Introduction: Ten Reasons the Old Testament Matters for Christians

By / Jul 19

“For Our Instruction” (Rom 15:4)

Is Christ really part of the Old Testament? Should I as a believer in the twenty-first century claim Old Testament promises as mine? Does the Mosaic law still matter today for followers of Jesus? Is the Old Testament Christian Scripture, and if so, how should we approach it?

This blog series on Delighting in the Old Testament seeks to help Christians make connections to Christ and practical application to the Christian life from every page of the Old Testament. More specifically, it seeks to help you:

    • by faith see and celebrate Christ in the Old Testament in faithful ways,
    • rightly hope in Old Testament promises through Jesus, and
    • genuinely love others with the help of the old-covenant law and its fulfillment in Jesus.

To understand the Old Testament fully, we must read it as believers in Jesus, with God having awakened our spiritual senses to see and hear rightly. That is, we read through Christ. Then, as Christians, biblical interpretation reaches its end only after we have found Jesus and experienced him transforming us into his image. We, thus, read for Christ.

Some Christians may query, if we are part of the new covenant, why should we seek to understand and apply the Old Testament? While I will develop my response throughout this blog series, I give ten reasons here why the “Old” in Old Testament must not mean “unimportant or insignificant.”

1. The Old Testament Was Jesus’s Only Bible and Comprises 75% of Christian Scripture

If space says anything, the Old Testament matters to God, who gave us his word in a Book. In fact, it was his first special revelation, and it set a foundation for the fulfillment we find in Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Testament was the only Bible of Jesus and the earliest church (e.g., Luke 24:44; Acts 24:14), and it is a major part of our Scriptures.

2. The Old Testament Influences Our Understanding of Key Biblical Teachings

Without the Old Testament, we wouldn’t understand the problem for which Jesus and the New Testament supply the solution (Rom 5:18). We would miss so many features of God’s salvation story (9:4–5). And we wouldn’t grasp the various types and shadows that point to Jesus (John 1:29; 2:19, 21). Furthermore, some doctrines, such as the doctrine of creation, are best understood only from the Old Testament (Gen 1:1–2:3). Finally, the New Testament worldview and teachings are built upon the framework supplied in the Old Testament.

3. We Meet the Same God in Both Testaments

Note how the book of Hebrews begins: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:1–2). The very God who spoke through Old Testament prophets speaks through Jesus!
Isn’t the Old Testament’s God one of wrath, though, whereas the God of the New Testament is about grace? Not exactly. In brief, God is as wrathful in the New Testament as he is in the Old (e.g., Matt 10:28), and the Old is filled with manifestations of God’s saving grace (e.g., Exod 34:6). Certainly, there are numerous expressions of Yahweh’s righteous anger in the Old Testament, just as there are massive manifestations of blood-bought mercy in the New. Nevertheless, what is important is to recognize that we meet the same God in the Old Testament as we do in the New.

4. The Old Testament Announces the Very “Good News” We Enjoy

Paul stresses that the Lord “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures” the very powerful “gospel of God” (Rom 1:1–2; cf. Gal 3:8). Foremost among these prophets was Isaiah, who anticipated the day when Yahweh’s royal Servant (the Messiah) would herald comforting “good news” to the poor and broken (Isa 61:1; cf. 40:9–11; 52:7–10; Luke 4:16–21). Reading the Old Testament, therefore, is one of God’s given ways for us to better grasp and delight in the gospel (see also Heb 4:2).

5. Both Testaments Call Us to Love and Clarify What Love Looks Like

As with Israel, the Lord calls Christians to lives characterized by love (Deut 6:5; 10:19; Matt 22:37–40; cf. 7:12; Rom 13:8, 10; Gal 5:14). However, he now gives all members of the new covenant the ability to do what he commands. As Moses himself asserted, the old-covenant law called for life-encompassing love (Deut 30:6), and Christians today can gain clarity from the Old Testament on the wide-ranging impact of love in all of life. As we will see, this happens rightly only when we account for how Jesus fulfills every particular law.

6. Jesus Came Not to Set Aside the Old Testament but to Fulfill It

Far from setting aside the Old Testament, Jesus stressed that he came to fulfill it, and he highlighted how the Old Testament’s instruction was lastingly relevant for his followers (Matt 5:17–19). In later posts we’ll consider further the significance of this text, but what is important to note here is that, while the age of the old covenant has come to an end (Rom 6:14–15; 1 Cor 9:20–21; Gal 5:18; cf. Luke 16:16), the Old Testament itself maintains relevance for us in the way it (a) displays the character of God (e.g., Rom 7:12), (b) points to the excellencies of Christ, and (c) portrays for us the scope of love in all its facets (Matt 22:37–40).

7. Jesus Said That All the Old Testament Points to Him

Jesus himself said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39; cf. 1:45; 5:46–47). Then, following his resurrection, he opened his disciples’ minds “to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:53; cf. 24:27; Acts 26:22–23; 1 Cor 2:2). A proper “understanding” of the Old Testament will lead one to hear in it a message of a suffering and resurrected Messiah and the mission his life would generate.

8. The New Testament Authors Expect Us to Read the Old Testament

The New Testament often cites the Old Testament in ways that call us back to look at the original context. For example, Matthew 27–28 portray Christ’s tribulation and triumph at the cross by recalling Psalm 22 many times. Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 when he declares, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46). In stating, “And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots” (Matt 27:35), Matthew alludes to Psalm 22:16, 18, which reads: “They have pierced my hands and feet…. They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” To fully understand their words, the New Testament authors call us back to the Old Testament through their quotations and allusions.

9. The New Testament Authors Recognized That God Gave the Old Testament for Christians

Regarding the Old Testament prophets, Peter identifies, “It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you” (1 Pet 1:12). Similarly, Paul was convinced that the Old Testament authors wrote for new-covenant believers—those following Jesus on this side of his death and resurrection. “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4; cf. 4:23–24; 1 Cor 10:11).

10. Paul Demands That Church Leaders Preach the Old Testament

Significantly, Paul was referring to the Old Testament when he spoke of the “sacred writings” that are able to make a person “wise for salvation” and of the “Scripture” that is “breathed out by God and profitable” (2 Tim 3:15–16). Knowing this fact colors our understanding of his charge in 2 Timothy 4:2–4. In short, Paul believed Christians like Timothy needed to preach the Old Testament to guard the church from apostasy. While we now have the New Testament, we still must study, practice, and teach the Old Testament like Jesus and his apostles did for the good of God’s church.

Conclusion

This Delighting in the Old Testament series seeks to supply believers with an interpretive framework and guide for rightly handling the Old Testament as God’s Word for us (2 Tim 2:15). It approaches the Old Testament through Christ and for Christ. The series will develop in four stages, each with three to four posts. Stage 1 calls for reading well the Old Testament by interpreting it through and for Christ. Stage 2 then develops this call by indicating how Christians can see well Christ’s person and work within the Old Testament. Stage 3 considers how to hope well in Old Testament promises, which through Christ become certain for all who are in the church. Finally, Stage 4 overviews how to live well by applying Old Testament laws in view of how Christ fulfills them.

–––––

The blog series summarizes Jason S. DeRouchie’s forthcoming book, Delighting in the Old Testament: Through Christ and for Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024). You can pre-order your copy here.



Sexuality and Gender in Baptist Perspective

By / Jul 17

The restrained vision of gender and sexual ethics embraces limits imposed by Scripture and is readily distinguished from the culture’s unrestrained view in which sexual ethics are released from virtually all limitations. Christian sexual morality assumes God exists and, in the Bible, has made known definite boundaries for appropriate sexual expression. God designed sex, and as its designer He knows its proper use and the correct parameters for sexual expression. Circumventing God’s guidelines ultimately leads to pain, heartache, destruction, and God’s judgment.

Regarding the relationship between human nature, gender, and sexuality, no scriptural teaching is more formative for the Baptist perspective than the image of God. Genesis 1:26 proclaims the inherent value of every human being, and says, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”[1] Humans are not mere brutes, nor are they the accidental result of a purposeless process: humans are made by God to reflect his power and glory. Baptist ethicist C. Ben Mitchell adds, “The imago Dei is not a ‘function’ human beings perform so much as it is a ‘status’ they enjoy. The imago Dei is not what humans do but who humans are.”[2] From the perspective of the restrained vision, every human has an inestimable value attached to his or her life prior to and separate from the person’s sexual availability. This is in stark contrast to the culture’s crude and depressing insistence that one’s value is defined by his or her sexual attractiveness and availability or the idea that we find meaning and worth in unrestrained sexual expression and sexual autonomy.

The gift of the biological sexual binary is inseparable from being made in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female.” Like the broader Christian tradition, this verse shapes Baptists’ restrained vision of sex and gender in two ways. First, both men and women share equally in the image of God and, thus, have an ontological equality—men are not better than women nor are women better than men. Second, one’s biological sex is not an accident nor is one’s gender something to be chosen. The biological sexual binary is normative and constrains the extent of permissible individual expression that surrounds gender. In other words, there may be different enculturated ways of living out biblical manhood and womanhood, but men cannot be women and women cannot be men. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 says, “[God] created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation.”[3] This premise is core to Baptist resistance to the idea that sex and gender can ever be completely distinguished into different ontological categories. Instead, one’s anatomical sex determines the manner in which one expresses his or her gender.

Not only is gender directly tied to the image of God, but human sexuality is as well. In Gen 1:28, the goodness of the gender binary is tied to God’s purposes for sex, which are procreation and marital unity: “God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.” Genesis 2:24b adds, “and they become one flesh,” meaning sex strengthens the relational unity of a marriage by enabling a husband and wife to experience a shameless intimacy and joyful sexual pleasure (Song 4:1–16). These two purposes—procreation and unity—bring to light that sex does not exist for its own sake, but serves a greater purpose for a culture. The Colorado Statement on Biblical Sexual Morality stresses this point and says sex “fosters human nurturing, both through the union of husband and wife and also through the enrichment of society through the building of families and communities.”[4] Sex was never designed by God as something to be indulged in for pleasure in any manner one chooses, in or out of marriage. Sex was intended to strengthen marriage and, by helping to build strong marriages, to build a strong society. Societies that abandon responsibility in sexual matters are doomed to implode from the weight of disintegrated families.

Not only are humans created in the image of God, but also they suffer the effects of the fall recorded in Genesis 3. Because of the fall, humans now inherit a nature and environment inclined toward sin. The entrance of sin means sexual desires are disordered, and humans frequently wish for sexual pleasures God has forbidden. Sexual passions pull heavily on the soul and, when indulged outside of God’s moral parameters, lead to destruction and pain. Understanding both gender and sexuality correctly requires taking both the image of God and the fall into consideration. Emphasizing the image of God while neglecting the fall can lead to unbridled celebration of every sexual desire as if all are inherently good. Emphasizing the fall while neglecting the image of God can lead to a relentlessly severe and gloomy vision of gender and sexuality that contains no positive instruction at all.

Balancing the two concepts of the image of God and the fall is crucial, but the doctrine of human sinfulness differentiates the restrained and unrestrained visions. Many advocates of the unrestrained vision will grant the existence of God and that God has some role in shaping gender or sexuality, but what they reject is man’s fallen nature. Romans 1:18–32 details the sinful nature of humanity, and distorted sexual desires are placed squarely at the center of rebellion and idolatry. Sexual ethics need restraint because humans’ natural desires have been disfigured by sin. Sin so pervades the intellect and emotions that even the most unholy acts are sometimes affirmed as natural and good. But Scripture never denies that sexual temptation can feel natural: what Scripture denies is that all natural, sexual desires are inherently good. When sin prevails, thoughts about both gender and sexuality can be twisted and distorted; as such, moral boundaries are needed to safeguard human behavior.

The good news is God has provided for redemption from sin via the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:1–11). The meaning of life is found in fulfilling God’s purposes through believing in his Son and being conformed to the image of Christ, not in indulging every whim of lustful desire. The difference between the restrained and unrestrained visions of sexual ethics is this: the unrestrained vision believes sexual desires should be indulged while the restrained vision believes they must be redeemed. Grace is necessary to redeem and complete nature.

 

[1] Carl F. H. Henry defines the image of God as “a cohesive unity of interrelated components that interact and condition each other, [which] includes rational, moral and spiritual aspects of both a formal and material nature. . . . But in contemplating the divine image in man, it should be clear that the rational or cognitive aspect has logical priority.” Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows, vol. 2 (1976; Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999), 125.

[2] C. Ben Mitchell and D. Joy Riley, Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2014), 55.

[3] “Man,” The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, art. III, https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#iii-man.

[4] Council on Biblical Sexual Ethics, “Colorado Statement on Biblical Sexual Morality (Full Statement),” in Daniel Heimbach, True Sexual Morality (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 363.

 

Editor’s Note: This article is taken from Baptist Political Theology and used by permission of B&H Academic. The book is now available everywhere Christian books are sold.



Do You Love His Sheep?

By / Jul 11

In John 21, Jesus does not explicitly mention loving the sheep as a motivating factor for caring for them. However, love for others is a fundamental mark of the Christian.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34–35).

Not only that, but Jesus made it clear that the leaders in his kingdom are to be marked by service as well as love:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matt. 20:25–28)

Shortly after my retirement from forty-two years of full-time pastoral ministry, someone asked me, “What was the most wonderful part about pastoral ministry?” I replied, “The people.” Then I was asked, “What was the most challenging part of pastoral ministry?” My reply? “The people.” As leaders, we are called to serve the sheep despite the trouble they may cause. There must never be any doubt that we are there to serve the sheep and not vice versa. After all, these precious ones are those whom “he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). They are not our sheep; they are his sheep. He calls us to serve them and to love them. There is no doubt that some sheep make this commandment very difficult to follow. This is when you need to remember God’s patience with you, one of his sheep, and his gracious forgiveness toward you, a member of his flock.

Conclusion

Peter would not receive thrones or accolades in this life. Immediately after charging him to shepherd the flock, Jesus said, “‘Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.’ (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God)” (John 21:18–19). You may not be called to be a martyr, but as a leader you are called to give your life for the flock in other ways: to sacrifice your time to care for their needs, to share their emotional bur-dens as you walk with them through the valley of the shadow of death, to bear the anxiety that fills your heart when you must admonish a sheep who is straying. The strength to persevere in your calling is found in the renewal of your first love for Christ.

Shepherding is challenging and rewarding—but it won’t bring you the rewards that are often coveted in this world. This is why proper motivation for ministry is so important. Its reward in this life is the joy of serving the One who died for you when you serve those he has entrusted to your care. Jesus’s final words to Peter at the post-resurrection seaside meeting mirrored the words of his first call to Peter: “You [must] follow me” (John 21:22). Peter later wrote to other elders in the church to remind them of the ultimate reward: “When the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Peter 5:4).

 

Editor’s Note: Excerpt taken from Timothy Z. Witmer, “Chapter 1: Read This First: Motivation for Shepherds,” The Shepherd’s Toolbox: Advancing You Church’s Shepherding Ministry.



Henry the Baptist Came Preaching: Henry and Baptist Political Theology

By / Jul 10

Was there anything distinctively Baptist about Henry’s political thought? The answer is yes, and it is focused on the first freedom: religious liberty.

Carl F. H. Henry was a Baptist. That might seem like an unnecessary remark in a volume devoted to Baptist political theology, but with Henry it is a point worth making. During his time at Wheaton College, he was convinced of Baptistic views and would be affiliated with Baptist churches and institutions for the remainder of his life.[1] The Baptist understanding of church and state was one of the influences that drew him to Baptist distinctives.[2] But while he made no reservations about his Baptist identity, his “most critical involvements have been outside denominational life.”[3] He is usually recalled as an Evangelical rather than a Baptist and for understandable reasons. He nearly always referred to the “evangelical church” in the singular, “not referring to any particular denomination but to all conservative Protestants committed to the formal and material principles of the Reformation.”[4] This was undoubtedly due to his role as theologian-at-large for a conservative interdenominational evangelicalism.

But how did Henry as a Baptist think about politics? Henry adopted the Baptist understanding of religious liberty, and he articulated a distinctly Baptist version of the first freedom throughout his life.[5] This view originated from the Bible and was filtered through his kingdom framework, stressing the two spheres believers inhabit and concluding that the state ought not dictate to the church and the church ought not overrun the state. For Henry, the church should seek in good faith to evangelize her neighbors but should never “impose upon society at large her theological commitments.”[6] However, because God “wills the state as an instrumentality for preserving justice and restraining disorder,” Christians should engage in political affairs, vote faithfully and intelligently, and seek and hold public office.[7] The church should respect the authority granted to the state by God, but not as a fire wall against any prophetic proclamations. Further, religious liberty provides space for irreligion (though, as we have seen, Henry believed nobody is truly irreligious) as well as those of other faiths. Henry believed evangelicals should “earnestly protect” the freedom of all people—“be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, or whatever—even while we passionately proclaim to all the gospel of Christ.”[8] While Henry’s intellectual efforts were claimed by some among the Religious Right, this was a key place where he distanced himself from the movement. He criticized its tendency to elevate Christian freedom over and above religious freedom and to be less-than interested in religious freedom “across the board” for people of various and differing faith traditions.[9]

Beyond Henry’s view of religious liberty, other Baptist influences can be discerned in his thought, especially in the area of ecclesiology. While Henry has been critiqued for neglecting the locality of the church (due to his scant attention to polity and ordinances), he did appeal to the local church in the construction of his political theology.[10] Because Henry believed “public virtue depends on private character, and private character emerges from convictions about the ultimately real world,” he began at the local level by emphasizing the church’s ministry in the formation of believers who would conduct themselves politically in ways that honored transcendent realities.[11] For Henry, pulpits and pews were integral to Christian political theory—what flowed downstream into political activity, positive or negative, was contingent on ecclesiological faithfulness. As Jonathan Leeman states, “The church’s political nature begins with its own life—with its preaching, evangelism, member oversight and discipline.”[12] Henry recognized and appreciated this in his articulation of political theology. While Baptists are not alone in taking seriously the responsibilities of church membership, one can appreciate Henry the Baptist in how he related church discipline to civil life: “Through government of its own members, the Church indirectly promotes the welfare of society as a whole. . . . When the Church requires her membership to practice Christian principles in everyday life it unavoidably touches upon many areas of conduct subject also to civil legislation.”[13] Henry connected the effectiveness of a proper Christian political vision with the spiritual vitality of the individual and, by extension, the formative role of the covenant community.

Peter Heltzel sees Henry as a “prophetic Baptist” because of Henry’s radical reframing of Baptist cultural engagement.[14] Heltzel gives three reasons to justify this classification: While operating from the Baptist stream of theology, Henry championed the dignity of all people, demonstrated the best of the reformist and revivalist traditions, and rejected theocratic tendencies.[15] And while one wonders whether Henry was as much a “prophetic Baptist” as he was simply a consistent one, the point remains: his Baptist convictions informed his political theology, and Heltzel’s emphasis reminds us of this.

Henry was a consistent Baptist, but he was not an altogether unique Baptist in his conception of political theology. Does he offer anything fresh to Baptists today beyond what has already been said? Certainly, the biblical and theological underpinnings of his political theology remain applicable. The theological intentionality that characterizes his work deserves continued emulation. His engagement with alternate views equips modern readers to understand other political options. But Henry offers more, and this is owing to his historical context.

Henry wrote amid “breathtaking changes in the human experience.”[16] He witnessed massive upheaval in the shared societal assumptions of the nation. While every generation is forced to address new developments, the mid-twentieth century saw a titanic shift in how people thought about every aspect of life. From the discarding of traditional sexuality to secular encroachment in education to new forms of media and entertainment, these years marked a watershed in the life of the nation, and Henry addressed many of these changes through a theological lens and a Baptist emphasis on religious liberty.[17]

Baptists face similar challenges today. While Henry’s articulation of Baptist political theology is not unique to him, the intensity with which he applied it was new, and it is here that modern Baptists can find an ally and guide as they navigate an era still grappling with these issues. Henry’s work on political theology remains a valuable tool, especially because of the kinship between his cultural day and ours.

 

[1] Carl F. H. Henry, “Twenty Years a Baptist,” Foundations 1 (January 1958): 46–47.

[2] Henry, 47.

[3] R. Albert Mohler Jr., “Carl F. H. Henry,” in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. Timothy George and David S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 292.

[4] Timothy George, “Evangelicals and Others,” First Things 160 (February 2006): 19.

[5] See Henry, The Christian Mindset in a Secular Society, 63–80.

[6] Carl F. H. Henry, Christian Countermoves in a Decadent Culture (Portland: Multnomah, 1986), 118.

[7] Henry, 118.

[8] Henry, The Christian Mindset in a Secular Society, 79.

[9] Carl F. H. Henry, “Lost Momentum: Carl F. H. Henry Looks at the Future of the Religious Right” Christianity Today (September 4, 1987): 31.

[10] See Russell D. Moore, “God, Revelation, and Community: Ecclesiology and Baptist Identity in the Thought of Carl F. H. Henry,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 8, no. 4 (Winter 2004).

[11] Henry, Has Democracy Had Its Day?, 41.

[12] Jonathan Leeman, Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 52.

[13] Henry, Aspects of Christian Social Ethics, 79.

[14] Heltzel, Jesus and Justice, 76.

[15] Heltzel, 76.

[16] George Marsden, The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: The 1950s and the Crisis of Liberal Belief (New York: Basic Books, 2014), xv.

[17] In addressing such issues, Henry’s practice was to offer a prophetic “no” to issues clearly contrary to Scripture, but not a clear “yes” to specific policy proposals. This was likely due to his reticence to intertwine church and state and to one of the editorial principles that guided his work at CT: “The institutional church has no mandate, jurisdiction, or competence to endorse political legislation or military tactics or economic specifics in the name of Christ.” See Richard J. Mouw, “Carl Henry Was Right,” Christianity Today (January 2010): 32. This hesitancy to offer specific critique or endorsement of legislation became a point of contention for some of his contemporaries who wanted to see stronger engagement with direct policy matters from one of evangelicalism’s chief thinkers. See Lewis B. Smedes, “The Evangelicals and the Social Question,” Reformed Journal 16 (February 1966): 9–13.

 

Editor’s Note: This article is taken from Baptist Political Theology and used by permission of B&H Academic. The book is now available everywhere Christian books are sold.



What Makes Baptist Political Theology?

By / Jul 3

The distinctive Baptist contribution to political theology is the doctrine of religious freedom and disestablishment. You will find some mention of religious freedom in almost every chapter of this book. But why? And what does religious freedom mean for the whole body of political theology? Is it the only thing we have to say about politics?

An inner logic connects adult baptism, conversion, religious freedom, and disestablishment. Baptism is a ritual that marks the entry of a penitent person into the church community by symbolizing the washing away of sin, the death of the old self and resurrection of the new self. Such a ritual has no meaning for infants or children who have no awareness or understanding of sin, repentance, or the gospel of Jesus Christ. No one can enter the kingdom of God apart from a conscious, inward, informed turning away from sin and toward Christ—a turning that we call repentance and faith. And if people cannot enter the kingdom, they should not be counted full members of the local church, which is an embassy of the kingdom. The church should strive to have a membership made entirely of regenerate Christians, baptized adults who have made a public profession of faith and covenanted together to hold one another accountable for walking in holiness.

By the same logic, no adult can be coerced into the kingdom—or the church—at the point of the sword. Our doctrine of baptism and the church is the seed from which grows an entire panoply of implications about the state. The state may coerce someone into attending the right church, uttering the right creed, and even comporting their behavior to the appearance of outward righteousness—none of which makes the least contribution to a person’s actual salvation. We call this the doctrine of “soul competency,” the idea that each person is accountable to God for himself or herself and no other authority is ultimately able to effect another’s salvation. It is pointless for the state to use its tools, which touch outward behavior, to try to compel inward belief.

Worse, it is dangerous. The state has an educative function. When it passes laws, it habituates people to believe, even if unconsciously, that those laws reflect standards of good and evil. When the state makes laws endorsing, establishing, or regulating religion, it teaches people to rely on the state’s judgment, rather than the church’s or the words of Scripture, for their salvation. Imagine a citizen goes to church and recites a creed because the state tells him to. That citizen is at grave risk of believing he is a Christian because he is performing the appropriate deeds—without any reference at all to the saving work of Christ on the cross. State-endorsed (and, much more so, state-mandated) religion always has strong tendencies toward a religion of works. And there are further dangers, including the long history of states hijacking religion to use as propaganda for whatever political purpose the ruler has in mind. State religion cheapens religion, turning religious authorities into cheerleaders and boosters of the status quo, with all its injustices, and of whomever exercises power, regardless of what that power is used for. State religion has no prophetic witness and no independent voice.

The idea of religious freedom and disestablishment is one of the most revolutionary ideas in world history. Virtually every state in history allied with a religion or, when they banned conventional religion, invented new ones (like communism). The Baptist doctrine of religious freedom amounts to a claim that every state in history got it wrong. It would be breathtaking in its audacity, except for subsequent history in which religious freedom spread worldwide and vindicated the belief that states and churches relate best when they are institutionally and jurisdictionally separate. Every state on earth has (at least on paper) agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18, which affirms that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”[1]

Does the Baptist political witness end there? Do we have anything else to say? In fact, religious freedom and disestablishment, as revolutionary ideas, cannot but have far-reaching consequences throughout the full range of cultural, social, and political issues. Most importantly, religious freedom and disestablishment mean the state has limited jurisdiction. There are matters over which it has no legitimate authority. Religious freedom and disestablishment are thus intrinsically opposed to totalitarianism and, at least, highly suspicious of softer forms of authoritarianism. Totalitarian government is sinful and anti-Christian by its very nature; authoritarian government with no check on its power is inherently dangerous and carries the potential for overstepping its bounds. Baptists should be the first to warn against the encroaching power of states that try to grow beyond their rightful boundaries.

That means Baptists are naturally sympathetic to forms of government that recognize their own limits, have checks on their power, and respect the religious rights of their people. That natural sympathy is reinforced by Baptists’ own practice of congregational autonomy and self-government. Baptists practice self-government among themselves, which habituates them to its rhythms in society at large. That is why, in practice and in history, Baptists are almost exclusively republicans and democrats (with a small r and a small d) who believe in some version of representative government and in civil and political rights. That is not quite the same as saying that Baptists believe the Bible mandates democracy. We respect the authority of the Bible enough to reserve our strongest conclusions for what is explicit and clear in Scripture. But for Baptists, the logic linking biblical revelation to religious freedom and congregational autonomy and, thence, to free government is simpler and stronger than for any other Christian tradition. We have always thrown in our lot with free government. Most Christian traditions in the modern era support basic civil and political rights and find biblical support for them in the idea that all humans bear God’s image and have coequal moral worth. But Baptists add our distinctive doctrine of religious freedom and disestablishment, an additional bulwark against authoritarianism and a cornerstone of free government.

This is an especially needful truth to revive today. We live amidst an upsurge in nationalist sentiment and rising authoritarian powers, which bring twin dangers to the right relationship of church and state. On the one hand, nationalism has historically almost always come tinged with religious rhetoric, religious symbolism, and even religious demagoguery. Statesmen know the power of religion, and if they can tap into that power and redirect it to themselves, they will. On the other hand, in reaction, nationalists’ opponents often blame religious institutions and religious leaders, equate religion with the political agenda they oppose, and seek to shrink, ban, or silence religion in the public square. That means religion is in danger of hijacking by one side and proscription on the other; of being used and manipulated; and of being ignored, sidelined, and neglected.

In this context the Baptist political witness is crucial. More than any other Christian tradition, we can insist on the importance of disestablishment and warn of the dangers of being co-opted by those in power—at the same time and with the same framework that we insist on the vital necessity of religious freedom and a robust and vocal Christian presence in the public square. Christians must advocate for justice, peace, and flourishing—our Lord commands it of us—which means we must be active, present, and free to believe and speak. We must also insist on the state’s limitation and the church’s independence, which means our presence in the public square is never an effort to take it over in the name of serving it.

We have traveled a great distance from the seemingly small matter of believer’s baptism. But that is the legacy of revolutionary ideas. They work their way through the architecture of ideas and recenter relationships in new ways. And the Baptist revolution in religious freedom and disestablishment—in free government and republicanism—is not done yet.

 

[1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18, un.org, accessed October 27, 2022, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

 

Editor’s Note: This article is taken from Baptist Political Theology and used by permission of B&H Academic. The book is now available everywhere Christian books are sold.



Interpretations of the Reformation

By / Jun 6

Editor’s Note: Taken from The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett. Copyright 2023 by Zondervan Academic. Used by permission of Zondervan. www.harpercollinschristian.com. The book is now available for purchase anywhere books are sold.

Over the last century, the Reformation’s self-confessed identity (catholicity) has not always been appreciated or understood with accuracy. Consider several reasons why.

Lamenting the Reformation as Schism and the Seed of Secularism: The Secularization Narrative

Interpreted as a deviation from the church catholic and its view of God and the world, the Reformation has been labeled the birth mother of all that is schismatic and sectarian on one hand and all that is modern and secular on the other hand. Such an approach takes on many different shades.

First, some historians focus mostly on schism and blame the intrinsic divisiveness of the Reformation on various factors. For example, the Reformers taught the priesthood of believers, a doctrine that decreased the gap between clergy and laity. When coupled with the belief in sola scriptura, each Christian became his own arbitrator, deciding for himself what the Bible really said. This is Protestantism’s dangerous idea, and it was not only revolutionary but also inspired revolution itself. Its effects were ravaging: ecclesiastical and political authorities were questioned, which at times led to rebellion and revolution.20

For others, the Reformation’s schismatic nature stemmed from a posture of criticism that precluded catholicity from the start. Even the label Protestantism reveals a fixation with protest that is destructive for Christianity, past, present, and future. The Reformation, therefore, was tragic because it did not unite but divided Christendom.21 Depending on how sympathetic this interpretation is toward Protestantism, it may even label the Reformers as schismatics.

Blaming the Reformation for schism may be an ongoing, contemporary maneuver, but it is also as old as the Reformation itself. In the sixteenth century, Rome blamed the Reformers for schism in the church, and once the Council of Trent concluded, this accusation became formal, setting the trajectory for the centuries ahead. This interpretation—the Reformation as a schismatic sect—has been recapitulated by Roman Catholics since.22

Second, if some interpreters blame schism on the Reformation, others hold the Reformers accountable for an unwitting secularism.23 The two interpretations are not unrelated. To hold the Reformers responsible for secularism, one must first decide that the Reformers were in some sense revolutionaries—religious revolutionaries but perhaps even political revolutionaries. The method of interpretation is not all that different either: the Reformers created this revolution by heralding the primacy of Scripture, which then gave every individual and every society the right to decide for themselves what they believed. The Reformers could not agree with each other, and the history of Protestantism since has followed suit with one denominational split after another. Hermeneutical plural- ism has resulted in religious pluralism, as everyone claims to possess the only true interpretation of the text, and anyone can claim an exclusive legitimate application of Scripture to church and society. Sola scriptura is dangerous because it rebels against the authority of the church for the sake of the individual’s rights. That, in turn, is a recipe for secularism, in which everyone becomes his own authority. Granted, the Reformers did not intend to create a secularist revolution. Yet as soon as they turned to the individual’s interpretation of the Bible, they elevated a subjectivism that could only lead to modernity and the triumph of the self over received ecclesiastical beliefs.

Such an interpretation depends on a reading of the late medieval era as well. On one hand, this interpretation observes a true shift that started with Duns Scotus in the thirteenth century but culminated with the via moderna (mod- ern way), as represented by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century and Gabriel Biel in the fifteenth century. The via moderna was a reaction against the via antiqua (old way), especially as it was embodied in Thomas Aquinas. As chapter 4 will explore, Thomas believed that the Creator and the creature can be properly related to one another by an analogy of being.24 The incomprehensible God is infinite and eternal, while the creature is finite and temporal. He is pure actuality itself, while the creature is defined by a passive potency—God is being, but the creature is becoming. Therefore, predication must occur within the parameters of likeness.25 For instance, the creature may possess love in his heart, but however pure that love may be, it only images the love of God. For unlike the creature’s love, God’s love is an infinite love, an eternal love, an immutable love, and a most holy love. Analogical predication assumes a Creator-creature paradigm of participation. Since God is simple (without parts), all that is in God is God. As Thomas said, “There is nothing in God that is not the divine being itself, which is not the case with other things.”26 God does not depend on another being for his being, but he is life in and of himself (aseity). Therefore, this self-sufficient God is the source of the creature’s being and happiness. In him the creature lives and moves and has his being, as Paul told the Athenians, quoting their own Greek poets in Acts 17:28.27 Participation, in other words, depends on the analogy of being.

–

  1. Whether or not they are lamenting the Reformation as schism, some frame the Reformation as schism, or a break to start a new church: e.g., Ryrie, Protestants; McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea; and McGrath, Historical Theology, 125.
  2. Leithart, The End of Protestantism. Vanhoozer responds to Leithart’s interpretation of the Reformation with the following correction: “However, contra Leithart, the fundamental gesture of Protestantism is not negative but The Reformers did not view themselves as schismatics, nor were they. To protest is to testify for something, namely, the integrity of the gospel, and, as we will see, this includes the church’s cath- olicity. It also includes prophetic protest (the negative gesture) whenever and wherever the truth of the gospel is at risk. Unity alone (sola unitats) is not enough unless the unity in question is a unitas of veritas (truth).” Vanhoozer then offers his own interpretation, one far more in line with this book: “the only true Protestant—a biblical, Christ-centered Protestant, whose conscience is indeed captive to the gospel—is a catholic Protestant.” Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel, 15.
  3. E.g., Denifle, Luther et le Luthéranisme, ch. 4.
  4. Gregory, Unintended Reformation. For a more recent example of a scholar who sees himself carrying the baton of the Bred Gregory narrative, see Saak, Luther and the Reformation of the Later Middle Ages.
  5. “The forms of the things God has made do not measure up to a specific likeness of the divine power; for the things that God has made receive in a divided and particular way that which in Him is found in a simple and universal way.” Aquinas, SCG 32.2.
  6. Predication is the “act of affirming something of a subject” or “assigning something to a class” or “naming something as possessing some act or perfection or as belonging to some other act or perfection,” may be univocal, equivocal, or analogical. Analogical predication is “attributing a perfection to an object in a sense partially the same and partially different from the attribute of the same when applied to some other objections.” For both definitions, see Wuellner, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, s.v. “predication.”

 



On Conversion as Our Aim

By / Jun 1

The grand object of the Christian ministry is the glory of God. Whether souls are converted or not, if Jesus Christ be faithfully preached, the minister has not labored in vain, for he is a sweet savor unto God as well in them that perish as in them that are saved. Yet, as a rule, God has sent us to preach in order that through the gospel of Jesus Christ the sons of men may be reconciled to him. Here and there a preacher of righteousness, like Noah, may labor on and bring none beyond his own family circle into the ark of salvation and another, like Jeremiah, may weep in vain over an impenitent nation; but, for the most part, the work of preaching is intended to save the hearers. It is ours to sow even in stony places, where no fruit rewards our toil; but still we are bound to look for a harvest and mourn if it does not appear in due time.

The glory of God being our chief object, we aim at it by seeking the edification of saints and the salvation of sinners. It is a noble work to instruct the people of God and to build them up in their most holy faith: we may by no means neglect this duty. To this end we must give clear statements of gospel doctrine, of vital experience, and of Christian duty, and never shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God. In too many cases sublime truths are held in abeyance under the pretense that they are not practical, whereas the very fact that they are revealed proves that the Lord thinks them to be of value, and woe unto us if we pretend to be wiser than he. We may say of any and every doctrine of Scripture: “To give it then a tongue is wise in man.”

If any one note is dropped from the divine harmony of truth, the music may be sadly marred. Your people may fall into grave spiritual diseases through the lack of a certain form of spiritual nutriment that can only be supplied by the doctrines you withhold. In the food that we eat there are ingredients that do not at first appear to be necessary to life, but experience shows that they are requisite to health and strength. Phosphorus will not make flesh, but it is wanted for bone; many earths and salts come under the same description—they are necessary in due proportion to the human economy. Even thus certain truths that appear to be little adapted for spiritual nutriment are, nevertheless, very beneficial in furnishing believers with backbone and muscle and in repairing the varied organs of Christian manhood. We must preach “the whole truth,” that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Our great object of glorifying God is, however, to be mainly achieved by the winning of souls. We must see souls born unto God. If we do not, our cry should be that of Rachel “Give me children, or I die.” If we do not win souls, we should mourn as the husbandman who sees no harvest, as the fisherman who returns to his cottage with an empty net, or as the huntsman who has in vain roamed over hill and dale. Ours should be Isaiah’s language uttered with many a sigh and groan “Who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” The ambassadors of peace should not cease to weep bitterly until sinners weep for their sins.

 

Excerpted with permission from Lectures to My Students, Deluxe Edition by Charles H. Spurgeon, introduction and edited by Jason K. Allen. Copyright 2023, B&H Publishing.



Jonah’s Audience Unlocks Our Preaching

By / May 10

I don’t remember a lot from Sunday School as a kid, but one picture that remains clear in my mind was coloring the picture of Jonah in the belly of the fish. That picture, which so beautifully engages imaginations young and old, makes the Book of Jonah exciting and difficult to preach.

With a familiar story like Jonah, I have had to fight the temptation to skip exegetical work because I think I know what is going on already. This familiarity makes preaching the first two chapters easy but the last two quite puzzling. In case you need a reminder in the first two chapters, Jonah heads the opposite way on a boat from the mission that God gave him. God sends a storm and the sailors, after trying everything else, listen to Jonah and throw him overboard. God appoints a fish to swallow Jonah. In the depths of the sea, Jonah cries out to God and the fish spits him onto shore. In chapters 3 and 4, Jonah goes to Nineveh. After a rather short sermon, the city repents and God does not destroy them. The story concludes with an angry prophet outside of the city who does not understand God’s mercy. It ends with a final question from God to Jonah: will the prophet begrudge God’s grace? The preacher is left with a different question. What do you do with an ending like that? The whole book becomes clearer when we consider the audience to whom the book of Jonah was written.

Jonah’s Audience

This is the spot where familiarity can really hinder clarity. We know the story, so we don’t take the time to dive into the context. Think about it. Jonah was written at a particular time for a particular people. That’s true of every book. Jonah was not written to the prophet; he is the main character! Jonah was also not written to the Ninevites. If it were for the Ninevites, then it would not have ended up in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jonah was originally intended for the people of Israel. It was for the Northern Kingdom who saw a great enemy named Assyria casting a shadow over their land whose capitol was Nineveh. Understanding the audience of Jonah helps us answer the question of Jonah. Namely, trust God when what he appointed is different than what you expected.

Appointed vs. Expected

From the beginning of the story until the end, God is doing something different than what Jonah and the original audience would have expected. The call to go to a rival nation is not expected. The storm that frightens the sailors was appointed by God but was far greater than anyone expected. The fish was appointed by God and saved the rebellious prophet. The prophet proclaimed God’s Word and the Ninevites (of all people!) unexpectedly repent. Finally, the Lord speaks to Jonah after showing His mercy to the Ninevites and we don’t expect Jonah’s reaction. All of it is about expectations and reality, what the prophet expects and what God appoints. Jonah expected destruction. He wanted to sit and watch God destroy the enemy of God’s people. Yet God was merciful, gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. God had one last thing to appoint for Jonah and the people of Israel to understand. The Lord appointed the plant, the sun, and the worm to give Jonah relief and take it away. God appointed the plant to show mercy for a moment in hopes that Jonah would love the mercy more than he hated the Ninevites. But sometimes when what we expect is different than what God appoints, we cannot move beyond it. God wants Jonah to love His character and to desire it for himself.

Loving God’s Character

Jonah knew God’s character. He quotes the familiar refrain in Jonah 4:2 from Exodus 34:6, “I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.” Beyond that, Jonah referenced at least 10 Psalms in his prayer of chapter 2. Jonah knows God’s Word and he know God’s character. The question for Jonah and for us is whether that knowledge will move from our heads to our hearts. Jonah rages at God’s kindness to his enemies. The Israelite audience was confronted with such an unexpected outpouring of grace. So, the question at the end is how we respond to God’s character. God is gracious and merciful, and we cannot despise God for being who He is. Will we let the message of grace and mercy come into our hearts even when it is extended where it is not expected? Will we be amazed by grace or offended by it? God’s grace is truly amazing in that it comes to all who will trust in Christ, a different prophet who sat outside a different city and was in anguish enough to die. His anguish was not anger; it was grief and it was for us. So, let’s love God’s character and be amazed at the grace given to rebels and enemies like you and me.



Go Outside: An Interview with Jared C. Wilson

By / May 2

Jared C. Wilson serves as Assistant Professor of Pastoral Ministry and Author in Residence at Midwestern Seminary as well as General Editor at For The Church. In his most recent publication titled Go Outside: And 19 Other Keys to Thriving in Your 20s (Moody Publishers), Jared and Becky Wilson share advice they’d give their younger selves. In 20 short chapter, they discuss the value of time spent with Jesus, taking care of your mind and body, how chasing your dreams is overrated, and more.

Tony Merida, Pastor at Imago Dei Church, commented on the new publication, “Go Outside is a treasure trove of wisdom for all present, future, and even former twentysomethings. It is filled with wit, written from a loving heart, and has the markers of battle-tested wisdom from years of serving this age group.”

Ronni Kurtz, Assistant Professor of Theology at Cedarville University, also said, “This book is a wonderful exercise in showing that gospel-centrality and practical advice are not at odds with one another.”

Costi Hinn, Teaching Pastor at Shepherd’s House Bible Church, said, “I can only wish that this book was written when I was in my twenties, but find great joy that countless lives will have this godly insight for one of the most foundational seasons of life.”

In a recent interview, Jared Wilson answered a few questions about his latest publication and the importance of the book of Acts.

For The Church: Why this book now?

Jared C. Wilson: If not now, when?

Just kidding.

In terms of the audience opportunity for this book, Becky and I both feel like young people are more hungry for mentorship and godly counsel than they’ve been in a long time. They are certainly more interested in it than our generation was at their age. In our day of increasing moral chaos and spiritual confusion, I think a book that carefully and clearly re-articulates the basic stuff of Christian spirituality for young adults in a practical way and really meets a need.

In terms of our timing in writing it, I would say that in now our middle-aged years we’ve spent over a decade now ministering directly to twentysomethings and speaking into their lives, and after thirty years of adulthood ourselves, feel equipped to share some of the most valuable lessons we’ve learned along the way.

FTC: What was it like writing a book with your wife?

JCW: It was fun! Though I should add that we didn’t exactly write the book together. Meaning, we didn’t collaborate on each chapter, but rather, divided up the chapter outline between ourselves. Becky came up with ten topics she wanted to address, and I came up with ten I wanted to address. We took our own time writing our chosen chapters.

The one thing Becky has enjoyed pointing out is that it took her months to write her half of the book, while it only took me a few days to write mine. You could conclude from this discrepancy that I’m a more natural writer than her, or you could conclude that she’s a more thoughtful writer than me. Take your pick.

FTC: What might readers be surprised about after reading this book?

JCW: I think most readers might be surprised at how relatable and refreshing the book is. Most things like this – stuff young people need to know – either comes across very legalistic or very dry. Both of us have good senses of humor. I write with a lot of illustrations and stories, and Becky writes with a very laid-back, unassuming, non-judgmental tone. Even when we’re giving advice or reminding our readers about things Christians must do or should do, we are constantly pointing young people back to the grace in the good news for their assurance and sense of okay-ness. In fact, there is more than one chapter on the importance of knowing God approves us fully because of Jesus, not our religious performance or spiritual production.

FTC: Which 2-3 of the 20 principles in the book do you wish you’d applied in your twenties?

JCW: Well, all of them! That’s the premise of the book: If we could go back, what are the 20 things we’d tell our younger selves. But if I had to pick just 3 of the chapters that are most important to me, I would say:

Chapter 4 – Porn is more toxic than you realize

Chapter 18 – Center on the gospel

Chapter 20 – You are not only as good as what you haven’t done

These three chapters probably best outline the plot points of my own testimony of sin and redemption in my twenties.

FTC: What’s one main point you hope readers take away from this book?

JCW: The biggest thing I hope readers take away is just how big Jesus is! How much he can be trusted. How investing in our friendship with him in our early adulthood isn’t just a way to be one of the “Christian college kids,” but the way we make sure we start out on a track of life that will fill our joy and keep us from looking back when we hit our thirties and forties and beyond with regrets and desires for a do-over.

 

Editor’s Note: Go Outside: And 19 Other Keys to Thriving in Your 20s is now available for purchase.



True Servanthood in the Footsteps of Jesus

By / Apr 26

Editor’s Note: This post is excerpted from A Ransom for Many by John J.R. Lee and Daniel Brueske (Lexham Press, 2023). This book is now available for purchase.

We believe that the term “service,” as applied to the mission of Jesus, must be understood in a nuanced and refined manner. Its overuse in our era has cheapened the concept. But in Jesus’s case, “service” meant embracing the most shameful and despised fate of his time—death on a Roman cross. It meant being condemned by his fellow Jews as one accursed by Israel’s God (cf. Gal 3:13; Deut 21:23). It meant being mocked by the Romans as a failed insurrectionist (cf. Mark 15:16–20). And the final phrase of Mark 10:45 (“to give his life as a ransom for many”) points to the ultimate expression of the Son of Man’s radical servanthood, his atoning death. Jesus did not allow his unique identity and authority to exempt him from the kingdom principle of sacrificial servanthood (cf. Phil 2:6–8). Instead, he lived it out fully (Mark 10:45) and thus provided the foundation and prototype for his followers’ radical servanthood in his footsteps (10:43–44; cf. 9:35–37;).

This emphasis on sacrificial servanthood is not limited to Mark’s Gospel alone. It is found across the New Testament (John 15:12–13; Eph 5:2; 1 John 3:16). Church history is replete with examples of radical servanthood in the footsteps of Jesus. Just beyond the apostolic era, 1 Clement 55:2 reports, “We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves have fed others” (trans. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer). This reported practice among early Christians reflects a literal application of Mark 10:45.2 Other examples of Christian servanthood across the centuries are not hard to find. One of the most notable examples is Francis of Assisi. Before his conversion, Francis felt a strong aversion to the sight of lepers. But after his conversion, he went to live in a leprosarium to care for those with the disease.3

Mark 10:45 does not describe service in general and abstract terms. Instead, the portrayal is quite specific and personal. The service in Mark 10:45 is a service that a particular person, Jesus, has offered in a specific manner at a specific time and place, namely, giving his life sacrificially for the sake of others by being crucified on a Roman cross. And he did this despite the defeat that such a death signified in the eyes of his contemporaries. If we want to follow in Jesus’s footsteps, we must also do so in a personal way in our own specific time and space. The readers of this book will likely have one or two people they can quickly identify as their models of sacrificial service. For some, time would fail them to tell about their heroes of Christ-like servanthood (cf. Heb 11:32).

However, following Jesus’s example of servanthood may also take less conspicuous forms and may have a more manageable and mundane expression. For instance, welcoming neighbors over for dinner, staying late after church to vacuum the building, serving in a food line that feeds the hungry, or offering to babysit for a single parent can all be meaningful ways of serving others sacrificially. The core thread common to each of these acts is a willingness to subordinate our liberties, comforts, rights, and sometimes even our necessities to those of others, and, in so doing, we embody Jesus’s own habit of sacrificial service in a small yet meaningful way.

To be clear, Mark’s message is not that we must suffer or serve in order to get into heaven. Suffering and service do not earn our redemption and reconciliation with God. And not everyone who follows Jesus will face the same obstacles. Interestingly, Acts 12:2 mentions the death of James, which likely occurred only a decade or so after the request of Mark 10:37, yet church tradition indicates that his brother John lived to an old age. Likewise, in John 21:18–24, the resurrected Messiah foretells two very different paths for Peter and “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Mark does not claim that we will all experience the same afflictions and persecutions or identify the same needs among our neighbors.

Instead, the message of Mark is that those who follow Jesus must be willing to complete the journey. It is not enough simply to hear the message of the kingdom (Mark 4:4, 15). It is not even enough to receive that message with joy and start following Jesus if we are not committed to remaining with him to the end (4:5–7, 16–19). It is only those who receive the message of the kingdom and bear the fruit of loyal perseverance—committed to following Jesus wherever he leads and whatever it costs—who can say that they have truly followed him (4:8, 20). If you consider yourself a disciple of Jesus, it is worthwhile to ask yourself periodically, “What obstacles might deter me from staying on the path?” This world offers many distractions to lure us off the path of discipleship. For the rich man, it was his earthly treasure (10:17–22). For James and John, it was the pursuit of honor (10:35–37). For Peter, it was an aversion to shame and suffering (8:32; 14:66–72). What tempts you to sidestep the shame and suffering that may come with following Jesus? What are you unwilling to give in service to Jesus and others?

The spirit of competition and worldly success that once possessed James and John (10:35–40) is still rampant in our generation. Even churches, Christian institutions, and missions organizations are not immune. Too often, we view one another as competitors, not recognizing that Jesus sharply opposed this sort of perspective. We must again listen to Jesus, who sharply contrasted his way (Mark 1:3; cf. Isa 40:3) with that of the world: “it shall not be so among you”(10:43, ESV)! We who would follow Jesus on the way to the cross must deny ourselves and take up our own crosses (8:34), and we must learn to embrace the way of God rather than the ways of the world (8:33).

2 Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 453n62.

3 Augustine Thompson, Francis of Assisi: The Life (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013), 18–19.