Gospel Proclamation In Luke-Acts

THE GOSPEL IN LUKE-ACTS

The books of Luke and Acts bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even though Luke does not use the noun “gospel” as does Matthew and Mark, he has much to say about it. Luke prefers the verb “to preach good news” and uses this verb to characterize the preaching of John, the preaching of Jesus, and also the continued preaching of the disciples after the resurrection. Luke notes that the good news is of Jewish origin, yet for all the world, and ushers in the long awaited kingdom of God. Luke’s gospel is a gospel of repentance that starts small but grows until it reaches all nations.

The Language of Luke’s Gospel

Luke uses the verb meaning “preach good news” (εὐαγγελίζω) 25 times in Luke/Acts. εὐαγγελίζω is used 10 times in Luke, and 15 times in Acts. Luke uses the noun gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) only twice, and both times in Acts (Acts 15:7, 20:24). Both are in direct discourse, once Peter and once Paul. Luke prefers the verb εὐαγγελίζω. [1]Matthew uses εὐαγγέλιον 4 times, and Mark uses it 8 times. The noun εὐαγγέλιον is the more common word in the N.T. It is used a total of 76 times, and εὐαγγελίζω is used only 54 times. Matthew uses εὐαγγελίζω only once, and Mark never uses the verb. Luke’s emphasis seems to be on the proclamation of the gospel, not just the facts of the gospel.[2]

Gospel for the Jews

Luke is careful to give the name of the angel who announces the births of John and Jesus (Lk. 1:19, 26). Luke is the only gospel writer to name Gabriel. Gabriel is the first messenger of the gospel. Matthew only mentions “an angel of the Lord” that appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him that it was okay to take Mary as his wife (Matt. 1:20). Perhaps Luke knew that by naming Gabriel as the messenger, he would be giving the birth of Jesus, and the arrival of the gospel, the same level of importance as the word of the Lord that came to Daniel by the same angel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21).[3] Naming Gabriel as the divine messenger also sets the events surrounding the births of John and of Jesus in the same type of eschatological milieu as that of Daniels visions.[4] Luke not only names Gabriel, but also has other angels announcing the arrival of Jesus (Lk. 2:10). Luke shows the divine origin of gospel and God’s activity among men as in Old Testament (Gen. 16:11, 22:11, 31:11; Ex. 3:2, 14:19, etc.). By doing so, Luke grabs the attention of the people, letting them know that God is working in their midst.

Luke shows that the arrival of the gospel is the fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy. In Luke 4, Jesus stands up in the synagogue to read a scroll of Isaiah. He opens the scroll to Isaiah 61 and reads the first couple of sentences. He then sits down and says to the people, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Lk. 4:21 ESV). Jesus was declaring that the prophecy of Isaiah was being fulfilled right then, in Jesus himself! This is a part of the teaching of Jesus that his disciples pick up on and preach after the resurrection. The gospel was “promised to the fathers” and “fulfilled” in Jesus (13:32,33 ESV). It is precisely this gospel that was spoken of by the prophets (Acts 10:42-43). On the Day of Pentecost Peter asserts that what was happening was “what was uttered through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2: 16 ESV). Again Peter proclaims that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23 ESV). The disciples preaching in Acts shows what Luke wanted to stress from the beginning of his writing in the book of Luke, namely that Jesus and his gospel is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Jesus declares that the purpose for which he was sent was to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom of God (Lk. 4:43). As was stated earlier, Luke never uses the noun εὐαγγέλιον (gospel) in the gospel of Luke. He prefers the verb εὐαγγελίζω (preach the gospel), which is the same word used in Isaiah 52:7 in the LXX. Isaiah declares, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (εὐαγγελίζω), who publishes peace, who brings good news (εὐαγγελίζω) of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns’ (Is. 52:7 ESV, emphasis added). Just as Isaiah prophesied by the Spirit that there was coming a day when God’s sovereign rule would break into the world in a special way, bringing blessing to his people, so Jesus announces its arrival (Lk. 8:1; 9:2, 60; 16:16). The sovereign rule of God in Christ on behalf of his people is an essential part of the gospel in Luke.[5] The gospel is “good news” because it declares “Your God reigns.” This is the gospel that Jesus preached. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not just good news, i.e. good news that the sins of the world are paid for, but good news that God is reigning sovereignty over all creation in Jesus Christ for the sake of his people and for his glory. It is “the gospel of the kingdom.” Even as Gabriel, the great messenger of the Old Testament is announcing the coming of the Christ he proclaims Jesus’ relationship to Israel. Gabriel says to Mary:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end (Lk. 1:31-33 ESV).

Jesus reigns on the throne of David, and brings salvation to his people (Lk. 2:30). So, the gospel is for Israel in that it is the good news that the Messiah has come who sits on the throne of David bringing justice and salvation.

The theme of the “gospel of the kingdom” is continued in the book of Acts. Even though, after the resurrection, Jesus has to correct the disciple’s understanding of the kingdom (Acts 1:6-8), nevertheless they preached the kingdom of God. From the earliest preaching of Phillip to the Samaritans in Acts 8 to the discourses of the apostle Paul in Acts 28, the kingdom of God was preached (Acts 5:42; 8:12; 20:25; 28:31).[6]

Gospel for All Peoples

The good news of the kingdom of God is not only for the Jews in Luke’s writing. Luke is careful to point out that from the beginning it was for all peoples. In Luke 2:32 it is “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (ESV). In Luke 24:47 the gospel begins at Jerusalem and goes out to all nations. In Acts 11:18 the disciples finally catch on that God has granted the grace of the good news to the Gentiles. The gospel of Jesus Christ is rooted in Jewish history. Jesus was born a Jew. The Father sent Jesus to the Jews as the heir of the throne of the Jewish king David. By sending Jesus God “has helped his servant Israel” (Lk. 1:54 ESV). The arrival of king Jesus meant glory for the people of Israel. But it also meant salvation and mercy and grace and “a light for revelation” for the Gentiles. It is clear in Luke that the gospel, even though a Jewish gospel, is meant for all the world.

Gospel of Repentance

The gospel is also a gospel of repentance. Why is it good news that mankind is hopelessly lost and in need of repentance? Because repentance is the doorway to the kingdom where all the blessings of salvation are to be found and all the horrors of being outside the kingdom are to be avoided (Lk. 13:3-5). If in Luke’s gospel the good news began with the birth of John who would “prepare the way for the Lord,” then the beginning of the gospel proclamation is the preaching of John.[7] John, from the beginning preached “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk. 3:3 ESV). Jesus came to call . . . sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:32 ESV), and commanded his disciples that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47 ESV).

In obedience to Christ, Peter proclaims on the Day of Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 ESV). Again Peter declares, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19 ESV). Paul and Barnabas preached to the idol worshippers in the streets of Lystra, “we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God” (Acts 14:15 ESV, emphasis added). Paul preaches to the crowds gathered at Mars Hill that God “commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness . . . ” (Acts 17:30-31 ESV). Why is the gospel of repentance good news? It is good news because it is how sins get “blotted out.” It is good news because the God who commands this is the “living God,” not the dead gods of the pagans. This God can actually do something for humanity. It is good news because it is the means of escaping God’s righteous judgment on the world. The alternative is not good news.

Gospel that Grows

Luke’s gospel is also a gospel that grows. Luke Jesus’ “kingdom parables,” in which he says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, or leaven; both start out small and then grow over time (Lk. 13:18-21). It is in Luke’s first volume that the reader sees the beginnings of the gospel. In Acts Luke shows the growth of the gospel over time. Luke is fond of referring to the gospel as the “word of God” (Lk. 8:11; 11:28; Acts 4:31; 8:14, etc.). In Acts Luke records that “the word of God continued to increase (Acts 6:7 ESV, also Acts 8:4; 12:24; 13:49; 19:20). Luke repeats this refrain over and over again throughout the books of Acts. Indeed, the gospel began small, with just a handful of disciples in Judea. But it could not be contained. No less than a mustard seed dies in the ground but then becomes a great tree so that the birds nest in its branches, or no less than a small batch of yeast rises and gets larger and larger, so also the gospel of the kingdom, the word of the Lord spreads and grows to every region of the earth.[8]

Summary and Application

Luke’s gospel proclamation is a gospel that is not just mere facts that exist out there to be discovered by the scholarly and religious elite. It is a message to be proclaimed. Luke’s use of the verb εὐαγγελίζω rather than the noun εὐαγγέλιον may suggest that the gospel is more than knowledge to be learned and believed, but a gospel to be participated in. It is true that “the gospel” is the facts about Jesus and his death and resurrection, all of which are found in Luke-Acts, but that does not negate the fact that in Luke the gospel is what the church is about and what the church does. Jesus “preached good news.” The disciples “preached good news.” In Luke, this kind of action-oriented gospel is what characterizes the people of God.[9]

Therefore, the gospel must not only be believed in the church but it must also be proclaimed. It is not enough for the Christian church to believe that Jesus is the King of the ages and the only way of salvation, the church must preach that good news to everyone who will listen. The church must be filled with people who will “bring good news” (εὐαγγελίζω) to the nations, not just with people who believe it in their hearts and rejoice in it among themselves. Luke records this fact about the early believers: “Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word” (Acts 8:4 ESV). This must be a priority for gospel believing churches today. The good news must be preached.

Luke the historian is careful to show the breaking in of the gospel into the world in its proper historical setting.[10] The gospel came first to the Jews, for the Jews, by the Jews (through the Spirit) and about a Jew, namely Jesus of Nazareth. To separate the gospel from its original Jewish setting is detrimental to its force. If the good news is not connected to the historical events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, then it is no good news at all; it would be just another religious idea. The fact is that the good news came in the context of Jewish life and history. The promises of God to the Christian church and the Old Testament promises of God to Israel are inseparable. Jesus came to fulfill those promises and establish the sovereign rule of God over his people and all the world. Angels in prophetic fashion announced the arrival of the good news of the kingdom.

Today’s gospel proclamation should be no less founded in the historical events of the 1^st century. The church must proclaim to the nations that Jesus came to reveal the God of the Jews to the world in the most real, most clear way imaginable. It is a gospel that proclaims the “God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth . . . (Acts 17:24 ESV). The church’s Jesus must not be a Jesus who is not Jewish in every way. Jesus must not be preached as a 5^th century Italian man, or a 16^th century German, or a 21^st century American. That is not to say that Jesus does not relate to all cultures everywhere. But the gospel must be rooted in the concrete historical facts that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah sent by the God of the Old Testament, the God of Israel to save his people and set up the kingdom which was promised to the Jewish king David long ago. A modern day gospel must be as relevant as possible to the current culture as well as ancient as the God of that gospel.

As was stated earlier, Jesus is relevant for all cultures everywhere, regardless of how far removed they may be from 1^st century Judaism. Indeed the gospel is for all peoples in that it was never meant to be for the Jews only. God made sure that the gospel did not stay in Jerusalem, but went out to “all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8 ESV). What this means for the church today is that the gospel must not be held captive by cultural barriers. It is sin to believe the gospel but not take it to the nations. “Gospel hoarding” is especially prevalent in areas where there is much racial tension, like the Southern part of the U.S., as well as other parts of the country and world. To fail to proclaim the gospel to ones neighbors no matter their race or ethnic grouping is to contradict the gospel itself, which is for all the nations.

Luke’s emphasis on repentance is especially in need of being recovered today. Any gospel proclamation that does not include repentance is no gospel proclamation at all. The gospel is “good news, that [people] should turn from these vain things to a living God” (Acts 14:15 ESV). To take away repentance from the gospel of the kingdom of God is to take away the very door through which people are to enter the kingdom of God. This is not being faithful to the gospel. Repentance must be preached. The church must preach that people should repent and then prove their repentance by their deeds (Acts 26:20). There must be a turning away from sin in the hearts of all who would believe the gospel, or else they have not believed the gospel.[11] The gospel of repentance from sin must not be watered down for the sake of cultural trends or for fear of offending people and turning them away from the church.[12]

Luke’s stressing of the fact that the gospel starts out small and then grows is meant to be an encouragement for the church that preaches it. Just as the church began with only a few disciples and then exploded into a worldwide and world changing enterprise, so also does the gospel grow in one’s heart, or one’s community, or one’s nation. The good news of the kingdom of God will grow and grow until the Lord returns. Just as one might not see at first the growth of the mustard seed or the rising of the leaven, so also one might not be able to visibly see the growth of the gospel either in a person’s heart or in a nation or tribe. But that does not mean it is not growing. As in the days of the apostles as recorded in the book of Acts the word of the Lord will increase in the world and the gospel will grow until all the church is united in Christ in his day.

Conclusion

In the books of Luke and Acts there is a clear message about the gospel of Jesus Christ, even though Luke never calls it that. Luke uses the verb “to preach good news” when talking about the preaching of Jesus and the disciples rather than the noun “gospel.” Luke shows the gospel in its original context in 1^st century Palestine and notes that the good news comes from the Jews to the Jews by a Jew, Jesus. Luke shows this by recording the first announcer of the gospel, the angel Gabriel, who also revealed to word of the Lord to Daniel. There is a great connection in Luke-Acts between the New Covenant gospel and the Old Covenant God of Israel. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah who sits on the throne of David, and establishes the long awaited kingdom of God.

Luke’s gospel is also for the Gentiles too, i.e. the rest of humanity other than the Jews. From the beginning Luke says that the good news is for all peoples. The gospel in Luke-Acts is a gospel of repentance that deals with the problem of human sin and makes a way for sinful people to enter the sinless kingdom of God. This gospel for Luke is also a gospel that grows with time. It may start small, like the smallest of all seeds, but it ends up being a worldwide phenomenon. For Luke, it is this growing, Jewish-Gentile gospel of repentance that must be proclaimed in all the world in order for people gain access into the kingdom of God in Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988

Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC.. Exeter: The Paternoster Press/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolland, John. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 35A. Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1989.

Piper, John. God is the Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

Polhill, John B. The New American Commentary. Vol. 26 Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Ringe, Sharon H. Luke. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Stein, Robert H. The New American Commentary. Vol. 24. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Walaskay, Paul W. Acts. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

---

[1] See Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.

[2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 71.

[3] Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.

[4] John Nalland, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35A (Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1989), 35-36.

[5] See John Piper, God is the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 27.

[6] See Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 78, for a greater discussion of this theme. Also see John B. Polhill, The New American Commentary, Vol. 26 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 545-548.

[7] See Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.

[8] I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Exeter: The Paternoster Press/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 559-560.

[9] Sharon H. Ringe, Luke, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 72.

[10] Paul W. Walaskay, Acts, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 10-12.

[11] Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 901.

[12]Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992). Luke 3.3.

Stilling The Storm In The Synoptics :: Redaction And Significance

STILLING THE STORM IN THE SYNOPTICS

Who is Jesus? This has been the question of the ages. Who was and who is this man who lived and died over 2000 years ago in Jerusalem? It is a question that began during Jesus’ own lifetime with his own contemporaries. In the gospel of Mark, in humble amazement at Jesus’ power over nature, even his own disciples question one another with the words Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν—who then is this? Apparently for them it was still a question, even after they had witnessed so many great things.

Exegesis of Mark 4:35-41

Mark records in minute detail a magnificent gospel tradition that is loaded with Christological references, the stilling of the storm. In verse 35, Mark records the time of the event with the words ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης[1]—on that day, when evening had come. Mark uses the genitive absolute ὀψίας γενομένης to refer back to 4:1, indicating that the following event happened on the evening of the same day on which Jesus had been teaching by the Sea of Galilee. Jesus requested that his disciples take him across to the other side of the sea— Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς . . . Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν. Mark uses λέγει—he says, as an historical present, perhaps to present the story in a more vivid manner, thereby drawing his readers into the story with him, as is his usual style.[2]

Next Mark records that the disciples do as Jesus asked and left the crowd on the shore, taking him with them—καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν (v. 36). Here Mark makes a rather unusual comment. He uses the words ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ—as he was in the boat; this either refers to the manner in which they took him in the boat, “as he was,” or to the situation surrounding their taking him with them, he was already “in the boat.” The ESV says, “they took him with them in the boat, just as he was” (Mk. 4:36, ESV) indicating the manner in which they took him. But it is more likely that ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ refers back to v. 1, indicating that Jesus was still in the boat where he had been all day. Perhaps Mark senses the need to elaborate in light of v. 10 where he makes reference to Jesus being alone.[3]

Mark also speaks of other boats (ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ) being there (v. 36). R. T. France asserts that this remark reflects a mere a “circumstantial reminiscence” on the part of Mark’s eyewitness source, i.e. Peter.[4] France may be correct, but it may be that Mark is letting his readers know that what is about to take place in the story did not only affect Jesus and his disciples, but others as well. Perhaps Mark wants to communicate to his readers a sense of community in which this event took place, thereby identifying with the Christian community in the midst of suffering where all parties involved are affected in some way.[5]

In v. 37 Mark uses another historical present (γίνεται), to introduce the great storm of wind—λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου, a storm so great that the waves were beating against the boat and filling it up with water—τὰ κύματα ἐπέβαλλεν εἰς τὸ

πλοῖον, ὥστε ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον. Mark is indicating that the situation was potentially life threatening, which gives the reader a sense of the urgency of the situation ands sets the reader up for the following statement about Jesus in the midst of this turmoil.

Apparently, Jesus was not affected by the storm because he was in the stern of the boat asleep on a cushion—καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων (v. 38). Contrasted here is the emotional/spiritual state of Jesus with that of his disciples. As Jesus was fast asleep, in total trust and dependence on the Father, the disciples, in an almost accusatory manner, cry out to Jesus, Διδάσκαλε, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα;—teacher, is it of no concern to you that we are perishing? If in fact Mark is writing specifically to the persecuted Christians in Rome, then this language would hit home with those who were suffering their own “storms” and wondering if Jesus was with them or not. Mark uses two more historical presents here, ἐγείρουσιν—they are waking, and λέγουσιν—they are saying, again drawing the reader into the action as if it were taking place right now.

It is certain that Mark was familiar with the Old Testament story of Jonah. In fact, the language is so similar, and given the fact that Mark elsewhere quotes the LXX (e.g. Mk. 1:3; 4:12; 7:6-7), it may be unreasonable to think that he does not mean to make a comparison. Mark uses the same word, ἐφοβήθησαν, to describe the disciples’ fear as Jonah 1:5 uses to describe the sailors on the boat there. Both groups were afraid that they were perishing (Jon. 1:6). Even the structure is similar in regard to the reporting of the fear of those on the two boats. In Jonah the men were “afraid”—ἐφοβήθησαν, because of the storm, and in vv. 10 and 16 they were “greatly afraid”—ἐφοβήθησαν . . . φόβον μέγαν (Jon. 1:1-16, LXX). Both groups of men were more afraid after the miracle had taken place than they were before.[6]

Jonah’s captain woke him up asking Τί σὺ ῥέγχεις;—why do you snore?[7] In other words, what in the world are you doing down here asleep when we about to die in this storm! The disciples’ tone with Jesus is similar. The language employed by both authors is comparable. Jesus’ sleep, like Jonah’s, serves to highlight the central figure in the story, and the helplessness of the other people.[8]

In response to their pleas Jesus takes immediate action: καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο—and waking up he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Quiet down! Be still!” (v. 39). Mark shows that Jesus not only cares for the situation, but he also has the power to control the situation. The result was immediate. Mark records, καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη—and the wind stopped and there was a great calm (v. 39b). Mark is contrasting λαῖλαψ μεγάλη—a great storm, with γαλήνη μεγάλη—a great calm, perhaps to show his readers that Jesus can bring good out of the worst situations in life.

Then, after Jesus rebuked the wind and the sea, he rebuked his disciples. Mark records Jesus asking them, Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;— Why are you afraid? Do you not yet have faith? (v.40). Jesus’ rebuke for their cowardly, fear invokes an even greater fear than what they had on account of the storm. Mark says, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν—and they feared a great fear, i.e. they were greatly afraid (v. 41). Mark’s use of fobeJomai can indicate great fear as in being terrified, or great reverence. If he means that the disciples were filled with reverence, it means that they were in awe at what Jesus had done. If Mark means that they were terrified, which seems to better fit the context, then it means that the disciples were greatly distressed at what Jesus had said to them after he rebuked the storm. Were they in danger of not having faith at all? This becomes to them something more terrible than a deadly storm at sea. Mark’s point then to his audience may be “Watch out how you respond to the trials of your life.”

All that had happened in those moments led them to question one another asking, Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;—who then is this that even the wind and the sea obeys him? (v.41b). The disciples’ question is the central point in the story, and shows Mark’s concern with Christology. Perhaps here Mark has in mind Psalm 107:23-30 (Ps. 106:23-30, LXX). According to the Psalmist it is the works of the LORD—τὰ ἔργα κυρίου (LXX), which of course is hwhy in Hebrew (Ps. 107: 24; 106:24, LXX) that made the storm be still (Ps. 107: 29; Ps. 106:29, LXX). Who is this Jesus? He is the Son of the true and living God, the Lord of heaven and earth, the God of the Old Testament[9] who alone has the power to control even nature, and who cares for his followers in their tribulation, and who acts to bring good out of bad for the glory of God. Mark refers readers to imagery found in O.T., and thereby equates Jesus with Yahweh. Mark’s Christology is of the highest variety. Jesus is God.

Mark recounts this story, not just to write down in an orderly fashion the oral traditions of the gospel, but also to speak to the church to encourage them in the midst of its tribulation.[10] Origen said:

“For as many as are in the little ship of faith are sailing with the Lord; as many as are in the bark of holy church will voyage with the Lord across this wave-tossed life; though the Lord himself may sleep in holy quiet, he is but watching your patience and endurance: looking forward to the repentance and to the conversion of those who have sinned. Come then to him eagerly, instant in prayer.”[11]

Mark has theological, historical, and pastoral concerns as he relates the story of Jesus stilling the storm to his readers.[12]

Synoptic Comparison

Of the three accounts of the stilling the storm narrative in the synoptic gospels Mark’s is the longest, Luke’s is the closest to the Markan account, and Matthew’s is the shortest, and most interpretive of the three. Luke’s is the most straight forward from a historical standpoint. He seems to intentionally omit details that Mark includes, such as the other boats around, and the cushion on which Jesus was sleeping. The only elements of the story that are truly unique to Luke is that he indicates that Jesus wanted to go to the other side “of the lake” (τῆς λίμνης), and the way the disciples address Jesus (Ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα), which is close to that of Mark, and that he notes that the disciples were both fearful and marveling (φοβηθέντες and ἐθαύμασαν). Matthew, however, has much to say that is different from either Mark or Luke.

Matthew’s context is different from Mark’s. Matthew records in v. 18, Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν—and Jesus, seeing the crowd around him, gave orders to go away to the other side. This language is unique to Matthew, except for εἰς τὸ πέραν, which occurs in all three synoptics. Luke is closer to the Markan account, although he is less specific concerning the exact day (ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν) and simply has Jesus and his disciples together in the boat. Luke and Matthew both use ἐμβαίνω, where Mark does not because Jesus is already in the boat.[13]

What is also unique to Matthew is that two men approach Jesus after this. A scribe and one of his disciples (μαθητής) came to him wishing to follow (ἀκολουθέω) him, and yet wanting Jesus to wait for them while they go and do other things first (vv. 19-21). Then in v. 23, Matthew records, kαὶ ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ—and after he got into the boat his disciples followed him. So, whereas the first two men could not yet follow Jesus, the disciples did so immediately. This shows Matthew’s concern with discipleship, which is a major theme in his gospel.[14]

According to Gunther Bornkamm, Matthew alters Marks story and makes it a symbolic picture of discipleship. Matthew uses the catchword, ἀκολουθέω and gives it a richer meaning.[15] Matthew uses σεισμὸς, a term usually applied to situations of eschatological distress[16] to describe the storm, whereas Mark and Luke both call it a λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου. For Mark, according to Bornkamm, the story is a straight forward miracle story and centers on the miracle itself with language used and contrasts made. Luke seems to be more concerned with the history of the tradition, but Matthew seems to be more the preacher. Matthew uses ἄνθρωποι in v. 27, which is unique to his gospel, to shift the focus from the disciples to other men, perhaps to speak to those who would hear this preached. According to Bornkamm, Matthew was the first exegete and interpreter of Mark.[17]

Other than Matthew’s use of σεισμὸς, no real distinction exists between the authors’ description of the facts of the storm. All three report the arising of a great storm and the fact that Jesus was asleep. What is different in all three is how the disciples react to Jesus being asleep. While similar in the fact that they wake him up asking for help, they are all unique in how the disciples address Jesus when they wake him up. Mark has the title of general and familiar respect—dιδάσκαλε, followed by the irreverent query—οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα; and Luke has perhaps the more generic term for a person of high status—Ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα, ἀπολλύμεθα. But Matthew is most unique in his address. Matthew records the crying out of the disciples as a prayer—Κύριε, σῶσον—Lord, save. Mark’s is the most harsh, and shows the frantic fear in the hearts of the disciples, Luke the historian merely reports that they woke Jesus up to inform him of their peril, but Matthew has the true disciples, i.e. followers of Jesus voice their fright in the form of faithful prayer.

In regard to Jesus’ response to the disciples Luke and Mark are the most similar. In Mark Jesus uses the stern rebuke Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;, indicating that the disciples might not yet have faith. Luke is less harsh—Ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν;—where is your faith, indicating that they may have faith, missing or misplaced though it is. In both Mark and Luke Jesus calms the storm and then speaks to his disciples about their faith. But in Matthew, Jesus speaks to the disciples in the midst of the storm, perhaps to show the interaction between Jesus and his followers during tribulation, calling them ὀλιγόπιστοι—men of little faith, rather than no faith or misplaced faith. Perhaps Matthew wants to comfort his readers with the notion that they do indeed have faith, they only need to exercise more of it.

Reporting on Jesus’ rebuke of the storm Matthew and Luke are almost identical. Mark, however, focuses more on Jesus’ command. He alone records the words Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. Here again Mark is probably adding emphasis for effect, or perhaps he is simply recounting the eyewitness observations of Peter.[18] The three synoptics are almost identical in reporting the result of Jesus’ command, i.e. ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη, the only exception being Luke’s omission of the adjective μεγάλη.

Where Mark recounts that the disciples were greatly afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν), and Luke has them marvelling in the midst of their fear (φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν), Matthew has no mention of the disciples fear at all, except for Jesus’ question to them after they woke him up. Most unique to Matthew is that he, as was mentioned above, now turns the attention from the disciples to the other men who were there. Matthew says these other men marveled (οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν). Presumably these were the same men who were in Mark’s ἄλλα πλοῖα.

The wording of the last verse in this passage is nearly identical in all three gospels. All end with Mark’s question: Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;—who then is this that even the wind and the sea obeys him? What is special is who Matthew has asking it. In Mark and Luke it is assumed that the disciples saying to one another (λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους), “who is this man.” In Matthew, it is the men (οἱ ἄνθρωποι) who are not only marveling at Jesus, but also asking the Christological question. What is also unique to Matthew is the adjective pοταπός, a term meaning “what sort?” or “what kind,” and denoting a sense of wonder and awe.[19] With Matthew’s ending it is as if he turns the attention from the disciples in their isolated crisis to believer’s of all the ages who will hear this gospel tradition preached. Such a shift in the ending is fitting for Matthew who wants every reader or hearer to see in this story what it means to be a true disciple of the true and living God, Jesus Christ.[20]

For Matthew, who writes primarily to a Jewish audience,[21] and for Luke who is concerned with God’s role in salvation and the life of the church in relation to God and each other, especially Gentile believers who want to know the truth about the gospel,[22] and for Mark who possibly writes to the persecuted Christians in Rome, the focus of the passage is on Jesus Christ. He is to be followed, believed in, worshipped, feared, trusted by all people everywhere. The Christological question at the end of each account is meant to be pondered[23] by all who read it and hear it, and the inevitable conclusion for all true followers of Jesus is Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος—you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt. Synopsis of the Four Gospels, English Edition (New York: Ameican Bible Society, 1982, 1985).

Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary. Vol. 22, Matthew (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992).

Bock, Darrell L. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 3a, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994).

Bornkamm, Gunther; Barth, Gerhard; and Held, Heinz Joachim. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963).

Brooks, James A. The New American Commentary. Vol. 23, Mark (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991).

Danker, Frederick William (ed.). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. (BDAG), 3^rd edition (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Edwards, James R. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002).

Feiler, P. F. The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew: A Response to Gunther Bornkamm. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, v. 26.4 (Dec. 1983).

France, R. T. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 2002).

Guelich, Robert A. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 34a, Mark (Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1989).

Hanger, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol 33a, Matthew (Dallas: Word Books, 1993).

Lane, William L. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

Marshall, I. Howard. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Luke (Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 1978).

Nolland, John. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).

Oden, Thomas C. and Hall, Christopher A. (eds). Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Vol. 2, Mark (Downers Groves: IVP, 1998).

Stanton, Graham. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992).

Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus, 2^nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Stanton, Graham, ed. The Interpretation of Matthew, 2^nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995).

Stein, Robert H. The New American Commentary. Vol. 24, Luke (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992).

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996).

WWW.APOSTLESBIBLE.COM

---

[1] All scripture quotations (Greek) are taken from the Nestle Aland 27^th edition. Unless otherwise noted, translation is the author’s own.

[2] See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 526-532. Here Wallace mentions that Mark uses the historical present more than any other New Testament author, probably reflecting the level of his Greek and reflecting his style of writing. Also, William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 26.

[3] R. T. France, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 2002), 223.

[4] Ibid., 223.

[5] James R. Edwards, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 152. It is argued here that Mark was writing to the persecuted church in Rome, as is argued by many scholars, and that he is trying to identify with his suffering readers in this story. See also James A. Brooks, The New American Commentary, Vol. 23, Mark (Nashville:Broadman Press, 1991), 23-30, and William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 15-25.

[6] Brooks, The New American Commentary, Vol. 23, Mark, 4:41. See also P. F. Feiler, The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew: A Response to Gunther Bornkamm, JETS v. 26.4 (Dec. 1983), for a further discussion of the parallels between Jonah and the Psalms, and the gospel account (Feiler deals mainly with the Matthean account).

[7] Translation of LXX was aided by http://www.apostlesbible.com/books/j32jonah/j32c01.htm.

[8] France, NIGTC, Mark, 223.

[9] Edwards, PNTC, Mark, 148.

[10] Robert A Guelich, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34a, Mark (Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1989), xli-xliii.

[11] Origen, On Matthew, Homily 6, as quoted in Thomas C. Oden, and Christopher A. Hall, (eds), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2, Mark (Downers Groves: IVP, 1998).

[12] James A. Brooks, The New American Commentary, Vol. 23, Mark (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991), 23-30.

[13] I. Howard Marshall, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Luke (Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press, Eerdmans, 1978), 333.

[14] John Nolland, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 369-370.

[15] While scholars such as Stanton agree with Bornkamm’s thesis, P. F. Feiler disagrees, claiming that Bornkamm’s hypotheses are “open to question.” See Feiler, The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew: A Response to Gunther Bornkamm, JETS v. 26.4 (Dec. 1983).

[16] Ibid., 370.

[17] Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), 53-56. Bornkamm’s work is also referenced in more recent works; see Graham Stanton, ed. The Interpretation of Matthew, 2^nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 123-124, and Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 24, and Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, 2^nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 30-32.

[18] Edwards, PNTC, Mark (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 147.

[19] See BDAG, 3^rd edition, 856.

[20] See introduction to Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 33a, Matthew (Dallas: Word Books, 1993).

[21] Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary, Vol. 22, Matthew (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 34.

[22] See Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3a, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 14-43, and Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, Vol. 24, Luke (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 26-49.

[23] Bock, BECNT, Vol. 3a, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 764.

Meditations On The Cross :: A Cheesy Hymn I Had To Write At Seminary

Meditations on the Cross

The glorious cross so dim and so black

Through all its pain nothing do I lack

An eternal place in heaven reserved

Purchased with blood so undeserved

Christ’s redeeming blood so undeserved

All that I was all that God hates

His awesome wrath did Christ propitiate

God’s justice satisfied in Christ’s sacrifice

The Lamb of God died for my eternal life

The Lamb of God died for our eternal life

Enemies of God and children of wrath

Idolatrous lives wasted on the wrong path

Reconciliation between God and men

Christ is victor over death and sin

Walk now in victory over death and sin

Jesus our savior pours out perfect love

Holy and pure from heaven above

Mercy toward sinners is ours now to claim

Atonement was made when Christ took the blame

Atonement was made when Christ took our blame

To bring us to God

He suffered and died

His righteous blood

For my unrighteous life

His righteous blood for our unrighteous life

(c) 2006 by Christopher N. Gates

The Authority of the Bible

Authority today is a topic that most people would rather not discuss, unless it is the authority that they themselves possess. There are many authorities in the lives of most modern people: the government under which they live, the local police, parents, teachers, institutions, the church, etc. Some seem to try to live without any authority at all, but for themselves and their own whims and desires. The authority of God over the lives of human beings that he has created is a topic that even fewer people are willing to discuss. All one has to do is bring up the subject of the gospel with people on the street, or in the workplace to see the rejection of God’s authority in their lives. The truth is that if God is the source of all truth and the creator of all things, including humans (which he most certainly is), then he has the sole right and authority to demand from his creatures whatever he pleases.[1] This is not easily accepted among humans who are tainted by original sin and who are at odds with their creator.

The question remains, however, how does God exercise his authority over humans, and by what means does he do this? God has revealed himself to mankind in many ways. The progressive revelation of God to man has come in the form of direct verbal communication (e.g. Moses and the burning bush, the call of Abraham, etc.), inspired songs or psalms, prophecies, as well as inspired narratives and apostolic letters to churches. This collection of inspired writings, called the Bible, coupled with the authority of God’s Holy Spirit, is the supreme authority over all of life, and its message the primary means God uses to communicate that authority. Millard Erickson states, “By the authority of the Bible we mean that the Bible, as the expression of God’s will to us, possesses the right supremely to define what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves.[2] This authority applies both to believers and non-believers.

In dealing with the Bible’s authority, it is necessary to examine reasons why the Bible is authoritative, as well as the nature of its authority as it is realized in the lives of people. The primary reason for this is that the Bible comes from God himself and its central theme is the person and authority of Jesus Christ. Also, the authority of the Scriptures is not in competition with the authority and role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, and vice-versa. Finally, the Bible is not subject to the authority of any church, man-made institution, or individual, but both humans and their institutions must be in submission to the Bible as the word of God. What follows will be an examination of each of these in detail.

First of all, the Bible is authoritative because of its divine origin.

The Bible testifies concerning itself that, “All Scripture is breathed out by God.” (II Tim. 3:16, ESV). Peter states, “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:20-21, ESV). David declares, “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; his word is on my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2, ESV). The Bible was written by men, but inspired by God himself. Even more than that, the Scriptures are actually God-breathed. The men who wrote the letters and prophecies and stories and songs and genealogies of the Bible were instruments used by God to pen his revelation to mankind. The God who created the universe spoke to humans through the mouths and pens of his prophets and apostles (Heb. 1:1-2). If God is the sovereign creator and king of the universe, then it follows that what he speaks is in fact authoritative. It does not take one long in reading the Scriptures to note that it assumes authority over all its hearers.

Some may argue, however, that it is insufficient to cite what the Bible says about itself in establishing its authority. Someone might say that using the Bible itself to prove something about the Bible reveals a great degree of circularity in reasoning. As Millard Erickson points out, “Any theology (or any other system of thought for that matter) faces a dilemma when dealing with its basic authority.”[3] In other words, on what authority does one base the authority of the Bible if not on its own testimony? A strong case can be made within the realm of orthodox Christianity that it is sufficient to base the Bible’s authority on what it says about itself because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. However, as John Calvin argues for the skeptic at heart, there are sufficient proofs outside the pages of the Bible that confirm its divine origin, truthfulness, and authority.[4] These include historical evidence, fulfilled prophecies, archeology, etc. No matter how one arrives at it, the conclusion is that the Bible is of a distinctly supernatural origin and on that ground possesses great authority.

It simply shows the depravity of the human heart that people are quicker to accept the authority of the local newspaper than the authority of the supernatural word of God. Both believers and non-believers alike need to recognize the Bible’s authority over them and submit to it wholeheartedly.

Second, the Bible is authoritative because it is directly linked to Christ, who is the Word.

The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 states, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” Jesus said concerning the scriptures, “it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39, ESV). The apostle John teaches that Christ is the incarnate Word of God, who himself is God from all eternity (John 1:1-2, 14). Hebrews 1:1-2 says “God…has spoken to us by his Son…” In the passage known as the great commission Jesus declares, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18, ESV).

The Scriptures clearly testify about Christ and are inseparable from him. Christ is the focus of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and he himself gives it his stamp of approval and establishes its authority. For Martin Luther, it was this “Christological concentration” that convinced him of the Bible’s pervasive authority.[5] The scriptures are about Christ, Christ is the eternal Word, and God the Father has given Christ all authority; therefore, the Bible has every right to claim absolute authority.

Just the simple fact that the Bible claims to be the very words of Christ to his people should be motivation enough for everyone to place more value in it than in other forms of authority, such as psychologists, preachers, institutions, the media, etc. When one reads and meditates upon the scriptures, one does not merely encounter facts about God, but, through the ministry of the Spirit, actually encounters God himself. When believers read the Bible, they are essentially entering into fellowship with Christ, who is already working in their lives. Believers must appreciate this Christocentrism of the word of God, and devote their entire lives to mastering its contents.

Third, the authority of the Bible does not exclude the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation, and the two should not be separated.

To say that the Bible is the sole authority for the Christian is not to say that this authority is separate from the authority of the Holy Spirit. And to say that the Holy Spirit is the Christian’s authority is not to say that this authority is separate from the authority of the Holy Scriptures. These are not two separate authorities working against one another according to each believer’s personal preference as to which one to give more emphasis. No, they are indeed one. The Holy Spirit guides the believer into the truth of God’s word (John 16:13), and the Bible’s authority in the life of the believer is dependent upon the Holy Spirit’s work in the believer’s heart. I Corinthians 2:14 (ESV) states, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” John Calvin understood that “the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were hear,” and that this can only come through the Holy Spirit.[6] According to Millard Erickson, “the Holy Spirit’s ministry involves elucidating the truth, bringing belief and persuasion and conviction, but not new revelation.”[7] Therefore, no believer can say that something has been revealed which is contrary to the scriptures. The Bible is authoritative in a person’s life only when the Spirit of God convinces that person of its truth, and a person is able to follow the guiding of the Spirit only to the degree that they understand the Bible. Thus authority does not lie with the Spirit alone apart from the scriptures.

For Erickson and Calvin alike, authority is not in the Bible alone, but in the Bible applied by the Spirit. For those who maintain that the Bible is in and of itself (apart from the Spirit) the sole authority, “a virtually sacramental view of the Bible can result.”[8] However, as Mark Noll puts it:

“To impugn the trustworthiness of the external Word (Scripture) is to impugn the very gospel itself, for it is through the external Word that the internal Word [the inner working of Christ by the Spirit] does its work. As in striking the flesh of the Lord Jesus, the son of God was wounded, so striking the external Word of Scripture wounds the gospel.”[9]

So, both the Bible and the Spirit are needed for a sufficient authority to be established in the life of the believer. What believers must do is to study and seek to understand the scriptures with all their might, trusting and seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance by prayer and meditation.

Fourth, the Bible is not subject to the authority of tradition or church, but tradition and the church must be subject to the authority of the Bible.

For some, the authority of the church or church tradition is equal to, and in some cases greater than, the authority of the Bible. It has been said that the Protestant Reformation was the triumph of the authority of the Bible over the authority of the church. Martin Luther is reported to have said, “My conscience is captive to the word of God.”[10] By this, Luther meant to say to his accusers, that for him the Bible was his supreme authority, and not the church. For the reformers, the Bible won the day over every ordinance of man. As David Lotz rightly states, “the churches entire life and substance reside in the Word of God.”[11] The reformers understood this, and the course of ecclesiastical history was changed forever.

John Calvin said:

“A most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!”[12]

The Particular Baptists in London in the seventeenth century revealed a similar view when they stated:

“The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.”[13]

Martin Luther said:

“[It] is an accursed lie that the pope is the arbiter of Scripture or that the church has authority over the Scripture,” and “The pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, an angel from heaven — these should not be masters, judges or arbiters, but only witnesses, disciples, and confessors of Scripture. Nor should any doctrine be taught or heard in the church except the pure Word of God. Otherwise, let the teachers and the hearers be accursed along with their doctrine.”[14]

It is clear that the traditions of the church ought to be subject to the word of God. What Christians must do today is to be like the Jews in Acts 17:11, and search the scriptures in order to prove or refute any claim made by man or church. That is not to say that Christians should be opposed to authorities in the church, but that the supreme rule and guide for submitting to these authorities is the Bible. Let it be as the apostle Paul says, “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8, ESV).

In conclusion, most people today do not lead lives that are characterized by willful submission to God’s authority over them. God’s primary means of exercising his authority is the Bible. To say that the Bible has authority is to say that it holds the right to command actions and beliefs. The Bible maintains the authority of God himself because of its distinctly divine origin and its Christocentric nature. The Bible works in unison with the Holy Spirit in relating its authority to the lives of believers, and should never be subject to the any human authority. What is needed today is for people to recognize the authority of the Bible and live their lives accordingly.

---

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 266.

[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 267.

[3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 226.

[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapter 2.

[5] David W. Lotz, Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority, in Interpretation, (vol. 35, 1981) p. 270.

[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, p. 74.

[7] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 276.

[8] Ibid., p. 277.

[9] Mark A. Noll, The Word of God and the Bible: A View from the Reformation, in Christian Scholar’s Review, (vol. 8, no. 1, 1978) p. 31.

[10] Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Mentor, 1950) p. 144.

[11] David W. Lotz, Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority, in Interpretation (vol. 35, 1981) p. 261.

[12] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, p. 75.

[13] The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, chapter 1, no. 4.

[14] Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians, in Luther's Works, vol. 26, translated by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 57-8.