The Biblical Picture of a Fool: Turns out they're not Dumb

The Bible would categorize the person who does this as a “fool”. King David stated as such in Psalms 14:1. He points out that their corruption translates into their deeds. This doesn’t mean necessarily they are unintelligent or even immoral by a worldly standard. Yet their approach to whatever source of truth is ultimately futile since they are devoid of belief. Why is this? The fall of humankind as recorded in Genesis 3. In Genesis God created man and woman and He declared them good. They lived in the presence of God in an innocent state. They were not perfect since they had not been tested and their character proven true, but they were without sin. God instructed Adam and Eve that there was only one tree in the garden that they could not eat from. Sadly, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. Adam served humanity as our seminal and federal head, meaning he was humanity’s representative before God and humanity’s father. His disobedience to God introduced to humanity. Our whole being is now affected by sin. This includes our thinking. Paul pointed out as much in the latter part of the passage already referenced, Romans 1:21. As our morality falls further into sin so does our thinking. The only chance we have for true knowledge is the illumination of the Spirit. In I Cor. 2:10-14 we see that Paul makes it clear knowledge of God can only be caught, never taught by way of human intellect. In fact, only the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God, so for humanity, in order to know God relationally or understand scripture we must first have the Spirit. Knowledge of God is purely a gift to those who believe. In Romans 12:1-2 Paul taught that we offer up our natural selves to be sacrificed on the altar, to be killed so that a renewal may take place, the renewal of our minds. How then, can someone who has rejected God and His Spirit expect to have any kind of true knowledge of science, medicine, art or ethics? These things are only fuller understood in their proper light as creations of God that when done with excellence and sincerity reflect the glory and beauty of God.

Source of Authority in the Christian Life: Not Just the Bible?

God is infinite we cannot be in complete accordance with God’s will since we are finite and cannot comprehend God totally. However, we can comprehend what God has graciously expressed to us through His Word and in several extra-biblical sources. The chief source of God’s self-expression is the Bible. The Bible provides us with a story of redemption. The pinnacle of this story is the person, work, ministry and story of Jesus Christ. God’s Word provides us with all that we need for living a godly life. The apostle Peter in II Peter 1:3 instruct believers that through God’s power we have everything we need for living a godly life through knowledge. So as we grow in our knowledge of God, our moral and ethical fiber as a Christian, our maturity and likeness to Jesus ought to as well increase. Yet how do Christians handle issues of moral and ethical decision making when the Bible is silent on a particular issue? I believe this problem is best rectified by understanding the Bible as the supreme and final source of truth, but not the only source of truth. To explain further, in Psalms 19:1-4b the psalmist explains what has been made by God declares the truth of God. Therefore, we can understand God outside of special revelation i.e. the Bible, the incarnation of Christ, divine meeting as in the case of Abraham. In fact, the apostle Paul further instructs in the New Testament specifically Romans 1:18-20 that the declaration of creation of God’s glory, power and the knowledge ushering forth is not only enough to inform the seeker, but is also enough to condemn the one who rejects that knowledge. Paul goes on to say in Romans 2:14-16 that we also have God’s law written on our hearts. So we can see that is without the person pours forth knowledge of God and condemns. And all that is within such as our conscience pours forth knowledge of God and condemns.

Plato's Question About God

Plato put forward an objection to the idea that morality is based in the commands of God in his treatise Euthyphro. The argument goes as since the basis for doing what is right depends on God commanding what is right, does the system of what is right supersede God? Is God just the facilitator to what is right to humanity? His commands are the vehicle of truth in service to the truth instead of to God? Or is morality arbitrarily determined by God’s will? This surely is not the case. God is a person, and there is an objective, invariant and coherent standard for truth and morality. Yet some set these two things apart and see them as mutually exclusive. It seems impossible that God who is a person can be also the standard for truth. That when He acts He acts perfectly moral. What He wishes and desires is the standard for truth not just because God wants it to be true, but because it is true. The two are one and the same. In other words, God’s nature is true therefore it is the source of truth. What we often separate since it is hard for us to accept— I think because we project our understandings of personhood on God— is not to be separated. Objective truth and God’s character are one and the same. 

The Nature and Relationship between Faith and Works

            Paul and James are often pitted against each other because they addressed the same issue, but on the surface seem to stating opposing conclusions about the nature of the relationship between faith and works. Paul says that we are justified by faith, and James seems to be saying that we are justified by works. However, it is important to note that these two biblical writers were addressing different issues. The letter of James was likely one of the first epistles written, he addressed the practicalities of one’s faith in Jesus. He used common sense to address a practical issue. Asking a very basic question, if you have faith in Jesus, yet there is no evidence of that faith in your life (i.e. works), then what’s the point of your faith? It’s useless. For as Paul wrote in Eph. 2:10, we were saved for a purpose, that purpose is to live righteously, which means doing good works.

            Paul, who wrote later than James, focused more on the theological aspect of justification. We are justified on the basis of our faith in Jesus, that He was who He said He was- Son of God, Messiah, and King; and that we agree with Him about the nature of sin and our own personal sin. God is holy, we are sinners, therefore we deserve condemnation, and we are in need of a savior. God has provided us a savior that is Jesus Christ. The saving action of the savior is Christ’s atoning work on the cross. This is the means for our salvation, not our own good works. No amount of good works or personal righteousness can put us in God’s good favor. Our best efforts are like dirty menstrual rags compared to God’s holiness (Is. 64:6).

            We, who have the benefit of studying both letters, must affirm both messages. We are saved only by the work of Christ, yet that salvation through Christ has an inbuilt purpose of transforming us into someone like Jesus. A person motivated to do good works, to live righteously before God and to love the savior. Faith in Jesus is one of action. James made the same point in his scenario about the lacking brother or sister (2:15-17). If our faith does not motivate us to help a brother or sister in need, what good is it? Why even have faith in Jesus? For true faith in Jesus motivates us to take action. Faith and works go hand in hand. Faith without works is not the faith that Jesus offers which that leads to salvation. James went on to discuss the examples of demons (who have belief without works= not saved), and Abraham and Rahab (who had faith with works= saved). In fact the relationship between faith and works is so inseparable, it is comparable to a body detached from the spirit, remove one from the other and the result is death (2:26).

Davidic Kingdom in New Testament

             As we can see throughout the narrative of the Old Testament the Davidic covenant played a central role. However, direct mention of or even teaching of it is remarkably absent in the New Testament. This yet, is not an indication of its lack of presence. It is in fact very present. Acts begins with the pre-ascension appearances and teaching of Jesus. It is likely based on the context of His teaching before the crucifixion and resurrection that Jesus spoke to the disciples about the Kingdom. There is also the record in Acts 1:6-8 of the discussion between Jesus and the Apostles about the restoration of Israel. That was not a work that God was going to bring about until the second coming of Christ. According to the parables of Jesus about the Kingdom, the Kingdom of God is going to build slowly through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the establishment of Christ’s church and the inauguration of the New Covenant.

The relationship of the Davidic promises to the resurrection. God did promise to David that an heir of his would always sit on his throne. Jesus was that descendant of David, yet He died? So how was Jesus to be the eternal heir of David? And always sit upon His throne? The answer is the resurrection and ascension. Jesus died on the cross making atonement for all those who would believe in Him. And He also was resurrected by the power of God. Yet He did not resurrected as a ghost or trans-personal being, He resurrected as human being who ascended to the right hand of the Father in an eternal incarnation who will return and take His rightful place on David’s throne.

            The relationship of the Davidic promises to the Gentiles- Jesus came in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 12:1-3. God promised that he would one day have an offspring that would bless the entire world. That descendant was the heir of David, root of Jesse, the rose of Sharon Jesus Christ. Through His work on the cross He made atonement for the entire world, “once and for all” (Rom. 6:5-11). The “once and for all” refers to all who believed in times past, present and future. The future includes Gentiles. As we can see Christ appeared before Paul and made him Apostle to the Gentiles, and even before that, in the Gospels Christ taught that the Gentiles would be one day welcomed into the family of faith. There are other references to Davidic promise in the Epistles and in Revelation. 

A-Mil, Pre-Mil, and Post-Mil- What's the Difference?

Revelation 20:4 has caused quite a bit of theological ruckus among theologians and Christians. The verse clearly indicates the saints resurrecting and reigning with Christ for a thousand years. Some disagree though if this verse is referring to a literal thousand years or a figurative thousand years, or they argue about when this thousand year reign is placed in the time frame of the last times] I’ll briefly distill each view below.

Amillenialism- The theologians in this camp reject the idea of a literal thousand years. They see the millennial Kingdom as something that is already present in the church age. It is interpreted as a symbolic period of time. They see this view as being consistent with the highly symbolic nature of the apocalyptic genre of the book of Revelation, sometimes indicating that the thousand years represent God's rule over his creation or the Church

            Postmillenialism- The theologians in this camp recognize the thousand year reign as literal, however they think Christ will return (second coming) after the thousand years is over. The thousand years will be a golden age for Christians when righteousness is practiced widely. They see Christ’s reign as physical and earthly during the millennial reign. In terms of the rapture, they typically tend to see it coming before (dispensational) or after (historic) the tribulation preceding the millennium.

            Premillenialism- The theologians in this camp believe in a literal thousand year reign, however, they see Christ’s return (second coming) happening first, then Christ is present throughout the thousand year reign. In terms of the rapture, the “Pre-mils” disagree with the “Post-mils” that Christ’s second coming will be before the Millennial Kingdom. Therefore the rapture would be after in conjunction with the Second Advent. 

Discipleship

          

         “Discipling is a relational process in which a more experienced follower of Christ shares with a newer believer the commitment, understanding, and basic skills necessary to know and obey Jesus Christ as Lord.”  (Connecting: The Mentoring Relationships You Need to Succeed, p. 48). I totally agree with Stanley and Clinton, I think from all the Biblical data we can gather that Jesus left us with a basis and methodology for disipling. The primary aspect of Jesus’ discipleship with the twelve was relational, this composes the basis, and giving of the self on the part of the discipler, this composes the methodology. For further support of this matrix of seeing Discipleship observe what Robert E. Coleman had to say on the topic, “Having called his men, Jesus made it a practice to be with them. This was the essence of His training program—just letting His disciples follow Him” (p. 38).

            First of all, as to the basis of discipleship, it is important know that God is a relational God; this statement needs little refutation, but for those who need convincing there are a few key passages that demonstrates this fact. God established relationship with His people through an ancient of form of connection called a Covenant. What a covenant created was a permanent and binding relationship between the Suzerain and a Vassal based on the Vassals adherence to certain stipulations, based on the Vassals obedience or disobedience there would be blessings or cursings (Deut. 28). We can see a primary example of this in the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 19:3-6, 20:1-6). God created a relationship with the Chosen people, the Israelites, in this way so that they would understand. It was an accommodation on God’s part to work in such a way that humans would understand, therefore His reason for using a human convention. But we must understand that before this formal and conditional relationship started as we can see in Exodus, there was a more intimate and personal foundation laid between God and Abraham.

            In Genesis 12:1-3 God made a permanent, unchanging and unconditional promise to Abraham, that He would give him land, nation and blessing. And that this blessing would be a blessing for the whole world. This relationship was not determined by obedience or merit, God chose simply because He chose. God loves simply because He loves. God chose, loved and acted in this relational way simply because it is His character to do so, and because of that we can always always trust Him. We need not be afraid that God will one day abandon us or desert us based on our actions or failings. If that were the case, then God would have checked out long ago, but He hasn’t, and we can be confident of that because of His character and ongoing work in human history. This relational foundation of love was the basis for the Mosaic, Davidic and New covenants and everything else God affected in the lives of humans and our history. It also provides us with a basis discipleship as I said before. We are to reflect God in the way we disciple others, and we have the best example of that in Jesus Christ. Jesus came to earth and manifested in human form what God had been doing since creation, which was being loving and relational.

Second, Jesus’ methodology with the twelve was unique simply because He didn’t use a methodology.  His methodology what Himself, He lived out God’s will and let the disciples experience Him as lived and endured various circumstances. This provides for us a methodology of allowing others to be with us as we follow God, for others to see how we experience hardship and turn to God, and for others to learn as we obey God. Essentially, letting others do life with us as we follow God. I love this because it adheres with the truth that God has uniquely and wonderfully made each one of us. That is to say, in the diversity of our beings we reflect the glory of God. Consider the scene in Revelation of people from all over the world, coming various cultures and languages all giving glory and praise to God.

“After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:

“Salvation belongs to our God,

who sits on the throne,

and to the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9-10).

I think the picture shows us that we glorify God best in our composite diversity, displaying the magnificent creativity of God and His love for all kinds of people. We individually and collectively reflect something of our Creator; this concept in the Bible is called the Imago Dei. Therefore it would stand to reason, within the bounds of Scriptural truth, that our own beings communicate something of God to others, in what He has done in our lives, the truths He has revealed to us experientially, our intellects, personalities and ways we live obediently to God. So it wouldn’t make sense then to have one standard model that everyone had to conform to. If that were the case, we would have one bland representation of a disciple and discipleship. Many would not be able to be a disciple because they would have to cleave off certain aspects of themselves in order to follow Christ.

            Now, do not confuse what I’m saying in terms of standards of obedience, those are not transitory or relative. We are all conforming ourselves to Christ in the way He obeyed and submitted Himself to the Father, but I would argue that submission and obedience will look differently person to person. As an example, for some it may be easy to tithe, money is not an object of worship for them, but for another it is a huge struggle. For the person who doesn’t struggle with tithing, their obedience t God in that regard requires little submission of their will, even though he ought to do it. However, for the one who does struggle, if he submitted to God through his tithing, that would be cause for celebration and praising him as a disciple, because he submitted his will to the Father even when He did not want to, thus showing that obedience is far better and important than personal comfort.

            In our culture, believers are uncomfortable saying, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (I Cor. 11:1). However, the Bible has no problems establishing the discipler as the one to be followed by the disciple. When submit our wills to the Father and obey Him, we are essentially being “little” Christs to each other. Because of this Paul can said with confidence, “Be imitators of me”, this would be by our standards arrogant. But in the logic of the Bible, this makes absolute sense, for when believers are assembled we are then called the body of Christ. Individually and collectively we reflect Jesus when we obey and we are to follow each other as they follow Christ (I Thess. 1:6, 2:14, I Cor. 4:16, Eph. 4:32, 5:1-2). This assemblage we would call the church, and it suggest something more than a one-to-one relational model of discipleship, but one of mutuality, where each member is concern and actively working to take care of the needs of others. A body that grows and supports itself, which means the job of discipling is not up to a select few, but of the many. In other words, disciples are to be discipled and then disciple others. “The form of discipleship Jesus intended for his disciples was unique, and it was not intended only for the time when they could follow him physically; it was also intended for the time when they would gather as the church” (Wilkins, p. 309).      

            In summary, the basis for discipleship ought to be relationships, and the method ought to be the discipler gives themselves to the disciple. If one can do this they are following the pattern God has set since the foundation of the world with His chosen people, and living out the example that Jesus has set for us. Discipleship can only truly be done in the presence of others. A key principle of discipleship is mutuality. And so the standard ought to be a disciple who is discipled in turn disciples others, in other words an organism where the whole provides for the needs of the parts. This is the living dynamic body that Jesus and the Apostles spoke of as the church. 

What is a Disciple?

        

          The issue of Discipleship in the modern context of the church presents a rather frustrating and confusing topic for many Christians. Many Christians are confused on what a disciple is and are further mystified on what a disciple does. Theological confusion among churches and pastors has not helped the situation. Sermons topics on discipleship range from seeing disciples primarily as learners, or believers, or committed believers who become disciples, or as the conditions of salvation. I too, like many Christians across the denominational spectrum, have experienced existential turmoil and pain because I wasn’t sure if the characteristics of discipleship were conditions of salvation, if Jesus’ message to the apostles were intended for me, and if I met the qualifications for a “second tier” of Christian spirituality. Because of this ongoing frustration I have felt burnout by my Christian experience, always wondering if I was good enough to be considered a disciple.

For some time I wondered if there ever would be an answer to these questions or if this was area of mystery that I would have to take up with God upon my death. Yet this is not the position God wishes for His children to be in, God desires for those He has given to Christ to be empowered, encouraged, and impassioned to follow after His Son, not discouraged, burnt out and confused, throwing their hands in the air hoping for their death so that they can finally understand what God meant. Therefore, God has not left us with a fractured piecemeal picture of discipleship which leaves the interested student wondering. Through careful study of God’s word we can build a theology of what a disciple is and what he does. It is true that orthodoxy produces orthopraxy, this gives us confidence that if we are faithful to God’s word in our understanding then we will be empowered and encouraged to live out the Spirit empowered life of discipleship that Jesus intended.

In his book Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship Michael Wilkins builds his biblical theology of discipleship by first examining the etymology of the word “disciple” which in the Greek language is Mathetes. The definition of the word is “learner”; however, the meaning of the word is not limited to its definition.  In the Ancient Near East during the mid 1^st century the word also included the additional sense of adherent. This would indicate that a disciple was much more than an interested student. In the case of a Christian disciple an adherent would be a believer in Jesus Christ for this is what Jesus made evident in His teaching, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40). There are numerous passages especially in the Gospel of John where Jesus made this abundantly clear (John 3:15-18, 36, 6:47, 11:25-26, 20:30-31) also Peter in Acts and Paul in his Epistles. In order to follow Jesus you must believe that He is the Son of God, anything less will not please God. Also, the way Mathetes was used in the early church recorded in Acts was synonymous with the terms Christian, Brother/Sister, Believer, and Follower of the Way. Therefore, we can conclude from the etymology of the word Mathetes, from the way it was used in the Ancient Near East and in the early church recorded in Acts, that a disciple was someone who learned from and believed in Jesus.

It would seem from the Biblical and cultural-historical data that a disciple was a convert, suggesting a 1 to 1 relationship— convert equaled disciple. However this view is not held by many, some hold the view that a disciple was merely a learner, others seem to think a disciple was a minister, and still others think discipleship was a secondary step of the committed Christian. I’ve demonstrated that a disciple cannot be simply a learner, but what does scripture have to say about these other options?

At this point it is important to understand what a disciple does. It is critical to identify the point at which Jesus was teaching the masses, the disciples or the apostles. First of all, Jesus gave a general call to discipleship. Jesus when He was addressing the masses put forth this invitation, “Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, ‘“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple”’ (Luke 14:25-27).  This call was to hate your mother and father and brother and so on, basically communicating that the disciple was to possess a love for their heavenly Father that made all other love look like hate. Let me be clear, Jesus was not advocating hate,  but a love that looks like hate in comparison to the intensity of love for the heavenly Father, our love for God should be supreme (v. 26). Secondly, in order to be a disciple one had to take up their cross and to come after Jesus (v. 27).  Jesus’ general call of discipleship, not His call of Apostleship, also included abiding in belief (John 15:4) and again obedience by taking up ones cross (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23).

This call was drastically different than the call to Apostleship, which was to leave home and family (Luke 9:60), sell all you have (Luke 12:33), and come physically follow Jesus (Mark 1:17). Jesus selected twelve for this special task. For three years Jesus trained and taught the apostles/disciples, then He died, resurrected, ascended and poured out His Spirit at Pentecost. This enabled the Apostles to remember Jesus’ teaching and be anointed to carry out miracles for the purpose of spreading the Gospel and establishing the church. This was a very specific call, one that was not intended for the disciple.

Jesus intention was that He should die, be resurrected and ascend into heaven. However, this creates a problem because how was a disciple to follow after Jesus if Jesus was not physically present. As Jesus discussed in John 14 through 16, He was leaving so that one better will come in His place. The Holy Spirit provides the presence of Christ so that all can follow Jesus regardless of location and time periods. This is another reason why it makes sense that Jesus’ general call to all disciples was not one to sell everything one had and to physically leave family and home to come and follow. Jesus foreknew that this would be an impossible task for all of the billions of believers that would follow after His death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. Jesus desired for the whole world to hear the gospel, be saved and follow Him (Matt. 28:19). The specific call to sell everything, leave family and home, and physically follow Jesus was intended only for His Apostles. So this rules out the possibility that a disciple was only a minister. In fact, every disciple is called to minister and serve, Jesus died so that He might have a nation of priests (I Pet. 2:5-9). Observe what Wilkins has to say about this issue, “Therefore our preliminary observation is that as disciples the Twelve give us an example of how Jesus works with all believers, and as apostles the Twelve give us an example of how Jesus works with leaders of the church” (pg. 36).

However, the issue of a disciple being a committed believer still lingers. The view that there are Christians and there are disciples, a disciple being a committed and obedient Christian. To understand this issue better consider the account of the disciples not able to believe the hard sayings of Jesus in John 6, “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him” (v. 66). It is important to note that Jesus was speaking to a mix of disciples, the masses (v. 22 “the crowd”), Jews (v. 41) and the Apostles. It would seem that based on the context surrounding verse 66 that the term disciple was being used loosely here. Wenham, Motyer, Carson and France note in New Bible Commentary “The grumbling of many of the disciples (60-61) shows that the word ‘disciple’ is used here in a loose sense for those fringe followers of Jesus. They were not true believers for they found it hard to accept his teaching (60). They could not even imagine anyone accepting it. Jesus knew their real position and proceeded to advise” (pg. 1039, emphasis in the original).

Looking at the previous verses it can be gathered that Jesus knew the true intentions of those He was speaking to, and so He spoke evangelistically to persuade them to belief, “Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (v. 29) and using His words to act as a winnow for He knew that some could not believe after hearing His words concerning Himself being the bread of life, “But there are some of you who do not believe” (v. 64). Therefore, some “disciples” walked away among the mix of people, not possessing true belief in Jesus, contrast that with the belief of the true disciples found among the twelve, “So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (v. 67-69). The twelve here model true discipleship, which is belief that Jesus is the Son of God upon whom we depend for eternal life.

It would seem, there is no secondary step of Christian spirituality, these “disciples” did not walk away and cease to follow Jesus because they didn't want to live a committed life of obedience, it was because they could not believe that Jesus was who He said He was. Therefore, keeping in mind the definition of disciple which was a learner and adherent, they did not qualify as disciples since they did not believe. It is also important to note that a disciple was never conceptualized outside the context of a community. To be a disciple was to identify and participate in a community of disciples. This idea was developed further in Acts and the Epistles, when the nascent church was established and the body of Christ was starting to operate in its redemptive capacity.

Some people after reading this might raise the objection that if Mathetes meant learner and adherent, then it is a copout to say based on the context of John 6 the meaning of the word would allow for someone who was not fully a believer. In response to this objection it is important to understand Jesus’ mission and how that mission unfolded. Jesus first came on the scene in Matt. 3 when He was baptized by John the Baptist; this event identified Jesus with John’s ministry of preparing the way for the Messiah. It is important to know that Jesus not only was born, matured to adulthood, did some teaching, then died on the cross and then went to heaven. But He entered into a movement which served as a vehicle for His ministry, that was the Messianic Movement prepared by John the Baptist. This movement unfolded over time, for example after the temptation in Matt. 4:1-11 Jesus then preached about the Kingdom (Matt. 4:17) and only later did He perform signs and wonders to demonstrate that He was the Messiah, anointed one of God, Divinity in human form (Matt. 8-10). There was a progressive unfolding of the Movement and therefore, an unfolding understanding of who Jesus was.

It is possible to see this unfolding through five stages in the gospels. First, in John 1:25-42 people took the personal initiative to follow Jesus out of curiosity or to question Him in order to find out more, therefore a full understanding of Jesus' identity had not fully emerged. The second stage can be found in Matt. 4:18-22 (also Mark 1:16-20) where Jesus called people to follow Him, this was a challenging and costly call that entailed two separate calls, the first to discipleship and the second to apostleship. At this point we see the third stage, Jesus began sifting those who truly believed from those who didn't this was the account described above in John 6. After this the fourth stage was a smaller group of committed believers/disciples, and stage five the establishment of the church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Taking this into account, it is entirely possible to see how there was a progression of the Jesus Movement, understanding of the Messianic nature of Jesus and His message of belief in Him. So that by the time we come to the early church described in Acts, disciple had a robust meaning of learner and adherent with associations to other terms such as Christian, Brother/Sister, Believer, and Follower of the Way. And most importantly, we can conclude that those disciples who walked away from Jesus in John 6 had up to that point an underdeveloped belief in Jesus, because full knowledge had not yet been unfolded.

In conclusion, based on the Biblical and cultural-historical data a disciple was a learner and an adherent who responded to the costly call of life commitment to following Jesus with belief. Discipleship begins at the point of salvation, we all are disciples if we are Christians, and there is no upper or secondary tier of Christian. A key component of following Jesus is to participate in His New Covenant post-resurrection community.