Category Archives: Articles

Articles

The Roller-Coaster of Faith – The Life of the Apostle Peter (Part One)

Leave a comment

WELCOME BACK!  We’re been working hard, getting things ready for you to read and enjoy and use.  I’ve received emails from several people who have told me that they are using the apostles lessons as sermons and/or class material.  Thanks for letting me know!  We are so happy that you are finding it useful!  Now, enough of the chit-chatting; on to the story of Peter!!!!!

The most prominent of all the apostles, Peter has been both exalted far beyond his rightful place, and cast down to near-Judas depths by religious people over the past two thousand years.  In their rush to deny Peter’s place as the first Pope, many Christians unfortunately negate Peter’s divinely-given prominence among the apostles, and by extension, the early church.  Neither extreme is correct.

Simon Peter’s Family

Jesus refers to him as the “son of John” or “son of Jonah.”1  We know nothing about this man except that he had two very religious sons: Simon (later called Peter) and Andrew.  From this, we can infer that he was probably a devout Jew as well.

It is thanks to his brother Andrew that Simon first gets to meet Jesus.  Andrew, a disciple of John the Immerser, was pointed to Jesus as “the Lamb of God,” and went to find Simon, telling him, “We have found the Messiah!”2  It is quite possible that Simon was also a disciple of John, which would explain how Andrew was able to find him and bring him to Jesus that same day.3

Possibly as much as a year later, Jesus comes into Simon’s house in Capernaum, and heals Simon’s mother-in-law. She immediately got up and began to serve them, which shows that she was most likely a kind, hospitable woman.  Simon Peter was married,4 though we know very little about his wife except that she (1) was still living some 25 years after Pentecost, (2) apparently accompanied her husband on some of his ministry trips, and (3) was a Christian.5  As a side note, this is evidence against Peter being the “first Pope,” as Popes aren’t allowed to be married.6

Simon Peter’s Names

When he was born, this man who would later become one of the greatest Christians to ever live was given the name Simon, or Simeon.7  This was an ancient name, common among the Israelites8 because it was the name of the second-born of the twelve sons of Jacob.9

When Simon met Jesus for the first time, the Lord said to him, “You are Simon, the son of John: you shall be called Cephas.”10  The name Cephas means “stone” in Hebrew.11  After this, however, Paul is the only one who uses this Hebrew form of the name.12

The name “Peter” is simply the Greek form of the Hebrew “Cephas.”  So when Jesus told him that he would be called “Cephas,” He could just as accurately said, “You will be called Peter,” because they mean the same thing.  After this, Simon is almost always referred to as either “Peter” or “Simon Peter.”13

The name “Peter” was divinely-given,14 perhaps to emphasize the kind of person Jesus needed Simon to become—a steady source of strength.15  It is also possible that Jesus gave Him this name, in part, because of the illustration He would use in Matthew 16:16-18:

Simon Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered and said to him, “You are blessed, Simon, son of John: because flesh and blood hasn’t revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  And I say to you, that you are Peter [Greek, Petros], and upon this rock [Greek, Petra] I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

The difference in the two words, Petros and Petra, are striking.  Petros [Peter] is masculine in Greek, and means a small rock; Petra is feminine in Greek, and means a large slab of rock, bedrock, or a solid mountain of rock.  It was the inspired statement that Peter made (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God) that was the rock upon which the church would be built—not Peter himself.16

-Bradley S. Cobb

1 John 1:42; 21:15-17.  The King James’ Version of Matthew 16:17 gives a transliteration of the Greek (which was a transliteration of the Aramaic), “Barjona.”  But this simply means “son of Jonah,” or “son of John.”  The two names are very similar in the original language.  See David Smith’s article, “Peter,” in James Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible.

2 John 1:40-41.

3 John the Immerser was baptizing in Bethabara (John 1:28), which was near Jericho, around 60 miles from Capernaum, where Peter and Andrew lived (Mark 1:19-21).  Thus, Peter must have been nearby.  This has led many to the natural conclusion that Peter was a disciple of John, which is a very reasonable guess (see W. Patrick’s article, “Peter,” in Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels).

4 In addition to the fact that Peter had a mother-in-law (an impossibility for an unmarried man), he also identifies himself as “an elder” (1 Peter 5:1), thus he was a “husband of one wife,” or more literally, a “one-woman man” (1 Timothy 3:2).  If he was not married, then he would have no right to hold the office of an elder.  In addition, 1 Corinthians 9:5 appeals to Peter as an example of a married apostle (see next footnote).

5 1 Corinthians 9:5, written approximately AD 56, states “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles and the brethren of our Lord, and Cephas [Peter]?”  From this passage, (1) it seems that it was common knowledge that the other apostles were married at that time; (2) the phrase “lead about” means to take someone around with them, showing the apostles’ wives accompanied them; and (3) Paul specifically states that each wife was “a sister,” that is, a sister in Christ (see this verse in ASV, MLV, ESV, NKJV, etc.)

6 The Catholic Church claims Peter was the first Pope, the first bishop of Rome.  There are several lines of biblical evidence which refute this false doctrine, such as: (1) Peter was married, though the Catholic Church teaches that priests (from which the Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and Popes come) cannot be married; (2) Paul desired to come to Rome to work with the church (Romans 1:10-11); but also said that he would not build on another man’s foundation (Romans 15:20); and Peter’s name is conspicuously absent from the list of greetings that Paul gives to the Christians in Rome (Romans 16); there is no biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome; Peter’s mission was to the Jews (Galatians 2:9), and all the Jews had been expelled from Rome (Acts 18:2), giving Peter no reason to go there.  There is much more that could be added, but as it is outside the scope of this work, this will suffice.

7 He is called “Simon” in the gospel accounts, but in Acts 15:14, James (the brother of the Lord) refers to him as “Simeon.” Though it is not translated as such in most English Bibles, in 2 Peter 1:1, he identifies himself as “Simeon Peter” (the ESV, NRSV, NET, NAB, Disciples Literal New Testament, and the Living Oracles all translate this properly).

8 There is a Simeon in Luke 2:25-35; another one mentioned in Luke 3:30; a prophet with that name in Acts 13:1.  Jesus had a brother named Simon (Matthew 13:55); two apostles had that name (Matthew 10:1-4); Jesus ate at the house of a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:36-44); Jesus stayed in the house of Simon the leper near the end of His ministry (Matthew 26:6); a man named Simon carried Jesus’ cross (Matthew 27:32); Judas Iscariot’s father was named Simon (John 12:4); the infamous magician-turned-Christian (and according to tradition, turned enemy of Christianity) was named Simon (Acts 8:9, 13); Peter stayed in the house of Simon the tanner while in Joppa (Acts 9:43, 10:5-6).

9 Genesis 35:23.

10 John 1:42.

11 The Hebrew root, Keph (Ś›ÖŒŚŁ) is used in Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:29.

12 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5; and Galatians 2:9.

13 Twice in Matthew, Jesus refers to Peter simply as “Simon” (Matthew 16:17; 17:25); In Mark, after noting that Jesus gave Simon the name “Peter,” the apostle is only identified called “Simon” one time (though in the same verse (14:37), Mark also calls him as Peter); Luke’s gospel account uses “Simon” multiple times after noting that he was also called Peter (7:40-44; 22:31; 24:34); John records Jesus calling him “Simon” on only one occasion (21:15-17).  After Pentecost, the only time the name “Peter” or “Cephas” is absent in identifying him is Acts 15:14, where he is called “Simeon.”

14 Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14.

15 Simon would eventually be the one who used the “keys of the kingdom” to welcome both Jew and Gentile into the Kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:16-18; Acts 2; Acts 10-11).  He was also one who was given a specific commission to strengthen the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:31-32); and was entrusted with the shepherding care of Jesus’ sheep (John 21:15-17).

16 The Catholic Church ignores the differences in the original words to make the claim that Jesus was going to build the church on Peter himself (yet again, their argument to elevate Peter to Popehood fails based on biblical evidence).  The only way that petra could be a reference to Peter is if he somehow got a sex change halfway through Jesus’ sentence—an absolute absurdity.

Articles

A Brief Review of the Hester-Preston Debate (Part Two)

2 Comments

Yesterday, we gave a very brief review of our impressions from the first night of the Hester-Preston debate, when Don Preston affirmed that the final coming of Christ and the resurrection of the just and the unjust took place in AD 70.  Today, we will review the second night, when the roles were reversed.

(note: as stated yesterday, a much fuller review, complete with quotations and specific arguments will appear in the first issue of the Quarterly).

Proposition 2: The Bible teaches that the Second (final) coming of Christ and the attendant resurrection of the just and the unjust, is yet future, and will occur at the end of time.

David Hester opened the evening’s discussion by clearly defining his proposition and then giving 23 numbered arguments for why the resurrection could not have taken place in AD 70.  I thought some of them were powerful and worth consideration, and a couple of them I would have suggested he leave out.  He spent a decent amount of time speaking about the Lord’s Supper, which was to show the death of Christ “until He comes,” pointing out that if Jesus came in AD 70, then the Lord’s Supper really doesn’t show anything at all anymore.

Preston’s response focused mainly on reiterating his arguments from the night before, and he only specifically mentioned four of David’s twenty-three arguments.  He pointed out that David didn’t answer all of his arguments from the night before, restating several of them.  He also brought up a couple arguments against David’s proposition by appealing to specific Greek constructions in certain passages.

In his second speech, Hester requested that Preston answer the arguments given instead of “rehashing” things from the night before, since this was a new proposition.    He also showed some examples from the Bible that disproved one of the Greek arguments that was made, while also spending much time affirming that while the time of the destruction of Jerusalem was known by Jesus and the apostles, the time of the final judgment and resurrection was not.

Preston, in reply, argued his points again (except for that Greek argument), emphasizing that his arguments from the night before, while not specifically answering each detail of Hester’s 23 arguments,  were sufficient to disprove them.  He also spent a good deal of time giving arguments against the idea that the apostles didn’t know when the second coming of Jesus would be (specifically John 16, “He will guide you into all truth).

David Hester spent around half of his final speech quoting translations and recognized Greek scholars in regards to the Greek word “mello,” which Preston says means “about to” and stresses imminence.  He also reiterated some of his previous arguments and gave Acts 1:7 as proof that the apostles weren’t privy to the time of the final coming of Christ.

The final speech by Don Preston covered a lot of the territory from earlier speeches, and he re-emphasized some of the points from the previous night which Hester didn’t really address.  Some of these points demand examination and study, and I wish Hester would have gotten to them.  But like we said in yesterday’s post, there was so much information put out there that it was pretty much impossible to deal with all the lines of argumentation that were given.  This is the same situation that Don found himself in on the second night.

Though I think he could have done more to answer the specific 23 arguments given by David Hester, there really wasn’t enough time in the debate to devote to answering each one specifically.  He did make a strong point that David didn’t show a passage that referred to “the end of time.”

Day 2 Conclusion:

Because of Hester’s understandable, structured presentation of the material, and Preston’s lack of specific answers to 80% of the arguments put forth, our impression is that the proposition affirmed by David Hester was successfully defended.

Again, as we said before, there wasn’t time to sufficiently cover each argument, but there was opportunity to deal with more than four of them, which we believe would have been a better use of Preston’s speeches.

Having said that, Preston did offer some evidence in his rebuttal speeches that deserves further study.  But these were not sufficient in and of themselves to successfully negate the proposition being argued.

Final Conclusion:

Both men were very passionate about their position, and would occasionally get loud and point fingers.  But it was conducted in a very dignified manner, and both men were engaged in a friendly conversation afterwards.

The two men are considering debating again in Alabama at some point in the future, if proper arrangements can be worked out.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles

A Brief Review of the Hester-Preston Debate

3 Comments

If you hadn’t heard, there was a debate this past Thursday and Friday in Ardmore, OK.  The Cobb Six made the two-hour trip to be in attendance, so what you’re about to read is a review from an eyewitness.  We had some other friends who made the trip (and came from a lot further than we did), and after talking with them, our impressions were, for the most part, the same as theirs.

As is normally the case after a debate, both sides are claiming victory, saying that the other side couldn’t handle their arguments.

Note: this is a brief review.  A much fuller, detailed treatment of the topic (with specific arguments and quotations) will be appearing in the first issue of the Quarterly.

Proposition 1: “Resolved: The Bible teaches that the Second (final) coming of Christ and the attendant resurrection of the just and the unjust, occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.”

This topic was supposed to be the subject of debate the first evening.  Don Preston opened the debate with a 30-minute talk that covered a LOT of ground (he spoke faster than most anyone I’ve heard during his first speech).  He made several points that I thought were interesting and worthy of further study, but unfortunately, there was no real structure, and he neglected to define his proposition, which made his opening argument confusing.  He also made several connections between passages, but didn’t stop to show us why they should be connected–and at the speed he was talking, it was impossible to write all the passages down.

I spoke with a friend of mine who agrees with much of what Don teaches (having watched and listened to many of Don’s lessons), and he said that he gave it a 7 out of 10.  But then he said, “unfortunately” it was “probably a 2 out of 10 for someone who never heard [of] Realized Eschatology before.” (note: Realized Eschatology is another name for preterism).  In short, it was as though Don was talking only to those who already agreed with him, and not to try to show others why preterism should be preferred.

David Hester had a difficult time following Don’s first speech, because without Don defining the proposition, there was no real basis to start from.  So, David spent most of his time showing that the Law of Moses ceased being valid when the kingdom came into existence at Pentecost (Don takes the position, if I understand correctly, that the Law of Moses was still valid and in force until Jerusalem was destroyed).  While he made some excellent points that deserve consideration, this issue isn’t directly connected to the proposition.

The second set of speeches by both men followed pretty much the same pattern, except that Don slowed down tremendously in his speaking.  Each side said that the other was avoiding or misrepresenting their arguments.

Prior to the debate, Don had sent David several questions, and then used David’s answers as part of his speech, with a “David vs. Paul” theme.  While this was interesting (and David did some clarifying of his answers in his response), Don was trying to “negate” what David had answered instead of “affirming” the proposition at hand.

The final speeches of the night were very similar to the second ones in their emphasis.

All in all, we were disappointed with both sides of the debate the first night.  Don never defined his proposition (he would say the next evening that it was a waste of time to define it), and didn’t really deal much with the “resurrection of the just and the unjust”; and David’s responses also didn’t really touch the proposition either, and instead of answering many of the arguments Don put forth on various passages, David spent his time in a thorough attack on just a couple.

Day 1 Conclusion:

Neither side could claim a definitive victory, because the specific proposition itself wasn’t the focus of either side’s speeches.

(note: Many of Don’s arguments might have been supplementary to his position, but it was never brought together to show “this is how it all fits together to prove my proposition”).

The debate itself can be viewed online here.

Tomorrow we will give a brief review of the second night of the debate.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles, Books

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved – The Life of the Apostle John (part 5)

Leave a comment

John as an Author

It is often argued that the writings of John (the Gospel, his three letters, and Revelation) were the last ones to be written, and are to be dated between AD 90-100.1 It is more in keeping with the biblical information to place his writings before AD 70.2  By this time, John was an older man3 who was writing to Christians to warn them about apostasy,4 to remind them to stay faithful,5 to encourage downhearted Christians,6 to remind them about the words of the Lord in regards to the overthrow of Judaism,7 and to comfort them with the knowledge that their persecutors will be overthrown.8

The Gospel According to John

By this point, three other gospel accounts had already been written,9 so there was no need for John to write one unless he had information that needed to be presented that wasn’t in the other accounts.

Matthew wrote to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, and thus focused on Old Testament prophecies, starting with the birth of Jesus.  Mark wrote to convince the Roman readers that Jesus was a powerful leader who died for them, beginning with the herald announcing His coming.  Luke wrote to show the humanity of Jesus in precise historical terms.  By the time John wrote, however, a large contingent of Jewish Christians were leaving the faith, going back into Judaism.10 By doing this, they were denying the power of Christ.  So, when John wrote, his focus was to show the origin, power, and authority of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was [in His very nature] God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by Him; and apart from Him, nothing was made that was made. 
 He came to His own [people] and His own [people] did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become children of God, believers into His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the desires of the flesh, nor of the desires of man, but of God.  And the Word was made flesh and dwelled among us (and we admired His glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.11

John repeatedly stresses the deity of Jesus throughout his gospel account.  John 1:1, 14 shows us that the Word which became flesh is, by His very nature, God.12  Several times, John records Jesus applying the words “I AM” (which the Jews would have understood as a reference to Jehovah) to Himself.13  John says an Old Testament vision of Jehovah was actually a vision of Jesus.14  In short, John wrote to prove the deity of Jesus and to show that it is only through Jesus that eternal life can be gained.15  This is quite powerful when you consider that Jewish Christians were leaving Christianity in large numbers at the time it was written—this book would have been quite timely.16

The Letters of John

Like Peter did in his second letter, John stressed the reality of Jesus Christ by appealing to himself as not only an eye-witness, but also an ear-witness, and one who studied and touched Jesus while He was here on earth.17  He also made it a point to remind them of what they possessed through Jesus Christ: (1) the forgiveness of sins, (2) the knowledge of God/Christ, (3) overcoming Satan, and (4) strength.18  He also forcefully stated that just because someone is a Christian doesn’t mean they are incapable of sinning—in fact, far from it:

If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.19

He focuses on the importance of love quite as bit as well, telling them what they are supposed to love (each other),20 and what they are not to love (the world, neither the things of the world).21  And he also shows his care for the faithful,22 while also showing his frustration with and repudiation of false teachers23 and those who tried to rule the church.24

Like Paul, John’s wrote both to individuals and to congregations (with benefit to the universal church).25 And thank God that he wrote these letters, because they contain wonderful comforting information about salvation, both then and now.26

Revelation

While John was on Patmos, an island which was a “rock quarry
used as a place of banishment for certain types of offenders,”27 he received a revelation from Jesus Christ.  It’s generally assumed that he was exiled to Patmos by the Roman Emperor,28 but that’s not explicitly stated.  It might be that he was evangelizing.29

In writing the Revelation, John simply wrote what he saw and how he reacted to it.  He was overwhelmed by all that he saw, at one point fainting,30 at another point breaking into tears,31 and then worshiping the angel who delivered the message to him.32

This book was written to encourage faithfulness,33 to foretell the vindication of Christ and His apostles,34 to describe the glorious church,35 and to comfort first-century Christians with the promise of the destruction of their persecutors.36

-Bradley S. Cobb

1 See Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1989[?]pages 18-19, and Woods’ A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and James, Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1963[?], pages 206-207.

2 The promise of miracles from God in the church (including inspiration) was limited to the time between the death of Jesus Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem (see Zechariah 12:10-14:2, especially noting 13:2), a 40-year period (see Micah 7:15), which would take place during the “last days” of Judah and Jerusalem (Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:16-21, Isaiah 2:1-2).  When the completed word of God came, the miracles would cease (1 Corinthians 13:8-10).  Since, according to the Bible,  miracles ended in AD 70, then the completed word of God also had to be finished by that time as well.  For a much more in-depth explanation of this topic, see the Appendix, “The End of Miracles” in this author’s book, The Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts.

3 2 John 1.

4 2 John 7-11.

5 2 John 8.

6 3 John.

7 1 John 2:18 (see especially in Greek, where John says “it is the final hour, and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists: therefore we know it is the final hour,” and compare it with what Jesus said in Matthew 24:24 in regards to the signs preceding the final overthrow of the Jews and the Jewish system).

8 See the entire book of Revelation.  The persecutors who will be overthrown by God in Revelation are the Jews.  Compare Matthew 23:34-39 with Revelation 18:10-19:2.  See also Arthur Ogden’s fantastic work, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, and this author’s work, Things Which Came to Pass: A Study of Revelation, Class Handouts, Cobb Publishing, 2014 (As of this writing, the commentary/teacher’s guide, Things Which Came to Pass: A Study of Revelation, is still being prepared).

9 Matthew was written first, around AD 40 (see chapter on Matthew for more information), while Mark and Luke were written in the mid to late 50s.  Since Luke doesn’t include any of the information from John’s gospel (except that which is also found in Matthew), yet claims that he “traced accurately” (implying that he did much research) the things which he wrote.  The only logical, biblical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Luke wrote his gospel prior to John writing his.  Since Acts (Luke’s sequel to the gospel) was written around AD 62, it is no stretch to say that the gospel could easily have been written by AD 58.  For more information on the dating of the New Testament writings, see Redating the New Testament by J.A.T. Robinson.

10 See the entire book of Hebrews.

11 John 1:1-3, 11-14.

12 The arrangement of the words in Greek, as well as the lack of the definite article in Greek before “God” at the end of John 1:1 shows that what is under consideration is the nature or character of the Word.  Jesus Christ is, in His nature, God.  He is distinguished from God, when it is a reference to the Father, but He shares of the same nature.  What God is, the Word is.  See the New English Translation (NET) at this verse.

13 John 6:35, 48, 51; 8:16, 23-24, 28, 58; 9:5, 9; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 13:19; 14:6; 15:1, 5; 18:6, 8.

14 John 12:39-41, a reference to Isaiah 6:10 where the word “Jehovah” is used.

15 John 20:30-31.

16 Certainly there are other reasons John wrote, and many other things we could mention that are unique to John’s gospel account, but these will suffice for our purpose.  For more study on the uniqueness of John’s gospel, see the introduction to Guy N. Woods’ Commentary on John.  Most commentaries on John’s gospel will include mention and elaboration on these points.

17 Compare 2 Peter 1:15-19 with 1 John 1:1-4.  Since they are dealing with the same problem (people denying the reality of Jesus Christ), it make no sense to say (as some do) that John’s first letter couldn’t have been written until AD 90 because he is supposedly dealing with Gnostic teachings which didn’t arise until very late in the first century.  It’s universally agreed that Peter was killed during the reign of Nero, yet he dealt with the same issues, so this “proof” for a late date for First John is ridiculous.

18 See 1 John 1:12-14.

19 1 John 1:8-10.

20 1 John 2:10, 2 John 5-6.  It’s worth noting here that, according to John, the command to love one another also includes walking in the commandments of Jesus Christ.

21 1 John 2:15.

22 3 John 1-4.

23 2 John 7-11.

24 3 John 9-11.

25 3 John was written to Gaius.  2 John was written to “the elect lady and her children,” which is most likely a reference to the church in Jerusalem and the members thereof.  It cannot be that John is writing about a specific individual woman, for this “lady and her children” are said to be known and loved by “all them that have known the truth.”  There was no woman that well-known.  But the church in Jerusalem was known to all Christians (what Christian hasn’t heard about Pentecost and the Jerusalem church in the book of Acts?).  It is also possible that this is speaking of the church universal, but that makes John’s closing statement in 2 John very confusing.  If the “elect lady” is the universal church, who is her sister?

26 1 John 1:7, 9; 5:13.

27 Burton Coffman, commentary notes on Revelation 1:9.

28 Among the early writings that take this position, there is not agreement about which emperor banished him there.  Many claim Domitian, and thus some expositors take the position that it had to have been written around AD 95-96.  John A.T. Robinson (in Redating the New Testament) says that Domitian acted as emperor (even calling himself the emperor) prior to Vespasian’s arrival in Rome to take the throne, and so it could have taken place around AD 70.  However, there are very early Bible translations (second century) which include in the title of the final book of the New Testament, “
when he was exiled to Patmos by Nero.”

29 Foy E. Wallace argues that John went to Patmos for the purpose of receiving the Revelation and evangelizing.  See his The Book of Revelation, notes on Revelation 1:9.

30 Revelation 1:17.

31 Revelation 5:4.

32 Revelation 19:10.

33 Revelation 1:3, 2:10.

34 Revelation chapters 18-19.

35 Revelation 21.

36 The entire book of Acts shows that the primary persecutors of Christianity in the first century were the Jews.  It is their overthrow that is pictured in the book of Revelation.  For more details, see Things Which Came to Pass: A Study of Revelation by this author.

Articles, Sermons

Teaching About the Sower

Leave a comment

The Text: Mark 4:1-20 – He began again to teach by the seaside; and a great multitude was gathered together with Him, so that He entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.  And He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in His teaching:

“Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow [seed].  And it came to pass, while He sowed, [that] some fell by the roadside, and the birds of the air came and devoured it up.  And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much soil; and immediately it sprang up, because it didn’t have deep soil.  But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.  And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other [seed] fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased.  And [they] brought forth [fruit], some thirty, and some sixty, and some a hundred.”

And He said to them, “He that has ears to hear, let him hear.”

And when He was alone, those who were around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable.  And He said to them, “To you it’s given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to those who are outside, all [these] things are coming in parables.  So that ‘Seeing, they may see and not perceive; and hearing, they might hear and not understand; lest at any time they might be converted, and their sins might be forgiven them.’”

And He said to them, “Do you not perceive this parable?  And how, then, will you know all [these other] parables?

“The sower sows the word.  And these by the roadside are they where the seed is sown, but when they have heard, Satan comes in immediately, and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts.  And likewise, these which are sown on stony ground are they who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and have no root in themselves, and so [they] endure only for a time.  Afterwards, when affliction or persecution arises for the word’s sake, immediately they are caused to stumble.  And these which are sown among the thorns are they such as hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches and lusts of other things entering in choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.  And these which are sown on good ground are they such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”

Introduction

The parable of the sower is one of the best-known of Jesus’ parables.  I don’t have any idea how many times I’ve heard some part of it referenced (often the “cares of this world” line), but it’s a lot.  It’s mentioned by Matthew (chapter 13), Mark (chapter 4), and Luke (chapter 8).  And though many people refer to it as the “parable of the soils,” Jesus called it “the parable of the sower” (Matthew 13:18).  Therefore, while Jesus spends a lot of time dealing with the different kinds of soils, His main emphasis is on the sower.

The Text, part 1 – The Setting (Mark 4:1-2)

[Jesus] began again to teach by the seaside.  And a great multitude gathered [together around] Him, so that He entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.

Matthew 13:1 tells us that at first, Jesus sat to teach by the seaside (most likely next to the sea of Galilee).  But the crowds gathered, and Jesus stood up, walking to a ship that He could board so that He could teach the crowds without being mobbed.  Then, He sat down on the ship and began to teach the multitude that was on the shore.  This wouldn’t have been like a rowboat, but probably one of the fishing boats.  Jesus must have had a very strong voice to be able to teach this great crowd of people while sitting on this boat.

And He taught them many things by parables.

The word “parable” comes from the Greek parabole, which literally means “to throw beside.”  It’s the idea of putting two things side-by-side for comparison’s sake.  A parable is often described as “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning,” and quite often that is true.  I’d be more specific, and say that a parable is a story dealing with things that are known and understood in order to explain something that is not necessarily known or understood. Every parable that Jesus gave dealt with things that the listeners could identify with and understand, things like planting and harvesting, or losing something valuable and rejoicing when it is found (Luke 15).  And behind all these parables were deeper truths.  Some parables foretold the rejection of the Jews (Matthew 21:33-45), while others taught Godly attributes (like the Good Samaritan).

And in His teaching to them, He said “Listen.”

Jesus didn’t speak to waste His breath.  He expected those people who gathered around to pay attention to the things He was trying to teach them.  As followers of Jesus Christ today, we should respect the Lord enough to listen to Him and listen to His word being proclaimed.

The Text, part 2 – The Parable Given (Mark 4:3-8)

“Behold”

This word means not just to look, but to perceive, to comprehend.  So, as Jesus began to speak, He opens with the words, “Listen.  Perceive.”  In other words, Jesus is telling them that in order to understand His teaching, they would have to pay attention, and do some thinking.  He explains why a little later on.

“A sower went out to sow”

Literally, “the scattering one went to scatter.”  This kind of sowing is done by a person with a large bag, like a large purse, with the handle over his shoulder and neck.  He reaches inside the bag, grabs a handful of seeds, and then scatters them all across the field as he walks.  He knows ahead of time that not all the seeds will take root, but given the sheer number of seeds that he throws out there, he knows that some of them will produce the desired plant.

“Some [seed] fell by the road, and the birds of the air came and devoured it up.”

The road, whether it be rock or dirt, was packed down so hard that no seed could penetrate—so it just sat there, and was free food for the birds who gladly take advantage of it.

“Some [seed] fell on stony ground, where there was not much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil.”

You might imagine soil with lots of gravel or little rocks mixed in with it, but that’s not what Jesus is describing.  He’s describing ground where there is a very small layer of soil, and underneath that is just rock.  That’s why He says “it has no depth of soil [or earth].”  Anyone who has ever tried to plant a garden in this kind of soil knows that it is almost impossible to get much to grow and produce, because there’s simply not enough soil to support the plant.

“But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.”

When Luke records this statement, he says that the plant withered away because it “lacked moisture.”  The thin layer of dirt couldn’t hold on to the necessary moisture to sustain these plants, and the plants died as a result.

“Some [seed] fell among thorns; and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.”

These are weeds among which the seed fell.  These weeds, with thorns, stole moisture and nutrients from the soil, and worked to overtake the plant, keeping it from being able to produce any fruit.  This is why anyone who has much experience with gardening knows you’ve got to “weed” (or de-weed) your garden so that your crops can grow and produce.

“Other [seed] fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some a hundred.”

This here is the reason why the sower goes out and scatters the seed: because there is good soil out there, and if he scatters enough seed, some of it will land in that soil.  That seed will then sprout, take root, and produce a good harvest.

The person sowing the seed during those days wasn’t usually the land owner—at least not on the bigger fields.  It was someone working for the person who owned the field.  Usually, there were several working the fields at once, and they would scatter the seed all over the place, covering every possible area.  Some of it would land in bad soil, but some of it would land in good soil.  These workers oftentimes had no way of knowing what kinds of soil were all around them.  Their job was merely to scatter the seed.

The Text, part 3 – Hearing and Understanding (Mark 4:9-13)

He said to them, “He that has ears to hear, let him hear.”

This is something that Jesus said on more than one occasion.  He said it after telling His disciples that John the Immerser was the fulfillment of the prophecies about Elijah (Matthew 11:7-15); after asking them whether a candle should be hid under a bushel (Mark 4:21-23); after chastising the Pharisees for elevating their traditions over God’s word (Mark 7:1-16); after explaining the parable of the tares (Matthew 13:36-43); after instructing the multitude on the cost of discipleship (Luke 14:25-35); and at the conclusion of each of the letters to the seven churches in Asia (Revelation 2-3).

The phrase means that everyone (because they all have ears) is supposed to listen.  In fact, the phrase “let him hear” is the same as the word translated “Hearken” (KJV) or “Listen” that Jesus used back in verse 3.  It is a command to hear the message that is being presented.

But not everyone understood the message


When He was alone, they that were around Him, with the twelve, asked Him about the parable.

Mark is the only one who gives us this piece of information, that is, that they waited until Jesus was alone to ask this question.  They apparently didn’t want to ask the question in front of the multitude, and they also didn’t want to interrupt Jesus’ teaching.  So, they waited until later.

Mark is also the only one who tells us that it was more than just the apostles asking this question.  Matthew and Luke simply say “the disciples,” which sometimes is a reference to just the twelve.  But this was the entire group of Jesus’ disciples, all the ones who were faithfully following Him—including the apostles.

It appears that none of them understood the deeper meaning behind Jesus’ parable of the sower.

He said to them, “To you, it’s given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to those who are outside, all these things are coming in parables.”

The disciples, including the apostles, were being taught about the Kingdom of God by Jesus.  He told them that it was “at hand,” and showed its power to them by casting out demons and healing the sick.  But there was more to it than just power.  The Kingdom of God included enduring rejection by the very people Jesus came to save.  The disciples needed to understand that the key to understanding Jesus’ parables was knowing about the Kingdom.  The Kingdom would be spread by sowing the word of God (as He will allude to momentarily) in the hearts of people.

But to those who don’t understand, who haven’t opened their eyes to the reality of Jesus spiritual kingdom, these parables would have no meaning—for they didn’t have the key.

The KJV says these things are “done” in parable, but literally, He says they are “coming” in parables.  That is, He’s presenting those things in parables to the masses.

“So that ‘Seeing, they might see, and not perceive; and hearing, they might hear, and not understand”

Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9, and applies it to His own teaching in parables—a definite claim that He is the Messiah.

The parables are spoken, according to Jesus, so that they would have the opportunity to see and perceive, to hear and understand—if they had the right heart and desire.  It isn’t made clear in English, but the verbs are in the subjunctive mood, showing possibility.  So, literally, Jesus is saying “Seeing, they might see, and might not perceive; and hearing, they might hear, and might not understand.  Some people have accused Jesus of intentionally hiding the truth from people so that they couldn’t understand it—but that’s not the case at all.  He’s teaching in a way that helps those who sincerely want to understand to put everything together.  In fact, the word translated “understand” is a compound word in Greek which means “bringing together.”

“‘Lest at any time they might be converted, and their sins might be forgiven them.’”

Again, these are conditional statements.  Some of the people did listen to Jesus, and some of them were converted, and did have their sins forgiven.  But the majority did not.  In Isaiah 6, where this statement came from, the Lord sent Isaiah to proclaim the truth that the people really didn’t want to hear—that their cities were going to be utterly wasted.  And the more they heard that they didn’t like, they more they ignored the prophet.

The same thing happened with Jesus (see John 6:66).  There were hard-hearted people who didn’t want the message of a spiritual kingdom that required godly living and evangelism and obedience.  So, Jesus spoke it to them in parables, keeping the true meaning just under the surface—those who were spiritually-minded would dig and find it, while those who weren’t interested would just think it was a story and shrug it off.

And He said to them, “Do you not perceive this parable?  How then will you perceive all [the other] parables?”

Jesus was kind (because He explains the parable to them), but at the same time, this statement expresses a disappointment in the disciples.  They, the ones who should be best equipped to understand the meaning, didn’t see it.  And you have to know that it stung a bit when Jesus quoted Isaiah 6:9, and then immediately afterwards asked them if they were among the ones who fit the description of “not perceiving.”

This parable is a fairly straight-forward one, and when we understand that it is about the kingdom of God, the rest of the pieces fall into place pretty easily.  And Jesus asks them how they could hope to understand His other parables if they didn’t understand this parable.  So many people want to jump headfirst into the deeper matters of the Bible without first having an understanding of some of the simpler parts.  If you can’t grasp the simple parts, you have no hope of understanding the more difficult ones!

The Text, part 4 – The Explanation (Mark 4:13-20)

“The sower sows the word.”

That statement is the key to the entire parable.  Luke records it as “the seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11).  Without this knowledge, the parable is hidden in a mist of confusion.  But when you know that “the seed is the word of God,” everything else makes sense.

“These by the road are they where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts.”

The word of God makes no lasting penetration into these hearts.  Just like the birds eating seed off the hard ground, Satan has no trouble removing the word of God from the hearts and minds of this kind of people.  They aren’t really spiritually-minded to begin with, and so they don’t take in the word of God, they don’t treasure it.  It’s just there, ready to be forgotten at the first opportunity.

“Likewise, these which are sown on stony ground are they who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so they endure but for a time.  Afterwards, when affliction or persecution arises for the word’s sake, immediately, they are caused to stumble.”

These are what you might call “shallow” Christians.  They want the salvation that comes through Christ, but they don’t have any roots, no depth to their faith, and so when things get tough, they simply fall away.

It’s interesting that in the parable, Jesus described the sun as part of the reason the plant died, and then he describes affliction and persecution as what causes a believer to die (spiritually).  But the sun has a very positive effect on plants which are properly planted; and persecution and affliction has a very positive effect on Christians who are properly planted in God (see James 1:2-4, Acts 5:40-41).

The word “offended” (KJV) or “stumble” (NKJV) is the Greek word scandalizo.  It’s where we get the word “scandal.”

“These which are sown among thorns are those, such as hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.”

In contrast to the previous people, these aren’t “shallow” Christians.  These are people who know the truth, believe the truth, and may have even at one time been very fruitful in the truth.  But they are the ones who have gotten caught up with cares of the world (friends, family, work, politics, fun, pleasure) and as a result, they’ve relegated God’s word to second place (or third or fourth or fifth
) in their lives.  These are the ones who have allowed the material things to become the focus of their lives (money, wealth, things).  Jesus adds that it’s also “the lusts of other things.”  It’s basically Jesus saying, “and other things like these.”

When those things become the focus, it chokes out the word of God in your life, and you become unfruitful.  Even if you were at one point in time an active, evangelistic, fruitful Christian, you can still fall—you can still get so tangled up in the cares of this world that you end up forgetting that this world isn’t our home, and we’ve got a better world awaiting us.

“These which are sown on good ground are those, such as hear the word and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”

These are active, faithful, working Christians.  These are those who are productive for the Lord.  There’s two different ways we can look at what this “fruit” is:

First, we could use the word “fruit” as John the Immerser did in Matthew 3:8, “Therefore, bring forth fruits suitable for repentance.”  By this, the “fruit” would have a reference to works (in our context, it would be good works).  Paul uses the phrase in a similar way in Romans 7:5-6.

Second, we could look at something God says about “fruit” in the creation account in Genesis 1:11: “And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”  Since the fruit has the seed inside it, and the seed is the word of God, then to “bring forth fruit” would be converting people to Christ.  Each person you convert to the Lord now has the word of God (the seed) inside them.

Ultimately, the two options are really two parts of the same thing.

Application

Preparing the Sower

Since Jesus called it the “parable of the sower,” He wanted His disciples to view it from that direction first.  In telling them this parable, He was preparing them for the different kinds of reactions that they would receive when they went about preaching the word.  We need to take the same lesson from it as well, and know ahead of time that there will be people who are so hard-hearted that the word of God won’t take hold in their heart.  We need to realize ahead of time that some people will accept it, but they will be shallow and fall away.  Some will accept it, and stick with it, but they won’t bear fruit because they’re too busy with the things of this life.  These things aren’t our fault—that is on them.  But we also need to know that there are people out there who will gladly receive the word of God and who will bear fruit.  That is the reason we need to keep trying to bring others to Christ, because these kind of people are out there!

Preparing the Soil

The secondary purpose of this parable is from the standpoint of the soils, or the heart.  What kind of heart do you have?  Is it a hard heart?  A shallow heart?  A rocky heart?  Or a good and pure heart?  As most of you are certainly aware, bad soil doesn’t have to stay bad soil.  It can be broken up, tilled, cared for, rocks removed, weeds removed, and it can become productive.  The same thing is true of your heart.  If you honestly look at your heart and discover that you are one of the first three, then you can do something about it!  You can cultivate your heart, be more conscious of where your focus is, on what is most important, and then you can start being fruitful for the Lord!

Invitation

Just possessing he seed isn’t enough.  Just tossing it on the ground isn’t enough.  In order for that seed to produce a plant, there’s something else that has to be present, and that’s water.  The same thing is true with the word of God.  Just having it isn’t enough to save you.  Just believing it isn’t enough to save you (for the demons believe and tremble, James 2:19).  It’s when you make the decision to repent of your rebellion to God, and add water—being baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of your sins—that you become a Christian.

Won’t you please become a fruitful follower of the Lord today?

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles, Sermons

Identifying the True Family

Leave a comment

The Text: Mark 3:31-35 – His brothers and His mother then came there, and standing outside, they sent to Him, calling Him.  And the multitude sat around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers outside are looking for you.” 

And He answered them, saying, “Who is my mother or my brothers?”  And He looked around at those who were sitting around Him, and said, “Behold, my mother and my brethren!  For whoever will do the desires of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my mother.”

Introduction

Jesus gave some difficult commands in His life, but they were always ones that He Himself was ready to follow as well.  He has been preaching and teaching, proclaiming the Kingdom of God in the face of opposition from His associates (who thought He was crazy) and the scribes (who claimed He was possessed by Satan), but He didn’t stop.  And now, Jesus’ family shows up, wanting Him to stop teaching so He can come talk to them.

The Text, part 1 – Earthly Family Calling (Mark 3:31-32).

Satan uses peer pressure and false accusations to try to disrupt God’s work.  That’s what he did against Jesus earlier in this chapter.  Now, he uses another—very potent—device to try to stop Jesus: His own family.

Then, there came His brothers and His mother

Let’s just get this out of the way from the start.  These aren’t Jesus’ cousins.  These are the children of Mary and Joseph, all younger than Jesus, who arrived with their mother, Mary.  Matthew 13:55-56 shows that Jesus was known by the people in His own area as “the carpenter’s son” whose mother was named “Mary,” and “His brethren, James and Joses and Simon and Judas” and who had “sisters.”  It is ridiculous to claim, as the Catholics do, that the people who knew Jesus had to identify Him by His earthly father and mother, and then rattle off the names of four of His cousins, and then add that He’s got female cousins (“sisters”) too.  These are the actual brothers (half-brothers, to be specific) of Jesus who have come with Mary.

Some Greek manuscripts also include “sisters” with this group that was trying to get to Jesus.

This is the family that Jesus has known His whole earthly life.  He certainly had a spot in His heart for them.  Even though John 7 portrays them as non-believers, He visited James after the resurrection, which led to all of the brothers being present in Jerusalem, gathered with the disciples (Acts 1:13-14), and later becoming well-known Christian examples (1 Corinthians 9:5).  So these brothers of Jesus were not beyond reaching with the gospel, and Jesus knew that.  This fact would have made it very tempting for Jesus to go talk to them and try to convince them to believe in Him.

Standing outside, sent to Him, calling Him

Luke tells us that they couldn’t get to Jesus because of the massive crowd of people (Luke 8:19) who were sitting around Jesus, so instead of going to Him, they began calling to Him.  The Greek word is “phoneo,” which means they were using their voices.  So, they were telling people at the edge of the crowd, “Tell Jesus that we’re out here, and that we are looking for Him.”  So, from the edge of the crowd, this message was sent (the Greek word is “apostello”) until it reached Jesus.

The multitude sat around Him

This is something that only Mark mentions. Remember that earlier in the chapter, those close to Jesus thought He was crazy because He was allowing these massive crowds of people to crowd around Him.  But Jesus is in no danger of being crushed.  The multitude is sitting around Him.

They said to Him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.”

The message had made its way through who knows how many people to finally get to Jesus.  He’s told that they are “seeking” Him.  The same word is used in Matthew’s account, where it is translated “desiring” to speak to Jesus (Matthew 12:46-47).  In other words, they wanted Jesus to stop what He was doing and come outside to talk to His physical family.

The Text, part 2 – True Family Identified (Mark 3:33-35)

As Jesus’ family stood outside, the crowd looked at Him, probably wondering what He would do.  Would He stop preaching and teaching to go talk to them?  Would He send them a message back through the multitude?  Would He ignore them?

He answered them, saying “Who is my mother or my brothers?”

As literally-minded as some of Jesus’ disciples were, you have to think that some of them were quite confused by this statement.  What?  Jesus, you know
your mother?  Mary?  Don’t you remember her?  And your brothers, the ones you lived with for years?  What do you mean, “Who is my mother or brothers?”  Maybe this statement, for a moment, reinforced the idea that some of them had that Jesus had lost His mind.

But Jesus wasn’t pleading ignorance, nor was He crazy.  He was asking a question to get the people to start thinking.  He wanted them to start thinking about which relationships are most important.  He wanted them to change their focus from the physical to the spiritual.

He looked around at those who sat around Him

This is Jesus pausing for effect, looking at the people who were listening, making sure they are paying attention.  Then Jesus lifts up His hand, and points it towards His disciples (Matthew 12:46-47).

And [He] said, “Behold my mother and brethren!”

The crowd had said “Behold, your mother and brother are outside,” and Jesus’ response is “Behold, my mother and brother” are right here!  Jesus explains what He means by this in the next verse, but I want you to put yourself in the shoes of Mary, or of James, Jude, Simon, or Joses.  The message certainly got back to them, and it probably didn’t make the brothers too happy.  But what about Mary?  Do you think another incident popped into her head?  Perhaps an incident that the Bible says “she kept
in her heart”?

Now His [Jesus’] parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.  When He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.  And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and His mother did not know it.  But they, supposing He was with the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought them among their relatives and acquaintances.  And when they did not find Him, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking Him [this is the same word as in Mark 3:32].  And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and asking them questions.  And all that heard were astonished at His understanding and answers.  And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have you dealt this way with us?  Behold, your father and I have sought you, sorrowing.”  And He said to them, “How is it that you sought me?  Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business?”  And they did not understand the saying which He spoke to them.  And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them: but His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. (Luke 2:41-51).

Even from the time Jesus was 12 years old, He knew the difference between His earthly family and His true family.  The incident from Jesus’ boyhood, along with the incident in Mark 3, shows us without a doubt that Jesus knew which family was most important.

For whoever shall do the desires of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my mother.

Now, just to make things crystal clear, Jesus isn’t saying that His disciples were somehow His spiritual mother (or sisters).  He is saying that His true family is the spiritual family.  His true family are the people who obey the Father’s will.  Here’s something that you might want to contemplate: your earthly family is only temporary.  Your spiritual family is forever.  But praise God when your earthly family is counted as part of your spiritual family too!

The Peter began to say to Him, “Look, we’ve left everything and followed You.  And Jesus answered and said, “Truly I say to you, there is no man that has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel’s, but he shall receive a hundred-fold now in this time, houses and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come, eternal life. (Mark 10:28-30).

The ones who have put Jesus ahead of their earthly family will receive a much greater family—brothers and sisters of untold numbers—here, in this life.  A person who obeys the gospel immediately gains a family of brothers and sisters in Christ—and new family members are made every day!

Jesus warned about placing your physical family ahead of Him—being a disciple of Jesus must come first in your life!

[Jesus] said to them, “If any man comes to me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes, and even his own life too, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26).

Jesus isn’t saying that you have to despise your family, but He is saying that you have to put Him first.  Earthly ties are to be secondary to your ties to Jesus Christ.

Application

Put Your Family First—Your TRUE Family.

I don’t need to tell you that people have fallen away from God, left the family of God (the church, 1 Timothy 3:15), because of their physical family.  Maybe it’s a domineering husband who berates his wife for going to worship with the saints.  Maybe it’s a wife whose religious ties are to a denomination, and she’s nagged or guilted her husband into joining her.  Maybe it’s someone who has children who are living in wickedness, but they can’t bring themselves to admit that they are lost, so they stop worshiping with the saints, lest someone ask about them, or lest they hear a lesson that deals with the sins that their children happen to be guilty of.  I know a man who left the church and tried to split it on his way out because someone dared to tell him that it was wrong for his daughter to be cheating on her husband.

We must be like Jesus, and realize that regardless of our earthly ties, it is our Father’s family, our true family that matters the most.

How Do I Become Part of God’s Family?

We become part of a physical family by being born into it.  Similarly, in order to become part of God’s family, Jesus’ family, the spiritual family, the family that Jesus claimed as His own, we must be born into it as well.  But this birth isn’t something done when you come out of your mother’s womb.  Since this is a spiritual family, it requires a spiritual birth.

“Truly I say to you, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”  Nicodemus said to [Jesus], “How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”  Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:3-5).

James 1:18 says “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”  The word “begat,” when describing a father’s actions, means that he has provided the seed so that a new creature can be born. In the genealogical lists, it is said “Adam begat Seth” or “Abraham begat Isaac” and so on. The fathers didn’t give birth to them, but they provided the seed so that a birth could follow. When God begat us, He provided the seed so that a birth could follow. But what was that seed?

James tells us that it is “the word of truth”

The seed that God provided so that our new birth could take place is the word of God. The word of God is described as the seed from which Christians come (Luke 8:11). In the parable of the sower (Matthew 13), Jesus described the seed (the word of God) as going to people’s hearts. When it took hold of good and honest hearts, Christians came forth.

There is NO CHANCE of being born again without the Scriptures—the word of truth. Some people claim they had some religious “experience” and they could tell by their “feelings” that they were saved. James says quite plainly that the new birth comes by the word of truth. Being born again doesn’t come from feelings, from experiences, or from a direct action of God upon the person. It comes from following the word of God.

Peter reiterates the same idea in saying “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and remains forever” (1 Peter 1:23).  You read the Scriptures (the seed) and plant it in your heart. The birth which follows comes when you obey the commands to believe (John 3:16), repent (Acts 2:38) and be baptized (Acts 22:16).

For you are all children of God by the faith, in Christ Jesus, Because as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27).

Come be a part of God’s family today!

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles

A Tribute to Sixteen Years

3 Comments

Some of you already know this story, but most of you probably don’t.

It was 1993, at Roundhouse, in Pell City, Alabama, that I first met Jesse Roderick. (Roundhouse is an annual gathering of members of the church who homsechool.)  Back then, I was much younger, somewhat skinnier, and wasn’t near as cool as I am today.  But, for some reason, Jesse still thought I was cool.  I thought she was out of my league.

Then, in 1994, at the next Roundhouse, she got to witness my very first wreck as I backed my parents’ van into a tree, putting a nasty dent into the back door which allowed the rain through…  But still, she thought I was a fun guy.

But in 1995, she didn’t show.  Something about going to college or something like that.  Yeah, like college is really that important…  But, afterwards, I called her up and we talked for a little while.

And then there was silence…

Life went on for both of us, and then out of the blue, in February of 2000, something seemingly inauspicious happened.  A mutual friend (from Roundhouse) sent an email to several people in his address book.  I didn’t pay any notice to all the people he sent it to, but Jesse Roderick did.  She saw the name “Brad Cobb” and thought to herself, “I haven’t talked to him in forever!”

So, she sent me an email.

This came as a great surprise to me, since it’d been five years.  But, I immediately went to writing her a reply.  And when I finished my reply, I clicked “Send.”  Or, at least, I thought I did.  Turns out, I clicked “save” instead, and it didn’t send at all.  It was two or three weeks later that I realized what I’d done, so I typed out another email, apologizing, and promising to be a better correspondent.

We emailed every day after that, and also began to spend a lot of time on the phone (her in Arkansas, me in Illinois).  In early April, I drove to Arkansas under the guise of being on my way to Texas to see a friend get married.  We had our first date on that trip (CiCi’s Pizza and a mountain hike), and we were officially engaged before I went back to Illinois.

On June 22 (just two months later), at the Gravel Hill church building, we stood before friends, family, and God and vowed to be husband and wife til death do us part.

That was sixteen years ago, and though we’ve had rough spots and struggles, these have truly been the best sixteen years of my entire life.  I am not exaggerating  in the slightest when I say that the worst day of our married life is still better than the best day of my life before we got married.

And through the past sixteen years, I’ve grown more and more in love with my Jesse Cobb, and I think she’s grown more beautiful with every passing day.

Jesse, I love you, and I look forward to many more wonderful years together.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles, Sermons

Questioning Jesus’ Sanity and Source (The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit)

Leave a comment

The Text: Mark 3:20-30 – The multitude came together again, so that they couldn’t so much as eat bread.  And when those close to Him heard, they went out to restrain Him, for they said, “He is crazy!”

And the scribes which acme down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub, and by the prince of demons He cats out demons.”  And He called them, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?”

“And if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  And if Satan rises up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.”

“No man can enter into a strong man’s house and take his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then he can rob his house.”

Truly I say to you, ‘All sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and blasphemies as many as they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.”

[Jesus said this] because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Introduction

In the last half of Mark chapter three, the writer deals with what people thought about Jesus’ mental state and His allegiance; and that’s followed by Jesus’ words regarding who His true family was.  While Mark records actual, 100% true events, they might not be recorded in chronological order.  Luke, who claimed to write his gospel “in consecutive order” (1:3, NASB), records some of these events in chapter 11, and then the last part seen in Mark 3 is recorded in Luke 8.  This doesn’t affect the inspiration of the Scriptures at all, for Mark never made the claim that he was writing chronologically.  Instead, there’s a logical progression to Mark’s unfolding of events.

The Text, part 1 – The View of His Associates (Mark 3:20-21).

In verses 20-21, the focus is on how certain people close to Jesus viewed His mental state because of His actions here.

And the multitude comes together again

This is the great crowd of people who just about crushed Jesus earlier in the chapter.  Jesus requested a small ship be prepared so that He wouldn’t be “thronged” or crushed like a grape.  But now, the same scenario arises again—except that this time there’s no ship, because Jesus is at a house (see verse 19).

So that they couldn’t so much as eat bread.

Whoever the “they” is (whether it’s Jesus and the apostles, or the crowd), the point is that there was so many of them that having the space and taking the time to eat was an impossibility (literally, they did not have the power even to eat).  The crowd wanted Jesus’ time and attention—it’s all they cared about.  It seems as though this is the same kind of thing that happened when Jesus ended up feeding the 4,000:

Jesus called His disciples and said, “I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way (Matthew 16:32).

Have you ever been so focused on Jesus and wanting to be close to Him that you forget to eat—or don’t think eating is important enough to stop reading His word and going to the Father in prayer?  Jesus said “blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6); and He told His disciples, “My [food] is to do the will of Him that sent me” (John 4:34).  When our hunger for spiritual things becomes greater than our hunger for physical things, we have grown greatly in Jesus Christ.

Many of those who followed Jesus (including, certainly, many in this multitude) were not interested in His teachings, but in seeing a miracle or being the recipient of His healing power (Mark 3:10).

And when those near Him heard of it


There’s debate as to who these people are.  The KJV and ASV say “friends,” the NKJV and NASB say “His people,” while the ESV (and many commentators) says “His family.”  Literally, the text says “the ones beside Him.”  Regardless of who it was (I tend to think it is His newly-appointed apostles whom He said would be “with Him”—Mark 3:14), these were people who cared about His well-being.

They went out to grab hold of Him

They wanted to rescue Him, to save Him from the crowds that put His life in danger before by mobbing Him.  Given the size of the crowd, it took some courage for these people to work their way to Jesus and try to take Him away from the mob.

For they said, “He is beside Himself!”

Literally, they said “He is crazy!”  It’s as though they were questioning Jesus’ sanity in going back out to the mob that all wanted to touch Him and crowd Him.  If indeed it is the apostles under consideration, imagine what they’re thinking.  They were selected that morning, and now, to them, it looks like Jesus is trying to commit suicide by letting the mobs come rush Him again.

But Jesus wasn’t crazy.  What His associates didn’t understand is that Jesus had the power to stop the mob in their tracks if He wanted.  He could have simply walked through the crowd like He did in Luke 4:28-30:

And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up, and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, so that they might cast Him down headlong.  But He, passing through the midst of them, went His way.

Mark doesn’t tell us what happened next.  He doesn’t say that the associates of Jesus pulled Him into the house, and doesn’t say they Jesus told them not to worry.  It’s simply left with their thought that Jesus was crazy.

The Text, part 2 – The View of the Scribes (Mark 3:22)

And that leads directly into verse 22, which tells us that the scribes held a somewhat similar view—but with a completely different motive.

The scribes which came down from Jerusalem


These were some of the religious teachers who were supposed to be well-acquainted with the Law of Moses, having copied much of it by hand.  The fact that they were the scribes in Jerusalem meant that they were the most prestigious scribes in the nation.  Their words held a lot of weight with the people.

They came “down” from Jerusalem, because Jerusalem is situated on a mountain.  They weren’t using “down” to mean “south” like we do when looking at a map.  They walked, and so anywhere out of Jerusalem was “down” to them.

[They] said, “He has Beelzebub”

Beelzebub is a name the Jews used for Satan.  Literally, it means “Lord of the flies,” but it’s also been said that this originated with the idea that the flies buzz around piles of poop.  Thus, according to some who have studied the issue, the name Beelzebub is a derogatory name to describe Satan as “poop lord” or “the poo-poo god.” (and yes, that is a direct quote).

So when the scribes from Jerusalem made this accusation, it wasn’t just that they were questioning Jesus’ power and authority (which, if we are really lenient, we might say they did in ignorance), they were also degrading Jesus.  It wasn’t a scared, fearful, “He serves Satan,” but instead a sneering and mocking, “He has the poo-poo god.”

In the Old Testament (1 Kings 16), the Philistines worshiped “Baalzebub,” which is almost definitely the same name.  Ahaziah, one of the kings of Israel, was sick and injured, and instead of enquiring of God as to whether he would recover, he sent messengers to go enquire of Baalzebub.  Elijah stopped them and sent them back with a message: because the king would rather enquire of Baalzebub than of the God of Israel, he was going to die.  Over a hundred men were killed with fire from heaven in the course of the chapter, all going back to the actions of the king.

“By the prince of demons, He casts out demons.”

There’s not a single good motive behind what these scribes said of Jesus.  They said that He has Beelzebub, as though He’s possessed, not just by any demon, but by Satan himself, the ruler of demons!  He who was casting out demons, they claim, is the most possessed man there is!

Now don’t miss what they’re saying.  They are admitting, without a doubt, that Jesus was casting out demons.  Thus, they are admitting that Jesus possesses supernatural power—miracle-working power.  And they are so opposed to Jesus that they take the ridiculous position that He’s actually working for and with Satan!

Now, for the sake of the argument, we should recognize that in casting out demons, there were only two possibilities—either the power of God was behind it, or the power of Satan (the ruler over demons) was behind it.  The scribes tried to convince the people that Jesus was controlled by Satan, or working with him, in an effort to trick people into following Satan, by casting out the demons.  In effect, their accusation was that Satan was trying to pretend to be an angel of light to draw away followers after himself.

His associates thought He was crazy, but His enemies claimed He was Satan-possessed!

The Text, part 3 – A House Divided (Mark 3:23-27).

Jesus’ response is to show the ludicrousness of their accusation.  Mark doesn’t give us everything Jesus used in response, but he gives us enough to make the point pretty clear.

He called them, and said to them in parables, “How is Satan able to cast out Satan?”

Mark wants to make sure that his readers don’t miss the point of these parabolic statements from Jesus.  They each are given as ways of asking the same question, “How is Satan able to cast out Satan?”  The word translated as “can” in the KJV is the word dunamai, the noun form of which is very frequently used to describe miracle-working power.  When it appears here, the question is “How does Satan have the ability [or power] to cast himself out?”

Jesus, who knew what the scribes were thinking and saying, called them and presented a series of arguments to them.

“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.”

Imagine a king who tries to undermine the very laws that he uses to govern people.  Or a ruler who bombs his own army.  If Satan is casting out Satan, it’s the same as though a king was banishing himself from his own kingdom, or perhaps banishing all his subjects (since Satan is the ruler of the demons).  Once there are no more subjects, there’s no kingdom.

Jesus’ point is that no one with any sense at all would actively seek to destroy his own kingdom, and Satan isn’t stupid—he isn’t going to actively try to destroy his own power, and therefore himself.

“If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

Jesus goes from the large (the kingdom) to the small (the family) to show that this principle applies all the way around.  A family which does nothing but fight isn’t really a family at all any more, except perhaps in name only, because the people in that family have destroyed it.

“If Satan rises up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.”

Jesus makes it clear that the demons that have been cast out are loyal to Satan; by casting out the demons, it is an attack on Satan himself.  Thus, if this is being done by Satan’s power, then Satan is attacking himself.  And if Satan is attacking himself, neither he nor his kingdom can stand.  If Satan is attacking himself, he has an end—he is committing suicide.

However, Satan isn’t stupid.  Satan isn’t attacking himself.  Satan isn’t committing suicide.

But something is going on
 Satan is being attacked
 His soldiers are being defeated
  His kingdom is shaking.

No one can enter into a strong man’s house and steal his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then he can rob his house.

The scribes’ accusation was that Jesus was possessed by Satan.  Jesus’ response is to say, in essence, Are you kidding me?  Satan’s kingdom is falling, and he’s not doing it himself.  I’m the one who is doing it, for Satan—as strong as he is—is no match for me.  I’m taking his kingdom.

It is a statement of Jesus’ amazing power.  He, as God in the flesh, has come and beaten Satan at his own game.  Satan went after Him hard and heavy, tempting Him during those forty days (Mark 1:13), but Jesus came out victorious, and began to announce that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.  Satan continues to fight back, but his kingdom is losing power every day that Jesus works.  Satan is the “strong man,” but Jesus is even stronger!

The Text, part 4 – The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-30).

Understanding the context is key to understanding what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit actually is.  Jesus didn’t just spit out these words are a random moment; He thoughtfully said them in response to an actual event.  And it’s rather important that we notice the progression of what’s happened here in His interaction with the scribes.

  1. They make the accusation that He’s doing miracles by the power of Satan.
  2. He shows the ridiculous nature of their accusation.
  3. He declares His superiority in power over Satan (which is actually a claim to be Deity).

And now, Jesus warns them that eternal damnation (which He has in His power to administer) awaits those who make such accusations.

“Truly I say to you, All sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men”

Murder, robbery, hatred, etc., all of the things we think of as sin will be forgiven by God if we repent.  Of course, this is not saying that God will forgive every sin period.  There is no grace for those who sin willfully (Hebrews 10:26), or for those who don’t know God or who reject the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8).  But Jesus is saying that forgiveness is available for all sins
except for one.

“Even blasphemies, as many as they shall blaspheme”

Blasphemies are speaking evil of someone, speaking against them.  Even blasphemies will be forgiven by God.  Saul of Tarsus blasphemed (1 Timothy 1:13), but was forgiven.  Blasphemy itself does not guarantee eternal damnation.  But one kind does


“But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.”

Jesus brought this up for a reason, which Mark gives in verse 30.  The scribes had seen first-hand the power of Jesus to cast out demons (see Luke 11:14-15), but were so hard-hearted that they’d rather give the glory for this wonderful miracle to Satan than to Jesus, who did it by the power of the Holy Spirit.  They, the teachers of the law, the supposed experts, were calling good “evil.”

Woe to them who call evil “good,” and good “evil”; that put darkness for light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to them who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! 
 Therefore as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.  Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against His people
(Isaiah 5:20-21, 24-25).

Miracles, which came from the Holy Spirit, were given as absolute confirmation from God Himself that the things spoken were divinely approved, and that the messenger was from God (Mark 16:20, Mark 2:10).  If someone saw the evidence given by God, and still rejected it, and even worse, claimed that it was Satan that was doing it?  That is a full-on attack on God Himself, His nature, His goodness, His power, and His deity.  The person who is that hard-hearted has destroyed his chance at forgiveness.

Some Greek manuscripts read “guilty of eternal sin,” which gets the same basic idea across.  It is a sin that never dies, that never goes away.

People often wonder (and worry) about possibly committing this same sin today.  First, you need to remember what it is: accepting the miracles of the Holy Spirit, but rejecting the message, the messenger, and attributing those miracles to Satan.  So, the only way you could commit this unpardonable, eternal sin today is if you admitted the miracles of Jesus and the apostles took place, but agreed with the scribes that it was done through the power of Jesus.  Or perhaps if you said that the Bible itself (given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was a product of Satan, and not of God.

The point to remember is that if you’re trying to be right with God, there is ZERO chance that you could commit this sin.  It isn’t a sin that is committed on accident.  The scribes intentionally spoke against the miracles of Jesus.  It wasn’t that they questioned them, or just weren’t certain; they did it on purpose.  That is what made it unforgiveable.  They knew it was a miracle, and they intentionally gave credit to Satan for it instead of God (via the Holy Spirit).

[He said this] because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Jesus has completely turned the tables on them.  They came with what they probably thought was an ingenious argument, and they left exposed and condemned.  Their condemnation came because they had said Jesus Himself had an unclean spirit—specifically Satan—guiding His movements.  How hard-headed and close-minded do you have to be to claim in one breath to believe in God and His word, and in the next denying God’s power, and by implication praising Satan???

Is it any wonder that they left condemned?

Application

You Might Not Know the Whole Story


The associates of Jesus (regardless of who they were) wanted to help Him, to essentially save Him from Himself.  But they didn’t understand the whole story.  They didn’t fully grasp what was going on, who Jesus was, and what power He had.  There are times in our lives where we make assumptions about other people, and sometimes those assumptions turn out to be completely wrong.  The ones who went to grab Jesus were acting out of concern for His well-being, and that is absolutely commendable.  It’s an example we should follow.  But at the same time, they were acting on an assumption.

When you start to question the motives of others, stop and ask yourself if you’re assuming they have bad motives, or if you know for certain that such is the case.  It might be that you have misunderstood what is happening.  It might be that their motives are pure and they simply made a mistake.  It might be that they just plain don’t have the same level of understanding that you do in some matters.  In all things, instead of making assumptions, we should go to the person and help them, make sure we know the truth about any given situation so that we can be able to act based on facts and not assumptions.

The Other Unforgiveable Sin

Jesus said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was not forgivable; but there is another sin that is unforgiveable.  That sin is the one that you know you’ve done, but don’t repent of.  Hebrews 10:26 says “if we sin willfully, after having received a knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins
”  To sin willfully is to know you’re sinning, to do it on purpose.  1 John 1:9 says “if we confess our sins” (and the idea is not just saying “yep, I did this,” but confessing it to God with a repentant heart), “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”  That word “if” means that when you don’t repentantly confess your sins to God, you won’t be forgiven.

Brethren, when you know you’ve sinned, repent and ask God for forgiveness for it, and He will forgive you.

Invitation

Those verses were written to Christians who had already taken hold of the blood of Jesus Christ through humble obedience to His word.  The very first sermon delivered after the resurrection of Jesus is found in Acts 2.  In that sermon, Peter’s goal was to help people be saved.  After getting their attention, Peter said, “hear these words,” and proceeded to tell them about the death and resurrection of Jesus.  He appealed to both Scripture and miracles to prove it to them, so that they would believe it.  When the people realized he was telling them the truth, they were cut to the heart and asked, “What shall we do?”  Peter’s response to these people who were not yet Christians, and who wanted to be forgiven, was this: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins.”

If you have not obeyed the gospel commands, please delay no longer.  Follow those simple God-given directives and enjoy a new life with your old sins all erased!

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles, Restoration Movement

An interesting Restoration Movement Coincidence(?)

Leave a comment

Abner Jones wasn’t the kind of man to toot his own horn, like his co-worker, Elias Smith, was.  True, he wrote his autobiography at the request of friends and co-workers in the kingdom who wanted a first-hand account of his efforts at restoration, but if you read it, he doesn’t make a big show out of himself.

Abner, for the most part, quietly went about his work of preaching and teaching and trying to help plant congregations and build them up.

Meanwhile, the denominational mindset that he hated so much had worked its way into the congregations that he had been laboring for. It started off innocently enough in 1808, with ministers from the New England area decided to get together for a meeting of sharing news and encouragement and fellowship.  Then they met again in 1815, and discussed whether it was scriptural to have a conference like that to discuss matters.  They decided, based on Acts 15, that it was, and so they made it an annual event.  After that, they began to elect officers to preside over the meetings.  Then they started making decisions for the whole group.  In 1824, this group, calling themselves the United States Christian Conference, decided to welcome any church, whether they practiced baptism or not, so long as they weren’t opposed to the practice.

As we saw in a post last week, this stance put them at odds with the Bible, and also with the disciples, Christians with whom Alexander Campbell was associated.  It is interesting that this resolution came at the first meeting after Campbell began writing and arguing heavily about the essentiality and mode of baptism.  Already there had been some congregations who had started uniting with the disciples, due in large part to the Scriptural stance they were taking.

It was in 1832 that Barton W. Stone, as a representative of the Christian Church (Christian Connexion) in the midwest, officially gave the right hand of fellowship to Raccoon John Smith, the representative of the disciples.

The portion of the Christian Church (Connexion) in New England wasn’t as thrilled by this measure, and there were some who wanted official resolutions against the disciples and this union that they did not agree to.  So, later that year, when they came together for the annual meeting of the United States Christian Conference, they  turned to Abner Jones, their elder statesman, to preside over it all.

And then something quite extraordinary happened.  Under Abner Jones’ leadership, a motion was made, seconded, and passed, “dissolving the United States Christian Conference forever.” (Herald of Gospel Liberty, June 16, 1910, pages 758-759).

It seems that Abner Jones knew that this body was primed to act in a very un-Christian way.  It also appears that Jones was ready and willing with work with the disciples as brethren in Christ, endorsing the union of forces.

To the outsider, the dissolution of this body, so soon after the union of the Christian Church (at least the part that followed Barton Stone) and the disciples, might appear to just be a coincidence.  But it wasn’t.

It is no coincidence that the dissolving of this body–the body who had, just eight years earlier, denied that baptism was essential for salvation–came immediately after the union of Stone and Campbell.  It is also no coincidence that it was eliminated as a decision-making body through the leadership of Abner Jones.  It is almost as though it was his way of retracting the horrible decision they made in 1824, and his desire to remove any obstacle to working together with the disciples.

Unfortunately, the elimination of the conference didn’t last long.  The next year, a prominent Christian Church (Connexion) preacher called for a conference, and the whole mess started up again.  On the funny side, they met again in 1834, and there was great confusion, because no one could agree on why they were there.  Some thought there was an official convention (like before), others thought it was just a meeting to discuss the publishing of books by members of the Christian Church.  It was agreed and resolved that the United States Christian Conference had dissolved, and so they must be there because of book publishing. (Herald of Gospel Liberty, June 23, 1910, page 790).

In 1838, Abner Jones presided over the meeting, and made it a point to stress that it was a meeting regarding the “General Book Association.”  Jones died before the next meeting (which was now being held every four years).  It wasn’t long before these meetings once again morphed into a decision-making body over the churches.

But in 1832, a wonderful thing took place; something that might, on the surface, seem like just a coincidence; yet was anything but.

-Bradley S. Cobb

(NOTE: Abner Jones’ autobiography is included in our book, Abner Jones: A Collection.)

Articles

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved–The Life of the Apostle John (Part 2)

Leave a comment

John as an Apostle

One morning, John and the rest of the disciples of Jesus were called to go up a mountain where Jesus had been praying all night.  John must have been excited by being selected as one of just twelve men that would be representatives for the miracle-working man that he believed to be the Messiah.  John then followed his cousin down the mountain, where he saw a crowd of people waiting—and Jesus healed the sick and diseased among them.1

After preaching in Decapolis, on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus returned to Capernaum2 and was approached by the ruler of the synagogue, Jairus,3 concerning his daughter who was near to death.  John was one of just three disciples of Jesus who was selected to accompany the Lord inside the house to see this little girl raised from the dead.4

Later on, John was taken by Jesus, along with Peter and James, to a mountain where Jesus prayed.  John fell asleep, but when he awoke, the sight before him was quite a shock: Jesus was positively shining, and standing with Him were Moses and Elijah.  Then a cloud overshadowed them, and they heard God Himself speak, “This is my beloved Son: hear Him.”  And then John looked, and the two Old Testament figures had disappeared, leaving only Jesus.  A mixture of fear and excitement was boiling inside John, but Jesus told them not to say anything about what they had seen until after He was risen from the dead.5

Upon returning to Capernaum, John and the other disciples argued about who was the greatest among them.  Jesus criticized them all, and said, “If any man desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”6  This is a lesson that John apparently didn’t learn the first time, because not too long afterwards, he and his brother James had their mother ask Jesus for the two greatest seats in the kingdom, causing Jesus to say almost the exact same words: “Whoever shall be great among you shall be your servant; and whoever of you desires to be the first shall be servant of all.”7

In between these two events, John tells Jesus a story about how, when the apostles were out and about, they saw someone who wasn’t part of their group casting out demons in Jesus’ name.  John and some others went to the man and told him to cease, because he wasn’t following them.  To this, Jesus replied, “Don’t forbid him, for there is no man who shall do a miracle in my name that can speak evil lightly of me.  For he that is not against us is on our side.”8  John learned an important lesson there—don’t forbid people from doing good.

But what happens when people are staunchly rejecting Jesus?  John didn’t just want to forbid them, he wanted to kill them!

It came to pass, when the time was come that [Jesus] should be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem.  And He sent messengers before His face: and they went and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make [things] ready for Him.  And they didn’t receive Him because His face was as though He desired to go to Jerusalem.  And when His disciples, James and John, saw, they said, “Lord, do you desire that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elijah did?”  But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.  For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”  And they went to another village.9

Jesus and His disciples came to the Jerusalem area, and stayed at the house of Lazarus on the Sabbath.10 On the next day, John witnessed the “triumphal entry,”11 where Jesus entered the city riding the colt of an ass, and heard the people crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord!”12  Then John followed Jesus to the temple, where the Lord taught the people, after which they returned to Bethany (probably to the house of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha).13  On Monday, John followed Jesus back into Jerusalem.  Along the way, they saw a fig tree, and Jesus desired to eat some of the fruits from it.  However, there was nothing but leaves on the tree, and John heard Jesus utter the words “Let no fruit grow on you, henceforward forever!”14  After they came into Jerusalem, and into the temple, John watched:

Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and He would not allow that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.  And He taught, saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called by all nations The House of Prayer’?  But you have made it a den of thieves!”15

That evening, John accompanied Jesus out of Jerusalem for the night.16

On Tuesday, John again accompanied Jesus into Jerusalem, and they passed the same tree they had the day before.  Except this time, the tree was dried up from the roots—completely withered—after which Jesus spoke about the power of faith.  They then entered the city and went into the temple, where a group of scribes, elders, and chief priests confronted Jesus and demanded to know where He got His authority to do these things.  John must have smiled to himself when he heard Jesus reply by asking them where John’s authority to baptize came from—and saw the Jewish leaders feign ignorance.17

Then, John heard Jesus give a parable, condemning the Jewish leaders—and they knew it was directed at them—for rejecting Him.18  Then he saw Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees all working together, taking turns trying to trap Jesus.19  As they were leaving the temple, one of the disciples (we’re not told which one) said to Jesus, “Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings!”  To this, Jesus replied, “You see these great buildings?  There shall not be left one stone on another, that shall not be thrown down.”20

It was because of this statement of Jesus that John approached Jesus with Peter, Andrew, and James, and asked Jesus to “Tell us when shall these things be?  And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?”21  In answer to those questions, Jesus told these four men about the signs to look for, including “when you shall see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.”22 This he did, foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem—which took place 40 years later in AD 70.23

Thursday evening,24 Jesus came with John and the rest of the apostles to a large upper room that was prepared for them to eat the Passover.25  Earlier, Jesus had specifically selected Peter and John, sent them from Bethany into Jerusalem so that this room could be made ready.

Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.  And He [Jesus] sent Peter and John, saying “Go and prepare us the Passover, so that we may eat.”  And they said to Him, “Where do you wish that we prepare it?”

And He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered into the city, a man will meet you there, carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters.  And you shall say to the goodman of the house, ‘The Master says to you, “Where is the guest-chamber where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples?”’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.”

And they went, and found [everything] as He had said to them: and they made ready the Passover.26

Based on the command of Jesus and John and Peter’s obedience, it appears that these two disciples actually did the killing and cooking of the lamb in preparation for what is usually called “The Last Supper.”

When they were all gathered together in the upper room, Jesus said, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”27 It was during this occasion that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, followed by announcing that one of the twelve was going to betray Him.28  The apostles all began to ask, “is it I?”29

Now there was, leaning on Jesus’ bosom, one of His disciples [John], whom Jesus loved.  Therefore, Simon Peter motioned to him, so that he should ask who it would be about whom He spoke.  He, then, lying on Jesus’ chest, says to Him, “Lord, who is it?”  Jesus answered, “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.”  And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.30

Then, the same old argument came up again about which one would be greatest among them.  It is possible that James and John had learned their lesson by this point and kept their mouth shut, but it’s also possible that their ego took over again.31  And like before, Jesus had to teach them the lesson about being a servant.32  Yet just hours after they were arguing about who would be the greatest, they all (even John) ran away and forsook Jesus.33

Before abandoning Jesus, however, John was taken by Jesus with Peter and James in order to “watch” while He prayed.34  But John, like the other two, fell asleep.  After being awakened by the Lord, John again went to sleep shortly after the Lord left to go pray a second time.  The next time John woke up, Judas was arriving with a band of soldiers.35

After abandoning Jesus, John regained some of his composure, and began to follow the crowd to the high priest, Annas.  The high priest knew John, which many have taken as evidence that John’s family was wealthy, and so this disciple was permitted to enter into the court to view the proceedings.  He watched as Jesus was interrogated and brutalized during this mock trial.36

Whether John followed Jesus to his other trials that morning isn’t stated, but he stood at the cross, looking up at His Master who was hanging, bleeding, and beaten.  He heard the Lord say to His mother Mary, “Woman, behold your son!”  Then John heard Jesus speak directly to him, “Behold, your mother!”  And from that moment, John took care of her.37

-Bradley S. Cobb

1 Luke 6:12-19.

2 Matthew places this incident with others which took place in Capernaum.  See Matthew 9:1 (“His own city”), 9:9-17 (the call of Matthew, followed by the feast at Matthew’s house), after which Matthew says “While He spoke these things to them, behold, a certain ruler [Jairus] came to Him
”  Mark places these events in Capernaum (Mark 2:1-22).

3 This Jairus, being the ruler of the synagogue in Capernaum, would have been on hand to see Jesus casting out the demon, as recorded in Luke 4:31-37.

4 Luke 8:51-55.

5 Luke 9:28-36, Mark 9:8-9.

6 Mark 9:33-35.

7 Matthew 20:20-24; Mark 10:35-44, especially verses 43-44.  The KJV says “chiefest,” but the Greek is the same as in 9:35 and 10:44.

8 Mark 9:38-40.  Neither Mark nor Luke (the only other gospel writer who mentions this event) tell us who this man casting out demons in Jesus’ name was.  Some (Lange, Lightfoot, and others) have suggested that this man was a disciple of John the Immerser who cast out demons by the name of the “Messiah” which he expected to come, not necessarily doing it in the name of “Jesus”—but there is no evidence that any of John’s disciples were able to perform miracles.  Others (Calvin, most notably) take the ridiculous stance that this man “proceeded inconsiderately to work miracles.”   Clarke suggests that this man might have been one of the seventy who had been given miraculous abilities, yet who decided to not be part of the mass of disciples after returning from his mission—except that this event took place before Christ chose the seventy (see Luke 9:49-10:1).

What is important to note is that John doesn’t say the man was trying to cast out demons (like the sons of Sceva in Acts 19), but that he was actually doing it.  Jesus even acknowledges that this man was actually working miracles by saying “Don’t forbid him [from casting out demons].”  Thus this man had been given miraculous power by God (probably via Christ), because he was a true disciple of the Lord, even though for whatever reason, he was unable to devote all of his time to following Jesus on His preaching tours.

9 Luke 9:51-56.  The first-rate chronological historian gives no record of events between John’s misplaced zeal for forbidding those who believed in Jesus and his desire to destroy the ones who rejected Him.  It’s as though John was saying, “Jesus, I get that we aren’t supposed to forbid those who are doing good, but surely you can’t have a problem with us wiping out those who are refusing to help you at all!”  What John didn’t understand at that point was the patience of the Lord, and that the Lord Himself will take care of punishing the wicked at judgment.

10 John 12:1-13, with special emphasis on the first and last verse of that section.

11 It is never called that in Scriptures, but it is the commonly accepted name for what took place on the Sunday prior to Jesus’ crucifixion.

12 Mark 11:9; Luke 19:38 (Luke says “Blessed is the King
”).  This is a quotation of Psalm 118:26.  Most likely, the Jews who were saying this would have quoted the verse as it is written, which is “Blessed is he that comes in the name of Jehovah!”

13 Mark 11:11, Luke 19:47.  Mark provides some specifics on the passage of days during this week (see Mark 11:12).

14 Mark 11:12-14; Matthew 21:19.  Mark adds the detail that it wasn’t time for figs yet (verse 13).

15 Mark 11:15-17.  This was a significant event which emboldened the scribes and chief priests to even more want Jesus dead (Mark 11:18).

16 Mark 11:19.

17 Mark 11:20-33; Luke 20:1-8.

18 The fullest account of this exchange between Jesus and the Jewish leadership is found in Matthew 21:33-46.

19 Mark 12:13-27. This is astounding, because these are (for lack of a better term) different political parties within Judaism.  They were violently opposed to each other (see Acts 23, for example), but they all recognized that Jesus was a danger to their positions of power.

20 Mark 13:1-2, Matthew 24:1-2, Luke 21:5-6.

21 Mark 12:3-4 is the only place that tells us that this question was asked by just these four men.

22 Luke 21:20.  Matthew calls it “the abomination of desolation” which Daniel foretold, meaning that Jesus described something that had been prophesied hundreds of years earlier.

23 There are disagreements about the exact year of Jesus’ death, but biblically and historically speaking, it is most likely AD 30, which makes Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 forty years away.

24 For the Jews, the new day of the week began at 6pm, because of Genesis 1, which says “the evening and the morning were the first day.”  So Thursday evening to them, because it began a new day, is what we would refer to as Wednesday evening.

25 Mark 14:12-17.

26 Luke 22:7-13.

27 Luke 22:15.  This is another way of saying, “I have desired very much
”

28 Some have argued, based on Matthew and Mark’s accounts (juxtaposed with John’s) that Judas left prior to the institution of the Lord’s Supper.  However, Luke (who claimed to write chronologically) places the announcement of betrayal (“the hand of him that betrays me is with me on the table”) after the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:14-22).

29 Mark 14:18.

30 John 13:23-26.  It seems strange that though Jesus positively identified Judas as the betrayer, none of the other apostles seemed to catch what He was saying.  Judas had them all fooled.

31 Luke 22:24.  It’s interesting that this should come right on the heels of Jesus announcing that one of them would betray Him.  It may be that they went from saying, “Is it I?” to “It couldn’t be me,” to “I know it couldn’t be me, because I’m the most devoted follower Jesus has.”

32 Luke 22:25-30.

33 Matthew 26:56.

34 Mark 14:32-34.

35 Matthew 26:36-47.

36 John 18:15-22.

37 John 19:26-27.  Some have questioned why it is that Jesus would ask John to take care of his mother instead of asking His own brothers.  First, it is most likely that Joseph was no longer alive at this point (otherwise Jesus would be asking His mother to leave her husband, which is ridiculous).  Second, John wasn’t a stranger—he was Mary’s nephew, so John is still family.  Third, at this point, the brothers of Jesus were not believers, and perhaps Jesus didn’t want to subject His mother to staying with non-believers.  Fourth, John was apparently wealthy—the family fishing business was large enough to employ servants, and John was on friendly terms with the high priest (which couldn’t be said of many—if any—poor people).  We don’t know that the Jesus’ brothers were financially able to care for their mother.