Shortly after Jesus arrived in Jerusalem for his final showdown with the religious and political authorities, leading to his crucifixion and resurrection, he began deliberately making more of a nuisance of himself than usual. Of course, his murderers had been seeking an opportunity to kill him for quite a while by then, but Jesus always avoided or evaded them, saying on several occasions that the time wasn’t yet right. Now, the proper time was swiftly approaching, and Jesus therefore provoked them and allowed himself to be delivered into their hands, to fulfill not only the ancient prophecies, but his own recent prediction,

“See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”

(Matthew 20.18-19)

Accordingly, he made his entry to the city a spectacle (Mt 21.1-11), and made a smaller but more shocking entrance to the temple (vv12-13), driving out the merchants and money-changers who were profiteering off the people’s sacrifices. These were, first of all, the right things for Jesus to do in those circumstances; but they were also intended to elicit a particular response from his enemies. The authorities came and demanded that he explain himself: “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (v23).

This confrontation began a series of attempts by various authority figures to humiliate Jesus and diminish his standing with the crowds. Instead, they humiliated themselves, and Jesus took several opportunities to twist the metaphorical dagger in the wound. One technique was to tell parables.

“A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went.”

(Matthew 20.28-29)

These are pretty standard tropes for Jesus’ parables. It made sense to choose such an agrarian setting for these stories, since viniculture was one of the most important industries in his society. The man in charge represents God, and those whom he directs to work for him—in this case, his sons—are God’s people, the Israelites.

The first of the two sons is blatantly rebellious, telling his father to his face that he refuses to obey his instruction; but while we might expect the father to lash out in judgment, Jesus leaves his reaction to the imagination, and instead gives the rebellious son time to ponder his disobedience. Even though his father is no longer immediately present to see it, this disobedient son arrives at the decision to change for the better. But there were two sons, weren’t there? What about the other one?

“And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.”

(Matthew 20.30)

When the father gives the other boy an instruction, he is vocally submissive, addressing his father respectfully and agreeing to do his will. Once again, Jesus doesn’t tell us the father’s reaction, leaving it instead to our imagination. We would expect him to be pleased with this son, who didn’t fight him and reject his will, like the other! But once again, Jesus jumps forward on the timeline and reveals that the supposedly good, obedient son actually changed his mind, too. He made a show of being dutiful when his father was around, but later, when his father is no longer there to see it, he not only disobeys his instruction, but breaks his own promise, too. At this point, Jesus comes to the crux of the parable:

“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.”

(Matthew 20.31a)

It took no great intellect to figure that one out! The parable makes it plain that, despite appearances and professions, devotion to God is evident in action—in the fruit we bear.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”

(Matthew 20.31b-32)

The second son, who agreed, then disobeyed, represents “the chief priests and the elders” with whom Jesus is speaking (v23). Even as they question Jesus’ authority and profess to uphold God’s, by their actions they reject it and go their own way—otherwise for one example, would they have allowed the seedy, money-grubbing stock exchange to keep operating within the temple grounds?

The first son, although he began as a defiant little snot, actually proved to be the more devoted of the two. He represents the obvious sinners, who didn’t even try to hide their guilt, and as a result were better prepared, upon reflection, to repent and do God’s will in truth.

In context, this parable rebukes the religious authorities for rejecting John the Baptist. They professed to honor God, but scorned his prophet’s message! For us, the lesson is simpler: word is not the same as deed!

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

(James 2.14-17)

Jeremy Nettles

In The Acts of the Apostles, Luke introduces the reader to a great many individuals whose stories are only known from his book. The early converts to Christianity are particularly meaningful to Christians today. We’re well acquainted with Jesus and his Apostles from reading the Gospels and Acts, but it’s tough for us to relate to these people who function as main characters in the Bible, because their gifts, their accomplishments, their status, and (in some cases) their sins appear far greater than ours. As relative nobodies, we can identify more easily with those who pop into the story briefly, and then are left to go about a fairly boring life, in comparison to the exploits of Jesus, Peter, or Paul.

Simon the Magician

Jesus had told his Apostles to spread his gospel far and wide, “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Ac 1.8). When the time came to evangelize Samaria, Philip had great success before any of the Twelve arrived. One new convert was a magician named Simon (8.9, 13). It’s likely that his magic took the form of cheap parlor tricks, because that’s mostly what’s available to the would-be sorcerer; but while today’s so-called magic readily admits to being clever illusion with the appearance of supernatural power, most such trickery in the past was used to support bogus claims of actual supernatural power. Simon became a Christian largely because he could tell the miracles being done were real.

Ethiopian Eunuch

Philip also taught the gospel to this man, as he traveled back home from worshiping in Jerusalem (8.27-28). Considering the fuss made over the conversion of Cornelius a few chapters later, it is clear that the Ethiopian was a Jew—likely a proselyte. Philip joined him in his chariot and explained how the Servant section of Isaiah (chs 41-53) predicted the Messiah, and was fulfilled by Jesus. He believed and was baptized along the side of the road, then went on his journey. We’d love to know what he did once he got back to Queen Candace’s court, but Luke leaves his story there, and we’re left speculating.

Aeneas

We don’t read of Aeneas’ conversion directly, but he was a man of the town of Lydda who was severely crippled, then healed by Peter in the name of Jesus (9.33-34). The result was that “all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord” (v35). It’s reasonable to assume that “all” is not meant in its strictest sense here; but also that Aeneas is among this staggering number of converts, being the one person who knew most certainly that he’d been healed, and in whose name. Aeneas is never mentioned again, and we’re left to imagine what he would have done in those circumstances.

Cornelius

Cornelius was already briefly introduced above. Although a gentile, he “feared God with all his household” and recognized the Jews as God’s people (10.2). God chose Cornelius to be the first gentile granted salvation through Jesus, partly because it was so plain that he was a friend of the Jews. The Apostles and elders in Jerusalem still had a hard time accepting that Cornelius and his family and friends were now their brothers and sisters! He, like the others on this list, is never mentioned again in the Bible. Can you imagine quietly going about a life of service to Jesus, while authorities in the church debate—in your absence—whether you can be saved from your sins in the first place?

Sergius Paulus

The only convert named in the course of Paul’s first missionary journey (Ac 13-14) is Sergius Paulus, the governor of Cyprus. Luke calls him “a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God” (13.7). Despite the efforts of his unbelieving advisor, Sergius “believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord” (v12). That’s the last we read of this man in the Bible; but it’s worth noting that Barnabas made at least least one more trip to Cyprus, within the next few years. Perhaps he found Sergius Paulus among a small but thriving church at Paphos.

Lydia

Paul encountered Lydia during his second missionary journey (Ac 16-18) in the town of Philippi. She was evidently a gentile, and as there was no synagogue in the city, she assembled with Jews and other God-fearing gentiles by the river to pray on the Sabbath. In most of the previous cases on this list, Luke records something blatantly miraculous that influenced the hearer to believe in the gospel; but that’s not the case, for Lydia! “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul” (16.14b). She and her household were soon baptized into Christ, and she immediately insisted on hosting Paul and his helpers while they stayed in Philippi. Paul was soon sent away by the civil authorities, but before he left town he made sure to stop and bid farewell to Lydia (v40). That’s the last we read of her.

§

Many more names fit on this list, but these few help to demonstrate that the worldwide church mostly does not consist of Pauls and Peters. There are far more little people, whose names and stories are forgotten within a few years of their deaths; but they all are just as valuable in God’s eyes. We don’t even know whether any of these early converts stayed the course for the remainder of their lives. You don’t know all that remains of your story, either. How disappointed would you be, to learn that Simon, or Aeneas, or Lydia fell away from grace? Don’t let your story end with that disappointment. Instead, “stand firm thus in the Lord” (Php 4.1).

Jeremy Nettles

The second half of Zechariah’s prophecies are a mix of the obvious and the obscure.

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!

        Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!

Behold, your king is coming to you;

        righteous and having salvation is he,

humble and mounted on a donkey,

        on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

(Zechariah 9.9)

It’s easy to see the fulfillment in the New Testament, when Jesus told two disciples,

“Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet…

(Matthew 21.2-4)

Matthew certainly recognized the source of Jesus’ odd instructions! At the same time, the context in Zechariah was not obviously about Jesus. It had to do with the coming judgment pronounced against Syria, Phoenicia, and Philistia (Zc 9.1-5). The promise that Jerusalem’s righteous, saving king would be seated on Zion again reads as messianic, given the state of affairs in Judea when Zechariah prophesied; but it certainly sounds like this king will be a man of war, who will establish peace through strength! Of course, that’s exactly what Jesus did—but his battles and strength were spiritual, and a man of his humble appearance and lack of great physical strength was not what the Jews expected.

It certainly does not stop there! For example, in the next chapter we find this:

for the Lord of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah,

        and will make them like his majestic steed in battle.

From him shall come the cornerstone,

        from him the tent peg,

from him the battle bow,

        from him every ruler—all of them together.

(Zechariah 10.3-4)

By the end of that quote, the significance has become hazy; but the mention of the tribe Judah and the ruler to come, labeled “the cornerstone,” are too much to pass without comment! The Messiah’s lineage is often emphasized, and his comparison to a foundation stone is likewise part of a pattern, appearing in Psalm 118.22 and Isaiah 28.16—both of which are quoted in 1 Peter 2.6-7.

Another obvious, yet obscure prophecy appears in the next chapter of Zechariah.

Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter.

(Zechariah 11.12-13)

The speaker appears to be the prophet himself; but the meaning is not clear. Is this a figurative retelling of his prophetic career? Is it a vision? Did it pertain to the present, or the future? In any case, when Judas agreed to betray Jesus, the religious authorities “paid him thirty pieces of silver” (Mt 26.15); but later he felt remorse and tried to give the money back. His co-conspirators refused and so, “throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself” (Mt 27.5). The leaders were happy to murder God’s Son, but they drew the line at putting “blood money” into the temple treasury (v6), “So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers” (v7). The actors and reasons seem to be shifted around, but this is obviously all foreshadowed in Zechariah’s otherwise obscure prophecy.

A similar case appears in the next chapter.

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”

(Zechariah 12.10)

God is speaking; yet he seems to label himself as one “pierced” and mourned, as parents mourn their child’s untimely death. There’s no trouble interpreting this in retrospect; we clearly recognize the speaker as Jesus! John’s Gospel makes it explicit.

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. …And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

(John 19.34 & 37)

But one has to sympathize with those who tried to make sense of this passage, before Jesus’ death and resurrection!

There are more  messianic prophecies in these closing chapters of Zechariah, but these are some of the most obvious. Is the point just that the Old Testament is a preface to the New? Well, no—we should already have known that. But what is particularly meaningful in these few cases is that most of the other messianic prophecies in the Old Testament had a much more obvious, near-term fulfillment as their primary focus. Even many of the examples from the first of half of Zechariah fit into this category! But as the time drew near, God started giving his people hints that no longer had the same sort of double meaning. Jesus did something similar:

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that ‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”

(Mark 4.10-12)

Many generations longed to know and understand what God has now made plain (cf. 1Pe 1.10-12). Be grateful that he has spoken plainly to this generation. Don’t take this gift for granted; but take advantage of it.

Jeremy Nettles

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

(1 Corinthians 13.4-7)

This passage is iconic. Perhaps its status reflects something of the shallow faith many profess, focusing on the warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible, but ignoring it when Jesus says things like “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk 13.3). But in fact, God’s insistence on righteousness and purity grows out of love! When a person steals something, love for the victim means telling the thief to give it back. Beyond that, love for the thief means doing the same! Not only has he harmed his neighbor by his theft, but he has also harmed himself. What is best for him is to pay it back. It’s not that love is one aspect of God’s character, balanced out by such things as a sense of justice. Rather, “God is love” (1Jn 4.8). So, what else characterizes love?

Patient

Patience comes from the Latin verb patior, “I suffer.” This is why a doctor’s ailing customers are called patients, and also why Jesus’ experience of flogging, mocking, blasphemy, and crucifixion is sometimes called his passion, which comes from the same root. The people you love will do things to hurt you, and require you to do difficult things for them. Loving them means having a long temper, when this happens.

Kind

Instead of being kind, we’re often expected to be nice. Those are not the same thing! The latter is about being agreeable; but the former is about behaving properly toward others. Don’t just avoid hurting other people’s feelings—do what’s good for them!

Not Envious

Sometimes the people you love will be granted blessings you desire, but do not receive. It’s tempting to begrudge your loved ones their successes and blessings; but love means being happy for them, instead.

Not Boastful

The Greek word behind this, περπερεύομαι-perpereuomai, conveys a sense of constantly promoting oneself. The Christians at Corinth had a problem with this, and they were not alone! Love means counting “others more significant than yourselves” (Php 2.3).

Not Arrogant

While the ESV translation here is just fine, the old King James rendering better captured the image within the words: love “is not puffed up” (v4). The more inflated is your self-image, the less you walk in love.

Not Rude

We can recognize rudeness on sight, but may not be easily able to define it. Here, again, the KJV bails us out—love “Doth not behave itself unseemly” (v5), which is to say, in an improper or undignified fashion. Love is not out to overturn accepted norms for the thrill.

Not Self-seeking

Love seeks the good of others, even to its own hurt. The loving person does not ignore the needs of others, to advance himself!

Not Irritable

The Greek word behind this signifies being alway near a state of emotional disquiet. It comes from the word for “sharpen,” giving a vivid sense of the feeling involved. At the beginning of the list we saw that “Love is patient” (v4). Therefore it should not surprise us that it is not easily goaded into anger!

Not Resentful

This one has been inconsistently handled over the centuries, but the most literal and compelling translation (cf. ASV, CSB, NIV, NLT) holds that love “keeps no record of wrongs.” That’s the notion of resentment—hanging on to wrongs suffered, or nurturing grudges. In contrast, God tells us to forgive each other, as he has forgiven us (cf. Co 3.13)!

Rejoices with Truth, Not Evil

Most of the foregoing could have described one person’s loyalty or affection for another, even for an unrepentant sinner. Plenty of people have this sort of relationship, and call it love; but no matter how much affection you have for someone, you do not love that person, if you give your approval as they stray farther away from God. If your beloved’s goal were to steal and kill, love would mean hindering them from these goals, not rejoicing when they achieve them!

Bears All Things

This is not the usual, biblical sense of bearing a burden; it’s more like bearing up, in the face of adversity. The word behind it, στέγω-stegō, is associated with a roof—something that bears the elements and shelters what is beneath. This suggests bearing confidences.

Believes All Things

Is love is gullible? No, but it is willing to trust, and is not unreasonably suspicious.

Hopes All Things

It’s often tempting to give up hope—for our loved ones, and in them. Despair is not love.

Endures All Things

The list began with a lower form of patience—a slow temper—and it ends with a higher form of the same quality. This is not only tolerating troubles, but standing firm before them. Love means outlasting all challengers.

§

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. …

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

(1 Corinthians 13.8 & 13)

Jeremy Nettles

Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. But whenever the judge died, they turned back and were more corrupt than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them.

(Judges 2.18-19)

The cycle of rebellion and revival throughout the book of Judges is disappointing, but instructive. We expect better from the people of God; but God’s people struggle to stay faithful today, too. What sort of leaders did God give Israel, when they cried to him?

Othniel

This first judge was the nephew of Caleb, a man of great strength and integrity who had stood with Joshua against the rest of the nation’s cowardice, in favor of invading the promised land when God first instructed Israel to do so. Othniel had his uncle’s grit, readily going to battle to put an end to eight years of persecution by a Mesopotamian king, and ushering in a forty-year period of stability and relative peace (Jg 3.7-11).

Ehud

Ehud was the most famous left-handed man in the Bible, and his exploits seemed to justify the suspicion many cultures harbored against those so afflicted. He used trickery to gain an audience with the oppressive Moabite king Eglon, and even managed to escape after assassinating him. This was enough to rally his fellow Israelites, who followed him into battle and drove the Moabites out of their land, for the next eighty years (Jg 3.12-30).

Shamgar

Shamgar was the first of six judges whose stories are reported very briefly. The details provided are enough to arouse our curiosity, but not to satisfy it. He fought the Philistines using an ox-goad (Jg 3.31).

Deborah

The author of Hebrews snubs her in favor of her general Barak (He 11.32), but the duo is clearly led by Deborah. Although the text nowhere hints that she took up arms herself, she helped lead an Israelite army against Canaanite oppressors, utterly destroying the force sent against them. Another Israelite woman, Jael, killed the fleeing Canaanite general Sisera. This opened up a broader campaign, which succeeded in casting off the Canaanite yoke completely (Jg 4-5).

Gideon

After some initial hesitation, Gideon accepted God’s commission, and showed great faith by paring down his forces prior to attacking a larger army. After he defeated the Midianite oppressors, many wanted to make him king, in all but name. Gideon refused (Jg 6-8).

(Abimelech)

Whereas the others “judged,” “saved,” or “delivered” Israel, “Abimelech ruled over Israel three years” (9.22), as a “king” (9.6). He was not a judge appointed by God; rather, he was another oppressor (Jg 9).

Tola

Tola’s story comprises two verses. His locality was the hill country of Ephraim, where he judged for twenty-three years (Jg 10.1-2).

Jair

Jair’s story is similar to Tola’s, but his tenure was a year shorter, and he lived on the other side of the Jordan (Jg 10.3-5).

Jephthah

Jephthah was an uncouth exile who became leader of a band of rural miscreants. When times became tough the elders hired him to come home and deal with the Ammonites who oppressed them. He agreed, on the condition that he be given leadership of the whole region. He’s best known for vowing that, if God gave him victory over Ammon, he would offer up whatever—or whoever—first met him at his homecoming. God gave him victory, and on Jephthah’s return his only child came out to greet him. He “did with her according to his vow” (11.39), but there is debate over what that means (Jg 11.1-12.7).

Ibzan

This Bethlehemite judged for seven years; but

besides that we’re only told that, like others on this list, he was rather fertile (Jg 11.8-10).

Elon

Elon was of the tribe of Zebulun, and judged for ten years. That’s all we’re told (Jg 11.11-12).

Abdon

As with Ibzan, Abdon’s fertility is a standout feature of his story. Based on his locale, he likely resisted oppression from Amalekites, judging for eight years (Jg 11.13-15).

Samson

In some ways, Samson is the perfect example of the local, disorganized leadership God supplied for Israel during this period. He’s known for his supernatural strength, his exceedingly poor judgment, and his lack of self-control; but he did keep the Philistines at bay for twenty years! After Samson was stripped of his strength and finally humbled himself, God empowered him one last time, and he went out with a bang (Jg 13-16).

Coda: Eli, Samuel, Joel, & Abijah

1 Samuel labels these four as judges, too (1Sa 4.18; 7.15; 8.2). But the book called Judges enumerates only the twelve listed above—corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.

§

Israel’s own rebellion against God continually invited oppression from their neighbors. But despite their sins, God heard when they cried to him, and provided them with the leaders they needed, even if they weren’t the leaders they wanted. If God’s people ask him, what sort of leaders will he provide, today?

Jeremy Nettles