We have all seen pictures of Jesus teaching the disciples – adult males about the same age as Jesus himself.  But is this representation of the disciples accurate, or could the disciples have been significantly younger?

We should always remember that only one part of Jesus’ calling and training of disciples was unique – the calling.  In Judaism of the first century many rabbis or teachers taught students and trained them to be rabbis like themselves. The major difference was that young men wanting to be taught in this way usually sought out a teacher.  Jesus, on the other hand, directly called his students himself – something he stressed in his teaching (John 15:16).   

But apart from this aspect of “student selection” Jesus’ role as a rabbi or teacher was not unusual for its time and it is worth remembering that most students selected by rabbis were younger – commonly in their later teens.  It is perfectly possible, therefore, that a number of Jesus’ disciples were younger than we usually presume and there is some biblical indication that this might have been the case. 

The apostle John is known to have lived till very late in the first century, but while we presume he was perhaps younger than the others we should remember that the other disciples seem to have been martyred earlier in the century – very possibly well before they would normally have died.

Also, consider the interesting story regarding the occasion Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum and the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” Jesus then told Peter to catch a fish – which miraculously had a four-drachma coin in its mouth – and to pay the tax for Jesus and for himself (Matthew 17:24-27).   It might seem odd that Jesus only provided the tax money for Peter and himself and not for the other disciples – until we realize that the tax only had to be paid by those aged 20 and above.

So it is possible that Peter alone of the disciples was older – a possibility which may throw light on the fact that Peter seems always to be the one who speaks for the other disciples Acts 2:14-36, etc.), why he is the only disciple said to be married at the time of Christs’ ministry (Matthew 8:14-17, etc.) and why he was given such a  prominent role in the period of the very early Church (Galatians 2:9).   

If many of the disciples were in fact younger than we often think, this would have had no bearing on their ability to act as witnesses of the resurrection. Jewish law accepted the witness of young men down to the age of bar mitzvah which usually was in the early teens.
Ultimately, the age of the disciples does not matter or we would have been told what age they were. On the other hand, recognizing the possibility of the relative youth of most of Jesus’ chosen followers can help us understand some things that might otherwise seem unclear in the New Testament.

But returning to how young Jews became students of a rabbi, it is helpful to remember that young men did not simply turn up at a rabbi’s door and expect to be taught.  There were relatively few rabbis and many young men.  Those who sought out a rabbi to follow were examined and tested by the older teacher and only a select few were chosen. Being selected to follow a rabbi and to continue his teaching was viewed as an exceptional honor in that society – perhaps indicating why we are told many of the disciples Jesus chose dropped everything they were doing and followed him immediately (Matthew 4:18-22).  

Maybe there is a lesson in this for us today.  Whatever the age of Jesus’ disciples at their calling, it is certain that the opportunity would have been regarded as a great honor and privilege – to be one of so few selected from so many.  Perhaps, in terms of our own lives and calling, that is something we need to remind ourselves of more often.  

 
“Imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery - it's the sincerest form of learning.”
― George Bernard Shaw
 
 
The word “imitation” often has a negative connotation – we can think of imitation designer clothes that don’t look as good as the real items,  imitation coffee or milk that doesn’t taste as good as the real thing, and many other examples.  Usually, the imitation is just not as good as the thing imitated – the real thing.
 
But there is one type of imitation that is perfectly acceptable  - in fact desirable:  when God himself is involved in the process of imitation.  The first chapter of Genesis  clearly tells us that God made an imitation when he made the first human.  “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…. So God created mankind in his own image,  in the image of God he created them…” (Genesis 1:26-27).  And, of course, when God had done this,  God looked at the imitation he had made and “God saw… it was very good” (vs. 31).
 
Naturally, the imitation God made of himself was not endowed with the power, wisdom, goodness and countless other qualities that God has, but it had a small measure of these qualities – just enough to show the family likeness – and  it was good, but it wasn’t as like the original as might be possible.
 
In most cases, if you have an imitation of something, that’s what you are stuck with.  It’s always going to be a kind of second-class item.  But the interesting thing about the imitation that God made is that it was upgradable.  God made the imitation of himself with the ability for countless ongoing upgrades – with the potential to make the imitation ever more like the original.  In one sense, that’s what life is – or should be – all about: taking the opportunity to fulfill that potential .
 
So this kind of imitation is not wrong – or in any way second class.  It’s something we should all be doing in our lives – seeking to be a better imitation of God.  You may not have thought about it this way, but  that was what Jesus himself was doing, on a daily basis, during His physical life.  Notice what he said in this regard:  “… the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19).   Jesus plainly says that even though he was the Son of God, his focus was on imitating God.  He knew the Father and constantly imitated him in his actions and thoughts.
 
How do we do this?  Although we do not have the unique knowledge of God that Jesus had, fortunately God has made available clear templates and instructions for us to follow to continuously “upgrade” ourselves to become increasingly better imitations.
 
First, we can imitate the original by getting to know God better through in-depth study of his word, not just in looking to see what it says, but looking to see what it says about him.  It’s a different approach when we don’t just read the story, but read the story like we would read the instructions for updating the software on our computers – carefully, and  focusing on what the words are showing us that we should do to successfully make the upgrade.
 
Second, we can imitate good copies.  God has given us the examples of his trained and trusted servants who closely imitate him. This is why the apostle Paul repeatedly stresses that we need  to look at his example and that of others to the extent that they imitate Christ.  Look at these instances of what Paul says about this: 
 
“Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus …”  (1 Corinthians 4:16).
 
“We did this… in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate” (2 Thessalonians 3:9).
 
These words of Paul dovetail with those found in the Book of Hebrews:
 
 “… imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised” (Hebrews 6:12).
 
“Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7).
 
Third, we can pray specifically for help in becoming a better imitation.   Notice in Philippians Paul tells us something about imitating. He says we should “… have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5), and after discussing this he then goes on to say “…continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (vs. 12).  If we are praying for God’s will in our lives, we should be getting his help to better imitate him and those he has changed – and we can pray for this specifically.
 
We need to remember that humans are actually programmed to imitate. That’s how we learn language, social skills, and countless other things.  It’s in our natures to imitate, and God put that there for a reason.  As a result, we must be careful, as John says, that we “do not imitate what is evil, but what is good” (3 John 1:11a).  If we are diligently studying, watching and praying to better imitate the model we have been given, God will continue his work in us and our spiritual imitation of his nature  will truly be “very good.”

​“Everyone will be salted with fire.  Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other” (Mark 9:49-50).



​The passage found in Mark 9 regarding Christ’s words about salt is usually explained or expounded by simple reference to the fact that biblically salt was a symbol of preservation or purity, but if we look closely, these verses actually vary the significance of salt by stressing different meanings.

In Mark 9:49 the words “Everyone will be salted with fire” clearly refers to purification, but when we move to verse 50a the statement “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again?” just as clearly refers to the disciple’s commission to serve as “salt” of this world (Matthew 5:13) – a function of making the world palatable to God.

But in the final statement using salt as a symbol: “Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other” (Mark 9:50b), neither of these previous meanings fits the saying. “Have salt among yourselves” does not make sense in terms of purification or making the world palatable – how would either meaning relate to being at peace with one another?

It is most likely that in the latter part of verse 50 Jesus’ comment refers to the fact that in ancient Judea and in the wider ancient Near East, salt was used extensively in making covenants and treaties between individuals or groups.  We see this in biblical verses such as:

Numbers 8:19:  “Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the Lord I give to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord for both you and your offspring.”

2 Chronicles 13:5:  “Don’t you know that the Lord, the God of Israel, has given the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever by a covenant of salt?”
​
Leviticus 2:13: “Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.” This last verse is usually said to be based on the purificatory aspect of salt, but the text says specifically the salt is the “salt of the covenant.” 

To “eat salt together” meant to make peace and enter into a covenant – or what we call today a “peace treaty” with someone. In Acts 1:4, where Jesus met with the disciples after his resurrection, most translations say he was “with” the disciples, but the Greek is literally “being together salted” – perhaps especially significant after the disciples had only recently deserted and disowned him.

Now, going back to Mark 9:50, the context of Jesus’ words in that verse is clear.  The disciples were arguing about who among them would be the greatest, and Jesus had to rebuke them for this attitude (Mark 9:33-35). But his words recorded at the end of the chapter spoke to the lack of peace between the disciples caused by this – and doubtless other – arguments.  In telling the disciples to “have salt among yourselves and be at peace with each other” (vs. 50), Jesus was probably urging them to use the symbolic salt of covenant relationship – specifically of a covenant of peace – and thus to be at peace with one another.

We do not always know when the writers of the Gospels bring together related sayings that may have been spoken at different times, but which share a common theme.  That could be the case in Mark 9 where we see different uses of the symbolism of salt, but it is also possible that Jesus simply varied the meanings of the symbol as he occasionally did in other instances.  In either case, the reference to having “salt among yourselves” seems to be clearly related to the role of salt in covenants and treaties of peace.

​​The word “slave” has virtually nothing but unpleasant connotations to most modern ears. Yet, as many Christians are aware, we are called to be “slaves” of God and of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22). The dissonance between how we feel about the word and the unequivocally clear message of the New Testament is difficult for many to handle, and we can clearly see this in most English translations of the Bible.

The Greek word for “slave” – doulos – occurs about 150 times in its different forms in the New Testament, but it is rarely translated that way.  Even as early as the King James Version, the translators elected to use the English word “servant” except where the word cannot be understood any other way (as when slaves are contrasted with “free” individuals) or when the meaning is figurative (as when the New Testament speaks of being “slaves of sin” – Romans 6:20, etc.).

But although doulos can mean “servant” in some few circumstances, there were clear-cut distinctions.  For example, ancient slaves would routinely wash the feet of house guests, something free servants would not normally do.  Doulos is not the usual word for servant, and probably more than 90% of its occurrences in the New Testament do simply mean “slave.”  Yet only one modern translation of the New Testament (the Holman Christian Standard Bible) translates doulos as “slave” – as it should be translated – whenever it appears.  The reason is obvious.  Most translators cannot bring themselves to convey the clear meaning of the Greek with a word that is so offensive to most modern readers.

As a result, most translations use “servant” – sometimes with a footnote explaining that the Greek may be “slave,” and sometimes (as in the ESV) even with a labored explanation in the Introduction stating that the word doulos can be either slave or servant.  Yet the fact that they opt almost invariably for “servant” proves the point we are making.

But the answer to this dissonant situation is not to try to make the Greek word mean something it did not. The answer that Christians need to be aware of is to be found in the nature of ancient slavery itself.  Some try to claim that ancient slavery was “much better” than the abomination we know from the modern world, and in many cases it was – but for many it was no better at all. The key to understanding ancient slavery is ultimately not in the nature of how well a given slave was treated (which could vary considerably – just as in any other human relationship), but for whom the slave worked.
 
Few Christians today realize that in the Roman Empire a slave of someone of high position had far more status, authority, and often freedom than any poor free man.   For example, Tiro, the personal secretary of the great Roman orator and statesman Cicero, enjoyed great prestige and was successful enough to retire on his own country estate, where he died at the age of 99.  But perhaps the best examples can be seen in the fact that slaves of the Emperor included some of the highest-ranking individuals in the whole Empire.  The status of the slave was almost entirely a matter of the status of his or her master.
 
When, in his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul introduces himself as a “slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle” (Romans 1:1 HCSB), he effectively uses not the lesser, but the greater title first.  To be called as a slave of the Son of God is to be called to a far greater position than that of a “free” person.  Stating that fact is not to elevate the Christian above others in any way – it is simply to stress that we need not be reluctant to translate the Greek word doulos the way it should so often be translated. We just need to understand its meaning in context. Early Christians understood – and we should, too – that being called to be a slave of the Son of God is being called into a relationship of privileged service.  That service is not demeaning  – as slavery inevitably is in this world – it is a high calling based on the nature and stature of the one we serve.  

The story of Polycarp (AD 80 – 167) is a fascinating one.  Because he was probably the last surviving person to have known an apostle, the life of Polycarp forms a historically documented link between the Church of the New Testament and later Christianity. According to the early Church Father  Irenaeus, who knew him, Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the last surviving member of the twelve disciples), and other Church Fathers confirmed this, recording also that he was ordained by John as Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor (the city of Izmir in modern Turkey). 

Polycarp’s life and teaching is well documented in a number of sources, and a letter written by him to the Christians at Philippi has also survived.  These historical documents all show Polycarp to have been a believer of great faith and a defender of the faith “once delivered.”

According to Irenaeus, Polycarp actively resisted many ideas that had already entered parts of Christianity by the second century.  In the 150s or 160s, Ireneaus tells us, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss a number of differences that already existed between the churches in Asia and Rome.  Many of these differences were resolved, though some were not. For example, Polycarp and his followers celebrated the “Christian Passover” on the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Jewish Passover, whatever day this fell on, while the Roman church followed the practice of celebrating Easter always on a Sunday around that same time of year.

But it is because of his martyrdom that Polycarp is now best remembered. The story is preserved in The Martyrdom of Polycarp which is a letter sent from the church of Smyrna, after his death, to surrounding churches. The Martyrdom is considered to be one of the earliest actual accounts of a Christian martyrdom outside the New Testament and records eye witness accounts of Polycarp’s execution.

The account also gives us many details regarding Polycarp and his faith.  It recounts that Polycarp was betrayed by a young man and that around the time of the evening meal on a Friday the police and other armed men came to arrest Polycarp – an old man of at least 86 –  for refusal to worship the emperor. Polycarp is said to have affirmed “God’s will be done,” and called for a meal for those who had come to arrest him. He asked to be allowed to pray a while and was then led away. The document states that as Polycarp was being taken into the arena where he would be executed, a voice spoke the words, “Be strong, Polycarp and act the man!” The Martyrdom continues to say that no one saw who had spoken, but “our brothers who were there heard the voice.”

Polycarp was given an opportunity to recant his beliefs. He was told to repent and instructed to say, “Down with the Atheists!” (meaning those who did not believe in the Roman gods) at which Polycarp looked at the crowd in the stadium, and gesturing towards them, said, “Down with the Atheists!”  Refusing a final opportunity to deny his faith, Polycarp was burned at the stake, though the Martyrdom insists he finally was killed with a sword as the flames did not seem to burn him.

But Polycarp’s tenacity to the beliefs he had learned from the apostles was of great importance in establishing Christianity before the persecutions against Christians finally subsided.   In his letter to them, he had urged the Philippians to hang on to their faith despite everything, reminding them: “Stand fast, therefore … and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith.”