Book Briefs: “40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper” by John S. Hammett

40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord's Supper by John S. HammettWhy are there so many different Christian denominations? Why are their Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and other types of Churches? Why are their dozens and dozens of other denominations as well?

Many a Christian wonders about this at some point. The split between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches is explained by the Reformation. But the differences between Protestants largely boil down to how we are to understand the two most important “rites” that the New Testament expects of the Church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Now if you want to explore the debates surrounding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, look no further than 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper by John S. Hammett. I have reviewed other “40 Questions” books from Kregel, and have been consistently impressed by both their depth and clarity. The authors present the different arguments dispassionately and carefully, always asking the right questions; yet they don’t shy away from offering their own answers, which at times are appropriately tentative depending on the question. See my reviews of 40 Questions about the End Times, and 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution.

In 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, even the most theologically aware reader will stumble across questions or points they haven’t before considered. The 40 questions format, however, prevents the book from becoming an inaccessible tome since both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have to be covered from all angles within about 300 pages. Practical questions and pastoral concerns also are given full treatment, making the book more valuable. It is not just informative but helpful.

Some of my personal quibbles about Communion are explored as well! I’ve long thought that the small size of the elements often used today (mini-cracker and thimble sized cup of juice anyone?) may not be the best way to share in the Lord’s Supper. And I’ve wondered if the Lord’s Supper shouldn’t be observed in the context of a church-wide meal (as was done in the early church). Hammett addresses both of these concerns in passing (respectively pp. 208-209, pp. 186-187). Hammett also has an entire question devoted to when children (as opposed to infants) should be baptized (see chapter 20).

Hammett concludes with a Baptist view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but stresses a spiritual presence of Christ in Communion. He also explores to what degree our view of these Church ordinances should impact our unity with fellow believers.

This book will be most helpful for pastors and Bible teachers, but can be read with benefit by lay Christians, students and others. I highly recommend it.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Kregel.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Echoes of Mark in the Gospel of John

Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.

In analyzing the Gospels, scholars have often claimed that John’s Gospel was written by someone who had no clear knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The theology in John is more advanced, and must come from a later date in the “evolution” of Christian doctrine. From this scholarly debate has come a fresh look at the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves, and the results have been startling (or encouraging, depending on your perspective). NT scholarship is starting to change its tune on this point, in fact. Even for those of us who aren’t scholars (I include myself here for sure), there are meaty takeaways that can improve our grasp of the interplay between the Gospels – and heighten our appreciation of the revelation of Jesus we find there.

In this post, I want to highlight that the author of the Gospel of John (who I hold is John the Apostle), is not only familiar with the Gospel of Mark, but that he also assumes that many of his readers have read Mark. He even structures His Gospel (John) so that it fills out and explains much that Mark does not include in his Gospel. In short, there are echoes of Mark in John’s Gospel, and John intends His Gospel to differ from Mark’s. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “John is explicitly incomplete in aspects which… the Synoptic Gospels supply.”[1]

Puzzling Statements (John 3:24; 11:2)

What follows here is drawn from a chapter titled “John for Readers of Mark” by Richard Bauckham[2]. In reading Jonathan Pennington’s book Reading the Gospels Wisely, I came across a summary of Bauckham’s thoughts on this, and I have dug up more on the topic from simply following the helpful footnotes for more info.[3]

Two small and seemingly insignificant verses reveal John’s knowledge of Mark. And following their lead, a few other verses throw open the door to how John and Mark dovetail together.

John 3:24 “(For John had not yet been put in prison).”

John 3:24 is an aside, a parenthetical expression that is quite odd. Bauckham himself explains this quite clearly:

To understand the reason for the explanation, we are obliged to postulate implied readers/hearers who know more than the Gospel itself has told them. They seem to be expected already to know that John’s ministry came to an end when he was imprisoned, but even this knowledge is not sufficient to account for the explanation. Whether or not readers/hearers already know that John was imprisoned, they do not need to be told the obvious: that he was not yet imprisoned when he was still baptizing.[4]

Of the few references to John the Baptist’s imprisonment in the Synoptics, the one most likely referred to here is Mark 1:14. The comment in John 3:24 is there to let the reader know that this portion of Jesus’ ministry is taking place in between Mark 1:9-13 (which details Jesus’ baptism and subsequent temptation in the wilderness) and Mark 1:14 (which has Jesus going to Galilee to start his ministry there — right after John is imprisoned). This section in John’s Gospel, begins right after Jesus’ baptism (as hinted at in John 1:30) and continues through John 4:43 (where Jesus goes into Galilee for formal ministry — his time at Cana in John 2 was before his public ministry). So John wants his readers to know that John 1:19-4:43 fits between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.

John 11:2 “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

This statement in John 11:2 is similarly puzzling. Why name Mary of Bethany as the one who anointed Jesus one chapter before the story of Jesus’ anointing (by Mary) is told in John (chapter 12)? Readers of Mark (and the other Synoptics) would have known of a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany. John connects their knowledge of that story with his account by naming the woman here. (She is not named in Mark 14:3-9.) John will go on in chapter 12 to use a different chronology than Mark, putting the anointing before the triumphal entry, rather than after it.

Filling Out, Re-Ordering, and Summarizing Mark

From these two examples, you can almost imagine John as he is writing his account of Jesus’ ministry. He feels the need to re-order a story here or there from Mark, and add a name or highlight a detail. He moves the clearing of the Temple (Mark 11:11-25) to the beginning of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 2:13-22), and gives a new account of Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:13-23) not mentioned in Mark, just prior to the trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). John’s briefer mention of Caiaphas’ trial is due to it already being discussed in detail by Mark (Mark 14:53-65).

At other points John quickly passes over long sections already mentioned by Mark, and fills out what Mark only hints at. John skips the sending of the 12 (which Mark includes), but gives a fuller account of the feeding of the 5,000 – explaining why Jesus and the disciples have to leave in such a hurry (Mark 6:45 compared to John 6:14-16). John also includes the longer discourse about the Bread of Life (John 6:22-71) which follows the miracle. And this is the closest John gets to mentioning the Lord’s Supper (this omission may serve to interpret/stress the significance of the Lord’s Supper).

Next, the second half of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:54-9:50) “is summarized by John in a single sentence” (in John 7:1a)[5]. Mark 10:1 mentions a ministry in Judah followed by time beyond the Jordan (where Mark 10:1-31 takes place). John follows along by giving us a long description of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 7:10-10:39) understood as occurring in the gap implied in Mark 10:1, and then devotes just a few verses (John 10:40-42) to describe the beyond-Jordan ministry that Mark already described more fully (Mark 10:1-31).

One more puzzling reference in John may allude to Mark. John 14:31, ends with the curious words “Rise, let us go from here.” But John 15 continues the conversation from John 14. The words “rise, let us go” or literally “get up, let us be going”, are also found in Mark 14:42, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” Bauckham interprets this echo from Mark as a way John emphasizes that Jesus is voluntarily facing his death (mentioned in the verses just prior to 14:31)[6]. John uses these familiar words (to readers of Mark) as a way to call to mind Jesus’ decision to embrace his suffering.

For a fuller look at the arrangement of John in relation to Mark, the following two articles take Bauckham’s argument, expand on it, and provide tables comparing the two accounts side by side:

Historical Corroboration?

There may even be evidence from Church history that supports the treatment above. We have the following testimony of Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, of what Papias wrote (in the early second century) concerning Mark’s Gospel.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.[7]

Concerning this passage (and the brief quote evidently from Papias on Matthew), Richard Bauckham draws this conclusion:

The only reason Papias could have had for thinking that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark both lacked the kind of order to be expected in a work deriving from an eyewitness is that he knew another Gospel, also of eyewitness origin, whose chronological sequence differed significantly from Mark’s and Matthew’s and whose ‘order’ Papias preferred.[8]

The presbyter (or elder) John, that Papias mentions, is sometimes understood as John the Apostle and author of John. In any case, a good argument can be made that Papias prefers the chronological order of John’s Gospel to that of Mark. Bauckham points out how the Muratorian Canon (late second century list of New Testament books with brief commentary) betrays influence by Papias, and so it’s statement that John wrote his Gospel “in order” suggests that Papias indeed did prefer John’s order to the lack of order in Mark and Matthew.[9] Here is the quote from the Muratorian Canon:

For so [John] confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.[10]

Even More (Interlocking/Transposing Mark’s Theology)

Beyond the literary dovetailing described above and the historical pointers that John intended to re-order the Gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, other testimony to Mark’s presence can be found through observing John’s own theology and points of emphasis. Pennington pointed out what he calls “the interlocking relationship of John and the Synoptics.”[11] This is a broader look at the question, and examines how in John’s theology and inclusion of material he is aware of Mark (and the Synoptics). Pennington draws from D.A. Carson on this point. Carson points out that in “many places… John and the Synoptics represent an interlocking tradition… they mutually reinforce or explain each other, without betraying overt literary dependence…”[12] Carson goes on to list many ways where the Synoptics and John overlap and interlock when it comes to theology and message. Andreas Köstenberger goes further and calls John’s approach a “theological transposition” of the Synoptics. For further study on this, see the resources listed in this note.[13]

Conclusion

I have rambled on and on, but I hope you can now appreciate even more how closely intertwined the Gospels are with one another. A lot of literary crafting is going on here! Readers of John who are unaware of Mark, can still find a coherent account of Jesus’ life and ministry in John. But the pointers are included for those aware of Mark to see how and where John is adding to Mark’s account and providing a fuller picture of the life of Jesus Christ.

Paying close attention to how each Gospel develops vertically (through its own account of Christ’s ministry) and horizontally (through its parallel passages and interlocking/dovetailing with the other Gospel accounts) is important for fully understanding each author’s intent. I also trust that you are better equipped for responding to criticisms directed at the discrepancies between the Gospels. Most of all I hope you can see how the life of Christ and the significance and message of the Gospel transcends any single telling. None of the Gospels alone can contain or explain it, and all four together only scratch the surface, as John himself says:

John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Footnotes

[1] Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus,” online essay, p. 3 (This essay matches the name of a chapter from Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology [Baker Academic, 2015]).

[2] Richard Bauckham (editor), “John for Readers of Mark”, The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [Eerdmans, 1997], p.  147-172. [Preview available online here].

[3] Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction, p. 64-66; also p. 59 note 16 and p. 194 note 12.

[4] Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”, 153. This quote is taken from Amazon’s “look inside” preview of the book. I had not yet purchased the book at the time this post was first published.

[5] Ibid, 156.

[6] Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus”, p. 8.

[7] “Eusebius of Caesarea – On Papias – original Greek Text with English translation“, [from Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39], paragraphs 14 and 15 accessed 11/13/18.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Eerdmans, 2006], p. 226. My attention was brought to this by Kyle R. Hughes, “Papias and the Gospels: Analysis and Evaluation of his Testimony in Eusebius’ H.E. 3.39“, accessed 11/13/18.

[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 425, ff. Note also that Bauckham holds that “presbyter John” is a disciple who was an eyewitness follower of Christ and the author of the Gospel of John, but he does not believe he is the Apostle John (son of Zebedee).

[10] The Muratorian Canon, lines 35-37, accessed 11/13/18.

[11] Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, p. 64-65.

[12] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), [Apollos/Eerdmans: 1991], p. 52, ff.

[13] Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters [Zondervan, 2009], p. 555-563. Also see a fuller treatment (but without the handy tables) in “John’s Transposition Theology:
Retelling the Story of Jesus in a Different Key”, available online here (this is a chapter in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology [Mohr/Siebeck: 2012]).

Image created from icons available here and here.

Sermon Download: A Higher Calling (1 Cor. 7:17-24)

Have you ever heard a Labor Day Sermon? I don’t remember one either. So when I had the opportunity to preach this last Sunday, I thought I would try to focus on the topic of Work (or Labor) from a Christian perspective.

My text was 1 Cor. 7:17-24 which emphasizes that we don’t have to change our condition (or our vocational calling even) in order to be able to better please God. One of my main points was that we can please God through our work and that any profession, or any station in life, is sanctified by our Higher Calling.

I hope this message is a blessing for all who may hear it. If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (48 minutes), please do look over my notes.

Place: The Heights Church, St. Paul
Date: Sep. 2, 2018
Title: A Higher Calling
Text: 1 Corinthians 7:17-24
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Click to listen (right click to download)

Book Briefs: “Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds”

What is the biggest threat to biblical Christianity in America today? Many different answers could be given to that question. Some would say secular humanism or the new atheism. Others worry about the encroachment of Islam, or the modern rebirth of paganism or alternate spirituality. For many decades a strong case could be made that the truest answer is the growth of Mormonism, and its aggressive recruitment of evangelicals.

Mormonism from the outside looks benign from an evangelical perspective. Today’s “culture-warrior” atheists see it as a threat, but the wholesome family image and moralism that Mormonism projects is attractive to evangelicals. In fact, some evangelical scholars are dialoguing with Mormonism and taking the approach that Mormons are simply misunderstood and really share too many similarities with evangelicals to be shunned (as they have been by the evangelical Church for almost 200 years now).

The scholars who contributed to Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds (Kregel, 2017) beg to differ. Each tells a personal tale of their time spent within Mormonism (some as converts, one as a descendant of an honored Mormon family line) and how they came to understand Mormonism as antithetical to the Gospel that evangelical Christianity offers.

The book is unique in that it is not a sanitized, detached treatment of Mormonism. Neither is it a dialogue between Christians and Mormons: it is part-personal testimony, and part-scholarly critique. And since four different authors share their stories, it gives a unique perspective on the whole “Mormon question.”

The authors heavily tout their work by stressing the fact that all four authors have earned doctorates. And while I’m sure that is a good thing, the result can be hard for the not-so-learned reader! The book at times is heady and scholarly to a fault. It also comes across as uneven. One of the authors is much less dogmatic about Christian faith than his peers, and I almost felt that his inclusion was merely because he has a doctorate! (Although I suspect his perspective is shared in an effort to show that even those with questions can still keep on believing in God and also not be Mormon. Sadly, many who leave Mormonism abandon theism altogether.) Another author lets out that she is a member at a Church of Christ church, which led me to wonder what her view of baptism and its role in conversion really is (some Church of Christ denominations emphasize baptismal regeneration which is rejected by most evangelicals).

These quibbles aside, the book makes for riveting reading, and provides an immersion into the eerie world of Mormonism, for the uninitiated. Anyone who has left one denomination for another, or who might still be healing from time spent in a spiritually abusive church, will particularly benefit from this book. Mormons and those exploring Mormonism are encouraged to read it.

The book is packed full of Mormon history and doctrinal oddities. It also stresses the important role of an accepting and welcoming evangelical Church body for those leaving Mormonism. Those who have Mormon family members, or anyone who attempts to reach out to Mormons will greatly benefit from this work and the discussion of what steps led to the conversions of these former Mormons.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in (or troubled by) Mormonism.

Book Blurbs:

“This is truly a great book. In fact, I have never seen anything like it. Miller and Wilder have brought together a team of very knowledgeable ex-Mormon scholars to share from various perspectives why they could no longer stay Mormons. And while many who leave Mormonism simply fall off the grid, the good news presented by author after author is that there is an intellectually and spiritually vibrant alternative: moving from Mormonism to historical Evangelical Christianity. The book is fair, irenic, and inviting. This is now the first place to go for anyone who wants an honest, serious critique of Mormonism, along with an alternative to consider. I give it my top recommendation.” ~ J. P. Moreland, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

“This unique volume is not only written by former ‘insiders,’ who were all in their respective ways committed, but also by a group of deep thinkers who have taken the time to investigate and compare truth claims. Their histories, experiences, and education are all brought to bear on whether or not Mormon teaching is true, accurate, and reliable. As a resource to individuals, churches, or study groups, who will have to read carefully and thoroughly, this is a great tool…. I believe it deserves to be widely read, especially by those impacted or influenced by LDS teachings. It makes the Gospel clear by its amazing contrast. May that grace touch many as a result of this work.” ~ Stuart McAllister, D. D., Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

“‘Leaving Mormonism’ today all too often means rejecting Christianity entirely in the mistaken belief that if Mormonism isn’t true then no form of Christian faith is true. In Leaving Mormonism, four Christian scholars, each of whom also happens to be a former Mormon, show that faith in Jesus Christ as he is revealed in the Bible is intellectually and spiritually viable for disillusioned Latter-day Saints. The authors combine their authentic personal stories with scholarly analysis of critical issues and are not afraid to point out how evangelicals have sometimes failed to engage Mormons in a constructive manner. There is much for everyone to learn from this book.” ~ Robert M. Bowman Jr., Ph.D., Executive Director, Institute for Religious Research

“Written with compassion, charity, and courage, this will be the go-to book for those interested in Christian-Mormon dialogue for years to come.” ~ Paul M. Gould, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Kregel Publications.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Publications. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Sermon Download: A Holy Priesthood (1 Peter 2:4-10)

I was blessed to be able to fill the pulpit this last Sunday. I took 1 Peter 2:4-10 as my text and did my best to cover some of the wonderful truths contained in that passage. I focused on how the Church is both a Temple, made up of living stones, and a company of Holy Priests to the Lord. This passage has long been one of my favorite in the New Testament, and I hope my message will be a blessing for all who hear it.

I’m sharing the sermon here, and you can find all my recent sermons from The Heights Church, St. Paul, here.

If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (53 minutes), please do look over my notes.

Place: The Heights Church, St. Paul
Date: Jan. 14, 2018
Title: A Holy Priesthood
Text: 1 Peter 2:4-10
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Click to listen (right click to download)