of “Junianus.” Nicknames were just as common in antiquity as they are today, and scholars note that “Junianus” was a name in usage.8 However, this contracted theory approaches the same issue as above: there is no evidence that “Junianus” was ever specifically shortened.9 To put it simply, this is a hypothesis without any direct support.

Wolters has also presented a theory that “Junia(s)” is a name derived from the Hebrew masculine name יחוי (yĕḥunnî), a shortened form of יחניה(ו) (yĕḥunnīyāh[û]).10 Although the name could be given to women, the only attestation discovered has the Hebrew name being used for men. However, this theory has not been widely adopted; it seems implausible to take so many morphological steps when other, simpler, better-evidenced options are available.11

Evidence for Female Junia

There is overwhelming support in favor of the feminine Ἰουνίαν. First, “Junia” appears to be quite a common name in antiquity. While “Junias” is not attested anywhere, there are over 250 recordings of the Latin name “Junia” in Rome.12 Second, manuscript evidence is in favor of the feminine form. When Greek manuscripts began including accents, the feminine Ἰουνίαν was used in Rom 16:7.13 Third, five early manuscript variants of Rom 16:7 read Ἰουλίαν (“Julia”), a popular feminine name that is also used in Rom 16:15.14 This is significant because the opposite is true in Rom 16:15: instead of Ἰουλίαν, a variant reading from three manuscripts reads Ἰουνίαν! These variants indicate that early scribes found the companion to Andronicus to be feminine.15 Fourth, early translations of the New Testament (Old Latin, Vulgate, Shidic and Bohairic Coptic, and Syriac) present a feminine name.16 Fifth, the early church fathers who comment on the passage assume Junia to be feminine (as well as an apostle, see “Patristic Writers” below).

Some scholars have theorized that Junia in Rom 16:7 is Joanna in the Gospel of Luke. There are similarities to Wolters’s theory: both compare Hebrew names to Greek and Latin names. Bauckham states, “When Jews adopted Greek or Latin names, it was evidently quite common for them to choose names that sounded similar to Semitic names (even though the meaning was quite different).”17 While there is a common pattern in antiquity,18 I remain unconvinced. This theory seems to face the same weaknesses as Wolters’s theory—we don’t find any direct example of a “Joanna” adopting the name “Junia,” and it seems to overstate what the text shares. It is an interesting theory, but it is a theory that cannot be confirmed.

Conclusions on the Name

We have no attestation of the name “Junias” being used, even as a shorthand for “Junianus.” On the other hand, “Junia” was a common name. Even though it is possible that there were names in antiquity that we have no written evidence for, it would be unwise to form a conclusion based on an unlikely hypothesis. The evidence available supports the scholarly consensus that Andronicus’s companion was a female named Junia.

Was Junia an Apostle?

After establishing that Junia was a female, it is now time to consider if Rom 16:7 calls her an apostle. I will first consider the grammar of the Greek text itself and then move on to other considerations.

Grammar Considerations

The main clause to consider from 16:7 is “οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.” There are two basic readings: either Andronicus and Junia are exceptional (1) among/as apostles, or (2) in the eyes of/to the apostles. The former recognizes Junia as an apostle, while the latter does not. These two interpretations are also known as the inclusive and exclusive readings, respectively. Although both translations are possible (ἐν with the dative case is quite flexible), what is the most natural reading, and which option is best supported?

Burer and Wallace have made the strongest case for an exclusive reading of the text. They examined ancient writings for similar or parallel clauses. A summary of their findings is as follows:

To sum up the evidence of biblical and patristic Greek: although the inclusive view is aided in some impersonal constructions that involve ἐν plus the dative, every instance of personal inclusiveness used a genitive rather than ἐν. On the other hand, every instance of ἐν plus personal nouns supported the exclusive view, with Pss. Sol. 2.6 providing a very close parallel to Rom 16.7.19

They conclude that Rom 16:7 should be an exclusive reading. However, several scholars have responded critically to the paper, citing a lack of transparency and misinterpretation of the evidence.20 Rather than prove an exclusive reading of Rom 16:7, Burer and Wallace have only shown that both options are entirely possible.21

Others have looked outside of the clause for support of a particular reading. For example, Huttar hypothesizes the purpose of Paul’s descriptions. When looking at the other descriptions in chapter 16, he is left unconvinced that Andronicus (and Junia) are apostles.22 Lin believes Huttar does not recognize the full social-rhetorical implications, giving good reason why Paul would highlight their apostleship.23 She also highlights the importance of Andronicus and Junia being in Christ before Paul. By noting their status as apostles who came before him, Paul rhetorically postures himself as the last apostle.24

With both interpretations technically possible, I agree with Bauckham that patristic writings are a necessary and weighty piece of evidence for the conversation.25

Patristic Writers

Early church authors who comment on Rom 16:7 resoundingly agree that Junia was a female apostle. Fitzmyer traces references from various individuals, including Origen, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pseudo-Primasius, and John of Damascus.26 John Chrysostom is especially significant as he knew Greek well. In a homily over the passage, he declares, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”27

Conclusions on Connection to Apostles

Regarding textual and patristic evidence, the best conclusion is that Junia was a female apostle. Although the Greek can promote an inclusive or exclusive reading, early church writings assume Junia’s apostleship. This has once again become a widely adopted view among scholarship, even in complementarian circles.28

Subscribe now

What Does it Mean to be an Apostle?

Having established that Junia was a female apostle, I can now approach the most important question of this article: what does it mean to be called an “apostle?” This is such a vital question because many conclusions in scholarship hinge on how “apostle” is defined. Rather than letting the text transform our understanding of early church roles, some enter Rom 16:7 with presuppositions, assuming women cannot be apostles.29

Another challenge is that the New Testament never provides a clear definition for “apostle.” Instead, we must use context to understand this role properly. A thorough study of ἀπόστολος is beyond the scope of this article, but I will draw out a few key considerations when it comes to defining “apostle” in Rom 16:7.

ἀπόστολος According to Lexicons

Outside of the New Testament, ἀπόστολος had a wide range of meanings. LSJ defines the word as “messenger, ambassador, envoy.”30 However, an apostle could also describe a naval expedition, a ship ready for departure, a bill of lading in papyri, administrative services, or even a colony.31

In the New Testament, ἀπόστολος is used 80 times, with 34 being in Paul’s letters.32 It seems to adopt the usage of the Hebrew word שליח (šālîaḥ), in which someone is sent as an authoritative representative.33 What was a rare occurrence in the secular usage of the word becomes the defining feature of an apostle in the New Testament.34 BDAG describes the primary New Testament usage as referring to “a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys.”35

Types of Apostles in the New Testament

Because the New Testament does not give a clear definition for “apostle,” it can be challenging to navigate its usage. Different biblical authors also seem to nuance the meaning of the term. I will focus on Pauline usage, which is difficult enough.36

While “apostle” often describes the twelve apostles of Jesus in the Gospels and Acts, Paul sometimes makes a distinction between them and a broader group (1 Cor 15:5, 7).37 There are also a few instances where Paul uses “apostle” to describe a church messenger (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). Some scholars believe some apostles carry apostolic authority like the Twelve, while others were only itinerant evangelists, although how one is placed into a particular group is often unclear.38 Others find general apostles to be like modern-day missionaries sent by a church.39 Bauckham argues against this, believing Paul to have only used “apostle” in reference to those who had seen the risen Christ and were commissioned by him (per 1 Cor 15). When not used in this technical sense, Paul designates that the individual is sent by a church.40

When it comes to Andronicus and Junia, those who accept them as apostles land in one of the above categories. If they were commissioned by Christ, they carry some sort of apostolic authority, or at the very least, they have a special status in proclaiming the gospel to the unreached. If they were commissioned by a church, they may primarily be carrying out evangelistic tasks without being seen as high authority figures.

Conclusions on Apostleship

It is difficult to say exactly what Junia did or did not do as an apostle. Bauckham gives a strong argument to show consistency with Paul’s usage of ἀπόστολος, and paired with the note that they were in Christ before Paul, it is possible they were one of many commissioned by Jesus. On the other hand, I find it intriguing that the early church had seemingly no issue with calling Junia an apostle while also restricting women from carrying out certain teaching and leadership roles.41 At the very least, it is safe to assume that Junia proclaimed the gospel as a representative of a church or Christ, and with that came some sort of recognized authority or honor.

Concluding Thoughts

Junia was almost certainly a female apostle. Her role as an apostle is tricky and unclear, and an extensive study on apostleship is necessary before making solid conclusions. The implications for the roles of women in church ministry/leadership today will be reserved for others to encounter, but I hope to have proven this: regardless of one’s own theological convictions, individuals will have to wrestle with the text that teaches there was once a female apostle named Junia.

Share

Within the past year of preaching, I have found myself returning to a certain image: followers of Jesus should have open hands rather than closed fists. What I value about this image is twofold. First, it is a tangible image that integrates a call to action: change your posture from closed fists to open-handedness. Second, this metaphor can carry multiple different meanings. It is a versatile image that can continue to carry its impact.

In 2026, I’m excited for the different subjects we will explore, even if some of them could lead to controversy. As a result, I want to embrace this open-handed posture from the outset. In this short post, allow me to reflect on just a few of the many perspectives of this image.

Subscribe now

Non-violence

Luke 6:27-29a: Love your enemies, do what is good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other also.

Romans 12:14: Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Romans 12:17-21: Do not repay anyone evil for evil… live at peace with everyone… do not avenge yourselves; instead, leave room for God’s wrath… If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink… Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good.

1 Corinthians 4:12b-13: When we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we respond graciously.

Philippians 4:5: Let your graciousness be known to everyone.

Hebrews 12:14: Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness—without it no one will see the Lord.

1 Peter 2:21-23: Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth; when he was insulted, he did not insult in return, when he suffered, he did not threaten but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.

The posture of those who follow the Lamb is one of nonviolence (perhaps we’ll explore this more in a future post!). We aren’t called to raise fists against another— to take matters into our own hands. Instead, we bring our vengeance to God. We open our hands to others, trusting that God will bring justice. By giving vengeance to God, we’re freed to present the love of Christ to others, even our worst enemies.

Generosity

Acts 2:44-45: Now all the believers were together and held all things in common. They sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Philippians 4:15-19: And you Philippians know that in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving except you alone. For even in Thessalonica you sent gifts for my need several times. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the profit, that is increasing to your account. But I have received everything in full, and I have an abundance. I am fully supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you provided—a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.

1 John 3:17: If anyone has this world’s goods and sees a fellow believer in need but withholds compassion from him—how does God’s love reside in him?

We often hold our possessions and money tightly, with closed fists: “It’s my money, and I can choose what to do with it.” However, the pattern in the New Testament is of a people who are community-focused, an attitude that says, “What is mine is yours.” As we follow Christ more faithfully, we will find ourselves reflecting his generosity— our fists will uncurl into open-handedness, freely and generously helping those with little.

Humility

Philippians 2:3-5:  Do nothing out of selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. Everyone should look not to his own interests, but rather to the interests of others. Adopt the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant [slave, AT],1 taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death— even to death on a cross.

1 Peter 5:5-7: In the same way, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. All of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Huamble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your cares on him, becuase he cares about you.

Pride is a common posture of life. We beat our chests with closed fists, declaring ourselves to be important above all of us. We make ourselves the main character, where everyone else serves the interests of our own stories.

But in the radical, upside-down way of the Lamb, we find a different attitude. An attitude of humility, of making oneself nothing, of slaving over the needs of another. We open our hands, reaching out to care for others over ourselves.

Opening My Hands

May 2026 be a year where we won’t close our fists but instead open our hands. May we engage in the comments on posts with grace and charity, never inciting violence but seeking understanding. May we be open to the possibilities of what Scripture says and what God is speaking to His people. May we find moments to be generous towards one another when we sense needs that have not been met.

If you have other ideas on how this image could be used, let me know in the comments!

Share

Subscribe now

As we begin the new year, I thought it would be good to review Following the Lamb’s 2025 posts and give a small preview of what I’ll be sharing in 2026! I hope to see you soon.

Subscribe now

Where We’ve Been: Some of My Favorite Posts

For those who have recently begun reading (thank you, and welcome!), I wanted to share a few posts that stand out and that I enjoyed writing. At the end of each summary is a link that’ll direct you to the post!

Most-Read: The Rapture

In late 2025, speculation about the Rapture surged due to a particular prediction made. I believe much of the doom and gloom is misinformed due to poor readings of Scripture. This post attempts to correct such misreadings. It ended up being my most-read post of the year, and I think it will be fruitful to read.

The Gospel in Focus (Series)

In this ambitious project, I spent a week making daily posts related to the gospel. It was a fun project, but I am not sure I’ll do such an intense project for awhile! If you want to consider what Scripture says about the gospel of Jesus Christ, reflect on modern descriptions of it, or want to see a defense of what is often labelled the King Jesus Gospel, check out this series! The first post is linked below, and the end of each post directs to the next installment of the series.

Pax Romana and Our Cultural Moment

I am not a political theologian, but I am a follower of the Lamb, and that sometimes necessitates certain witness in the political sphere. In these two posts, that posture collides with my passion for biblical studies. The first post looks strictly at Pax Romana under the Roman Empire and Revelation’s critique of this peace. The second post considers parallels between the Roman and American peace projects and how the church might respond as faithful witnesses.

A Theology of Dirty Diapers

I loved writing this post. It reads a little differently than my other posts as it participates more in the realm of theological reflection. In it, I consider how the Incarnation teaches us that changing a baby’s dirty diaper is a holy calling. If you missed it, I think it’s well worth the read!

Annihilationism: To Heresy or Not to Heresy

In one of my final posts of the year, I reflected on the controversy among evangelical circles where Kirk Cameron considered the annihilationist view of hell. In this post, I make a defense for why Annihilationism/Conditional Immortality is not heretical, and I challenge followers of the Lamb to avoid slinging the “heresy” label around thoughtlessly.

Where We’re Going: Plans for 2026

I have many ideas for posts this year, but I’d love your input to help direct this Substack! If you have an extra minute or two, please consider filling out this survey. I’d really appreciate it!

A brief note: in 2025, I consistently published two posts a week. One post was related to an ongoing series that shared content related to what I preached on a given Sunday, and the other post was the “meatier” post of the week, shared on the weekend. For various reasons, including additional church responsibilities and reflections on the direction of this Substack, my “schedule” for the foreseeable future is a weekly post each Saturday with additional posts appearing during the week sporadically.

With that said, below are a few things to look forward to this year.

More on Revelation

I have made a few posts related to Revelation already, and this Substack’s title is inspired by a passage in Revelation. When I studied the book a few years ago, it became one of the most personally formative books in the New Testament. I believe Revelation may be one of the most important texts of Scripture, and it would bring me joy to have others see it in the same light. This year, you can plan to see more posts on how to read, interpret, and apply Revelation.

Course Correcting Readings of Pharisees and Judaism

For my Master’s thesis at Northern Seminary, I decided to study and write on first-century Pharisees. In it, I looked at historical sources to better understand who the Pharisees were, and then I explored how this reconstruction interacted with the gospels, particularly the Sermon on the Mount.

I discovered that there are many bad readings of the Pharisees today, both at an academic and popular level. This year, I plan to make posts sharing some of my conclusions. However, misreadings of the Pharisees are a microcosm of the greater problems that exist in understanding first-century Judaism. I plan to write on ancient sources that inform us about the first-century Jewish world, as well as what this world was truly like to our best knowledge.

The Sermon on the Mount

As stated above, I spent a portion of my thesis on the Sermon on the Mount, particularly Matt 5. I am not sure exactly what this might look like, but the Sermon is rich and plentiful, so I’d imagine we’ll find ourselves looking at it closely this year.

Other Subjects of Interest

While there may be “hot topic” issues that appear next year that I’ll choose to post about, those cannot be easily predicted. However, there are a few subjects that I imagine may show up in this Substack, partially because I’m interested in studying them further. Here are a few topics that might show up:

• Theories of atonement

• Interpretations of Genesis 1-11

• Women in ministry

• Book reviews

• Miscellaneous topics related to New Testament biblical scholarship

Sunday, I preached through Hosea 11:1-11 at Matthew 2:13-15. We looked at what it meant for Israel to be God’s son in Hosea and how Matthew was making a theological statement about Jesus typologically.

Share

A New Parenting Style

There’s a current trend among younger parents who are following a parenting style called FAFO parenting. FAFO is an acronym for “f*** around and find out.” Effectively, in this style of parenting, a child will end up experiencing the natural consequences of his or her actions: if you go outside without a jacket, it’s gonna be cold; if you don’t eat your food, you’re gonna be hungry later. You can read more about this parenting style here.

If we wanted to use a loose illustration, God at times implements FAFO parenting. He gives Israel good direction, he warns them what might happen if they don’t listen, and then the consequences of their actions happen. Sometimes these are natural consequences, and other times God is more directly involved. The covenant curses seem to be a bit of both. In being unfaithful, God lifts up his arms of protection and allows enemy armies to enter the land. Israel knew what would happen, and they face the results of their actions.

God’s Firstborn Son

Sunday, we saw how Jesus wasn’t the first to be called God’s son— Hosea is about God’s son, Israel! But Hosea isn’t the first to make such a statement. Rather, this is another example of Hosea drawing upon language and imagery from the Exodus narrative. Look what God tells Moses in Exodus 4:

“And you will say to Pharaoh: This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son. I told you: Let my son go so that he may worship me, but you refused to let him go. Look, I am about to kill your firstborn son!” (Exod 4:22-23)

It’s rare for the Old Testament to speak of corporate Israel as God’s son, so this seems to be an intentional connection point. By using images and language from Exodus, Hosea wants to clearly share with his audience, “What happened back in Exodus is happening again today.” Matthew will later follow this typological approach in Matt 2.

Roaring like a Lion

The lion imagery in Hosea is quite interesting. On one hand, a lion signifies might and power. In some sense, it might even include elements of fear (after all, who would want to face a lion?). But in Hosea, the lion’s roar actually draws the birds near to him.

The New Testament picks up on lion imagery with Jesus in Revelation, where it’s declared that the lion of Judah has conquered or overcome, and this makes him worthy to open the scroll (Rev 5:5). But then the scene shifts, and as John looks to the lion, he actually sees a standing, slaughtered lamb! The mightiest creature is revealed to be one of the weakest.

This scene in Revelation is foundational to both the book and this Substack. You can read more about it here.

In both passages, the lion imagery includes surprising details. It is appropriate to think of God and Jesus as a mighty lion, but we must carefully articulate why he is mighty.

During my last summer intensive for seminary this year, I went to the Marion E. Wade Museum at Wheaton College with a group of friends. This is a museum that displays a collection of artifacts and items mostly related to C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. While there, I picked up the following print poster that now hangs in my office:

The text is an excerpt from Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. As the children are learning about Aslan, they wonder if such a lion can possibly be safe. Mr. Beaver then says the following:

“‘Safe?’ said Mr. Beaver, ‘don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the king, I tell you.’”

The lion imagery reminds us of God’s might and the deserved reverence it inspires. But he’s also good for those who side with him. His roar is one that causes trembling, but it’s a roar that calls his people home.

The past two weeks, popular actor and Christian advocate Kirk Cameron came under fire when he suggested that annihilationism may be a more accurate understanding of hell.

For those who don’t know, Annihilationism is a view of hell that teaches that the wicked, those not in Christ, will be punished for their sins by being destroyed completely, body and soul. They will cease to exist, extinguished. Annihilationism is also known by the term Conditional Immortality (CI) because adherents of the view believe that only those who profess faith in Christ will be granted immortality.

This view runs counter to the common picture of hell known as Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT), which teaches that the wicked will be punished for their sins by suffering for eternity with full awareness. This has sometimes been taken literally (they will be burned by fire, their skin effectively regrowing and melting forever), while other times metaphorically (they will experience complete separation and absence of God the life-giver). ECT effectively teaches that all people are granted immortality, but some will experience eternity flourishing and others an eternity of suffering.

After Cameron’s podcast episode aired, the Christian world erupted in responses from various Christian leaders, apologists, and influencers. Some reacted by defending Cameron (even if they didn’t agree with him), including Gavin Ortlund, Wes Huff, Sean McDowell, and CI defenders Dan Paterson and Chris Date. Others dismissed or even condemned Cameron’s views, such as SBTS President Albert Mohler, Ray Comfort, and Mark Driscoll (who somehow still has a platform). Mohler goes as far as to say that tampering with the doctrine of hell (which he means ECT) is actually tampering with the gospel!1 In other words, one’s view of hell is more than just a secondary issue— it is borderline a salvation issue! Others online have been more explicit on this, saying that Kirk Cameron is a heretic for holding to Annihilationism!

Whenever I began to see these claims, I couldn’t help but roll my eyes and say, “Sure, Jan.” Another personal thrown out of Christian circles, here we go again!

I believe uncharitable critics of Cameron have not thoughtfully considered the implications of their statements. For a few brief moments, I want to defend why Annihilationism/Conditional Immortality is not heretical. In doing so, we might reveal how throwing around “heresy” says more about the critic than it does the one being called a heretic.

Defining “Heresy”

One of the challenges with language is the flexibility of terms and definitions— what I mean when I use a word might mean something different when you use it. Therefore, we must determine common definitions to make progress in conversations (or at least recognize the difference in definitions).

“Heresy” is a popular word in our current Christian culture, most widely used in conservative circles. Ironically, the word is often used liberally in these tribes— effectively, anything that is not in line with that individual or tradition’s teaching can be called heretical. That person is deemed a heretic or false teacher and should not be considered part of the church. This ends up leading to dogmatic culture— consider KJV-onlyist movements, for example. Furthermore, this makes heresy subjective— a Calvinist could point at an Arminian and call them a heretic, and then the Arminian on the other side of the room could point to the Calvinist and say the same thing! The moment that heresy becomes subjective is the moment that the weight behind the word is lost.

How do we determine what heresy is? It begins with a better definition. In Heresies and How to Avoid Them, Ben Quash writes:

“Ideas achieve the status of heresies in Christian tradition because they are thought by the Church to be wrong rather than right teaching, or ‘doctrine.’ a heretic is a baptized person who obnstinately denies or doubts a truth which the Church teaches must be beleived because it is part of the one, divinely revealed, and catholic (that is, universally valid) Christian faith.”2

Heresies are identified as beliefs that oppose universally held beliefs in the Church. Wrong beliefs are heterodox while correct beliefs are orthodox. For something to be categorized as heresy, it requires agreement in shared language across church traditions as they examine Scripture together. Historically, this has taken place at various ecumenical councils. Before something even becomes a heresy, it often starts as a wrestling with an idea: how do we make sense of Jesus being divine and human? As various voices weighed in, some were marked as being problematic and contradictory to what is revealed in Scripture. The Church meets together, carefully defines what Scripture teaches through creeds, and from that point, other views are established as heretical.

It should be noted that these councils were not settling minor disputes on biblical interpretation. These disagreements were foundational, theologically significant ideas, such as the nature of the person of Christ or God. Beliefs labelled “heresy” often led to either a distortion of Christianity and salvation (like Gnosticism) or issues related to the character of God (like Marcionism). Another way we could say it: heresies are related to non-negotiables of the Christian faith.

As I consider these ideas, perhaps two questions can help clarify if something is or isn’t a heresy:

• Is this a belief that has been universally rejected across Christian traditions or at an ecumenical council?

• Does this belief distort, add to, or take away from non-negotiables of the Christian faith?

If the answer is “yes” to either of these, then it is outside of the bounds of orthodox— it is a heretical belief.

How should we view someone who teaches heresy and refuses correction? The language of heresy developed later in Christianity, but perhaps that is what Paul has in mind when he speaks of false teaching:

³If anyone teaches false doctrine and does not agree with the sound teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the teaching that promotes godliness, ⁴he is conceited and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in disputes and arguments over words. From these come envy, quarreling, slander, evil suspicions, ⁵and constant disagreement among people whose minds are depraved and deprived of the truth, who imagine that godliness is a way to material gain. (1 Tim 6:3-5)

³For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear what they want to hear. ⁴They will turn away from hearing the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

⁹But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, because they are unprofitable and worthless. ¹⁰Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning. ¹¹For you know that such a person has gone astray and is sinning; he is self-condemned. (Tit 3:8-11)

Some translations will even use “heresy” language in 2 Peter:

¹There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. ²Many will follow their depraved ways, and the way of truth will be maligned because of them. ³They will exploit you in their greed with made-up stories. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep. (2 Pet 2:1-3)

In the New Testament, false teaching is a serious issue; it seems that they would be related to the same questions asked about heresy. If true, false teachers should not only be ignored but be recognized as coloring outside the lines of orthodoxy. A false teacher is not someone who teaches anything you don’t agree with; a false teacher is someone who is intentionally leading people astray.

So, what about Kirk Cameron?

No, Annihilationism isn’t Heresy

Thanks for reading! Consider subscribing to receive weekly posts.

Subscribe now

Okay, but for real, people who hold to Conditional Immortality/Annihilationists are definitely not heretics. Let’s ponder our two questions to determine heresy:

Has Annihilationism been universally rejected by the Church?

Nope. Throughout church history, there was never an ecumenical council to properly define “hell” or the final place of judgment for the wicked. In fact, the first 500 years or so of church history show that there were multiple views of hell, with the three common views being Universalism, Eternal Conscious Torment, and, yes, Annihilationism. Here are a few examples in the early church that seemingly promote an Annihilationist view of hell:

• Didache (AD 70-100): Earliest Christian writing outside of the New Testament that serves as a “manual” related to Christian living. It speaks in a way that leads to death and of people perishing. Scholars debate whether or not this is explicitly annihilationist, but its language is ambiguous and possible

• The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 100-135): an anonymous letter that compares the Old Testament with New Testament practices. The letter speaks of the righteous being glorified and the wicked perishing with all things. The author also speaks of an eternal death

• Justin Martyr (AD 155): Early church father living from around AD 90-165. He explicitly believed immortality to be given to the righteous only

• Arnobius of Sicca (AD 297-310): an early Christian who believed immortality was granted to the righteous. Souls were mortal unless God granted them life.

Annihilationism was a common view until the time of Augustine. From that point forward, ECT became the dominant view of hell. I think this history leads to two prominent conclusions. First, Annihilationism was never deemed a heresy by the church, despite it being part of the discussion on hell. This means, second, the early church did not believe different views of hell were significant enough to break fellowship with others. This was an important but ultimately secondary area of belief.

Does Annihilationism distort, add to, or take away from non-negotiables of the Christian faith?

Once again, we can determine that this is also not the case. Unlike what Albert Mohler suggests, shifting from ECT to CI does not impact any of the non-negotiables of Christianity. It does not deny saving faith in Christ, judgment upon the wicked, the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity.

In fact, there are really strong, biblical arguments in favor of CI (this is why the view was even present in the early church). Annihilationists take seriously the claims of God destroying the body and soul in hell (Matt 10:28) and the consistent claim that the punishment for sin is death (Rom 6:23), which is made manifest in Revelation with final judgment being called the second death (Rev 20:6, 14; 21:8). Both ECT and CI have passages that, at least on first glance, seemingly favor their view, so believers can wrestle with these texts in good faith.

Two orthodox Christians could be in conversation with each other, and they would be able to be in agreement with every primary doctrine of the faith. They would even use similar language about the day of judgment and Christ’s return— their only difference would be that the ECT advocate would find punishment to be ongoing torture while the CI Christian would find punishment to be the extinguishing of the body and soul.

Heresy Seeking is a Witch Hunt

I said earlier that throwing around the term “heresy” has more to say about the critic than the one being critiqued. The term (as well as general criticism toward alternate viewpoints) is used too loosely, and it ultimately becomes a way for a critic to enforce dogmatism.

This has been especially relevant among reformed circles this year. Whether it is Matthew Bates or Kirk Cameron, some Calvinists want to draw lines in the sand as a way to say, “If you don’t hold to our views, you aren’t holding to historic Christianity.” Instead of good good-faith discussion, the temperature in the room rises and becomes more divisive.

Labelling false teachings as heresy was originally meant to better unite the people of God together— they stand together on the essentials of the faith. In today’s climate, however, improperly labelling people as false teachers or heretics ends up having the reverse effect! Instead of stirring Christians toward unity, charging heresy just divides the church further.

Many faithful followers of Jesus like Kirk Cameron end up caught in the crossfire as people take a shotgun full of charges and fire widely. There are people in the world today who are doing serious harm to the Church and her reputation by teaching harmful, deceitful, false, and heretical beliefs. We waste our time, energy, and relational equity when we choose to major in the minors.

Instead, let us be careful to responsibly speak about heresy, correct when necessary, and leave room for charitable conversations in other situations. And when we see people on a heresy witch hunt, we can purse our lips and say, “Sure, Jan.”

Share

Subscribe now