14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 " 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him: " 'I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
29 "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Why Join the Church?
Acts 2:1-21
Sermon
by Mark Trotter
My wife and I were driving down the freeway one day, and she saw the title of the sermon on the marquee, "Why Join The Church?" She said, "That's the dullest title I've ever seen!" I asked her if she had ever heard Tammy Wynette sing, "Stand By Your Man"?
Actually I believe it is a good title because it reflects the opinion of many people, that it is not necessary to join the Church in order to be a Christian. I suppose most of your neighbors feel that way. They probably wonder what you are doing getting up so early on Sunday morning. I am sure they assume it is all right to visit a church now and then, on holy days, weddings and funerals, but why join the Church?
There is also that antipathy in our time toward "organized religion." Most people would say that they are religious, in some fashion, but they don't like organized religion. That reminds me of Will Willimon's anecdote from when he was the pastor of a church in South Carolina. His members went out into their neighborhoods to invite people to church. One man said, "I don't believe in organized religion." They said, "Good. Then you will really love our church!"
We laugh at that, and anyone who has been around the church, I am sure, appreciates it. But, in fact, Christianity is an organized religion. It is a corporate body in which you hold membership.
That is what happened at Pentecost. An organization was formed, in the real meaning of that word, "organization." Things were brought together into a whole and made a body. Paul called the church the "body of Christ," with a mission to perform in this world. The mission of the Church is to transform the world. You can't be a Christian apart from that community, or apart from its mission in the world. There is no such thing as a solitary Christian. To be a Christian is to be a part of the "body of Christ," the Church.
At Pentecost, as you heard the text for this morning, Peter preached a sermon, the first Christian sermon, to those who had gathered in the streets of Jerusalem. He explained what had happened to them. You heard the first part of that sermon this morning. He said that in Jesus Christ a new age has been created. With the resurrection of Jesus this power came into the world to create a new world, a new age is here. And the Church is the community of those who made the choice to leave the old age and enter the new age that has been inaugurated by the resurrection of our Lord.
When he finished his sermon, the crowd asked, "What are we to do?" Peter said, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." And ever since Pentecost, a choice has to be made. Where are you going to give your loyalty? To the world as it is, or to the world as it will someday be? To the old age, or to the new age? To the kingdoms of this world, or to the Kingdom of God that was revealed and inaugurated in this world in Jesus Christ?
The Church wanted to make that as clear as it could. So the first question that has been asked of those who join the Church is, "Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?" Only when you did that, only after you made that choice, were you asked the second question, "Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in union with the Church?"
Joining the Church was to make a choice. It is a clear choice between this age, the present age is the way it was called, or the age to come, the Kingdom that Christ came to inaugurate. That's the way it was.
The problem is that the line between the Church and the world is now erased. The first vow in the service of ritual for membership, called "the renunciation," has been restored now to the Methodist ritual. You will hear it if you come to the confirmation service at 11:00 a.m. We will ask those young people to renounce the evil powers of this world. But it is significant to note that it was dropped from the ritual at the beginning of the 20th century, and then restored at the end of the 20th century. It is as if living through this century we have discovered we made a mistake.
It was dropped at the end of the 19th century when Americans were so optimistic about the future of this society, about the future of the whole world. There were a number of reasons for this. The westward movement across this continent revealed a vast, beautiful land with seemingly unlimited resources, so that the life that anybody wanted to live was possible on this land. The Industrial Revolution had proven its strength and was working miracles. The advances of science, especially in physics at that time, had shown that the power of theoretical sciences could transform this world. The strength of democracy had been tested in the Civil War and had survived. Now democracy, in fact, was spreading around the world, all of which created an enormous optimism in this country.
There was a whole spate of utopian novels written in the last part of the 19th century as that society anticipated the millennium. All these novels saw humankind using the power that was available to them now, the power of the machine, the power of the enlightened mind, brought to us by science, and the spread of universal education, to create a utopia, a perfect society. It was now possible.
The most famous of those utopian novels was one written by a man named Edward Bellamy, called Looking Backwards, which is still, incidentally, among the best sellers of all time. It sold millions of copies.
It was written in the 1890s, and it looked forward to seeing what the world would be like in the 1990s, in the decade in which we are living. It envisioned people living in ideal cities, with beautiful environments crafted by human engineering, with culture freely accessed and used by everybody. No crime in the 1990s, they said, because everybody would have all their material wants satisfied, and there would be no need for crime. Everybody would be enlightened by education. Everybody would be educated and everybody happy. And, most importantly, Bellamy wrote, there will be no more wars. By 1990 people would look back and barely remember the time when there were wars in this world.
I point out to you that back in the 1890s, was about the same time that the Church dropped the renunciations from the ritual of membership. Caught up in this optimism, they felt it an embarrassment to be different from the progressive institutions of the day. There were even some Christians who hailed the 20th century as the "Christian century." They said, now all the work of the Church for 2000 years was finally going to bear fruit, and this will be the "Christian century." There is no longer any need for us to set ourselves apart from the world, because the world has now become Christian, or will soon be in this 20th century.
So they dropped what they said was a medieval way of looking at the world. That medieval way, they said, is to see the world controlled by spiritual forces. That is just superstition. We have evolved out of that way of thinking. We have other means now of explaining these things. We have different ways now of dealing with them. We know what causes people to do bad things. All we need to do is remove the causes, change the environment, and we will get rid of these last pockets of the resistance of evil.
Incidentally, there was another change that occurred about the same time, a very significant one. There are two portraits of Jesus in the New Testament. In some places he is pictured as an exorcist, casting out demons. In other places he is seen as a teacher, dispensing moral wisdom.
At the threshold of the 20th century, the Church said, Jesus the teacher is the Jesus that is appropriate for this age. Jesus the exorcist has become an embarrassment, it is too primitive. We have evolved far beyond that now, we don't need exorcisms now. We need only teaching. Our problems are not caused by evil forces outside of us, our problems are caused by ignorance. So if we could only teach everybody the moral truths, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule, then all these problems will disappear, and the Kingdom would come.
So in the 20th century the established church by and large lost its identity, and became like any other good institution. The Church was to be supported in exchange for the Church giving support, only in church language that would be "blessing," to the society. So that is the way it has been. The society supports the Church, and the Church is supposed to support this age.
But now we are at the end of the 20th century, and looking back on perhaps the most inhumane century the world has ever known. Instead of getting rid of the evil powers, it appears that the evil powers have run rampant in these last hundred years, with the devastation of wars paving the century from the beginning to the end, with the old plagues of mankind: famine, disease, violence, not eradicated, but prospering.
So the Church went back to the Bible. It saw that the early Church believed that this world is in bondage to evil powers, and you could be made captive of those powers. And there is nothing in that to laugh at, nothing to scoff at. Those powers can grab a hold of a person's life, or of a society, and never let it go until it is destroyed. And, as if to say, we made a terrible mistake, the Church said at the end of this century, we are not able to bring the Kingdom of God in by our own efforts, not by our good intentions, not even by legislation. We still live in a world of demonic powers. We must still take evil seriously. We must still choose, as the first Christians did, whom we will serve.
So the Church, in 1988, restored the renunciations into the ritual for membership. It is interesting. At the end of the 19th century, anticipating the 20th century, they wrote utopian novels. At the end of the 20th century, anticipating the 21st century, they are writing science fiction. In utopian novels the future was seen as a kind of Garden of Eden, a perfect society. In much of science fiction the future is seen as the battle between the spiritual forces of wickedness and the evil powers in heavenly places.
I don't believe that those powers are supernatural. I believe that they are human in origin I believe that they are the accumulated sin of generations that, in time, becomes a spiritual force in society. Social diseases are like physical diseases, they are manageable at first, but if you don't do anything about them, they soon become too powerful for you to do anything about them. They become powers unto themselves.
For instance, "the spirit of the times." That's what it is sometimes called. The sophisticated word is, "zeitgeist," the spirit of the times. It is not some entity. It doesn't dwell someplace in the high heavens. But it is, nevertheless, real. It is very powerful. The spirit of the times says, everyone does it.
Young people are especially vulnerable to the spirit of the times. Parents know that. Parents fear that power. They fear that it is stronger than they are. They see it in the entertainment and advertising business that their children are exposed to. They want to protect their children from the spirit of the times. They see the Church as that institution that stands over and against the spirit of the times, and can teach their children to say "No" to some things, as a way of saying "Yes" to the life that God is offering to them.
There is another spirit. It is called the spirit of revenge. It erupts from time to time, as you can see in our time. It permeates all of our life. It is usually portrayed as something courageous, or noble, or honorable. It has taken on those qualities in the stories, or the myths, that we use to teach the young, especially young boys. It tells them, it is honorable to get revenge. Worst of all, the worst lie of all, it tells them that violence is an honorable way of solving your problems.
The Church stands over and against the evil spirit of revenge that permeates all of our life, and offers the example, instead, of forgiveness and reconciliation.
There are other spirits, more subtle spirits, that bind us as well: greed, self-centeredness, exploitation of other people. To all of these the Church says, "No!" To the spirit of greed the Church offers the example of a community where generosity through the stewardship of our possessions is the way to find life. To the spirit of self-centeredness the Church offers a community where other people are considered to be precious in the sight of God, and to be treated as children of God. To the spirit of the exploitation of others the Church offers a community where service to other people is the pattern of success.
There is a phrase from a old prayer in which I have found meaning. It is a prayer for the Church, written many years ago, by Harry Emerson Fosdick.
When we compare her with all human institutions, we rejoice, because there is none like her. But when we compare her with the mind of the Master, we bow in contrition.
The Church is a human institution, so it is frail. It is imperfect, and sinful, and sometimes, in its history, it has been spectacularly sinful. But there is something else here. This is what Pentecost says, there is something else here. There is a spirit that is different than the spirit of the age. It is a spirit that enlivens and reforms and renews life. We call that spirit the Holy Spirit. And on this day, on Pentecost, we give thanks to God, that God gave us the Spirit who is with us in the Church.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Sermons, by Mark Trotter
Overview: After all the disciples’ praying and waiting, the promised Holy Spirit finally arrives in a mighty way (2:1–13). The Jewish pilgrimage festival of Pentecost (also called the Feast of Weeks or Firstfruits) was observed fifty days after the Passover to celebrate the grain harvest. The 120 believers were together in one place when the miracle of Pentecost occured (2:1).
This event represents a major step in God’s redemptive program, a time when the Holy Spirit would live permanently in individual believers. There is a sound like a violent wind coming from heaven and filling the house (2:2), tongues of fire rest on each person (2:3), and all are filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in other languages (2:4). This powerful outpouring of God’s personal presence attracts God-fearing Jews…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 " 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him: " 'I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
29 "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
When the crowd accuses the apostles of drunkenness (2:13), Peter stands and addresses the crowd (2:14–40). This is the first of the major speeches in Acts, and these speeches provide critical commentary on the significance of the events that Luke is recording. In this speech, Peter first refutes the charges of drunkenness by emphasizing that what just happened points instead to the fulfillment of God’s promises. Quoting from Joel 2:28–32 while inserting the phrase “in the last days” (2:17; cf. Isa. 2:2), he emphasizes that the outpouring of the Spirit points to the arrival of the eschatological era. Another insertion in this quotation (“and they will prophesy,” 2:18) further identifies the early Christian community as the eschatological community that testifies to the work of God in the era of fulfillment.
The heart of the speech focuses on the role and significance of Jesus Christ. Jesus the man of God rejected by the Jews (“you,” 2:23) has been raised by God. This not only fulfills the promise of David (2:25–28; see Ps. 16:8–11); Jesus’s resurrection also ushers in the era that witnesses the work of the eschatological Spirit. With his resurrection, Jesus also proves to be “Lord and Messiah” (2:36), one who surpasses David himself (2:34–35; see Ps. 110:1). The lordship of Jesus has a number of implications. First, through his name, one’s sins may be forgiven (2:38a). Second, because of his paradigmatic role in salvation history, those who are baptized in his name will receive the eschatological Spirit (2:38b–39a). Finally, because of his universal lordship, even those “who are far off” (2:39b) will be able to experience this eschatological salvation. The phrase “who are far off” reminds one of Isaiah’s promises concerning the salvation to the Gentiles: “Peace, peace, to those far and near” (Isa. 57:19); the use of a similar phrase later in Acts also confirms this reference to the Gentiles (22:21). Jesus is not only the Lord of the Jews; he is also the Lord of the Gentiles. In Acts, this christological affirmation provides the firm basis for missions.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Though not the first speech in Acts (cf. 1:16–22), this is the first to proclaim the Christ event, that is, it is the first instance of the kerygma. It touches on the ministry and death of Jesus, but its chief concern is to show that Jesus is the Messiah, and to this end it lays greatest emphasis on his resurrection and ascension.
As we shall see, this speech sets the pattern for much of the other preaching in Acts. From a survey of all the instances of kerygma in Acts, C. H. Dodd has identified six basic elements: the age of fulfillment has dawned; the fulfillment is in the person and work of Jesus, especially his death and resurrection, the latter demonstrating him to be the Christ; Christ has been exalted; the Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’s present power; Christ will return; and listeners need to repent and believe. Not all these elements are present each time Christ is proclaimed, but they appear often enough to produce a definite pattern. However, the fact that this pattern can also be traced beyond Acts, for example, in Mark 1:14f. and in a number of Paul’s epistles (cf., e.g., Rom. 10:8f.; 14:9f.; 1 Cor. 15:1ff.), draws the sting of the criticism that these speeches, because of their overall similarity, are the product of Luke’s own inventiveness (see Dodd, Preaching, pp. 7ff.). And when we further observe that “most of the forms of the kerygma in Acts show in their language a strong Aramaic coloring, we may recognize the high probability that in these passages we are in fairly direct touch with the primitive tradition of the Jesus of history” (Dodd, History, p. 73).
There is no question, however, that Luke has left his own stamp on the speeches. This is only to be expected when we consider that they are merely indications of what was said, not verbatim reports (cf. v. 40). Nevertheless, we have every reason for confidence that Luke has done no more than play the part of an editor, not inventing, but faithfully retaining the gist of what was said and sometimes even the actual words of the original speakers. As for this present speech in particular, we should note the following: first, it fits very well the occasion to which it purports to belong; second, in its exposition of Scripture there survives a very primitive argument for the messiahship of Jesus in which is displayed the hermeneutical style of the rabbis (see B. Lindars, pp. 38–45, esp. p. 42; and E. E. Ellis, p. 198–208); and third, in general it “reflects an earlier stage in the development of Christian theology than the thought of the New Testament as a whole” (Neil, p. 74). On this evidence we are entitled not only to regard the speech as typical of the preaching of the church in its first years but also to credit Luke with having a reliable account of what was actually said on this occasion.
2:14 Faced with the situation described in the previous section, Peter stood up—the sense is “stepped forward,” indicating, perhaps, a newfound confidence—and backed by the other apostles, addressed the crowd. There is no need to suppose that he spoke in any other than his own mother tongue (Aramaic, cf. 21:40), though what he said was no less inspired than when he had spoken in “tongues.” Luke uses the same verb as before (cf. v. 4), with its sense of a prophetic utterance. Despite their gibes, Peter addressed the crowd courteously, “Men, Judeans, and all of you who live in Jerusalem” (see notes on 1:16).
2:15–21 The explanation of their behavior was not that they were drunk, but that the prophecy of Joel had been fulfilled. The particular passage he had in mind was Joel 2:28–32, which is given in full according to the text of the LXX, with some modifications. Thus we have in the last days (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1) instead of “after these things” and the insertion of they will prophesy in verse 18 and of signs in verse 19. These changes help fit the text to the context, the “signs” being intended perhaps as a reference to their speaking in tongues and the “prophesying” to what Peter was doing right then, for prophecy was as much proclamation as it was prediction (see disc. on 11:28). Dunn (Jesus, p. 160) sees in the eschatological thrust of these changes further evidence that Luke was using a primitive source (cf. Dodd, Scriptures, p. 48). B. J. Hubbard (Perspectives, p. 195) sees much of what follows in Acts as an exposition of this passage from Joel.
When Joel first spoke these words the land had been devastated by locusts. This was seen by the prophet as a warning, in the light of which he called on the people to repent. Repentance, he said, would be met by forgiveness; rain would fall on the land; wheat and oil would abound; and “after these things,” God would pour out his Spirit, not on a few as hitherto, but on all people (vv. 17f.; cf. Joel 2:28f.; also Num. 11:29). This would precede the great and glorious day of the Lord (v. 20; cf. Joel 2:31). To Peter’s mind, that day—the day of salvation—had come; hence the change in the first line to in the last days. Consequently, everyone who now called on the name of the Lord (Jesus, cf. v. 36; 4:12; see disc. on 1:24) would be saved. For the limitation of this promise to Israel, see the discussion on verse 39.
2:22 With the renewed address Men of Israel (see disc. on 3:12 and notes on 1:16), Peter drew their attention from the signs of the last days to the Savior. He wanted them to hear about Jesus of Nazareth (cf. 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 24:5; 26:9). This was the name by which Jesus was known to them, if they knew him at all (bearing in mind that there were visitors in the crowd); and it was under this name that he had died (John 19:19). But the Jews’ estimate of Jesus, evident in their hounding him to the cross, was in striking contrast with his true status, for he was demonstrably a man accredited by God. No one could have done the miracles, wonders and signs that he had unless God were with him (cf. John 3:2). Peter did not yet ascribe divine power to Jesus. He was content to speak of him as God’s agent, God working through him. Even so, this was a bold claim to make before such an audience. Not that the miracles themselves were likely to be disputed, for they were a matter of public record—as you yourselves know (cf. 26:26). But there was likely to be some dispute about the source of the power. Jesus had once been accused of working miracles by the power of Satan (Mark 3:22).
2:23 But there was more to God’s purpose for Jesus than the working of miracles. It was his set purpose that Jesus should die. When Jesus himself had first broached this subject with the disciples, they met it with revulsion (Mark 8:31f.). To them it was unthinkable that the Messiah should die. But with new insight (see disc. on 1:2; cf. John 16:13; 1 Pet. 1:10–12) Peter now understood that Jesus had to be handed over to the Jewish authorities and by them to the Romans (the wicked men of this verse, that is “lawless men,” Gentiles as seen through Jewish eyes). Jews and Romans alike were serving God’s purpose, though they were no less answerable for what they had done—the paradox of free will and predestination that confronts us constantly in this book (cf., e.g., 3:18; 4:28; 13:27). Peter’s reference to their nailing him to the cross may be compared with other vivid descriptions by him of the crucifixion (5:30 and 10:39), surely the language of one who had witnessed Jesus’ sufferings and on whose mind they had left a lasting impression (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1).
2:24 Thus was Jesus treated by men, but God raised him from the dead (see note on 4:10). The antithesis is stated with dramatic force (cf. 3:15; 4:10; 10:39). The resurrection, no less than his death, was God’s plan for Jesus, for the Scripture had foretold it. It was impossible, therefore, for death to keep its hold on him. What was foretold must be fulfilled. So God freed him from the agony of death, the resurrection being likened here to a birth out of death—a remarkable metaphor, if indeed that is what Peter meant. The phrase “pains of death” is found in LXX Psalms 17:5 (18:5) and 114:3 (116:3), but it is possible that the Greek version has misread the Hebrew and that, instead of “pains,” we should have “bonds.” The unvocalized Hebrew could be read either way, though in Psalm 18:5 the parallelism clearly favors “bonds,” with death and the grave personified as hunters lying in wait for their prey with nets and nooses. Similarly here, the reference to Jesus being “set free” and to death not being able to keep its hold on him, seem to settle the matter in favor of “bonds.” It is tempting, then, to accept C. C. Torrey’s suggestion that Luke (or an earlier translator) had before him an Aramaic source containing Peter’s speech and that, influenced by his knowledge of LXX Psalm 17:5, he translated as “pains” what had been intended as “bonds” (pp. 28f.).
2:25–28 With the declaration of verse 24, the speech had reached its climax. It only remained now to show that a resurrection had been foretold in Scripture, that its reference was to the Messiah, and that by fulfilling the prophecy, Jesus “was declared with power” to be the Messiah (cf. Rom. 1:4). Peter did this by reference to Psalm 16:8–11. It seems likely that these verses were an ancient testimonium used by the first Christians in support of their belief that God had raised Jesus. It is true that the text is taken from the LXX and not the Hebrew (not unnaturally, since the LXX permits a resurrection interpretation more readily than the Hebrew), but this does not necessarily mean that its use belonged only to a later, Greek-speaking church. The rabbis also interpreted Psalm 16:9 (in its Hebrew form) as a reference to resurrection. When first written, the psalm was the prayer of a godly man expressing his confidence that God would not abandon him to the grave (v. 27; cf. Ps. 16:10). Now whether this meant that he hoped to be spared an untimely death or, in the event of death, to be shown the paths of life after it, is unclear (v. 28; cf. Ps. 16:11). But Peter, following the rabbis, took the psalm in the latter sense and applied it to the preservation or restoration of the body after the grave.
2:29–31 His exposition of the psalm is based on two assumptions: first, that David wrote it. Once this is allowed, it then becomes obvious that David did not write the psalm about himself, but about another, since his own tomb was proof positive that his body was still in the ground. (Cf. 13:36 for the same argument from Paul. On David’s tomb, see Neh. 3:16, Josephus, Antiquities 7.392–394; 13.284–287; 16.179–187; War 1.61; Jerome, Epistles 4). But if David wrote of another, he did so as a prophet, and in the same prophetic vein (as Peter again supposes) he wrote Psalm 132:11, with its promise that God would make one of his sons king (v. 30; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16; 22:51; Pss. 89:3, 4, 29, 35ff.; 132:17). David, in fact, may not have written the psalm. And in any case, the singular is used in a collective sense. It was of a line of kings that the psalmist wrote and not of any one king in particular, as verse 12 clearly shows. But Peter understood it of one king, the Messiah (Gk. christos, v. 31; see note on 11:20 and disc. on 13:23). But if Psalm 132 spoke of the Messiah, why not others? Thus the messianic interpretation of Psalm 132:11 was carried back to Psalm 16:10, now slightly altered to meet the case (see disc. on 1:16) by reading his body (picked up from v. 9 of the psalm) in place of “your faithful servant” (v. 27, lit. “holy one”). The messianic reference of Psalm 16 was Peter’s second assumption: it was the Christ who was not abandoned to the grave and whose body did not see decay (v. 31; cf. 13:35). Notice that the tense of the verbs has also been changed. They are now in the past (the Gk. aorist), because from Peter’s standpoint they spoke of something that had already happened. There is no evidence that Psalm 16:10 (unlike 16:9) ever received a messianic interpretation in Judaism in the first century A.D. or earlier.
2:32–33 The prophecy of Psalm 16 had been fulfilled; God had raised this Jesus from the dead (v. 32), as Peter and the others could affirm (lit. “Jesus, of whom we are witnesses”; see note on 4:10). Jesus was therefore shown to be the Messiah. But the story did not end there. Resurrection was followed by ascension. This is the reference of verse 33, though the dative case of the Greek should perhaps be rendered “with the right hand of God” (as NEB), not to the right hand, in a possible allusion (Luke’s, not Peter’s) to LXX Psalm 117:16 (118:16), “the right hand of the Lord has exalted me,” the same verb as in this verse. But the point remains that Jesus had been exalted to a place of power and authority, marked by his receiving from the Father the promised Holy Spirit to give to human beings (v. 33). There may be yet another allusion to the Psalms in these words, this time to the version of Psalm 68:18 quoted by Paul (Eph. 4:8): “When he ascended on high, he … gave gifts to men.” For Peter declared that what they now saw and heard was Jesus’ gift poured out on his people (v. 33). Significantly, in the quotation from Joel it was God who would pour out his Spirit (v. 17), but now Jesus acted on God’s behalf. He had become the divine executor.
2:34–36 Thus Peter’s proclamation was of Jesus as Lord. Confirmation of this was found in Psalm 110:1, which Jesus himself had cited (Luke 20:41–44). This psalm was first addressed to a king on his accession, expressing the importance of his role in the theocracy. But, as Jesus’ use of it shows, it was by his time widely accepted as written by David of the Messiah—the Lord (Gk. kyrios) to whom the Lord (i.e., God; Gk. kyrios) addressed the invitation: Sit at my right hand (v. 34). And since Jesus (whom they had crucified! see note on 4:10) was the Messiah, it was he who now sat with God in the heavenly world (cf. Eph. 1:20) as both Lord and Christ (v. 36; see note on 11:20). In terms of the quotation, the Lord must be interpreted only as a title of honor, not yet as an ascription of deity, though it may not have been far from Peter’s thought that this “Lord” was indeed “the Lord.”
2:37–38 On hearing this, the people … were cut to the heart (v. 37). Some of them may have been implicated in Jesus’ death, if only by giving their tacit approval to the action taken by others; and now the sting of Peter’s words took effect—“this Jesus, whom you crucified” (v. 36). They had crucified the Lord! They begged, therefore, Brothers, what shall we do? and were told, Repent … every one of you—literally, “Change your mind,” but in biblical usage this implies a change in one’s whole style of life (see disc. on 3:19; cf. 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20)—and be baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ (v. 38). Baptism was the sign of repentance and (on God’s part) of the forgiveness of sins (cf. 5:31; 10:43; 13:38f.; 26:18; see disc. on 3:19) and the gift of his Spirit (see notes on 2:2ff. and disc. on 18:25 and 19:4 for the baptism of John, which only anticipated these things). The distinctions of number in the Greek verbs are significant in this connection. The call to repentance and baptism—the individual’s response to God’s grace—is in the singular, but the promise, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38), is in the plural, for the Spirit is given to the community of which the individual becomes a part (see notes on v. 4). The rite of baptism was administered in the name of Jesus Christ (v. 38), where in represents the Greek preposition epi, “upon,” and the name means “the person.” That is to say, Jesus Christ and faith in him were the basis upon which this baptism was offered and the promise attached to it was made. This ties in with the evidence that at baptism it was the custom to make a confession of Jesus as Lord (see disc. on 11:17; 16:31; cf. 8:37; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11).
2:39 What a wonder of grace is evident here, in that the promise of the previous verse was made to the very people who not long before had invoked the blood of Jesus upon themselves and their children (Matt. 27:25). But it was also made to those whom Peter described as far off. It is unlikely, however, that the apostle intended to include the Gentiles in this statement. More likely it was a reference to the Jews of the Diaspora. Had he meant otherwise, we might have expected a specific mention of the Gentiles, as in 22:21. It is true there is an analogous phrase in Ephesians 2:13, 17 (cf. Isa. 57:19; also Isa. 2:2; 5:26; Zech. 6:15), where the reference is to the Gentiles, but we must not look in Peter’s first public address for the wider vision that Paul later had. For Peter it was still a matter of our God in the narrow sense of Jewish nationalism, and even the reference in 3:26 to Jesus being sent “first” to the Jews does not necessarily imply “then to the Gentiles also” in the Pauline sense, but only the long-cherished hope that in the new age the Gentiles would flock to Mount Zion to join in the worship of God (see, e.g., Ps. 22:27; Isa. 2:2f.; 56:6–8; Zeph. 3:9f.; Zech. 14:16; Psalms of Solomon 17:33–35; Sibylline Oracles 3.702–28, 772–76). That Peter had not yet grasped the full scope of the good news is evident from chapter 10 (see esp. the disc. on 10:9ff.; cf. 5:31). The last line of verse 39 is an allusion to Joel 2:32, thus completing and complementing the earlier quotation, for none can call on the name of the Lord (as v. 21) except the Lord calls first. The initiative in salvation is always with God. Even repentance and faith are his gifts (5:31; 11:18).
2:40 Much more was said by Peter, of which Luke has given us only the general thrust: Save yourselves from this corrupt generation. The corrupt generation were the Jews, in consequence of their rejection of Jesus. The sense of the verb in he warned them is to testify to the truth while protesting against false views that stood in the way of accepting it (cf. 8:25; 10:42; 18:5; 20:21, 24; 23:11; 28:23). The second verb, he pleaded, is in a tense (the imperfect) that implies that Peter made repeated appeals.
2:41 The outcome was that many accepted his message and were baptized. When and where these baptisms took place Luke does not say. There may well have been some lapse of time in which further instruction was given. But effectively about three thousand people were added that day to the church. The full truth behind this statement, namely, that it was the Lord who added them, is expressed in verse 47 (cf. v. 39; 5:14; 11:24). The number is only an approximation (about; see disc. on 1:15), but we need not doubt that it was something of that order. Many of these people must have been familiar with Jesus, and it may only have needed what they had now seen and heard to persuade them that he was indeed the Christ (cf. John 4:35–38). Among the converts there were, no doubt, Jews of the Diaspora, some of whom may subsequently have formed the nuclei of churches in their own lands. Others may have stayed in Jerusalem to swell the ranks and strain the resources of the infant church (see disc. on vv. 44f.).
Additional Notes
2:15 These men are not drunk.… It’s only nine in the morning! lit., “the third hour.” Wine was generally drunk by the Jews only with meat, and if they ate meat at all, it was only at the end of the day (cf. Exod. 16:8). Normally, then, they took no wine until evening. This, of course, may not have held good in every case (cf. Eccles. 10:16f.), but in this case Peter denied that they had broken with custom. His argument probably rests on nothing more than that the hour of the day was too early for drinking, though some have suggested that he may have had in mind more specifically the hour of prayer, before which pious Jews would not eat, much less drink; on festivals such as this they would avoid both food and drink until midday. The weight of evidence suggests, however, that the morning sacrifice, and consequently the morning prayer, was at sunrise (the first hour), so that Peter can hardly have been referring to it (see disc. on 3:1).
2:17–20 In the last days … before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord: Time, for the Jews, was characteristically divided into two ages, this age and the age to come, and the reference in Joel is to the point of transition between them. The age to come was the age of God’s kingdom (see notes on 1:3), and Peter says (as Jesus had taught) that it had indeed come. The gift of God’s Spirit, like the resurrection of Jesus and much else besides in his life and work, was a sign of its coming—a token that salvation, which to the Jew had always belonged to the future, was now to be had in the present (see disc. on 5:32). But the distinction between the two ages proved not to be as clear-cut as the Jews had envisioned. This age was still a present reality, and the new age was not fully come. Neither, then, was the work of salvation finished; nor could it be until the transition from this age to the next was completed at Jesus’ return (cf. 3:19ff.). By citing the whole passage from Joel, Peter may in fact have been moving from Pentecost to the Parousia, with the suggestion that just as the Spirit was a sign of the new age, so was he also a pledge of its consummation (cf. 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:14; see disc. on 1:10f.).
I will pour out my Spirit (v. 17), lit., as in the LXX, “I will pour out of my Spirit” (the Hebrew is simply, “I will pour out my Spirit”): The thought of the Greek may be that God’s Spirit remains with him and we can only receive a part, not the whole. Or the intention may be to direct our attention to the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts and operations, the whole of which we can never see (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 12:14ff.; 1 Pet. 4:10).
Wonders in the heaven above … blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood (vv. 19, 20): Nature is often represented in Scripture as expressing sympathy with the acts of God (e.g., Isa. 13:10, 13; 34:4, 5), and it is difficult to know in every case how literally such statements should be taken, though for the most part they are simply a means of drawing attention to God’s dealings with human beings. It is a kind of metaphor that is found in the poets of many nations.
2:22 Miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him: Though all three terms refer to miracles, they are by no means synonymous. The first is lit., “powers” (Gk. dynamis). Luke is fond of using this word of the inherent power of Jesus (10:38; cf. Luke 1:35; 4:14, 36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:46), so the plural is aptly applied to the outward manifestation of this power, whether in Christ himself, as in this reference (cf. Luke 10:13), or through his disciples (cf. 8:13; 19:11; see disc. on 1:8). The second word, wonders (Gk. teras), was that most commonly used of miracles by nonbiblical writers, meaning an abnormal occurrence portending the approach of some event of special importance. It is noteworthy that it is always found in the New Testament in conjunction with the third word in our text, signs (e.g., 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12), as indicating that only significant portents are meant—those that point to God’s presence (see Dunn, Jesus, p. 163). On three occasions (4:16, 22; 8:6) the term “sign” (Gk. sēmeion) occurs without any other accompanying word for miracle, very like the usage in John (see F. L. Cribbs, Perspectives, pp. 50ff.).
As you yourselves know: The criticism has sometimes been leveled at the speeches of Acts that they contain little factual material about the life of Jesus. But one would hardly expect it—in the early speeches at least. Many of the people addressed would have been familiar with the facts of Jesus’ life, as evidenced by this statement. This criticism could be made with greatest effect of the later speeches, but in any case it must be kept in mind that Luke aimed to give no more than an outline of what was said on any occasion, and he could always assume that his readers had read the first volume (the Gospel) and were familiar with the details of Jesus’ life. The statement of this verse, taken literally as a reference to miracles done by Jesus in Jerusalem and Judea, supports the tradition preserved in John’s Gospel of such a ministry (cf. John 2:23; 3:2; 5:1–9; 7:31; 9:1–12; 11:38–47).
2:34–35 Psalm 110:1 is quoted several times elsewhere (Matt. 22:43ff. and parallels; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13; 10:13) and is often alluded to (7:55, where Jesus stands rather than sits; Mark 14:62; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20, 22; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). C. H. Dodd’s conclusion is undoubtedly justified, therefore, that “this particular verse was one of the fundamental texts of the kerygma, underlying almost all the various developments of it” (According to the Scriptures, p. 35). The argument in Acts 2:34f. is strictly parallel to the earlier argument involving the use of Psalm 16:8–11. It was assumed that the psalm was messianic. It could not have applied to David, for it said, sit at my right hand, and David had not ascended to heaven. But Jesus had, and so the psalm was fulfilled in him. He could properly be styled “Lord.”
2:38 Be baptized, … in the name of Jesus Christ: The name of Jesus signifies his person, his power, and in a sense, his presence. When the believers spoke the name of Jesus, they believed that he was personally involved in what was happening, working through them as his agents. Thus in his name the sick were healed (3:6, 16; 4:7, 10), miracles took place (4:30), demons were exorcised (19:13), sins forgiven (10:43). Salvation was dependent on his name (4:12); the disciples taught and preached in his name (4:17f.; 5:28, 40; 8:12; 9:15, 27, 29). People called upon his name (2:21; 9:14; 22:16), gave praise to his name (19:17), suffered for his name (5:41; 9:16; 15:26; 21:13), and were baptized in his name (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5).
That baptism was administered in the name of Jesus does not necessarily call into question the trinitarian formula of Matt. 28:19. It only means that as the church was called to be Christ’s, so in mentioning the rite by which its members gained entrance his name was especially prominent. It was belief in him as the Christ that constituted the ground of their admission (cf. Matt. 16:16).
You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit: The demands and promises of this verse may be implied, even when not expressed, in all the preaching of Acts. This is, for example, the only speech that ends with the offer of God’s gift, the Holy Spirit, but it can hardly be doubted that this gift was intended for all who at any time turned away from their sins and believed.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by David J. Williams, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:34), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.
The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).
Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).
The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).
During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).
Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).
The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.
Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:15). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.
On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.
Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.
All the Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.
During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).
The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (6:48–49).
In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).
Passion week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.).
Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD.
As for the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion, the OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).
Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).
Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.
Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1John 3:16).
The second king of Israel (r. 1010970 BC), founder of a dynasty that continued with his son Solomon (r. 970–931 BC), who ruled all of Israel; subsequently the remaining “sons of David” ruled the southern kingdom, Judah, until 586 BC.
Human kingship is a late development in Israel, but a number of ancient texts anticipate the establishment of the institution (Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20) and specifically the rise of a king from Judah (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:17). Thus, it is surprising that the first king of Israel is not from Judah, but from Benjamin. When the people ask Samuel for a king, he anoints Saul (1Sam. 8–12), who proves to be a tremendous disappointment. He forfeits the establishment of his dynasty when he shows a lack of confidence in God by rashly offering prebattle sacrifices (13:13–14). God then rejects Saul as king because he does not execute God’s full judgment against the Amalekites as he knows he should (15:23).
Eventually Saul’s moment of judgment comes. Saul’s final battle is against the Philistines, the major foreign force still inside the borders of the promised land. Both Saul and Jonathan meet their end on Mount Gilboa, and David sings songs that express his sadness over their deaths (1Sam. 31–2Sam. 1).
Even with Saul out of the way, David’s rise to kingship is not easy. He is immediately crowned king of Judah (2Sam. 2:1–7), but the northern tribes choose to follow Ish-Bosheth, the son of Saul. War erupts between the two kingdoms. Eventually, though, the powerful general Abner abandons his support of Saul’s son, sealing the end of that dynasty. Ish-Bosheth is killed by his own men, and soon David becomes king over all Israel (5:1–5).
David’s kingship leads to significant victories that, in essence, complete the conquest of Canaan by finally subduing all the internal enemies. His men take the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and he makes it his capital (2Sam. 5:6–16). He also defeats the Philistines, who have been a thorn in the side of Israel for years (2Sam. 5:17–25; for other victories, see 8:1–14). In celebration, David brings the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2Sam. 6).
The David narrative reaches its apex when God enters into a covenant with him that establishes his dynasty (2Sam. 7; 1Chron. 17). After David dies, his son will succeed him, and indeed his dynasty lasts for many hundreds of years (see below).
David is a good king, but not a perfect king. A turning point in his reign comes in 2Sam. 11. Up to this point, David has been content with what God has given him. He does not grasp for anything that does not belong to him. However, when he sees the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he sends messengers to bring her to his house, where the two have sexual intercourse and she becomes pregnant. In an attempt to conceal this sin of adultery, he orders the death of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Thus, he adds the crime of murder to that of adultery.
David thinks that the sin is secret, but nothing is hidden from God, who sends his prophet Nathan to confront David (2Sam. 12; cf. Ps. 51). The difference between Saul and David is not that the latter is perfect but rather that David, as opposed to Saul, repents when he sins. Thus, God allows his reign to continue. Even so, David feels the consequences of his sin. First, the son that Bathsheba bears from her illicit union with David is struck with illness and dies. And ever afterward, David’s family life is troubled, with great impact on the political life of Israel. Son is pitted against son (Amnon and Absalom [2Sam. 13]), as well as son against father (Absalom and David [2Sam. 15–18]). Absalom temporarily deposes his father from the throne, but David eventually regains the kingship, though at the cost of the heartbreaking loss of his son.
Even at the very end, there is conflict within David’s house. When David has grown old, another son, Adonijah, attempts to take the throne, with support from powerful people such as Joab and Abiathar. At the instigation of Bathsheba and Nathan, however, David places the son of his choosing, Solomon, on the throne (1Kings 1). David then dies after a reign of forty-one years, seven in Hebron and the rest over all Israel (1Kings 2:10–12).
David’s greatest legacy is the dynasty that bears his name. Beginning with Solomon, however, his successors do not continue his spiritual legacy. Although a number of kings do some good, only Hezekiah (r. 727–698 BC) and Josiah (r. 639–609 BC) are given unqualified approval. Eventually, the Davidic rule comes to an end in Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians (586 BC). But God is not done with his redemptive purposes, and his promise to David is that he will have a ruler on the throne “forever” (2Sam. 7:16). The NT recognizes that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. He is the greater son of David, the one who is the Christ or Messiah, the anointed king. Jesus is the one who reigns forever in heaven. The life and the rule of David foreshadow the messianic rule of Jesus Christ.
The “day of the Lord” is used to refer to the coming time when God will intervene powerfully and decisively in human history to bring about his promised plan.
Included in this “day” are several significant prophetic actions by God. First, the imminent judgments on Israel and Judah by the hand of the Assyrians and the Babylonians are included in the “day of the Lord” (Isa. 3:184:1; Amos 5:18–20). Likewise, merged into the “day of the Lord” is God’s judgment on the foreign nations that conspired against Israel and Judah (Isa. 13:1–22; Obad. 15). Finally, the prophets will use the phrase “day of the Lord” to refer to that time of glorious future restoration and blessing that God will establish for both Israel/Judah and for the nations (Isa. 11:10–12; Joel 3:14–18). In this final context the “day of the Lord” is often tightly interconnected with the messianic promise.
In the NT, the phrase “day of the Lord” (Gk. hēmera tou kyriou) is used in much the same manner as in the OT. Some aspects of the day of the Lord were clearly fulfilled by the first coming of Christ. For example, the OT prophet Joel prophesies that on the day of the Lord, God will pour out his Spirit on all kinds of people (Joel 2:28–31), a prophecy that found fulfillment on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21). So the OT messianic prophecies connected to the day of the Lord sometimes find fulfillment in events surrounding Christ’s first coming (as seen in the NT), while some await his future, second coming.
Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:1213).
Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).
For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1Sam. 26:19; 2Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:617). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
There are seven references in the OT to “footstool,” only one of which is literal (2Chron. 9:18); the other six are variously figurative. In 1Chron. 28:2 the ark of the covenant is apparently referred to as God’s footstool (though this imagery clashes somewhat with other texts that seem to regard the ark as the seat of his throne). Psalm 99:5 commands worship at God’s footstool, perhaps referring to the temple (so also Ps. 132:7; Lam. 2:1). In Isa. 66:1 God declares that the earth is his footstool (seeing the universe as his temple). In Ps. 110:1 God tells the anointed king that he will make his enemies “a footstool for your feet.” Paintings from ancient Egypt depict Pharaoh’s footstool adorned with carvings of conquered enemies, and correspondence from both Egypt and Mesopotamia indicates that vassals referred to themselves as the king’s footstool.
In the NT, all the references to “footstool” are quotations of, or allusions to, the aforementioned OT passages (Matt. 5:35; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; 7:49; Heb. 1:13; 10:13).
In systematic theology, “foreknowledge” usually refers to the doctrine that God knows all things, events, and persons before they exist or occur and that this knowledge has been his from all eternity. No single Hebrew term in the OT corresponds to the English term; the concept is expressed rather on the phrase or sentence level. In the NT, the Greek verb proginōskō and noun prognōsis are translated “foreknow” and “foreknowledge,” respectively. Recently in evangelical circles there has been intense debate as to whether foreknowledge and omniscience are in fact taught in the biblical texts.
Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.
Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).
Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.
Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.
Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1124). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but, because of God’s nature and mercy, sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.
Literally, fruit is the seed-bearing part of a plant. It constitutes an important part of the diet in the ancient Near East. Common fruits are olives, grapes, and figs, though many other varieties of fruit are also available, including apples, apricots, peaches, pomegranates, dates, and melons. Fruit trees play a prominent role as a food source in God’s creation and preparation of the garden of Eden (Gen. 13). The law prohibits the Israelites from cutting down their enemy’s fruit trees (Deut. 20:19). The abundance of fruit trees characterizes the land that God has prepared for Israel (Deut. 8:8; Neh. 9:25) as well as the final restoration (Ezek. 47:12; Joel 2:22; Rev. 22:2).
One aspect of fruit is that it grows from a plant. This use of the term is often extended to represent what emerges from something else. Thus, fruit may represent offspring, whether human or animal (Deut. 7:13; 28:4), one’s actions (Matt. 7:16–20), the result of one’s actions or choices (Prov. 1:31; 10:16; Jer. 17:10), or words coming from one’s mouth (Prov. 12:14; Heb. 13:15). In the NT especially, producing much fruit symbolizes performing deeds that are pleasing to God (Matt. 3:8; 13:23; Mark 4:20; John 15:16; Rom. 7:4; Col. 1:10). Those who live by the Spirit produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). The apostle Paul speaks of the first converts in a particular region as being firstfruits, probably referring to their conversion as the result of the gospel being preached in the area (Rom. 16:5; 2Thess. 2:13).
A transliteration of the Greek word referring to the place of the dead. In addition to referring to the place of the dead, the term sometimes is used to signify death itself.
The Greek word hadēs is used ten times in the NT, and English translations vary in their rendering of the term. For example, the NIV translates it as “Hades” (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:1314) or “the realm of the dead” (Acts 2:27, 31). It is occasionally used in conjunction with the idea of a place of punishment or torment (Luke 16:23), though the NT more frequently uses the Greek word geenna (a transliteration of Aramaic) when indicating future punishment in the afterlife. It is much more common to find hadēs associated with death, such as the four occasions in Revelation where the two concepts are linked together (1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14).
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.
Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.
Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.
The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).
It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.
Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.
The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2Cor. 12:24, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.
Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1Thess. 4:14).
The place where the lost are assigned by God to eternal punishment of both body and soul (Matt. 10:28). This agony of eternal torment in hell is the greatest of all possible tragedies.
This topic of the afterlife unfolded only gradually in Scripture. “Gehenna” originally referred to the Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, the location of the notorious sacrificial offerings of children by fire to the god Molek by Ahaz (2Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (2Chron. 33:6). Later, the meaning of this term was extended to the place of fiery punishment in general. Still later, the geographic location of this place of punishment was shifted to under the earth, but the idea of fiery torment continued. By NT times, the Pharisees clearly believed in the punishment of the wicked in the afterlife.
It is primarily in the teachings of Jesus that the reality of a place of eternal punishment comes into clear focus. Jesus describes hell as involving unquenchable fire (Matt. 18:89; Mark 9:42–43, 48), a place where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48). Jesus also pictures the extreme anguish of those who suffer the ultimate punishment of being “thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12).
The idea of a severe eternal punishment for the lost is also taught by the apostles. At the return of Christ, those living outside a proper relationship with God will experience sudden destruction (1Thess. 5:3) when the angels will come “in blazing fire” and “punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2Thess. 1:6–9). The author of Hebrews speaks of the “fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (Heb. 10:27). Revelation describes how “the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever” (Rev. 14:11), and how the ungodly will be cast into “the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (21:8).
Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).
With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).
God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).
A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).
While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.
The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).
The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).
God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.
For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.
The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.
The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:1315). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life.
Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor. 3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).
At times simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:58; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).
In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1Cor. 13:13).
The designation “Israelites” signifies the nation of Israel, which can be traced back to the children of Jacob (Gen. 46:8; cf. Exod. 1:9; Num. 1:45). To distinguish themselves from foreigners, Israelites called themselves ’ibrim, “Hebrews” (Gen. 43:32; Exod. 10:3). During the period of the divided kingdom, the name “Israelites” was used to refer to the Ephraimites (2Kings 17:6; 18:11); during the Second Temple period, it took on a religious orientation (Sir. 46:10; 47:2; Jdt. 4:11; 2Macc. 1:2526). In the NT, true Israelites are not necessarily those descended from Israel or Abraham but rather those who trust in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (Rom. 9:4–8; Gal. 4:21–31; cf. Rev. 21:12).
The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.
The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:115; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).
Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.
Joel is the second of the twelve Minor Prophets. The book is best known for its frightening depiction of God’s judgment in the form of a locust plague and the stirring description of that future day when God will pour his Spirit out on all people (2:2832).
Joel is a collection of prophetic oracles. Like most prophetic books, the book has both judgment and salvation oracles, although there are more salvation oracles than usual. The first chapter describes an actual locust plague that Joel understands to be a judgment on the people of God. The second chapter also speaks of a locust plague, but this time the locusts are a metaphor for future devastation by a human army. On this basis, Joel calls for the people’s repentance and also places before the people a picture of God’s future salvation, which includes judgment on the other nations.
Joel uses a recent locust plague to paint a picture of the devastation of a coming day of judgment, referred to here and elsewhere in the prophets as the “day of the Lord” (2:1; see also Amos 5:18–20). This vivid and horrifying teaching on judgment is intended not simply to frighten readers but also to encourage their repentance. As frightening as Joel’s language about judgment seems, his language of future salvation is encouraging to an even greater degree.
In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 1923) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.
More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.
The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”
In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1Sam. 16:1 13; 2Sam. 2:4, 7).
The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.
The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v.7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v.2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v.8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v.9; see NIV footnote). Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.
Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).
In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.
Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arranged and sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3), miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanical universe. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed to overcome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of the existence of God (Mark 8:11 12). Still less are they clever conjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can be otherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in his infinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things to call attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinely ordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence of his glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptive history.
In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are found in greater number during times of great redemptive significance, such as the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performed also during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of the ninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of these eras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God over pagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1Kings 18:20–40).
In the NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantly they attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) and the saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the Synoptic Gospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and the conquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30; Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiah of OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preference for the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured around them (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesus performed were such that only the one who stood in a unique relationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.
Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naive credulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, false prophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernment and not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).
The relationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward as sometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nor does faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended to bring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), but not all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesus regarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious (Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than no faith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find its grounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.
It is also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in those who came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberately limited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5), many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could not exercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke 14:1–4).
The fact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, his opponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Arguments about his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles but to the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).
The ancient Jewish calendar was tied to the phases of the moon, with the months beginning with each new moon. The new moon was celebrated with multiple offerings (Num. 28:1115). Festival days were calculated from the new moon.
The moon figures prominently in prophecy. At the day of the Lord, the sun and the moon will be darkened (e.g., Joel 2:10). While most ancient Near Eastern cultures worshiped the moon, Israel was forbidden such worship (Deut. 4:19).
The account of the moon’s creation recorded in Gen. 1:16 does not mention the moon by name. This is in keeping with the general tone of the creation story, wherein God, almost incidentally, creates the things that were worshiped by contemporary cultures.
In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in the extreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, the birthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2Kings 14:25), and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not far was the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt and ultimately the trading network that linked India, China, central Asia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The community, whose population may have averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture. Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, and wine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oil storage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazareth appears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the second centuries BC, until it was resettled during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of army veterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was a descendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible (Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arab city in Israel.
Although Jesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and his followers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John 18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ family continued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene” probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’ origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in the OT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name “Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription in Caesarea Maritima.
The male head of a family. The OT describes the Israelite nation as an extended family descended from a line of common ancestors, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called “Israel” [see Gen. 32:28]). Each of Jacob’s sons (or his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh) traditionally gave his name to one of the tribes that made up the Israelite people. The NT applies the term “patriarch” to individuals of the generations from Abraham (Heb. 7:4) to his twelve great-grandsons (Acts 7:8) and, in one case, to the tenth-century king David (Acts 2:29). In the OT the term “patriarch” is not used, though the concept of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as national fathers is frequently expressed, as in Exod. 3:15, which refers to Israel’s God as “the Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’ twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock” in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John 1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, God was able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishment of the NT church.
A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:4448; 1Cor. 15:3–8).
Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.
The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.
Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.
In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1Cor. 15:48–57; 2Cor. 4:14; 1Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1John 1:9).
A word used in the KJV to describe the removal of the guilt or penalty of sin acquired through belief in Christ (Acts 10:43) and effected through his shed blood (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22), bringing about salvation (Luke 1:77).
The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit in this is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a complete turnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning from idols—anything that wrests away the affection that we owe God—to God (1Sam. 7:3; 2Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6; 1Thess. 1:9; James 4:810).
Christ’s resurrection is the foundational event for the Christian faith. Paul goes so far as to say that if Christ did not rise, then the Christian faith is futile and Christians are to be pitied more than all others (1Cor. 15:1719). Resurrection’s climaxing position in all four Gospel narratives yields the same understanding. Christ came not merely to die, as some claim, but to conquer death. Resurrection gives everything that Christ did before his death an “of God” significance, and it establishes everything that follows as a guarantee of God’s eschatological promises. Without the resurrection, Jesus would have been just another “prophet hopeful” who died a tragic peasant death in Jerusalem. However, as it is, evidenced by the resurrection, he is the Son of God. According to the NT, the resurrection is the triumphant cry that God indeed did come to visit his creation and conquer the power of sin and death.
Although the Gospels’ presentations of Jesus’ resurrection vary in some detail (probably due to purpose and audience), all of them treat the event as the theological centerpiece of the Gospel narrative. The resurrection story launches God’s eschatological work and opens the door, as the postresurrection appearances show, for a connection between the Jesus story and the church story. It is the foundation both for the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) and for Pentecost (Luke 24:49). All people of all nations can now meet the living Christ.
“Salvation” is the broadest term used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.
In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:57; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).
Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).
But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins.
The way the word “soul” is used in English does not align well with any single Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible. It is widely accepted that the biblical view (both OT and NT) of humanity does not recognize sharp boundaries between body and soul (bipartite anthropology) or between body, soul, and spirit (tripartite). The human being is, according to biblical teaching, a psychosomatic unity.
In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.
The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.
The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).
The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).
According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).
Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:2833; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).
The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.
While in the OT suffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev. 26:1636; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25; cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by which blessing comes to humanity.
The Bible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17; 6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18; 1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assume that he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4, 20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in the final chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friends for their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writer makes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness. Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume that blindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesus rejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3, 6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
The NT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in the OT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps. 22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presented as the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation, God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the price for sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set free from sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18). (3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom. 8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet. 2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13), and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to suffer as his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provides hope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil. 3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev. 21:4).
The NT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it has become part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering of believers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel (Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11; 6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16; 2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb. 10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), and the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of the development toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor. 4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Suffering is associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal (2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness, sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10); comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8); blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor. 4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James 1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christian suffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character and hope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity and completeness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentary when compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7; 4:12–13).
Throughout the Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OT law provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10, 35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesus regularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3; 19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’ responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom. 12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom. 12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visit prisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
The sun was worshiped as a god or goddess in all the nations around Israel in OT times, and the polemic against sun worship in Deut. 4:19; 17:3; Jer. 8:2; Job 31:2628 suggests that sun worship also made inroads into Israel. By way of contrast, the OT attests to the sun’s created status (Gen. 1:16) and counts it as subject to God’s control (e.g., Josh. 10:12–13).
In the OT, the sun often is associated with and symbolic of life (e.g., Eccles. 7:11; cf. Ps. 58:8) or justice (Ps. 19:6; Job 38:13; Mal. 4:2; cf. 2Sam. 23:3–4). The darkening of the sun is presented as a sign of judgment heralding the day of the Lord (Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24; Rev. 6:12; 9:2), which many associate with the darkness that fell during the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:1617; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).
The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.
The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).
The Bible has much to say about works, and an understanding of the topic is important because works play a role in most religions. In the most generic sense, “works” refers to the products or activities of human moral agents in the context of religious discussion. God’s works are frequently mentioned in Scripture, and they are always good. His works include creation (Gen. 2:23; Isa. 40:28; 42:5), sustenance of the earth (Ps. 104; Heb. 1:3), and redemption (Exod. 6:6; Ps. 111:9; Rom. 8:23). Human works, therefore, should be in alignment with God’s works, though obviously of a different sort. Works in the Bible usually reflect a moral polarity: good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, just or unjust. The context of the passage often determines the moral character of the works (e.g., Isa. 3:10–11; 2Cor. 11:15).
Important questions follow from the existence of works and their moral quality. Do good works merit God’s favor or please him? Can good works save at the time of God’s judgment? When people asked Jesus, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” he answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:28–29). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). The people from the OT commended in Heb. 11 did their works in the precondition of faith. Explicitly in the NT and often implicitly in the OT, faith is the condition for truly good works. God elects out of his mercy, not out of human works (Rom. 9:12, 16; Titus 3:5; cf. Rom. 11:2). Works not done in faith, even if considered “good” by human standards, are not commendable to God, since all humankind is under sin (Rom. 3:9) and no person is righteous or does good (Rom. 3:10–18; cf. Isa. 64:6). Works cannot save; salvation is a gift to be received by faith (Eph. 2:8–9; 2Tim. 1:9; cf. Rom. 4:2–6). Even works of the Mosaic law are not salvific (Rom. 3:20, 27–28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2; 5:4). Good works follow from faith (2Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; 1Thess. 1:3; James 2:18, 22; cf. Acts 26:20). The works of those who have faith will be judged, but this judgment appears to be related to rewards, not salvation (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:10; 1Cor. 3:13–15).
Direct Matches
The “day of the Lord” is a phrase used frequentlyby the OT prophets as well as by several NT writers. In general, itis used to refer to the coming time when God will intervenepowerfully and decisively in human history to bring about hispromised plan.
TheOT prophets also use other similar phrases such as “the day,”“the day when,” and “that day” to mean thesame thing as the “day of the Lord” (Heb. yom yhwh). Inregard to the future, the prophets speak regularly of imminentjudgment and future restoration, both for Israel/Judah and for thenations. Some of their prophecies find fulfillment after only a fewmonths or years (the Assyrian and Babylonian invasion), and some oftheir prophecies are fulfilled generations later by the return of theexiles under Ezra and Nehemiah. Some are fulfilled by the firstcoming of Christ, and some still await fulfillment. In poeticfashion, the OT prophets often telescope all the multifacetedsignificant prophetic events of the future into one spectaculardramatic time called “the day of the Lord.”
Includedin this “day” are several significant prophetic actionsby God. First, the imminent judgments on Israel and Judah by the handof the Assyrians and the Babylonians are included in the “dayof the Lord” (Isa. 3:18–4:1; Amos 5:18–20).Likewise, merged into the “day of the Lord” is God’sjudgment on the foreign nations that conspired against Israel andJudah (Isa. 13:1–22; Obad. 15). Finally, the prophets will usethe phrase “day of the Lord” to refer to that time ofglorious future restoration and blessing that God will establish forboth Israel/Judah and for the nations (Isa. 11:10–12; Joel3:14–18). In this final context the “day of the Lord”is often tightly interconnected with the messianic promise.
Inthe NT, the phrase “day of the Lord” (Gk. hēmera toukyriou) is used in much the same manner as in the OT. Some aspects ofthe day of the Lord were clearly fulfilled by the first coming ofChrist. For example, the OT prophet Joel prophesies that on the dayof the Lord, God will pour out his Spirit on all kinds of people(Joel 2:28–31), a prophecy that found fulfillment on the day ofPentecost (Acts 2:17–21). So the OT messianic propheciesconnected to the day of the Lord sometimes find fulfillment in eventssurrounding Christ’s first coming (as seen in the NT), whilesome await his future, second coming.
TheNT writers often employ this important phrase from the OT, but theyuse it primarily to refer specifically to the future, second comingof Christ (1Cor. 5:5; 1Thess. 5:2; 2Thess. 2:2;2Pet. 3:10, 12). Just as the OT uses synonyms for the “dayof the Lord,” the NT uses terms such as “that day,”“those days,” “the great day,” or “theday of our Lord Jesus Christ” as synonyms for the “day ofthe Lord,” the time of Christ’s glorious return (e.g.,Mark 13:24; 1Cor. 1:8; Rev. 6:17; 16:14).
The “day of the Lord” is a phrase used frequentlyby the OT prophets as well as by several NT writers. In general, itis used to refer to the coming time when God will intervenepowerfully and decisively in human history to bring about hispromised plan.
TheOT prophets also use other similar phrases such as “the day,”“the day when,” and “that day” to mean thesame thing as the “day of the Lord” (Heb. yom yhwh). Inregard to the future, the prophets speak regularly of imminentjudgment and future restoration, both for Israel/Judah and for thenations. Some of their prophecies find fulfillment after only a fewmonths or years (the Assyrian and Babylonian invasion), and some oftheir prophecies are fulfilled generations later by the return of theexiles under Ezra and Nehemiah. Some are fulfilled by the firstcoming of Christ, and some still await fulfillment. In poeticfashion, the OT prophets often telescope all the multifacetedsignificant prophetic events of the future into one spectaculardramatic time called “the day of the Lord.”
Includedin this “day” are several significant prophetic actionsby God. First, the imminent judgments on Israel and Judah by the handof the Assyrians and the Babylonians are included in the “dayof the Lord” (Isa. 3:18–4:1; Amos 5:18–20).Likewise, merged into the “day of the Lord” is God’sjudgment on the foreign nations that conspired against Israel andJudah (Isa. 13:1–22; Obad. 15). Finally, the prophets will usethe phrase “day of the Lord” to refer to that time ofglorious future restoration and blessing that God will establish forboth Israel/Judah and for the nations (Isa. 11:10–12; Joel3:14–18). In this final context the “day of the Lord”is often tightly interconnected with the messianic promise.
Inthe NT, the phrase “day of the Lord” (Gk. hēmera toukyriou) is used in much the same manner as in the OT. Some aspects ofthe day of the Lord were clearly fulfilled by the first coming ofChrist. For example, the OT prophet Joel prophesies that on the dayof the Lord, God will pour out his Spirit on all kinds of people(Joel 2:28–31), a prophecy that found fulfillment on the day ofPentecost (Acts 2:17–21). So the OT messianic propheciesconnected to the day of the Lord sometimes find fulfillment in eventssurrounding Christ’s first coming (as seen in the NT), whilesome await his future, second coming.
TheNT writers often employ this important phrase from the OT, but theyuse it primarily to refer specifically to the future, second comingof Christ (1Cor. 5:5; 1Thess. 5:2; 2Thess. 2:2;2Pet. 3:10, 12). Just as the OT uses synonyms for the “dayof the Lord,” the NT uses terms such as “that day,”“those days,” “the great day,” or “theday of our Lord Jesus Christ” as synonyms for the “day ofthe Lord,” the time of Christ’s glorious return (e.g.,Mark 13:24; 1Cor. 1:8; Rev. 6:17; 16:14).
In the ancient world, dreams often were considered to be ameans by which God communicated to humans. The Bible has severalwell-known examples where God speaks in dreams to both Israelites andnon-Israelites.
InGen. 20 Abimelek, king of Gerar, is warned by God in a dream not totake Sarah, Abraham’s wife, as his wife. In the dream, Abimelekpleads his clear conscience, and God tells him to return Sarah toAbraham.
Godalso speaks to non-Israelites in dreams in the Joseph story. First,Joseph is imprisoned with the royal cupbearer and baker (Gen. 40).Each man has a dream about his future and is disturbed that he cannotinterpret it. Joseph, declaring that the interpretation of dreamsbelongs to God, tells the cupbearer that his dream is a sign that hewill soon be restored to his place of favor in Pharaoh’s court.The baker’s dream, although superficially similar, is a signthat he will soon be executed. Both interpretations come true soonafterward.
Twoyears later, when Pharaoh has a dream that troubles him greatly,Joseph interprets it as a sign of coming famine (Gen. 41). Joseph’sGod-given ability to interpret dreams and his administrative skillkeep Egypt from starving to death, which opens political doors forJoseph and paves the way for his entire family to move to Egypt.
Twoother dreams occur in Genesis, both dreamed by Jacob. In Gen. 28:12he sees the famous “stairway to heaven” at Bethel, whereGod reaffirms his promise to make his descendants numerous. In Gen.31:10–13 Jacob claims that his scheme for taking much ofLaban’s flocks came to him in a dream, but there is noindication of this in the previous narrative (30:25–43). Laban,however, is told by God in a dream “not to say anything toJacob, either good or bad” (31:24) as he is pursuing him in thehill country of Gilead.
Dreamsare also a way of relaying prophetic oracles to Israel, andapparently dreams are similar to visions (Num. 12:6), although thelatter occur during waking hours. Prophetic dreams are to be tested,and dreamers who are false or lead people away from God are to beignored (Jer. 23:25–32; 27:9; 29:8; Zech. 10:2) or even put todeath (Deut. 13:1–5). God may also choose to withhold dreamsfrom those who ask. Such is the case with Saul (1Sam. 28:6). Bycontrast, God speaks with Solomon in a dream (1Kings 3:5, 15).
InDan. 2, similar to the Joseph story, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon,has a dream that none in his court can describe or interpret. Godreveals the dream and its meaning to Daniel in a vision: the statuein the dream is made of four different metals, which represent kings,and its gold head is Nebuchadnezzar. Later, Daniel interprets anotherof the king’s dreams, this one about an enormous tree: the treeis Nebuchadnezzar, and only a stump will remain because of his sinsand refusal to acknowledge that “Heaven rules” (Dan.4:26).
Dreamsin the OT can also refer to something immaterial, ephemeral, of nosubstance (Job 20:8; Ps. 73:20; Eccles. 5:3, 7; Isa. 29:8).
InJesus’ birth narrative in Matthew’s Gospel, dreams playan active role. Joseph is told that Mary is to conceive by the HolySpirit (1:20); the magi are told to avoid Herod after seeing theinfant Jesus (2:12); Joseph is told to flee with his family to Egypt(2:12), and later that it is safe to return (2:19) and settle inNazareth (2:21–23). Also in Matthew, Pilate’s wife iswarned in a dream not to have anything to do with Jesus (27:19). InActs 2:17 Peter says that dreams will be a sign of God once againpouring out his Spirit in the last days (citing Joel 2:28).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT totake place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of theMessiah.
Spiritbaptism in the Bible.The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon theMessiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out ofthe Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27;37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spiritwith Jesus’ being received by the Father and being grantedmessianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Corneliusin particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45)with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Sevenpassages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/withthe Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’sprediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit incontrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16;John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred toas a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages referto Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spiritbaptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tonguesof fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the HolySpirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciplesspoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival,three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in11:16.
Thefinal reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “Forwe were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whetherJews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the oneSpirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through theircommon experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
Asecond baptism?Whilein 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that allChristians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Actswhere the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. Thequestion then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptismin/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’sinitial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body ofChrist at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normativefor the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularlyprominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examplessuch as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of asecond and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 thedisciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes tothem at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’spreaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spiritonly after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them toreceive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearingGentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on hishousehold. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After helays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they beginto speak in tongues and prophesy.
Inunderstanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Actsdescribes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particularrecounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. Itis possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming ofthe Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and theGentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected thereception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears tobe the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates anincomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’sbaptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in thename of the Lord Jesus.”
Filledwith the Spirit.Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spiritbaptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled”with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit”frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such asin Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine,which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead toworship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can alsoresult in empowerment for ministry.
Theimmediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 isspeaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.”Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’slife, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look afterthe widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
There are seven references in the OT to “footstool,”only one of which is literal (2Chron. 9:18); the other six arevariously figurative. In 1Chron. 28:2 the ark of the covenantis apparently referred to as God’s footstool (though thisimagery clashes somewhat with other texts that seem to regard the arkas the seat of his throne). Psalm 99:5 commands worship at God’sfootstool, perhaps referring to the temple (so also Ps. 132:7; Lam.2:1). In Isa. 66:1 God declares that the earth is his footstool(seeing the universe as his temple). In Ps. 110:1 God tells theanointed king that he will make his enemies “a footstool foryour feet.” Paintings from ancient Egypt depict Pharaoh’sfootstool adorned with carvings of conquered enemies, andcorrespondence from both Egypt and Mesopotamia indicates that vassalsreferred to themselves as the king’s footstool.
Inthe NT, all the references to “footstool” are quotationsof, or allusions to, the aforementioned OT passages (Matt. 5:35; Luke20:43; Acts 2:35; 7:49; Heb. 1:13; 10:13).
In systematic theology, “foreknowledge” usuallyrefers to the doctrine that God knows all things, events, and personsbefore they exist or occur and that this knowledge has been his fromall eternity. No single Hebrew term in the OT corresponds to theEnglish term; the concept is expressed rather on the phrase orsentence level. In the NT, the Greek verb proginōskō andnoun prognōsis are translated “foreknow” and“foreknowledge,” respectively. Recently in evangelicalcircles there has been intense debate as to whether foreknowledge andomniscience are in fact taught in the biblical texts.
OldTestament
Inthe OT narratives, especially in the Pentateuch, there are numerousinstances that indicate some limitations to God’s knowledge ingeneral and his foreknowledge in particular. God appears to besomewhat surprised by how wicked humanity has become before hedecides to send the flood (Gen. 6:5). God comes down and discoversthat the inhabitants of Babel have started to build a tower andconsiders how to stop the activity (11:5–7). God comes down toascertain whether the outcry that has come to his ears about the sinof Sodom and Gomorrah is actually as bad as the reports wouldindicate (18:20–21). God tests Abraham by commanding him tooffer Isaac as a sacrifice, and when Abraham begins to do so, hedeclares that now he knows that Abraham really fears him (22:1–18).
Often,narratives such as these are regarded by theologians as cases ofanthropomorphism, statements made about God that speak of him as ifhe had human characteristics—in this case, limited knowledge.And certainly there are many other narratives in the Pentateuch thatappear to give the opposite picture. God asks Cain where his brotherAbel is, though he apparently already knows the answer (Gen. 4:9–10).God relates to Abraham the course that Israelite history will takefor the next several hundred years (15:13–16). God seems to bein a real-time chess match with Pharaoh, but in actuality God knowsall the moves that both he and Pharaoh will make before the game everbegins (Exod. 3:19–22; 4:21–23; 7:1–5).
Giventhis data, perhaps the better explanation for what is happening inthese texts is not that the biblical narrator is employinganthropomorphism but rather that God is accommodating himself both tothe characters in the narrative and to the narrator of the stories.That is, at this stage of revelatory history God is not yet revealinghimself as fully omniscient and prescient of the future in itsentirety. In the conceptual world of the ancient Near East, deitieswere regularly portrayed as being interactive—deliberating,investigating, discovering, making decisions, and so forth. Godtherefore may well have accommodated himself to the larger milieu inrevealing himself to the patriarchs and earliest biblical narrators.
Whateverthe case may be, later biblical revelation certainly seems to presentGod as fully omniscient and prescient. “Death and Destructionlie open before the Lord—how much more do human hearts!”(Prov. 15:11). Before words reach our tongues, God knows themcompletely (Ps. 139:4). No one has ever had to keep God informed orprovide him with counsel (Isa. 40:13–14). There are no limitsto his understanding (Ps. 147:5). The God of Israel challenges allidols and all other gods to a foreknowledge contest: if they areable, let them tell what is going to happen, as Yahweh does (Isa.42:9; 44:6–8; 48:3–8). God alone makes the end known fromthe beginning (Isa. 46:10), and he has been doing so from ancienttimes (Acts 15:17–18). God knew Jeremiah long before he wasever a fetus (Jer. 1:5). Our prayers do not make God finally aware ofour situation; he already knows what our needs are (Matt. 6:8).Indeed, God answers our prayers before they are even prayed (Isa.65:24). “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’ssight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare” before his eyes(Heb. 4:13).
NewTestament
Oneespecially important exegetical question for the NT involves theprecise meaning of the aforementioned Greek words, proginōskō(“foreknow”) and prognōsis (“foreknowledge”).The question concerns whether these words, in their contexts, aremerely cognitive terms, indicating simply that God knows thingsbefore they happen, or whether the terms are volitional terms and/oraffective terms. That is, do they indicate foreordaining and/orforeloving? Are they terms that have basically the same meaning as“election” and “predestination”?
Givingcredence to this position is the fact that in some of the passageswhere these words occur there are other words that definitely referto God willing things to happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter declares thatJesus was handed over to his crucifiers by “God’sdeliberate plan and foreknowledge.” The verse can hardly meanthat God decided to do this because he already knew it was going tohappen. Rather, the terms “deliberate plan” and“foreknowledge” act together to convey the single idea ofGod’s complete control, planning, and sovereignty in the deathof Jesus. Likewise, in 1Pet. 1:20 the word does not mean thatthe Son was simply “foreknown” before the foundation ofthe world, but rather that he was “chosen” (NIV),“destined” (NRSV), “foreordained” (KJV).
InRom. 11:2, Paul states that God has not rejected “his people,whom he foreknew.” Again, it is hard to read this as being onlycognitive. Rather, the use of the term appears to imply some kind of“affective” foreknowing, a “setting his love upon”(cf. Deut. 7:7–8), a choosing. It is important to note that thetext says God foreknew not things but people. On the one hand, Godforeknew all people who would ever exist, but in this passage theforeknowing refers to a particular people. And the foreknowing mostlikely takes its sense from the use of the word “know” inthe OT, which on numerous occasions refers to the relationship ofacknowledgment and love between God and his people.
Inthe same way, in Rom. 8:29 “those God foreknew he alsopredestined,” “foreknew” again appears to be avolitional, affective term—that is, “those whom God sethis love upon.” That it means that God knew how these peoplewould respond to the gospel and then chose them seems to be excludedby passages such as Rom. 9:11–12, where God’s purposes inelection are not determined by people’s actions. Finally, in1Pet. 1:1–2 the “elect” to whom Peter iswriting are elect according to “foreknowledge of God”;not that God foreknew things about them, but that God foreknew them.This understanding of the terms in context seems preferable.
Contrary to common uses of the word “forgiveness,”which are highly influenced by modernity’s interest inpsychology, the biblical concept identifies forgiveness as atheological issue to be understood in relational categories.Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings(emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. Itis about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costlyand painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon”may prove more helpful.
Terminology
Principally,God forgives by removing the guilt from transgressors and therebyreleasing them from their deserved penalty. The OT term kipper speaksto the covering of sin (Deut. 21:8; Ps. 78:38; Jer. 18:23), and itsuse in connection with sacrifice signifies the idea of atonement.Like salakh, it communicates exclusively God’s forgiveness ofhumans (Num. 30:5; Amos 7:2). The term nasa’ refers to theremoval of guilt, God lifting the burden of sin from the sinner(Exod. 32:32; Num. 14:19), but it also can be used of forgivenessbetween humans (Gen. 50:17).
Inthe NT, verbs such as aphiēmi (noun aphesis) and apolyōconnote the idea of sending away or releasing, whereas (epi)kalyptōexpresses the idea of covering. Other terms, such as paresis(“passing over” [Rom. 3:25]) further extend the idea ofGod’s forgiveness: debt is canceled; God is exercising hisforbearing love. Paul’s preferred term is charizomai, whichunderscores the close correlation between grace and forgiveness (Rom.8:32; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).
God’sForgiveness
Forgivenessexpresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardonssinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, andexpress this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter ofa human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’sloving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arisingfrom their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether donedeliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationshipwith God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy(Eph. 2:1).
Underthe Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrathamong the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’sforgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance andsacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express truerepentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that couldpurchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3;Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free,undeserved gift.
Althoughthe sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed,through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognizeconditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship,the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness withoutconsideration of the offending party.
Jesusexpresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke15:11–24). The son rebels against his father, squanders hiswealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and lovingfather remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reuniondoes not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance;then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomeshim back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive ornot forgive, but sinners can rest assured of God’srelationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance.The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “asbefore” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point thatthe older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifiesreligious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.
HumanForgiveness
Thebiblical description of forgiveness between humans is rooted in thistheological understanding and articulates a clear analogy betweendivine and human forgiveness. Human relationship with God provides apattern for their relationship to each other (Matt. 5:23–24;6:12, 14–15). They forgive because they have been forgiven(Luke 7:41–47; Col. 3:13). If, or when, their forgiveness ofothers remains absent, it questions, or even jeopardizes, their ownrelationship with God (Matt. 18:22–35).
Again,since forgiveness is a theological matter, the one being wrongedremains obligated to work for the restoration of the relationshipeven if the wrongdoer does not repent. The one wronged should seek towin the offender back by showing mercy and eagerness to forgive aslearned from God (Rom. 12:19–20). There is no formula for thisGod-inspired forgiveness and no limit to its zeal. Jesus met Peter’ssuggestion that the offer of forgiveness could be exhausted with anunequivocal no (Matt. 18:21–22). The offended must offerforgiveness every time the wrongdoer asks for it (Luke 17:3–4).
Mostradical is the biblical mandate to forgive enemies. The OT oftenfollows the common ancient Near Eastern notion that enemies areexpressions of foreign deities, whom their own god(s) desires todestroy. It was therefore unimaginable that Israel (or Yahweh) shouldforgive a pagan god (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Jesus transforms thisthinking and makes forgiveness a Christian duty (Matt. 5:43–48;cf. Rom. 12:20).
Generation has three primary meanings in the Bible: (1)alength of time, (2)a group of people of the same period oftime, and (3)a stage in the line of a person’s lineage.It also has three metaphorical or secondary uses.
First,“generation” as a length of time generally involves theduration of time between a person’s birth and the birth of thatperson’s children. The number “forty” is oftenassociated with the length of a generation because God made theIsraelites wander in the wilderness for forty years so that onegeneration would pass away and another arise (cf. Num. 32:13).However, two points should be noted. First, the actual number ofyears was determined to be forty because the people had spied out theland for forty days (Num. 14:34), not because a generation lastedforty years. Second, the forty years applied to those who were agetwenty or older. Since the purpose of the forty years in thewilderness was to allow one generation of adults to pass on(14:30–35), the forty years may represent the upper limit ofthe expected length of an adult’s life in the wildernessconditions, which would be sixty years. In fact, when Moses speaks toIsrael on the plains of Moab, he mentions that Israel crossed theZered Valley thirty-eight years after the wilderness wanderings hadbegun, and that the entire previous generation had died (Deut. 2:14).This comment shows that forty years has less to do with a generationthan with the expected life span of an adult in the wilderness. Otherpassages provide no hints for the length of a generation, such thatthe specific length of a generation is not recorded in the Bible.Furthermore, since a generation represents the duration of timebetween a person’s birth and the birth of that person’schildren, it is also not a fixed number but rather represents animprecise period of time. In one passage “generations”are even set alongside “ages,” which represent longerdurations of an indefinite period of time (Col. 1:26).
Second,“generation” often is used to represent a group of peopleof the same period of time. It may refer to a group of people wholive during the same time (Gen. 7:1) or those who were born atapproximately the same time (Exod. 1:6; Num. 32:13; Deut. 1:35).
Third,“generation” is also commonly used to represent a stagein the line of a person’s lineage. This use often is precededby an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.). On severaloccasions it occurs in a context highlighting the severity of sin. Itoccurs in the formulaic statement of God’s self-revelationfound in Exod. 20:5; 34:7 and repeated in Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9. Godis described as loving, merciful, and forgiving, but also as jealous,not leaving the guilty unpunished to the third and fourth generation.It also occurs in legal contexts concerning the inclusion of Gentilesinto the assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:1–8). Its use in thisway highlights the continuity of God’s work even through thetransitions of a family from one generation to another.
Finally,the word “generation” often is used in a secondary way orin a formulaic statement. First, several times the word describes oneaspect of God’s relationship to a particular person and hisdescendants or a nation. Sometimes it describes the long-lastingnature of God’s promise (Gen. 9:12; 17:7); at other times, itdescribes the long-lasting responsibility of the person and hisdescendants or a nation, especially as it relates to Israel and thelaw given at Sinai (Gen. 17:9–21; Exod. 12:14; 16:32–33;27:21; 29:42). Second, the word may emphasize the continuous natureof a condition or obligation (Exod. 3:15; 17:16; Esther 9:28; Pss.33:11; 45:17; 49:11; 72:5; 79:13). Third, the word refers to aparticular class or type of people, such as the righteous (Pss. 14:5[in some translations]; 112:2) or the wicked (Deut. 32:5; Prov. 30:11[in some translations]; Matt. 11:16; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:41; Acts2:40).
Both speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues are listedamong the various gifts of the Spirit that God may choose to give tobelievers according to his will (1Cor. 12:10, 28). The act ofspeaking in tongues is referred to as “glossolalia” (fromGk. glōssa [“tongue”] and laleō [“speak”]).
NarrativeRecord
Instancesin which believers exercise the gift of tongues are recorded in threebiblical narratives, with Acts 2 detailing the most notableoccurrence. When the Holy Spirit first was poured out upon Christianbelievers gathered at Pentecost, visible tongues of fire wereaccompanied by a Spirit-enabled ability to speak in languages thatwere foreign to them (2:3–4). In this instance, the tonguesspoken are identified as the actual human languages and dialects ofvarious people groups who resided throughout the Mediterranean world(2:8–11). The phenomenon resulted in the ability of many tohear the wonders of God in their native languages and prompted bothcuriosity and scoffing (2:12–13).
Asimilar outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his fellowGentiles in connection with the ministry of Peter was accompanied byspeaking in tongues (Acts 10:44–46). This ability to speak intongues provided undeniable evidence that God had indeed poured outthe Holy Spirit upon Gentile Christians by manifesting the Spirit’spresence in a way comparable to the initial Pentecost experience ofthe Jewish Christians (11:15–18). A final account from thePauline ministry notes the coming of the Holy Spirit upon a dozendisciples in Ephesus with the accompanying ability to speak intongues (19:6). The text does not reveal what languages were spokenin either of these latter episodes.
Itis sometimes argued that the gift of tongues normally accompaniesChristian salvation or baptism with the Holy Spirit and is a giftthat believers should earnestly seek. However, this argument cannotbe sustained by the historical narratives of Acts. All three recordedinstances of tongues detail the gift coming upon groups of peoplerather than individuals, and the gift is poured out upon them withouttheir praying for it or seeking it out in any way. Furthermore, theseare the only three instances in Scripture where tongues clearlyaccompany salvation, whereas numerous other Lukan accounts of thesalvation of various individuals (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:36–39;13:12, 48; 16:14, 34), including Paul (9:1–19; 22:6–16),contain no mention of the gift of tongues.
Paul’sTeaching
Thefirst-century Corinthian church exercised a variety of spiritualgifts, including the gift of tongues. When Paul writes to thatchurch, he includes teaching designed to correct various abuses ofthese spiritual gifts. A lengthy discussion about spiritual gifts in1Cor. 12–14 affirms the practice of speaking in tonguesin the Corinthian assembly under certain conditions (14:39–40)while also relegating it to a status lower than the gift of prophecy(14:5). By its very nature, Paul asserts, those who speak in tonguesare not understood by their human audience; utterances in tonguesspeak to God, not to human beings (14:2). Therefore, on its own,glossolalia cannot edify those who hear it unless an interpretationis also provided for them. For this reason, Paul directs theCorinthians to other spiritual gifts (14:6) that can function tobuild up the church (14:12). Nonetheless, Paul affirms the practiceof glossolalia in the Corinthians’ public worship when it islimited to two or three speakers, when it is done in an orderlymanner with the speakers taking turns, and when it is coupled withinterpretation so that the church can be edified by its message(14:26–27).
ContemporaryDebates
Threequestions dominate modern discussions about the gift of tongues:(1)What is the primary purpose of speaking in tongues? (2)Whatis the nature of the language spoken when the gift of tongues isexercised? (3)Does the gift of tongues continue beyond theapostolic era? Answers to these questions vary and reflect diversetheological positions.
Primarypurpose.One position maintains that when the Spirit gives the gift oftongues, it is always a public exercise that produces infalliblerevelation from God. The primary, or perhaps sole, purpose of thisgift of miraculous utterance is as a sign to authenticate the gospelproclamation and thus contribute to the common good of the church asa whole by reaching unbelievers with the gospel in a powerful way.Proponents of this view find support in 1Cor. 14:22, where Paulspeaks of tongues as a sign for unbelievers. Also, the Pentecostexperience, narrated in Acts 2, can be understood as a use of tonguesthat fits into this framework. Opponents object to thisinterpretation by noting that it was Peter’s subsequent sermonrather than the gift of tongues itself that served an evangelisticpurpose.
Othersfind biblical support for an additional private use of tongues bybelievers in their prayer and praise directed toward God (1Cor.14:2, 28). Although the teaching in 1Cor. 14 focuses on whetherand how tongues are to be used in the public assembly, some adherentsof this position point to 14:14–19 for evidence of Paul’sown use of the gift of tongues in his devotional life. This use oftongues is thought to contribute to the common good of the churchthrough the personal edification of the individual believers whopractice this gift (14:4) and who make up the believing community.
Natureof the language.It is not entirely clear from Scripture whether the tongues spoken bythose with the gift of tongues are human languages otherwise unknownto the speaker, whether they consist of otherworldly (heavenly,angelic, spiritual) languages, or whether both constitute validoptions. The record of Pentecost in Acts 2 is the only scripturalnarrative of tongues that explicitly identifies the languages spokenby those exercising the gift of tongues; they are human languages.However, three NT passages are cited in support of the broader view.
First,in 1Cor. 13:1 Paul alludes to the possibility of speech “inthe tongues of men or of angels.” While this may affirm theidea of an angelic language being spoken by believers with the giftof tongues, those who limit tongues to human languages see in thisstatement hyperbole rather than a description of reality.
Second,when Paul discusses tongues in 1Cor. 14:2, he indicates that noone who hears understands the language. This statement is easily trueif the language spoken is “angelic,” but it would also betrue of a human language generally unfamiliar to those in theCorinthian worship assembly.
Finally,Rom. 8:26, by describing the Spirit’s intercession in prayer asgroans and utterances too deep for words, may support the idea thatthe gift of tongues consists of a spiritual rather than a humanlanguage. Opponents argue that this text in no way speaks of the giftof tongues.
Continuationbeyond the apostolic era.Finally, nowhere does Scripture expressly teach that the gift oftongues will continue throughout the entire church age, nor does itclearly state a time, be it the end of the apostolic period, theclosing of the NT canon, or some other time, when the gift of tongueswill cease. Because the NT describes the gift of tongues functioningamong believers in the first century, many believe that the gift oftongues continues to be expressed by God’s new covenant peopletoday.
Continuationistsargue that Scripture nowhere anticipates a change in the HolySpirit’s work or empowerment for ministry, and so the life ofChristians today should be similar to that of NT believers withregard to the expected and empowering presence of tongues.
Onthe other hand, cessationists believe that passages such as Eph.2:11–21 identify the first century as a unique, foundationaltime in salvation history, characterized by apostolic leadership andan open canon. Just as there are no longer apostles today, one shouldnot be surprised if the practice of miraculous gifts, including thegift of tongues, should significantly decrease or stop entirelyfollowing that foundational time. Some also point to 1Cor. 13:8as evidence that a time will come when the gift of tongues willend.
Othersopt for an intermediate position, arguing that while speaking intongues is not the standard for the church era, it is possible thatthe gift continues to operate today on a more limited scale, mostlikely only in places where the gospel is making inroads for thefirst time, a situation comparable to that of the NT era.
The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).
Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.
Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).
Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).
Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).
Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).
The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).
On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).
Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).
The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).
Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.
Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).
Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).
Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).
Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).
The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).
On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).
Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).
A transliteration of the Greek word referring to the place ofthe dead. In addition to referring to the place of the dead, the termsometimes is used to signify death itself. During the OT period theHebrew term she’ol was used to indicate the realm of the dead,and when the OT was translated into Greek, the translators employedthe term hadēs when rendering she’ol. In the OT bothrighteous (Gen. 37:35) and unrighteous (Num. 16:30, 33) individualsgo to Hades/Sheol at death. It is also usually specified as beinglocated in a downward direction (Ps. 55:15; Isa. 14:15). Throughoutapocryphal and other intertestamental Jewish literature, hadēsappears very frequently (e.g., Tob. 3:10; Sir. 21:10; SibyllineOracles).
TheGreek word hadēs is used ten times in the NT, and Englishtranslations vary in their rendering of the term. For example, theNIV translates it as “Hades” (Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke10:15; 16:23; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14) or “the realm ofthe dead” (Acts 2:27, 31). It is occasionally used inconjunction with the idea of a place of punishment or torment (Luke16:23), though the NT more frequently uses the Greek word geenna (atransliteration of Aramaic) when indicating future punishment in theafterlife. It is much more common to find hadēs associated withdeath, such as the four occasions in Revelation where the twoconcepts are linked together (1:18; 6:8; 20:13–14). See alsoGehenna; Hell.
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and inthe Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors. The NT uses theGreek term kardia similarly to the OT Hebrew terms leb and lebab andin some cases depends on OT usage.
Mindand Emotions
Metaphorically,the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or eventhe whole person. It also refers to the center of something or itsinner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importanceand location.
Mind.The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these casesdoes not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while theneurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, ithas no bearing on this use of language. We also should not confusesome modern English idioms or distinctions as being related to thebiblical viewpoint. The Bible does not make a distinction between“head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” nordoes it employ language making the “heart” good orsuperior and the “head/mind” bad, inferior, or merelyintellectual. It does not prize the emotional over the thoughtful; ithas a more integrated viewpoint.
Deuteronomy6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul,and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occursin three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common toall three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospelwriters want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,”but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrewword for “heart” includes the mind.
Themental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heartis where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18;Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makesplans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron.29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, andskill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is theplace of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role ofconscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:20–21).
Itis often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for“heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp themental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to loveGod with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments thatI give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6).Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes ourperspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” isclearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents totalk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. Inorder for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds needto be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him.Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation onand determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is notmerely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview inwhich the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truthrequires careful, reflective thought.
Emotionsand attitude.The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number offeelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26),hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10),dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15),sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition(James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudessuch as willingness, courage, and desire.
Idioms
Theword “heart” also appears in several idioms.
Hardnessof heart.A hard heart is obstinate or averse (Mark 3:5), while a tender heartis humble (2Kings 22:19). In the book of Exodus thetranslations typically say that God or Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s/hisheart. These passages in Exodus use not the Hebrew words for hardnessbut rather those for being heavy or for strengthening. The neutralsense of strengthening the heart takes on nuances in context forbeing bold or obstinate. Pharaoh was strengthened in his oppositionto God, and this obstinacy fits the idiom of having a hard heart.
Uncircumcised/circumcisedheart.An uncircumcised heart is a metaphor for an obstinate and rebelliousheart, while a circumcised heart is linked to being humble andfaithful (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Acts 7:51). Perhaps themetaphor is based on the role of circumcision in the covenant.
“Aman after his [God’s] own heart” (1Sam. 13:14).This description of David may mean either “according to his[God’s] choice” (cf. 2Sam. 7:21), stressing God’schoice over the people’s choice, or it may mean “inaccordance with his [God’s] desire” (1Sam. 14:7;1Kings 15:3), referring to how David showed conformity withGod’s agenda.
Allthe heart.The phrase “with all [one’s] heart” in some casesmeans “wholeheartedly” or “single-mindedly,”which emphasizes unity of purpose and focus. In other cases it seemsto mean, more broadly, “with all of one’s thinking orperspective” and implies the work of adjusting our worldviewaway from common cultural assumptions and toward God’steaching.
Sayin one’s heart.This expression denotes talking to oneself (i.e., thinking) ratherthan out loud or indicates reflection or deliberation. There areseveral warnings not to lie to oneself—that is, not todeliberate, believe, and act on the stated false premise.
Take[a matter] to heart.To take something to heart is to take it very seriously or to give ithigh priority.
The precise and consistent division of time into hours,minutes, and seconds is a feature of modern life first made possibleby the widespread use of mechanical clocks in the late Middle Ages.Biblical texts reflect an earlier situation in which timekeeping wasprimarily a matter of celestial observation. NT references to “hours”fall into two broad categories: first, timekeeping by means ofnumbered hours; and second, the use of the word “hour” inthe sense of “moment,” a short, indefinite period of time(e.g., Matt. 8:13; John 16:2), as the hour was the basic unit ofmeasurable time (see Rev. 9:15).
Jesusobserved that the day was divided into twelve hours (John 11:9).Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9a.m.); it was dark fromthe sixth hour (noon) until the ninth hour (3p.m.), at whichpoint Jesus died (Matt. 27:45–46; Mark 15:25, 33; Luke 23:44;John 19:14). In one parable, a landowner hired workers at the third,sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours (Matt. 20:3–12). The book ofActs also reports events occurring at the third, sixth, and ninthhours (Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3, 9). Such passages suggest that actualreckoning was often less precise even than the twelve-hour schemepermitted, and that the day was more roughly divided into four partsof three hours each. The Gospel of John provides the most precisetime indications, mentioning the tenth hour (4p.m. [John 1:39])and the seventh hour (1p.m. [John 4:52]). One text names an“hour of dinner” (Luke 14:17; see also 22:14), andanother indicates that the ninth hour (3p.m.) was an “hourof prayer” (Acts 3:1; see also 10:30).
Thenight was divided into three or four “watches,” of whichthe NT mentions the second, third (Luke 12:38), and fourth (Matt.14:25; Mark 6:48). The OT mentions nocturnal watches (Pss. 63:6;90:4; 119:148; Lam. 2:19), including in military contexts (Exod.14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1Sam. 11:11), from which the term with thesense of standing guard is derived. The OT watches are not numbered,but are referred to as “middle” or “last.”The system of watches did not preclude the counting of hours duringthe night, as in Acts 23:23, which refers to the third hour of thenight (9p.m.).
Inaddition to the numbered hours of the day, the hour is also used tomeasure the passage of time, as in Acts 19:34, where a crowd riotsfor two hours (see also Matt. 26:40; Luke 22:59; Acts 5:7; Rev.17:12). One text refers to a half-hour period (Rev. 8:1).
Numeroustexts refer to hours of future trial (Matt. 10:19; Rev. 3:10),including an eschatological or “last hour” (e.g., Mark13:32; 1John 2:18). The suffering and death of Jesus is alsoreferred to as his “hour” (e.g., Mark 14:35; 14:41; John12:23, 27).
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.
Introduction
Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).
Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.
TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.
Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).
Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.
TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.
NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.
Jesus’Life
Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.
Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).
Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.
Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.
Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.
TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.
Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.
Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.
AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.
DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).
TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).
Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).
PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).
Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
TheIdentity of Jesus Christ
Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).
Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.
Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).
ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).
Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).
Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.
Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).
Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.
TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.
Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).
Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).
Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.
Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).
Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.
Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).
Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).
SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.
Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).
ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).
Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).
Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).
Jesus’Purpose and Community
Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).
Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.
Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).
Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.
Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).
Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).
TheQuests for the Historical Jesus
Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.
Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.
In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.
Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.
Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.
The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While thetheme is most fully developed in the NT, its originis the OT,where the emphasis falls on God’s king-ship. God is king ofIsrael (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of allthe earth (2Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1–4; Isa. 6:5;Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reignas king are references to a day when God will become king over hispeople (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). Thisemphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism andtakes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and itsanticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, whichabandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the agewill the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom isfurther developed throughout the NT.
TheSynoptic Gospels
Inthe Synoptic Gospels the phrase “the kingdom of God”occurs over one hundred times in Mark, Luke, and Matthew (where“kingdom of heaven” is a synonym for “kingdom ofGod”). Three views have been defended regarding whether and towhat extent the kingdom of God was present in Jesus’ ministry.In other words, how are we to interpret the phrase “kingdom ofGod” in the Synoptics? The three views are consistenteschatology, realized eschatology, and inaugurated eschatology.
Consistenteschatology.Albert Schweitzer, a biblical scholar from the late nineteenthcentury, first popularized consistent eschatology. Here, “consistent”means consistent with the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day,which interpreted the kingdom of God as something coming in thefuture. Judaism at the time of Christ divided history into twoperiods: this age of sin, when sin rules, and the age to come, whenthe Messiah is expected to bring the kingdom of God to earth.Schweitzer concluded that an apocalyptic understanding of the kingdomwas foundational not only for Christ’s teaching, but also tounderstanding his life. Thus, Schweitzer maintained that Jesusbelieved that it was his vocation to become the coming Son of Man.Initially, Jesus revealed this messianic secret only to Peter, James,and John. Later, Peter told it to the rest of the Twelve. Judas toldthe secret to the high priest, who used it as the grounds for Jesus’execution (Mark 14:61–64; cf. Dan. 7:13).
Accordingto Schweitzer, when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a mission toproclaim the coming kingdom of God, he did not expect them to return.The Twelve were the “men of violence” (cf. Matt. 11:12)who would provoke the messianic tribulation that would herald thekingdom. Whereas some earlier scholars believed that one could onlywait passively for the kingdom, Schweitzer believed that the missionof Jesus was designed to provoke its coming. When this did nothappen, Jesus determined to give his own life as a ransom for many(Mark 10:45) and so cause the kingdom to come.
Accordingto Schweitzer, Jesus took matters into his own hands by precipitatinghis death, hoping that this would be the catalyst for God to make thewheel of history turn to its climax—the arrival of the kingdomof God. But, said Schweitzer, Jesus was wrong again, and he died indespair. So for Schweitzer, Jesus never witnessed the dawning of theage to come; it lay in the distant future, separated from thispresent age.
Onthe positive side, Schweitzer called attention to the fact that themessage of Jesus is rooted in first-century apocalyptic Judaism andits concept of the kingdom of God. This connection is stillfoundational to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy and theGospels today. On the negative side, Schweitzer’s selective useof evidence and rejection of the historicity of much of the Gospeltradition resulted in a skewed perspective on the present dimensionsof Jesus’ eschatology.
Realizedeschatology.In contrast to futurist eschatology, where the kingdom of God awaitsa final consummation at the end of history, realized eschatologyviews the kingdom of God as already realized in the person andmission of Jesus. The futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching arereduced to a minimum, and his apocalyptic language is viewed assymbolic of theological truths.
Theperson most responsible for advocating this position is Britishscholar C.H. Dodd. In his 1935 book Parables of the Kingdom, hefocused on Jesus’ teachings that announced the arrival of thekingdom with his coming. For instance, in Luke 11:20 Jesus says, “Butif I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of Godhas come upon you” (cf. Luke 17:21; Matt. 13). Eschatologybecomes a matter of the present experience rather than any kind offuture event. The kingdom has fully come in the messianic ministry ofJesus.
Mostinterpreters have criticized Dodd’s realized eschatology forignoring Jesus’ teachings that point to a future consummationof the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 24–25; Mark 13). When all of Jesus’teachings are considered, futurist eschatology balances realizedeschatology. To be sure, the kingdom arrived with Jesus, but Jesushimself taught that history still awaits a final completion. Thekingdom of God is both “already” and “not yet,”which leads us to the third view of the relationship of the kingdomof God to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Inauguratedeschatology. Thethird view, inaugurated eschatology, is commonly connected with thetwentieth-century Swiss theologian Oscar Cullmann. Like others beforehim, Cullmann understood that the Jewish notion of the two agesformed an important background for understanding the message ofJesus. According to Judaism, history is divided into two periods:this age of sin and the age to come (i.e., the kingdom of God). ForJews the advent of the Messiah would effect the shift from the formerto the latter. In other words, Judaism viewed the two ages asconsecutive. According to Cullmann, Jesus Christ announced that theend of time, the kingdom of God, had arrived within history (see Mark1:15 pars.; esp. Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62;10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17,24–25, 29; Acts 28:31). Yet other passages suggest thatalthough the age to come had already dawned, it was not yet complete.It awaited the second coming for its full realization (Luke 13:28–29;14:15; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; Acts 1:6). Hence the adjective“inaugurated” characterizes this eschatology. Such a viewis pervasive in the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:17–21; 3:18, 24;1Cor. 15:24; 1Tim. 4:1; 2Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1John2:18). So for inaugurated eschatology, the two ages are simultaneous:the age to come exists in the midst of this present age. Christianstherefore live in between the two ages until the parousia (secondcoming of Christ).
Wemay break down the data in the Synoptic Gospels regarding the“already/notyet” aspects concerning the kingdom ofGod in this manner: Mark, probably the first Gospel written, recordsJesus’ programmatic statement in 1:15: “The time hascome.... The kingdom of God has come near.”Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, then goes on to demonstrate thatJesus’ miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection inauguratedthe kingdom of God. Yet it is also clear from Matthew, Mark, and Lukethat the final manifestation of the kingdom has not yet happened. Wemay draw on Luke as representative of all three Synoptics. Luke’sGospel indicates that the kingdom was present for Jesus (Luke 7:28;8:10; 10:9–11; 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21), but it alsoawaited the second coming for its completion (6:20–26; 11:2;12:49–50, 51–53; 13:24–30; 21:25–29;22:15–18, 30). The same dual aspect of the kingdom pertains toLuke’s second volume, Acts. The kingdom was present in Jesus’ministry and now through his disciples (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25;28:23–31), but it will not be completed until Christ comesagain (1:6; 14:22).
TheGospel of John
John’sGospel has only three references to the kingdom of God. Nicodemus wastold by Jesus that he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom ofGod (3:3–5). Yet Jesus’ kingdom is not worldly in nature,but spiritual (18:36). Although the Gospel of John contains both thepresent (“already”) aspect and the future (“notyet”) aspect, the focus is clearly on the present. This is whymany scholars label the Fourth Gospel the “Gospel of RealizedEschatology.” This emphasis on the “already” can beseen in John in the following ways: (1)Eternal life, orentrance into the kingdom of God, can be a present possession (3:5–6,36; 6:47, 51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:24–26). (2)Theeschatological promise of sonship is granted to the believer in Jesusnow (1:12–13; 3:3–8; 4:14). (3)The generalresurrection has already begun (5:25). (4)The Spirit, the giftof the end time, currently indwells believers (7:37–39;14:15–31; 15:26–27; 16:5–16; 20:22–23).(5)Final judgment is determined by one’s present responseto Jesus (3:19; 5:22–24, 27, 30–38; 9:38; 12:31–33).(6)The spirit of antichrist has already entered the world sceneto oppose Christ (6:70; 13:2, 27). (7)Jesus’ death on thecross seems to absorb some elements of the messianic woes or aspectsof tribulation. In other words, Jesus’ passion was where theend-time holy war was waged, and his death and resurrection began theend of the forces of evil (15:18–16:11).
Onthe other hand, the Gospel of John also includes some typical future(“not yet”) aspects of eschatology. For example, thefuture resurrection is still expected (5:26–30). Likewise, thefuture second coming of Christ is alluded to (14:1–4; 21:22).Admittedly, however, the “already” aspect of the kingdomof God seems to overshadow the “not yet” perspective inthe Fourth Gospel.
PaulineLiterature
Thephrase “kingdom of God” and/or “kingdom of Christ”occurs twelve times in Paul’s writings.
Rom.14:17 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 4:20 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 6:9-10 – kingdom of God (2x) (future tense)
1Cor. 15:24 – kingdom of Christ/God (present/future tense)
1Cor. 15:50 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Gal.5:21 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Eph.5:5 – kingdom of Christ/God (future tense)
Col.1:13 – kingdom of the Son (present tense)
Col.4:11 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Thess. 2:12 – his [God’s] kingdom (future tense)
2Thess. 1:5 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Threeobservations emerge from the chart: (1)The kingdom ofChrist/God is both present and future, already here and not yetcomplete. This is consistent with the Gospels and Acts. (2)Christand God are, in at least two instances, interchanged, suggestingequality of status between them (cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10).(3)In 1Cor. 15:24 we find the most precise description ofthe exact relationship between the kingdoms of Christ and God: theinterim messianic kingdom begun at the resurrection of Christ willone day give way to the eternal kingdom of God. Such a temporarykingdom is attested to in apocalyptic Judaism and may underlie Rev.20:1–6.
Christianstherefore live in between the two ages, in the messianic kingdom.
Hebrewsand the General Epistles
Hebrewsand the General Epistles continue the theme of the “already/notyet”aspects of the kingdom.
Hebrews.The following ideas associated in Second Temple Judaism with thearrival of God’s kingdom are seen by the author of Hebrews tohave been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ: (1)theappearance of the Messiah of the last days indicates the dawning ofthe kingdom of God (1:2; 9:9–10); (2)the greattribulation/messianic woes that were expected to occur in connectionwith the advent of the Messiah are now here (2:5–18; cf. 5:8–9;7:27–28; 10:12; 12:2); (3)the outpouring of the HolySpirit has happened (6:4–5); (4)the manifestation of theeschatological high priest at the end of history has taken place inJesus (7:26–28), who has also established the new covenant ofthe last days (8:6–13). Compare the preceding statements inHebrews with that author’s explicit mention of the presence ofthe kingdom of God in 12:18–28. And yet the kingdom of God isnot yet fully here. The church continues to suffer the messianicwoes, as is evidenced in the intermingling of Jesus’ sufferingof the great tribulation with the present afflictions of theChristian (2:5–18; 3:7–4:6; 5:7–6:12; 10:19–39;12:1–2; 13:11–16). Furthermore, the exhortations topersevere in the faith that punctuate the book of Hebrews (2:1–4;3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) area familiar theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.
TheGeneral Epistles.The main message of James is that the last days are here (1:2; 5:3)and with it the messianic woes (1:2–12; 5:1–12).Therefore, believers will need to faithfully endure the greattribulation until the second coming of Christ. But there are twoindications that James also teaches that the kingdom of God hasdawned in the midst of the great tribulation. First, Christiansexperience even now the eschatological quality of joy (James 1:2–3;cf. Joel 2:21–27). Second, Christians also share in theend-time gift of wisdom (James 1:5–8).
FirstPeteris similar to James with regard to its inaugurated eschatology. Thus,the church suffers the messianic woes/great tribulation (1Pet.1:6, 11; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 5:1–9). Nevertheless,the age to come/kingdom of God has broken into the midst of this age,as evidenced by the eschatological joy and God’s protectivepower that it brings (1:5–6).
SecondPeterdoes seem to stress the “not yet” aspect of the kingdomof God. Thus, the kingdom of God still waits to be entered (1:11), ishindered by end-time apostasy (2Pet. 2), and has been postponed(3:1–10). Yet the “already” aspect of the kingdomis not entirely absent. This is evidenced by the fact that thetransfiguration of Christ on the mountain was a display of the comingpower and glory of the age to come, a glory revealed to the discipleson the mountain and now communicated to all believers (1:16–19).
Judeis devoted to alerting Christians to the reality that they are in themidst of the end-time holy war (vv. 3, 20–23), as can be seenby their struggle with the false teaching of end-time apostasy (vv.5–19). Nevertheless, because believers possess theeschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, they will prevail to fullyenter the kingdom of God (v.20).
TheLetters of John attest to the overlapping of the two ages—thatis, inaugurated eschatology. Thus, on the one hand, the spirit ofantichrist is here (1John 2:18; 2John 7), along with thefalse teaching that it breeds (1John 2:20–29; cf. 2–3John); but on the other hand, the Johannine community has theend-time anointing of the Holy Spirit, which preserves believers fromevil and deception (1John 2:20–21; 3:1–10).Moreover, Christians presently have eternal life through Christ, oneof the blessings of the kingdom of God (1John 5:11–13).
Revelation
The“already/notyet” aspects of the kingdom of God aremanifested in Revelation in the following way: the kingdom of God hasalready dawned in heaven, but it has not yet appeared on earth.Regarding the former, it is clear from 1:9; 5:1–14; 12:1–6that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated the advent ofthe kingdom of God in heaven. Thus, Jesus obediently underwent themessianic woes on the cross and was then raised to heavenly glory,triumphant over the great tribulation. There in heaven, Christ reignsas the invisible Lord over all (including Caesar). But that thekingdom of God has not yet descended to earth is clear in Revelationfrom two present realities. First, even though Jesus has endured thegreat tribulation/messianic woes, his followers continue to face manytrials (chaps. 6–18). There is no deliverance for them fromsuch affliction until the return of Christ in glory (chap. 19). Theonly possible exception to this is the divine protection of the144,000 (chaps. 7; 14). Second, the kingdom of God has not appearedon earth; that event awaits the parousia (chap. 20 [assuming that thepremillennial interpretation of that chapter is the most viablereading]). In all of this, it seems that the messianic woes/greattribulation are the divine means for purging the earth in preparationfor the future arrival of the temporal, messianic kingdom (chap. 20).After Christ’s one-thousand-year reign on earth, this temporalmessianic kingdom will give way to the eternal kingdom of God and itsnew earth and new heaven (chaps. 21–22). It must beacknowledged, however, that interpretations of chapters 20–22greatly vary, depending on whether one takes a premillennial,amillennial, or postmillennial perspective.
Conclusion
Thepreceding data thus seem to confirm that the most apt description ofthe relationship between the two ages and the kingdom of God thatinforms the NT is inaugurated eschatology: with the first coming ofChrist, the kingdom of God/the age to come dawned, but it will not beuntil the second coming of Christ that the age to come/kingdom of Godwill be complete. The church therefore lives in between the times.That is to say, the age to come has broken into this present age, andit is only through the eye of faith that one can now perceive thepresence of the kingdom of God.
The English word “messiah” derives from theHebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greekcounterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh)is christos, which in English is “Christ.”
OldTestament
InEnglish translations of the Bible, the word “messiah”(“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT,kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil asa means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respectiveoffices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1Sam.16:1–13; 2Sam. 2:4, 7). Samuel anointed Saul (1Sam.9:16; 10:1; 15:1) and David (1Sam. 16:12–13). Later,Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest anointed Solomon, thesuccessor of King David (1Kings 1:34). The word “anoint”occurs even earlier, in the book of Judges, in a parable aboutAbimelek becoming king (Judg. 9:7–15). In 1–2 Samuel andPsalms the king is sometimes called “the Lord’s anointed”(1Sam. 16:6; 24:6; 26:9; Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 20:6). The anointingof priests occurs very early in Israelite tradition, in which Aaronand his sons are consecrated for their priestly service (Exod. 28:41;30:30). In Num. 35:25 the high priest is anointed with “holyoil.” Sacred objects for use in the tabernacle also wereanointed (Exod. 29:36; 30:26; Lev. 8:10–11). As for theanointing of prophets, God commanded Elijah to anoint Elisha as hissuccessor (1Kings 19:16). The prophet Isaiah also claimed to beanointed for his work of proclamation (Isa. 61:1–2).
Theexpectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,”arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2Sam.7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a kingwho would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal kingbegan with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa.9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidickingdom.
Theharsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule insuch a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an idealson of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its currentplight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son(v.7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v.2), willreceive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of theearth your possession” (v.8). God promises that “youwill rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieceslike pottery” (v.9; see NIV footnote). In Ps. 89 thepsalmist yearns for the establishment of David’s kingdombecause God has been “very angry with your anointed one”(v.38). Later, the psalmist pleads with God, “For thesake of your servant David, do not reject your anointed one”(Ps. 132:10). In the postexilic literature, Zerubbabel, for example,appears to be understood as a messianic figure. Speaking ofZerubbabel and Joshua, the angel says, “These are the two whoare anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth” (Zech. 4:14).
Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha
Insome apocalyptic literature a messiah-like figure ushers in God’skingdom, overthrowing the current evil powers that oppress God’speople. In 1Enoch the “son of man” (46.1–3)is an anointed figure (52.6) who will judge the kings and the mightyfrom his heavenly throne and will champion the cause of the faithful(46.4–8; 62.5). In 2Baruch “my anointed”(39.7; 40.1) will reign over the remnant in a place chosen by God(40.2). Finally, in a nonapocalyptic Jewish text, Psalms of Solomon,the author expects deliverance from the Roman oppressors and thecorrupt Hasmonean dynasty by the “Lord Messiah” (18.7):“See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David,to rule over your servant Israel” (17.21). These texts confirmthe diversity of first-century messianic expectations. Yet the mostcommon hope centered on the “Davidic messiah,” the comingking from David’s line who would establish justice andrighteousness and reign forever on David’s throne.
NewTestament
Jesusdemonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.”In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The twokey Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselvesenigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession(8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “Youare the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the sufferingof the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphasat his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”(Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “Iam,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “Youhave said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as theexalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.
Jesusno doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating aninadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role.Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism,he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secureits physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “sonof David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteousrulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trampleher to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distancehimself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “sonof David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as othercharacters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47;15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a groupof Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them(John 6:15).
InMark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandingsof the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he issomething more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with histeaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiahwho will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, thechief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and throughwhom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Romanlegions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.
Inthe book of Acts, Peter reaffirms the messiahship of Jesus at theconclusion of his sermon: “Therefore let all Israel be assuredof this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord andMessiah” (2:36 [cf. 5:42; 9:22]). Since it is now apparent thatthrough suffering and death Jesus the Messiah would effect salvation,there is no risk of the Jews misunderstanding Christ’smessiahship. However, he is still a deliverer and savior like theLord’s anointed of the OT, but he brings about this salvationthrough unexpected means (3:18–20). Further, Jesus is now theascended and exalted messianic king in the style of Ps. 110:1 (cf.Acts 2:34–36), which he predicted during his earthly ministry(Mark 14:62). The reality of Jesus’ exalted messianic status isso pervasive in early Christian thinking that the title Christosbecomes a synonym for “Jesus” or is used in combinationwith “Jesus.” And indeed, the earliest followers of Jesusafter the resurrection become know as Christianoi (Acts 11:26).
Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arrangedand sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3),miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanicaluniverse. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed toovercome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of theexistence of God (Mark 8:11–12). Still less are they cleverconjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can beotherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in hisinfinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things tocall attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinelyordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence ofhis glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptivehistory.
Terminology
Thebiblical writers describe miracles with various terms, such as“signs,” “wonders,” and “miracles”(or “powers”), which can carry various connotations. Asthe word “sign” suggests, divine miracles are significantand should cause us to think more deeply about God in a way that goesbeyond mere amazement or curiosity (Exod. 4:30–31; John 2:11).Not all of God’s signs are miraculous. Some are given as partof his ordering of the natural world (Gen. 1:14) or as anencouragement to faith that God will do as he has said (e.g., therainbow in Gen. 9:8–17; the blood of the Passover lamb in Exod.12:13). (See also Sign.)
Oftencoupled with signs are “wonders” (Jer. 32:21; John 4:48;2Cor. 12:12). If the depiction of miracles as “signs”indicates an appeal to the intellect, that of “wonders”points to the emotions. Miracles evoke astonishment and awe at theone who did them.
TheNT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power andtherefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke10:13; Acts 8:13).
Miraclesin the Bible
OldTestament.In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are foundin greater number during times of great redemptive significance, suchas the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performedalso during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of theninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of theseeras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God overpagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1Kings 18:20–40).
NewTestament. Inthe NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantlythey attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) andthe saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the SynopticGospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and theconquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30;Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiahof OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preferencefor the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured aroundthem (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesusperformed were such that only the one who stood in a uniquerelationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.
Miraclesand faith.Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naivecredulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, falseprophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even theelect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernmentand not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).
Therelationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward assometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nordoes faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended tobring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), butnot all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesusregarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious(Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than nofaith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find itsgrounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.
Itis also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in thosewho came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberatelylimited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5),many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could notexercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke14:1–4).
Thefact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, hisopponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Argumentsabout his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles butto the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).
Thefunction of miracles.Miracle accounts function in a symbolic and prophetic manner. Hence,the cursing of the fig tree was prophetic of the coming judgment(Mark 11:12–21). The unusual two-stage healing of the blind manof Bethsaida symbolized Peter’s incomplete understanding ofJesus’ messiahship (Mark 8:22–33).
Themiraculous element of Jesus’ ministry carries an eschatologicalsignificance, pointing to the order of things in the age to come. Forexample, the nature miracles (Mark 4:35–41) look forward to theredemption of creation itself, which is presently subject tofrustration and decay (Rom. 8:20–21); the healing miraclespoint to a day when disease and deformity will be abolished (Rev.21:4); and miracles in which the dead are raised to life anticipate atime when death itself will be no more (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). From thisperspective, the miracles are a gracious foretaste of a far moreglorious future.
In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in theextreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea ofGalilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, thebirthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2Kings 14:25),and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not farwas the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt andultimately the trading network that linked India, China, centralAsia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The village was perched1,150 feet above sea level, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, withseveral terraces for agriculture cut into the mountain. A Nazarenecould look south across the grand Plain of Esdraelon, west to MountCarmel on the Mediterranean coast, east to nearby Mount Tabor, andnorth to snowcapped Mount Hermon. The community, whose population mayhave averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture.Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, andwine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oilstorage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazarethappears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the secondcenturies BC, until it was resettled during the reign of JohnHyrcanus (134–104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of armyveterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was adescendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible(Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arabcity in Israel.
AlthoughJesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and hisfollowers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ familycontinued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene”probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in theOT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name“Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription inCaesarea Maritima.
In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in theextreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea ofGalilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, thebirthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2Kings 14:25),and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not farwas the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt andultimately the trading network that linked India, China, centralAsia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The village was perched1,150 feet above sea level, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, withseveral terraces for agriculture cut into the mountain. A Nazarenecould look south across the grand Plain of Esdraelon, west to MountCarmel on the Mediterranean coast, east to nearby Mount Tabor, andnorth to snowcapped Mount Hermon. The community, whose population mayhave averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture.Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, andwine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oilstorage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazarethappears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the secondcenturies BC, until it was resettled during the reign of JohnHyrcanus (134–104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of armyveterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was adescendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible(Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arabcity in Israel.
AlthoughJesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and hisfollowers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ familycontinued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene”probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in theOT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name“Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription inCaesarea Maritima.
The obligations of relationships within ancient societies andbetween social groups were frequently reinforced by means of oaths,and the practice of oath making (by both God and people) is witnessedto in the pages of the Bible. The name of God was frequently invoked(Judg. 8:19; 2Kings 2:2), but oaths were not to be made usingthe names of foreign deities (Ps. 16:4). For this reason, when anoath was broken, God’s name was profaned (Lev. 19:12). To takean oath was to ask God to witness what was promised, and it invitedhim to act as avenger if the promise was broken (Gen. 31:50; 1Sam.12:3). This made oath taking a religious act, and so oaths often weremade at sanctuaries and under the supervision of cultic officials(Num. 5:11–31; Judg. 11:11; Hos. 4:15).
Thewords of an oath were accompanied by various gestures, such asputting a hand “under the thigh” (near the genitals?)(Gen. 24:2; 47:29) or raising the right hand to heaven (Gen. 14:22;Deut. 32:40; Rev. 10:5–6). Daniel 12:7 depicts a particularlysolemn oath, involving the raising of both hands. By invoking God’sname, an oath invited God to punish the oath breaker, as in Ruth1:17: “May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely”(for similar wording, see 1Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2Sam. 3:9).Such a self-maledictory oath may have been accompanied by the gestureof a hand at the throat, signifying the death penalty forinfringement. People brought a curse upon themselves if an oath wasbroken (e.g., Num. 5:22), either for doing what was wrong (Num. 5:22;1Sam. 19:6) or for not speaking the truth (e.g., Mark 14:71).Two Hebrew words are used in respect to oaths; the stronger one canactually mean a “curse.” The more common word forswearing may relate to the number seven, due to the ceremonies thatcould accompany oath making. For example, Abraham set aside seven ewelambs (Gen. 21:22–31).
Inthe Bible, God is portrayed as binding himself by oaths, most notablyhis sworn promises to Abraham (Gen. 22:16–18; 50:24). This factis used by the author of Hebrews in an argument designed to assurereaders that God meant what he said when he made promises to hispeople (Heb. 6:13–18). The coming of Jesus fulfilled the termsof that oath (Luke 1:73). So too the Davidic covenant was supportedby a divine oath (Pss. 89:35, 49; 110:4; 132:11), and this wasfulfilled by the enthronement of Christ at his resurrection andascension (Acts 2:30–33).
Jesus’teaching on oaths (Matt. 5:33–37) does not necessarilycontradict OT legislation (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21–23)but rather brings out the true heart of God behind the legislation.Oaths are unnecessary, Jesus said, for those who habitually tell thetruth. An emphatic yes or no is all that is needed. The teaching ofJames 5:12 reflects what is found in Jesus’ teaching on thissubject. This may not outlaw all oath taking, and certainly theapostle Paul did not understand there to be a blanket prohibition ofoaths, for in his letters he is on record as making oaths (Gal. 1:20;Phil. 1:8).
The male head of a family. The OT describes the Israelitenation as an extended family descended from a line of commonancestors, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called“Israel” [see Gen. 32:28]). Each of Jacob’s sons(or his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh) traditionally gave his nameto one of the tribes that made up the Israelite people. The NTapplies the term “patriarch” to individuals of thegenerations from Abraham (Heb. 7:4) to his twelve great-grandsons(Acts 7:8) and, in one case, to the tenth-century king David (Acts2:29). In the OT the term “patriarch” is not used, thoughthe concept of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as national fathers isfrequently expressed, as in Exod. 3:15, which refers to Israel’sGod as “the Lord, the God of your fathers—the God ofAbraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
TheBible regards the patriarchs as the original recipients of God’spromises, as in Deut. 6:10, which speaks of “the land [God]swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you.”Similarly, Rom. 15:8 speaks of the patriarchs as the recipients ofGod’s promises. The reference to David as a patriarch in Acts2:29 also has in view his role as the recipient of a divine promise.The terminology of national fatherhood is applied particularly to theunnamed ancestors of the generation of the exodus (Josh. 24:6;1Kings 8:21) and to the line of Judahite and Israelite kings,as in 2Chron. 25:28, where Amaziah is said to have been buried“with his fathers” (ESV, NASB) (i.e., his royalpredecessors) in Jerusalem. In fact, the deaths of several kings aredescribed as going to rest “with his fathers” (cf. Luke16:22, where Lazarus is taken to Abraham when he dies).
Thepatriarchs are most significant in the Bible for explaining Israelitenational origins (descent from the patriarchs), the Israeliteposition in the land of Canaan (the land promised to the patriarchs),the origins of Israelite religion (“the God of the fathers”),and the nature of death (going to be with the fathers).
ThePatriarchs and History
Theimplied chronology of the Bible places Abraham in the mid-secondmillennium BC, in the Middle Bronze Age. A more precise date dependson the controversial matter of dating the exodus from Egypt. Thetraditional date ofthe exodus in the fifteenth century BCplaces the patriarchs in the final centuries of the third millenniumBC, based on the tabulation of life spans reported in the Bible andanchored to the date of Solomon’s temple given in 1Kings6:1. One recent calculation dates the birth of Abraham to 2166 BC. Alow date for the exodus (in the thirteenth century BC) in turn lowersthe date of Abraham. Because they pertain tothe story of asingle family, it is difficult to date the patriarchal stories basedon extrabiblical historical records and archaeological findings. WhenAbraham and his descendants interact with figures of internationalprominence, they are either unnamed (the unnamed pharaohs of Egypt),have generic royal names (Abimelek), or are otherwise unknown inextrabiblical historical records (the many kings named in Gen.14:1–2). In contrast, the biblical history of the monarchicperiod of Israel and Judah names several Mesopotamian and Egyptiankings known from securely dated inscriptions.
Inlight of this methodological difficulty, some have examined thecultural world of the patriarchal narratives and attempted tocorrelate customs attested in the stories to those known from datableexternal sources. In particular, proponents of this approach havesought connections between the customs pertaining to marriage andfamily depicted in the Nuzi tablets (fifteenth century BC), thoughtto reflect earlier customs on the basis of their similarities totexts found at Mari (eighteenth century BC). Certain behaviors of thepatriarchs, including their use of cultic practices known to havebeen condemned in first-millennium BC biblical texts, suggest thatthe patriarchal narratives are an authentic reflection of the earlysecond millennium BC. On the other hand, the patriarchal narrativescontain some information inconsistent with an early-second-millenniumdate, notably the presence of Philistines (Gen. 21:22–34), whodid not appear in the region until the twelfth century BC. Thecultural history of the patriarchal narratives remains disputed.
TheImportance of the Patriarchs
Apartfrom the historical questions treated above, one thing is clear: forIsraelites of the first millennium BC who wrote, edited, and read thebook of Genesis, the patriarchs held great interest and importance.
Forthe biblical authors, the God of Israel was the “God of thefathers,” and the Israelite religion was understood as aspecial relationship between God and the nation that began with thefamous ancestors. The patriarchal stories explained other social“facts” observable in Iron Age Israel. The relationshipbetween the Israelites and the Edomites alternated between peace andhostility. Linguistically, culturally, and geographically, the twopeoples were closely connected, so it is not surprising that thebiblical stories about Jacob (or Israel) and Esau (or Edom) show abrotherly relationship that mirrored the later regional rivalry oftheir descendants. Similar observations can be made regarding theIshmaelites (descended from the brother of Isaac), the Moabites andthe Ammonites (both descended from Abraham’s nephew Lot), andthe Midianites (from Abraham through his wife Keturah). Other localgroups, such as the Philistines, are not incorporated into thepatriarchal extended family, accurately reflecting the origin of thispopulation and its culture outside the land of Palestine. Thepatriarchal stories account for the founding of several importantcultic sites. Thus, the patriarchal stories served to organize thesocial and geographical world of the Israelites, who cherished themas their national history.
WithinIsrael itself, the status and relationships of various tribescorresponded to the depiction of the eponymous patriarchal ancestors.The special prominence of the Levites, the Ju-dah-ites, and theEphraimites is explained by stories focusing on the exploits of Levi,Judah, and Joseph (the father of Ephraim). The presentation of thetribes as coming from twelve brothers of four different mothersreflects the complex political parity and disparity of the “twelvetribes.” Apart from the twelve-tribe structure, other, lessprominent Israelite groups are known from the Bible. “Makir”is a prominent group in Judg. 5:14 (one of the earliest biblicaltexts), where it is listed on an equal footing among the othertribes. In the usual twelve-tribe “patriarchal” depictionof Israel, however, Makir recedes in importance and is named as a sonof Manasseh (a tribe not mentioned in the list of Judg. 5) in Gen.50:23. Presumably, the two texts represent varying conceptions ofwhich groups were most important in the Israelite society of theirrespective times. For the author of Judg. 5, Makir was one of theprincipal groups in Israel; for the author of Gen. 50:23, Makir wasless important than Manasseh.
OutsideGenesis, the names of Abraham and Isaac usually appear only in theformula “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The name of Jacob orIsrael, in contrast, is regularly used to denote the people ofIsrael, as are the names of Jacob’s son Judah (for the southernpart of the country) and his grandson Ephraim (for the northernpart). The name of Isaac is used twice in Amos 7:9, 16 to refer to anapparently northern entity, the “high places of Isaac.”
An English synonym of “wicked,” “perverse”serves as a translation of various Hebrew and Greek words thatdescribe something or someone who deviates from that which is good,just, or upright. In Proverbs, where “perverse” occursmost frequently, perversity is linked to wickedness (2:12),crookedness (8:8), evil (8:13), and deceit (17:20). Conversely, it iscontrasted with uprightness (3:32), justice (8:8), righteousness(10:31–32), and blamelessness/integrity (11:20; 19:1; 28:6).“Perverse” was a moral adjective that did not describemerely individuals. A heart could be perverse (Ps. 101:4), as could atongue and its speech (Prov. 10:31–32; Acts 20:30 NASB). BothTestaments can even speak of a “perverse generation”(Deut. 32:20; Matt. 17:17; Acts 2:40 NASB).
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock”in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,”which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, Godwas able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishmentof the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’sidentification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classicmissionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find hisbrother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ”(John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took placelater, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued thewell-known invitation “Come, follow me, ... and Iwill send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peterwas the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi whenJesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”(Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Sonof the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father(16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you arePeter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, andthe gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peteralmost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesuswhen he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem andsuffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another majorfailure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesushad warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, youwill disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, therewere tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored afterJesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John21:15–19]).
Jesus’death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit onthe day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the otherdisciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing ofthe replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the publicspokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key playerin the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), inreceiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and inreceiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11).Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time ofthe Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but bythis time he had been replaced by James as the leader of theJerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary(1Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised”(Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was stillhuman, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal.2:11–21).
Duringhis travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his laterletter 1Peter (and possibly 2Peter) in north central AsiaMinor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia andBithynia” [1Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1Cor.1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself.According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19).Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’sfight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, thatyour faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
A word used in the KJV to describe the removal of the guiltor penalty of sin acquired through belief in Christ (Acts 10:43) andeffected through his shed blood (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22), bringingabout salvation (Luke 1:77). Accompanied with repentance, baptism,either by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) or in the name ofJesus (Acts 2:38), is done “for the remission of sins.”Modern translations prefer the word “forgiveness,” whereit translates the Greek word aphesis.In Rom. 3:25 the KJV translates the word paresis as “remission,”where it refers to God’s leaving sins unpunished inanticipation of Christ’s atoning work. Although the noun“forgiveness” is rare in the OT (Ps. 130:4; Dan. 9:9),God is often asked to “forgive” (e.g., Exod. 32:32; Ps.25:18); he is declared “forgiving” several times (Pss.86:5; 99:8; Neh. 9:17), and this trait is included in the divineself-description given to Moses (Exod. 34:7). Remission may alsorefer to the removal of an economic instead of a spiritual debt, suchas that commanded of the Israelites every seventh year (Deut. 15:1–2,9; 31:10 NASB, NRSV), or taxes (Esther 2:18 ESV).
The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit inthis is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a completeturnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning fromidols—anything that wrests away the affection that we oweGod—to God (1Sam. 7:3; 2Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6;1Thess. 1:9; James 4:8–10).
Terminology.TwoHebrew word groups are associated with the concept of repentance:nakham and shub. Nakham means “to pant, sigh, groan, howl.”When used with respect to the circ*mstances of others and the feelingof sympathy that they engender, it refers to compassion. When used inreference to feelings generated by one’s own actions, it means“grief” or “remorse.” In this regard, nakhampredominantly has God as the subject. The KJV translates it aboutforty times as “repent.” While one of the senses ofnakham is that of grief over one’s actions, those actions areethically neutral: it does not presuppose that they are inherentlyevil. The NIV is correct, therefore, in never translating nakham as“repent” where God is the subject. In most cases whereGod is its subject, the term highlights God’s compassion andcomfort for the afflicted (Isa. 40:1–2; 49:13), or his griefover the dire consequences brought upon or intended for thedisobedient and his subsequent commutation of their punishment (Exod.32:12–14; Judg. 2:18; 2Sam. 24:16; Jon. 3:10), or hisgrief over human self-ruinous obstinacy (Gen. 6:6–7; 1Sam.15:11). Even in the few cases where nakham has human subjects, itneed not always be rendered “repent,” their concern forchange of heart notwithstanding (cf. Exod. 13:17; Judg. 21:6).
Theconcept of repentance is better conveyed by the Hebrew verb shub(“to turn, return back, restore, reverse, bring back”) orits noun form in rabbinic Judaism, teshubah (“repentance”).While shub has many nonreligious uses, its theological significancederives from the sense of either “turning away from God”(apostasy [cf. Hos. 11:7; Jer. 11:10]) or “turning to God”(repentance [cf. 1Sam. 7:3–4; Hos. 14:1]). Our concern iswith the latter sense, which normally would be followed by God’sreturn to his people (Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7).
Inthe OT, shub is central to the concept of repentance. It is the keyterm employed in the entreaty to God’s people to return to him(2Chron. 30:6; Isa. 44:22; Ezek. 14:6). The outward signs ofrepentance in the OT include fasting, mourning (sometimes whilesitting in dust or pouring ashes or dust upon one’s head),rending garments, wearing sackcloth, and offering sacrifices (Lev.5:5–12; 2Kings 22:11, 19; Neh. 9:1; Joel 2:12–17).The Israelites became so preoccupied with these outward forms thatGod told them repeatedly that he no longer had interest in them, butrather sought contrition of the heart (Ps. 34:18; Isa. 1:10–16;58; 66:2; Joel 2:13).
Inthe NT, the dominant terms used for repentance are the verb metanoeōand the cognate noun metanoia; the overwhelming majority of theseoccur in Luke-Acts. These terms are used to expressthe complete turnaround in one’s way of life, includingconversion,faith, and regeneration (Acts 2:28; 3:19; 5:31; 20:21). Occasionallythese two terms are complemented by epistrephō to stress thepositive side of repentance, that of turning from sin oridols to God (Acts 9:35; 11:21; 26:20).
Elementsof repentance.The constituent elements of biblical repentance include thefollowing: (1)A recognition of one’s sin, its damagingeffects on life and nature, its affront to God’s word andauthority, and its dire consequences (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 3:23; 8:19–22;Rev. 21:8). (2)Personal outrage and remorse over one’ssin, grief at one’s helplessness, and a deep longing forforgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. (3)A personalresponse to God’s grace in choosing a new spiritual directionby breaking with the past and returning to God. This includesconfession and renunciation of sin, and prayer for God’sforgiveness (Lev. 5:5; Prov. 28:13; 1John 1:9). (4)Insome circ*mstances, repentance may require restitution (Exod.22:1–15; 1Sam. 12:3; 2Sam. 12:6; Luke 19:8). (5)Atit* core, repentance is a rejection of the autonomous life and thesurrender of oneself to the lordship of Christ (Jer. 3:22; Mark8:34–38). (6)The proof of true repentance is the worthyfruit of a changed life (Luke 3:7–14; Eph. 4:17–32; Col.1:10).
God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting”(NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makessense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overallends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes toachieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’sinteraction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore,God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprisetwists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm allthis and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both humanprayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God toachieve his purposes.
Textsthat speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a newcourse of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgmentit*elf represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’sbasic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “hisstrange work ... his alien task” (Isa. 28:21),undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be graciousand compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa.54:7–8; Hos.2).
Terminology.To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham,which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. Oncertain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels inreaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18;1Sam. 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest thatGod is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret formistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakhamis used to speak of God “relenting,” it means somethingmore than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves theheart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf.Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent iswrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13;106:44–45).
Exodusand Jonah.Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted.In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf isfollowed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. Adramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, inresponse to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequenceon its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcingNineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent,which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent frombringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce,which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as anantihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God,unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link betweenhuman repentance for sin and divine relenting from previouslyannounced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.
Theprophets.Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing onecourse of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibilityof an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or ifa prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, thenGod may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move thatGod chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20;Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12;Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).
Inthe book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle ofseven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminatingin the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speechopens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, Iwill not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he hascommitted himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verbshub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question ofreprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation isirrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent”(nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shownAmos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment isnot the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and thesetemporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’sdetermination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, eventhough Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearersto repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—thatis, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’sfall (5:4–6, 14–15).
Salvationand judgment.This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OTaccounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcementof the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary,judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe thegood news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers toescape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus(Acts 2:40).
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arrangedand sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3),miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanicaluniverse. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed toovercome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of theexistence of God (Mark 8:11–12). Still less are they cleverconjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can beotherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in hisinfinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things tocall attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinelyordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence ofhis glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptivehistory.
Terminology
Thebiblical writers describe miracles with various terms, such as“signs,” “wonders,” and “miracles”(or “powers”), which can carry various connotations. Asthe word “sign” suggests, divine miracles are significantand should cause us to think more deeply about God in a way that goesbeyond mere amazement or curiosity (Exod. 4:30–31; John 2:11).Not all of God’s signs are miraculous. Some are given as partof his ordering of the natural world (Gen. 1:14) or as anencouragement to faith that God will do as he has said (e.g., therainbow in Gen. 9:8–17; the blood of the Passover lamb in Exod.12:13). (See also Sign.)
Oftencoupled with signs are “wonders” (Jer. 32:21; John 4:48;2Cor. 12:12). If the depiction of miracles as “signs”indicates an appeal to the intellect, that of “wonders”points to the emotions. Miracles evoke astonishment and awe at theone who did them.
TheNT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power andtherefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke10:13; Acts 8:13).
Miraclesin the Bible
OldTestament.In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are foundin greater number during times of great redemptive significance, suchas the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performedalso during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of theninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of theseeras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God overpagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1Kings 18:20–40).
NewTestament. Inthe NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantlythey attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) andthe saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the SynopticGospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and theconquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30;Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiahof OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preferencefor the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured aroundthem (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesusperformed were such that only the one who stood in a uniquerelationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.
Miraclesand faith.Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naivecredulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, falseprophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even theelect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernmentand not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).
Therelationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward assometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nordoes faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended tobring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), butnot all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesusregarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious(Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than nofaith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find itsgrounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.
Itis also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in thosewho came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberatelylimited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5),many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could notexercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke14:1–4).
Thefact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, hisopponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Argumentsabout his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles butto the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).
Thefunction of miracles.Miracle accounts function in a symbolic and prophetic manner. Hence,the cursing of the fig tree was prophetic of the coming judgment(Mark 11:12–21). The unusual two-stage healing of the blind manof Bethsaida symbolized Peter’s incomplete understanding ofJesus’ messiahship (Mark 8:22–33).
Themiraculous element of Jesus’ ministry carries an eschatologicalsignificance, pointing to the order of things in the age to come. Forexample, the nature miracles (Mark 4:35–41) look forward to theredemption of creation itself, which is presently subject tofrustration and decay (Rom. 8:20–21); the healing miraclespoint to a day when disease and deformity will be abolished (Rev.21:4); and miracles in which the dead are raised to life anticipate atime when death itself will be no more (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). From thisperspective, the miracles are a gracious foretaste of a far moreglorious future.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Acts 2:14-41
is mentioned in the definition.
This book, commonly referred to simply as Acts, is the sequelto the Gospel of Luke and records the exciting history of the firstthree decades of the early church. The book begins with the ascensionof Jesus, followed by his sending of the Holy Spirit, and ends withthe gospel message being proclaimed by Paul as a prisoner in thecapital city of the Roman Empire. In the pages in between, the readeris introduced to the key people, places, and events of this strategicand crucial time of Christian history. The book of Acts providesinsightful and inspiring reading. It forms the backdrop forunderstanding much of the NT (especially Paul’s letters), andit provides important models for the contemporary church.
HistoricalBackground
Inorder to understand the book of Acts, one must become familiar withits historical background. This includes understanding the book’sauthorship, recipients, and setting. In terms of authorship, the booktechnically is anonymous; however, there are good reasons for holdingto church history’s traditional view that its author is Luke.This tradition dates back to the early second century and issupported by internal evidence. This evidence further reveals thatLuke was a physician and close companion of the apostle Paul (infact, Luke was actually with Paul for some of the events that herecords in Acts; see the “we” passages, found in16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:8–18; 27:1–28:16). Lukewas well educated, well traveled, and familiar with both the Jewishand the Greco-Roman worlds. He was a Hellenistic God-fearerand a Christian. He was also familiar with the Jewish Scriptures,Greco-Roman rhetoric, and ancient histories, thus making him theperfect candidate to write an accurate history of early Christianity.
Thespecific recipient of Acts is Theophilus (1:1). Theophilus could becharacterized as a relatively new believer of high social status, aperson educated in Greco-Roman rhetoric and history, and one whopossessed the financial means to promote and publish Luke’swork (both the Gospel of Luke and Acts). It is probable that in someway Theophilus served as a bridge to a wider readership. It seemslikely that Theophilus was Luke’s ideal reader (i.e., aninfluential Greco-Roman of high social standing).
Thespecific setting of Acts is difficult to determine; however, it seemsclear that the book was written during a time of crisis for thechurch. This crisis involved persecution and slander of Christians byboth Jews and Gentiles. Both groups were trying to persuade publicopinion against Christianity, including the opinion of Greco-Romanauthorities. The persecution and slander were taking their toll onthe church, and many Christians were demoralized and struggling toremain faithful as witnesses of Jesus. Christianity needed someone towrite a response to this crisis. This response had to do threethings: (1) accurately relate the history of the church toinfluential Greco-Romans of high social status; (2) show thatChristianity was an ancient religion (ancient religions wereconsidered to be legitimate by Roman authorities) and an asset to theRoman Empire, not a threat; (3) legitimize Christianity overagainst Judaism. The author of this reponse had to be someone who wasrespected both inside and outside of the Christian faith community,who knew the church’s history well, and who was educated inGreco-Roman rhetoric. What better authorial candidate than Luke?Finally, the church also needed a person of high social status andfinancial means to help publish and promote the work; thus,Theophilus was chosen.
Purpose
Thebook of Acts was written for a variety of purposes. These includeapologetics, legitimization, discipleship, and witness to salvation.The apologetic purpose of Acts focuses on how Christianity could berecognized as an ancient, honorable, and officially protectedreligion in the Roman Empire. Although Judaism had the status ofreligio licita (legal religion) with Roman authorities for most ofthe first century, Christianity encountered serious problems in thisrespect. Acts itself reveals a substantial amount of such evidence inthis regard. For example, 16:20–21 shows that at Philippi, Pauland Silas were charged with disturbing the peace by advocatingunlawful customs. In Thessalonica, the missionaries were accused ofdefying Caesar by promoting another king named “Jesus”(17:7). At Corinth, the charge was that of persuading the peopletoward unlawful worship (18:13). Later in Acts, Paul was charged bythe Jewish priestly leaders with being part of an unacceptable sectthat was stirring up riots in Jewish communities (24:5–9). In28:22, when Paul addressed the Roman Jews, they responded by sayingthat “people everywhere are talking against this sect[Christianity].” Such accusations, accompanied by the fact thatChristianity’s founder had been crucified by Roman authorities,made it difficult for the Christians to gain credibility.Christianity’s precarious position with Rome was furtherexacerbated by a strong Jewish campaign to separate from Christiansand to label them as sectarian. This strategy certainly intended forChristianity to be viewed by Rome as religio illicita (illegal orforbidden religion). Thus, Luke writes Acts to defend Christianity byshowing that it is not a replacement of Judaism, but rather itslegitimate continuation. Therefore, it should be accepted by theRoman authorities as a legal religion just as Judaism was accepted.
Luke’sapologetic message also appears to be directed inwardly, to astruggling church. This inward focus leads to Luke’s next mainpurpose: legitimization of the Christian faith for its adherents. Aspart of his defense, Luke intends to equip the church in the midst ofan identity crisis due to the constant threats of illegitimacy. Thisexplains Luke’s strategy of retelling the story of the church’sorigins so that followers of Christ would understand their trueposition from God’s perspective. Thus, Luke verifies fourthings: (1) the Jewish Scriptures prophesied a coming messiah,and Jesus matched these prophecies; (2) the resurrection wasforetold in Scripture and verified by eyewitnesses; (3) it wasGod’s plan all along for Gentiles to be included in God’sredemptive work; (4) Jews who rejected Jesus were acting in thesame way their ancestors did; therefore, believers should not besurprised by their negative reaction to Jesus. Luke uses stories suchas the one in Acts 2:41–47 to verify that salvation wasgenuinely being accomplished in the church and that Christians wereexperiencing the fulfillment of God’s ancient promises toIsrael. Luke’s writing is intended to encourage hiscontemporary church members to remain faithful in their service andwitness for the Lord. He reminds them that they are the true(legitimate) “people of God” and that God’s Spiritwill help them prevail and will give them abundant life even in themidst of hardship and persecution.
Anotherkey purpose of the book of Acts is to foster discipleship. Theprologues of both Luke’s Gospel and Acts verify that Luke iswriting to provide instruction and teaching for Theophilus (see Luke1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2). Part of this instruction reveals thatthe ascension of Jesus was not the end of his relationship with theworld, but rather a new beginning. Jesus’ departure did notmean abandonment; in fact, it meant just the opposite. Jesus verifieshis continuing presence and work in the world after his departurejust as he had lived and worked before. In other words, the sameSpirit who directed the ministry of Jesus is now going to direct theministry of Jesus’ followers. The rest of the book of Actsprovides instruction (with many personal examples) on how Christ canfulfill the ministry of believers through the power and direction ofthe Holy Spirit. Luke’s discipleship teaching includes helpingbelievers learn how to experience and follow God’s Spirit(chap. 2), to boldly witness for Christ in the midst of persecution(chaps. 3–4, 8, 14, 16–17, 19–28), to sacrificiallyshare resources with other Christians in need (chaps. 2, 4, 11), toresolve disputes within the church (chaps. 6, 15), and to take thegospel message of salvation to all people (chaps. 2, 11, 13–28).
Thebook of Acts places great emphasis on the message of salvation andthe responsibility given to believers to share this salvific messagewith all people. This salvation-witness concept is clearly one ofLuke’s key purposes for the book of Acts. The Pentecost eventof Acts 2 initiates the theme of salvation for all people and thussets the agenda for the rest of the book. In this passage, variousJews from many nations hear the good news in their own tongue, whichsuggests that this news is for peoples of all tongues and nations yetfor Jews first. The rest of Acts continues this theme of theuniversal scope of salvation. Luke makes it clear that this salvationcrosses all geographical, ethnic, and social boundaries. In Acts,Luke is bridging the gap between Jesus’ earthly ministry and alater generation of Christ followers who are to take the gospel to amuch wider geographical area with even greater ethnic diversity. Themessage of salvation should be joined with Luke’s emphasis onwitness. The centrality of the theme of witness in Acts is verifiedby Jesus’ words right before the ascension: “And you willbe my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and tothe ends of the earth” (1:8). The book of Acts tells the storyof how the early church received and obeyed the command of Jesus tobear witness of him to the ends of the earth.
LiteraryFeatures
Thesekey purposes of Acts are expounded through some distinctive literaryfeatures found in the book. One such literary feature is that thebook of Acts was written in a literary genre called “apologetichistoriography.” This genre can be defined as the story of asubgroup of people told by a member of the group who explains thegroup’s traditions and history while using Greco-Roman literaryfeatures. A good example of this literary genre is Josephus’sJewish Antiquities. Josephus tells the story of the Jews toGreco-Roman readers in hopes that they will better understand Jewishhistory and traditions and will accept the Jews in the largerGreco-Roman world. This appears to be exactly what Luke is doing inthe book of Acts for Christians. However, Luke is not giving adefense of a particular ethnic group; rather, he is defending amulticultural people who transcend ethnic and geographicalboundaries. In fact, this is a key part of Luke’s message.Throughout Acts, Luke is trying to explain why his religion is onethat crosses ethnic boundaries and is a universal religion inclusiveof all ethnicities. As Luke tells the story of Christianity, he iscareful to utilize Hellenistic literary features in order to connectwith his primary audience. Evidence of these Hellenistic literaryfeatures in the book of Acts includes a narrative style illustratingthe history through the personal experiences of key characters (Actstells the history of the early church through characters such asPeter and Paul), the frequent use of speeches, personal observationof at least part of the narrative while maintaining anonymity ofauthorship (the “we” passages of Acts), and the frequentuse of summaries to guide the narrative (Acts contains three majorsummaries [2:42–47; 4:32–37; 5:12–16] and a numberof minor summaries [6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31]).
Outlineand Survey
Actscan be outlined according to Jesus’ final words, recorded in1:8: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you;and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea andSamaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
I.Witnesses in Jerusalem (1:1–8:3)II. Witnesses in Judeaand Samaria (8:4–12:25)III. Witnesses to the Ends of theEarth (13:1–28:31)
I.Witnesses in Jerusalem (Acts 1:1–8:3).Immediately following his ascension, Jesus tells his followers toreturn to Jerusalem and wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Theypromptly obey, and after ten days of waiting, the disciples aredramatically filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to share thegospel with those around them. This event occurs at the JewishPentecost festival, which was attended by Jews and Jewish proselytesfrom throughout the Roman Empire. After the Spirit comes atPentecost, Peter boldly preaches to the crowds, and over threethousand people respond with saving faith (2:41).
Lukenext provides an exciting summary of the Spirit-led life within theearly church. This life is characterized by the early believers’participation together in the sharing of worship activities, materialpossessions, and spiritual blessings (2:42–47). This summary isfollowed by several dramatic healing miracles accomplished throughPeter and the subsequent arrest of Christian leaders by Jewishreligious authorities. Instead of squelching the Christian movement,however, these arrests only enhance the spiritual revival and itsaccompanying miracles. This revival is characterized by extremegenerosity and unity within the early church (4:32–37).
Therevival joy, however, is marred by the deceitful actions of Ananiasand Sapphira, who lie to the church and to the Holy Spirit and arejudged by God with immediate death (5:1–11). This story provesthat God will go to extreme lengths to protect the unity of hischurch. Following more persecution and miracles, the disciples chooseseven men to oversee distribution of food to Hellenistic widows whohave been neglected in daily food distributions (6:1–7). One ofthese leaders, Stephen, is arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin.Stephen testifies boldly before the Jewish leaders and is promptlyexecuted by stoning (chap. 7). This execution is endorsed by Saul, azealous Pharisee who begins to lead fierce persecution against thechurch in Jerusalem (8:1–3).
II.Witnesses in Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:4–12:25).Saul’s persecution forces many of the early church believers toleave Jerusalem. These believers scatter throughout the surroundingareas of Judea and Samaria. As they scatter, however, they continueto preach the gospel (8:4). Philip preaches in Samaria and performsmany miraculous signs, producing a spiritual revival in the region.Hearing about this, the apostles send Peter and John to Samaria tominister to the Samaritans (8:18–25), thus confirming thecross-cultural nature of the gospel (Samaritans traditionally werehated by the Jews). Next Luke tells of Philip’s evangelizing ofan Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40).
Followingthe Ethiopian’s belief in Jesus, the narrative tells of Saul’sdramatic conversion while traveling to Damascus to persecuteChristians there (9:1–19). Saul’s dramatic turnaround ismet with suspicion by the other disciples, but eventually he isaccepted by the believers with the help of Barnabas (9:27–30).Next Peter travels to the Judean countryside and heals the paralyticAeneas and raises Dorcas from the dead (9:32–42). Thesemiracles produce an exciting spiritual revival in the region.Following this, God gives Peter a vision to go to the coastal city ofCaesarea in order to minister to Cornelius, a Roman army officer.Cornelius is a God-fearer, and through Peter’s witness heresponds to the gospel message and receives the Holy Spirit (chap.10). Peter explains his actions with Cornelius to his concernedJewish companions and verifies that God has indeed included theGentiles in his plan of salvation (11:1–18).
Thisverification is followed by the report of what is happening in thechurch at Antioch, where Jews begin to share the gospel with largergroups of Gentiles (11:19–21). This cross-cultural evangelismproduces a spiritual revival in Antioch, causing the Jerusalem churchto send Barnabas to the large Syrian city to investigate (11:22–30).Barnabas confirms that God is indeed at work in Antioch and invitesSaul to come and help him disciple the new Gentile believers(11:25–26). Next Luke reports more persecution breaking outagainst Christians in Jerusalem, resulting in the arrest of James andPeter by King Herod. James is executed, but Peter miraculouslyescapes from prison with the help of an angel (12:1–19), andthe church continues to increase, spreading throughout the RomanEmpire.
III.Witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 13:1–28:31).Starting with chapter 13, the narrative shifts its focus from theministry of Peter to that of Paul (formerly Saul). The church atAntioch begins to take center stage over the church at Jerusalem.This church commissions Paul and Barnabas and sends them off on theirfirst missionary journey, accompanied by Barnabas’scousin John Mark. The missionaries first sail to Cyprus, where theypreach in synagogues and encounter a Jewish sorcerer, Bar-Jesus. Nextthey sail to Pamphylia, thus crossing into Asia Minor, and preach thegospel in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (this area wasknown as part of the region of Galatia). In these cities, Godprovides numerous miracles, and the missionaries experience a greatresponse to the gospel as well as much persecution because of thegospel. On one occasion, Paul is actually stoned and left for dead(14:19–20).
Unfazed,Paul and his team boldly continue their mission. Eventually, theyretrace their steps, strengthen the churches that they have started,and sail back to Syrian Antioch, where they give an exciting reportto the church (14:26–28). Following this report, Luke tells ofan important meeting of church leaders in Jerusalem. The subject ofthe meeting involves whether or not the new Gentile Christians shouldbe required to follow the Jewish laws and customs. After debating theissue, the leaders side with Paul, determining that the Gentilesshould not be burdened with Jewish laws and traditions, but simplymust live moral lives and not eat food that has been sacrificed toidols (chap. 15).
Followingthis meeting, Paul and Barnabas decide to make a second missionaryjourney. Unfortunately, the two missionaries get into a dispute overwhether to take John Mark with them again. The argument is such thatthe missionaries decide to separate, and Paul chooses a new partner,Silas. They travel by land back to Galatia. Barnabas takes John Markand sails to Cyprus. Paul and Silas return to Derbe and Lystra andthen make their way to Macedonia and Greece. They spend significanttime in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth before returning toCaesarea and Antioch (chaps. 16–18). Following his return, Paulmakes a third missionary journey, revisiting churches in Galatia andPhrygia and staying in Ephesus for three years before visitingMacedonia and Greece for a second time.
Paulconcludes his third missionary journey with a trip to Jerusalem,where he is falsely accused of bringing a Gentile into the temple.This accusation creates a riot, and Paul is rescued by Romansoldiers, who arrest him and transfer him to a prison in Caesarea,where he spends two years awaiting trial under the rule of Felix andFestus (23:34–25:22). Paul eventually exercises his right as aRoman citizen to have his case heard by the emperor. He is sent toRome by boat and is shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Eventually hemakes his way to the capital city, where he is placed under housearrest. While in Rome, Paul maintains a rented house and is free toreceive visitors and write letters. In fact, it is thought that Paulpenned his “prison letters” during this time of housearrest (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). The narrativeof Acts ends with Paul ministering boldly in Rome while awaiting histrial.
Actsand the Contemporary Church
Thebook of Acts provides a model for today’s church on numeroustopics. These include understanding the role of the Holy Spirit,practicing community life within the church, dealing with hardshipand persecution, overcoming social injustices, and carrying outmissions.
Actsreveals that the key issue for Christians is learning to experienceand follow God’s Holy Spirit, who enables believers to be boldin their witness for Christ, generous in their physical and spiritualsupport of each other, and effective in their ministries. Actsconsistently reveals that one’s joy, power, and purpose comefrom the Holy Spirit. According to Acts, learning to follow anddepend upon God’s Holy Spirit is the key to having a healthychurch.
Actsalso shows that the Holy Spirit produces a unique community lifecharacterized by worship, generosity, blessing, and unity. Luke callsthis Spirit-led common life koinōnia, which is explained andillustrated in the first five chapters of Acts (see esp. 2:42–47).It should be the desire and goal of every church to re-create thiskoinōnia community first experienced by the primitive church inActs.
Inaddition to its koinōnia, the book of Acts serves as a model forthe church in overcoming persecution and hardship. The narrative ofActs consistently reveals the sovereign power of God in overcomingopposition. The early church found great joy and growth in the midstof hardship and persecution, and today’s church can do thesame.
Anotherimportant example for the church provided by Acts is in the area ofsocial justice. Luke’s primitive church consistently removedethnic prejudices, eliminated social hierarchy and status within thechurch, and elevated the role of women. Acts provides inspiration andguidance for today’s church in facing these same social issues.
Inaddition to overcoming social injustices, the church in Acts providesan excellent example of mission ministry. These believersconsistently revealed God’s heart for the nations and made it apriority to share the gospel with all people everywhere. Acts’emphasis on the universal nature of the gospel, the responsibility ofindividual Christians to witness for Christ, and the importance ofplanting new churches and discipling new believers sets a pattern fortoday’s church in the area of missions.
Theseexamples should serve to inspire and guide the contemporary church asit seeks to follow and experience the Holy Spirit, who is sopowerfully revealed in the book of Acts.
The age to come is the time when Christ will return andestablish his kingdom in all its fullness and glory. The Jews livingin intertestamental times experienced great persecution andsufferings and looked ahead in hope and anticipation to a futurecoming age of a messiah, with all its associated blessings. Both Johnthe Baptist and Jesus pointed to how this new age had already drawnnear with their message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven hascome near” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus taught that “thekingdom of God has come upon you” during his earthly ministry(Matt. 12:28), and he promised that anyone who has been born againcan “see” or “enter” the kingdom right then(using present-tense verbs in John 3:3, 5). At the same time, Jesuswas equally clear that the kingdom had not come in all its fullnessduring his earthly ministry, and he instructed his disciples tocontinue to look ahead and pray specifically, “your kingdomcome” (Matt. 6:10). Consequently, many have described thekingdom as being both “already” and “not yet”in the sense that God’s kingdom has already begun with Christ’sfirst coming, even though the fullness of the kingdom still lies inthe future. Thus, in one sense “the age to come” beganwith Jesus’ earthly ministry, especially his death andresurrection. Peter could also describe the giving of the Holy Spiriton Pentecost as taking place in “the last days” (Acts2:17), thus marking the beginning of the age to come. Consequently,believers find themselves living in the tension between alreadyexperiencing the transforming power of a new life in Christ and stillliving in what the Bible elsewhere describes as “the presentevil age” (Gal. 1:4) under the power of Satan as “the godof this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). The challenge for believers isto look ahead by faith and “lay up treasure for themselves as afirm foundation for the coming age” (1 Tim. 6:19), whenChrist will return and fully establish his kingdom. See also Advent,Second; Eschatology; Second Coming.
A Greek form of the common Hebrew name “Hananiah.”(1) Amember of the Jerusalem church whose death was followed by that ofhis wife, Sapphira, as a result of holding back part of theirpossessions (Acts 5:1–11). Peter rebuked Ananias and Sapphira’sdeception as lying to or testing “the Holy Spirit” (vv.3, 5). This incident is best understood against the background ofActs 2–4, which describes as closely related being “filledwith the Holy Spirit” (2:4; 4:31), the spread of the gospel(2:40; 4:4), and the communal sharing of possessions (2:44–45;4:32–37).
(2) Adisciple at Damascus who helped restore Saul’s eyesight andbaptized him in accordance with the Lord’s direction in avision (Acts 9). In Acts 22:12 Paul describes Ananias as “adevout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jewsliving [at Damascus].” He was the one who informed Paul of hiscalling as a witness for Jesus to all people (22:12–15).
(3) Ahigh priest in Jerusalem during AD 47–58. He presided over theinterrogation of Paul at the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem (Acts 23:1–10)and testified against Paul before Felix (24:1). His character is wellillustrated in his command to strike Paul on the mouth, upon whichPaul calls him a “whitewashed wall” and sees him unfitfor the high priesthood (23:2–5). Being a pro-Roman figure,Ananias was assassinated by the Zealots in AD 66.
The initiatory ritual of Christianity. This rite is of greatsignificance in connecting the individual both to Christ and to thegreater community of believers. Baptism carries an equal measure ofsymbolism and tradition, evoking a connection between OT covenantalcircumcision and ritual cleansing and NT regeneration and redemption.It is the visible response to the gospel, reflecting the internalresponse to the gospel: the climactic moment in the journey ofreconciliation of the believer with God.
Theword “baptism” (Gk. baptisma) carries with it the senseof washing by dipping (Gk. baptizō); the word can also carry thesense of being overtaken or subsumed, or of joining or entering intoa new way of life. In either sense, a distinct change in therecipient is envisioned. Through baptism, Christians both demonstratetheir desire for and symbolize their understanding of being washedclean of sin; they also proclaim their surrender to and subjugationby Christ. All this intellectual underpinning occurs in what can be adeeply emotional ceremony.
Baptismin the Bible
Theimmediate precursor of Christian baptism was the baptism of Johnthe Baptist (Mark 1:4 pars.), a baptism of repentance for theforgiveness of sins, preparing the hearts of the people for thecoming Messiah. But when Jesus himself was baptized by John to“fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to allowJesus to identify with sinful humanity, he became the firstfruits ofthe new covenant. John emphasized that his baptism with water wasinferior to the baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire”that Jesus would bring (Matt. 3:11). Jesus’ disciples continuedJohn’s baptism during his earthly ministry (John 4:1–2).
Baptismwas immediately important in the early church. Jesus commanded thedisciples to “make disciples . . . , baptizing them”(Matt. 28:19). The disciples replaced Judas from among those “whohave been with us the whole time . . . from John’sbaptism” (Acts 1:21–22). Peter’s first sermonproclaims, “Repent and be baptized” (2:38). The apostlesbaptized new believers in Christ immediately (8:12–13; 8:38;9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).
Forthe apostle Paul, baptism represents a participation in thecrucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Don’tyou know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus werebaptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him throughbaptism into death” (Rom. 6:3–4); “In him you were. . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were alsoraised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raisedhim from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).
Thoughthe NT does not explicitly command baptism (the command in Acts 2:38is understood to be directed toward a specific group), it assumesthat all believers will be baptized (Acts 19:2–3). Theexpectation of baptism is as good as a command, and Christians shouldunderstand baptism as a matter of obedience. Accounts of baptism inActs are always preceded by reports of belief, and new believers areimmediately baptized. Baptism also carries the idea of conveyance: noone self-baptizes; rather, believers baptize others as an initiationinto the family of believers.
BaptismalPractices
Historicallyin the church, the manner of baptism involves the application ofwater to the recipient by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. Thesepractices vary among Christians, but no one practice has a clearbiblical warrant above the others. Paul, however, appeals tosymbolism in his discussions of baptism. He describes those baptized“into Christ Jesus” as being “baptized into hisdeath,” “buried with him through baptism into death”that they might be raised to a new life “just as Christ wasraised from the dead” (Rom. 6:3–4; see also Col. 2:12).Immersion may be the best vehicle to retain this striking symbolismof Paul.
Thetiming of baptism has caused controversy within the church. Somechurches (especially Baptist) believe that baptism is for those whohave made a conscious decision for Christ—believer’sbaptism. Baptism is an expression of both the change in one’slife and one’s devotion. With this act, the person unites withthe church as well as with Jesus himself. This is a deeply movingexperience for the celebrant, one to be remembered forever. Thecelebrant metaphorically is buried with Christ in order to be raisedup with him. Baptism does not of itself convey salvation but ratheris an act of obedience, and obedience indicates active affirmation ofthe gospel.
Somechurches (e.g., Reformed, Presbyterian) practice infant baptism(paedobaptism). Baptism is at least partly a covenant act similar tocircumcision; by this act the child’s parents announce theirown membership in the body of Christ and their desire that the childbe considered a member as well. Baptism does not convey salvation,but it does convey a type of grace. Entering early adulthood, thechild will be given a chance to affirm his or her faith throughconfirmation. Obviously, the child will have no conscious memory ofthe original baptism, but the child will grow from infancy with theknowledge of having been entered conditionally into the church by hisor her parents. Infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents thatthe child must claim later, at which time some church traditions havea ritual of confirmation. The warrant for infant baptism is thepassages where a “household” or other unspecified groupis baptized (see Acts 2:38; 16:15, 31, 34). Also, Paul seems torelate Christian baptism to OT circumcision (Col. 2:11–12), anevent for the child performed at the parents’ request (Lev.12:3). (See also Infant Baptism)
Advocatesof believer’s baptism also see value in the ceremonialincorporation of infants into the church. These churches offer childdedication, a similar ceremony but without the water component.
Anothersource of debate is the concept of rebaptism. Some churches requirethat prospective members who were baptized as infants be baptizedanew as believing adults. It is claimed that the previous baptism isinvalid, since an infant cannot possess the proper faith. For otherchurches, rebaptism is strictly forbidden as unscriptural.
Notably,while most Christian groups see baptism as fundamental to theirfellowship, many groups also make allowances for baptism received inextraordinary ways. For instance, the Catholic Church allows for“baptism by blood” and “baptism by desire,”where in extreme cases baptism is credited though having never beenperformed. Catholic doctrine also allows for “extraordinaryministers” who may not even be Christians to perform baptism,as long as the intended goal is a valid Christian baptism.
TheFunction of Baptism
Baptismshould not be seen as a saving act; Paul tells a jailer, “Believein the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and yourhousehold” (Acts 16:31). It is later, after the jailer haswashed Paul’s and Silas’s wounds, that the family isbaptized. Paul does write to Titus about salvation, saying, “Hesaved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the HolySpirit” (Titus 3:5). But here Paul is invoking OT imageryrather than NT baptism, as he nowhere uses these terms to refer tobaptism. Peter writes, “And this water symbolizes baptism thatnow saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body butthe pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet.3:21). It is not the baptism that saves, nor the washing, but ratherthe working of faith in relationship with God.
Itis a shame that baptism has become a source of division in today’schurches. Paul emphasizes that “we were all baptized by oneSpirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slaveor free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink”(1 Cor. 12:13). Having been baptized into Jesus Christ should bea unifying element among Christians, not a source of contention.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT totake place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of theMessiah.
Spiritbaptism in the Bible.The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon theMessiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out ofthe Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27;37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spiritwith Jesus’ being received by the Father and being grantedmessianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Corneliusin particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45)with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Sevenpassages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/withthe Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’sprediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit incontrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16;John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred toas a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages referto Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spiritbaptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tonguesof fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the HolySpirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciplesspoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival,three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in11:16.
Thefinal reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “Forwe were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whetherJews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the oneSpirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through theircommon experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
Asecond baptism?Whilein 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that allChristians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Actswhere the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. Thequestion then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptismin/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’sinitial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body ofChrist at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normativefor the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularlyprominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examplessuch as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of asecond and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 thedisciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes tothem at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’spreaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spiritonly after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them toreceive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearingGentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on hishousehold. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After helays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they beginto speak in tongues and prophesy.
Inunderstanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Actsdescribes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particularrecounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. Itis possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming ofthe Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and theGentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected thereception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears tobe the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates anincomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’sbaptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in thename of the Lord Jesus.”
Filledwith the Spirit.Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spiritbaptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled”with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit”frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such asin Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine,which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead toworship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can alsoresult in empowerment for ministry.
Theimmediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 isspeaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.”Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’slife, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look afterthe widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
John the Baptist announces that one more powerful than hewill “baptize . . . with the Holy Spirit and fire”(Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16). A baptism of fire connotes judgment, yetLuke characterizes this as “good news” (Luke 3:17–18),for judgment signals the arrival of God’s eschatologicalkingdom in Jesus (cf. 12:49). John’s words evoke Isa. 4:4,which announces that Jerusalem/Zion will be cleansed “by aspirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.” They also resonatewith numerous OT and intertestamental texts that predict God’sfiery judgment (e.g., Zeph. 1:18; Mal. 4:1). As a sign of the endtimes (Joel 2:28; Acts 2), God’s eschatological community, thechurch, experiences the baptism (1 Cor. 12:23) and fire(1 Thess. 5:19) of the Spirit.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT totake place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of theMessiah.
Spiritbaptism in the Bible.The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon theMessiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out ofthe Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27;37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spiritwith Jesus’ being received by the Father and being grantedmessianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Corneliusin particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45)with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Sevenpassages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/withthe Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’sprediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit incontrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16;John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred toas a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages referto Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spiritbaptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tonguesof fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the HolySpirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciplesspoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival,three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in11:16.
Thefinal reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “Forwe were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whetherJews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the oneSpirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through theircommon experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
Asecond baptism?Whilein 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that allChristians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Actswhere the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. Thequestion then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptismin/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’sinitial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body ofChrist at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normativefor the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularlyprominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examplessuch as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of asecond and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 thedisciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes tothem at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’spreaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spiritonly after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them toreceive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearingGentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on hishousehold. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After helays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they beginto speak in tongues and prophesy.
Inunderstanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Actsdescribes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particularrecounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. Itis possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming ofthe Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and theGentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected thereception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears tobe the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates anincomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’sbaptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in thename of the Lord Jesus.”
Filledwith the Spirit.Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spiritbaptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled”with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit”frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such asin Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine,which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead toworship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can alsoresult in empowerment for ministry.
Theimmediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 isspeaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.”Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’slife, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look afterthe widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
An epithet used by Luke and Paul to signify someone whospeaks a foreign, unintelligible language (Acts 28:2, 4 [NIV:“islanders”]; 1 Cor. 14:11; cf. Ps. 113:1 LXX [114:1MT]). The Greek term, barbaros, occurs six times in the NT, all ofthem rendered as “barbarian” by the KJV, whereasmore-recent versions tend to use terms such as “foreigner”(though see Rom. 1:14 NRSV; Col. 3:11 NRSV, NIV). However, such termsperhaps miss the negative connotation. The word itself isonomatopoeic, representing the unintelligible sound of a languageforeign to the hearer: bar-bar-bar. The basis for such a distinctionwas partly overcome at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–36). The term couldalso be used more generally for a member of another nation, which,before Christ, had not been included in God’s covenant (Rom.1:14). Paul also mentions, as a class of barbarian, the Scythians(Col. 3:11), who had a bad reputation among Romans and Jews (2 Macc.4:47; 3 Macc. 7:5). Their depiction by Herodotus is particularlyterrifying: a nomadic people north of the Black Sea (and thereforenot far from the Colossians in Asia Minor) who never washed and whodrank the blood of the first enemy killed in battle, making napkinsof the scalps and drinking bowls from skulls of the vanquished (Hist.4.19, 46, 64–65, 75). Paul maintains that deeply engrainedcultural evil can be overcome in Christ (Col. 3:1–11; see alsoGal. 3:28). In subsequent centuries, missionaries were phenomenallysuccessful in reaching the barbarian tribes.
Every faithful translation of the Bible is the word of God.In this respect, Christianity is very different from Islam, whichconsiders the Arabic version of the Qur’an exclusively holy. Itis true that only the original versions of the biblical books, whichwere written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were verbally inspired,and this means that individual translations, like copies, can containerrors. Translations also necessarily involve some degree ofinterpretation. However, all language is created by God, and in theincarnation the Word became fully human as well as fully divine. InGod’s hands, every human language is as capable as any other ofexpressing his truth.
SincePentecost, the Holy Spirit has been at work to reverse the effect ofhuman sin at Babel (Gen. 11:9), not by reducing all languages to one,but by redeeming the diversity and richness of the world’slanguages so that all can hear God speak to them in their own tongue(Acts 2:1–11). Indeed, translations of Scripture themselvestransform the languages and cultures in which they are written,endowing them with new or revised concepts of God, humanity, sin, andthe means of salvation.
TheHistory of Translation
Bibletranslation began long before the Bible as we know it was complete.In the fifth century BC the Israelites who returned from exile spokeAramaic. Thus, they needed the Levites to translate the Hebrew lawfor them (Neh. 8:8). This Levitical teaching was probably an earlyexample of a Targum, a translation into Aramaic with interpretationand expansion. We do not know exactly when the Targumim began to bewritten down, but some of the earliest fragments that have been foundare among the DSS.
Byabout the third century BC the dominant languages of Palestine wereGreek and Aramaic. Many NT quotations from the OT use an establishedGreek translation of the OT. This was known as the Septuagint (LXX),after the legend that it was translated by seventy-two men, six fromeach tribe of Israel, on the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt(285–247 BC). The NT was written in similar “common”(koinē) Greek, but in some places the Gospels and Acts translatewords that Jesus and Paul originally spoke in Aramaic (Mark 5:41;15:34; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; see also John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20;20:16).
UntilPentecost, God’s revelation was translated only into thelanguages spoken by the Jewish people in their everyday life. AtPentecost, however, the coming of the Holy Spirit was marked by adisplay of miraculous linguistic gifts, and a new era of Bibletranslation had begun (Acts 2). As Christians obeyed Christ’scommand to take the word of God into all the world, they began totranslate it into all the languages used by the growing church.
Withinthree centuries, Scripture was translated from the original Hebrew,Aramaic, and Greek into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. The earliesttranslations into these languages were then revised and improved inthe subsequent centuries until some, such as Jerome’s LatinVulgate and the Syriac Pesh*tta, emerged as acknowledged standards.Other early translations included Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, andOld Slavonic. Many of these languages were already written, but asmissionaries ventured further, they sometimes had to start byreducing spoken languages to writing. Ulfilas, missionary to theGoths, was the first to do this.
Allof the thirty-three translations prior to the Reformation had to becopied out by hand, and almost all were “secondarytranslations” made from the Latin. Moreover, despite theefforts of early reformers such as John Wycliffe (AD 1330–84),the Catholic Church continued to use the Latin text itself, which wasaccessible only to the educated. In the sixteenth century, however,the printing press was invented, Renaissance scholars rediscoveredthe value of consulting texts in the original Hebrew and Greek, andProtestantism realized that believers need the Bible in their mothertongue.
Themost influential sixteenth-century translator into English wasWilliam Tyndale (1494–1536). His work on the NT and parts ofthe OT was gradually expanded and revised by other scholars,culminating in the 1611 King James Version, which is still widelyused. Meanwhile, other European translations were produced in German(by Martin Luther), Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, and French.
TheReformation also gave new momentum to mission outside Europe, and bythe end of the eighteenth century the number of languages having theBible had roughly doubled. A much greater global achievement,however, began in the nineteenth century, when the newly formed Biblesocieties, with other mission agencies, were instrumental in thetranslation and publication of portions of Scripture in over fourhundred languages. Famous translators from this century includeWilliam Carey in India, John Robert Morrison in China, Henry Martynin Persia, and Adoniram Judson in Burma. About five hundred moretranslations were added in the first half of the twentieth century.Progress was, nevertheless, slow. Many languages were difficult toanalyze, and it was particularly hard to produce translations thatread smoothly, using the genres and idioms that a native speakerwould use.
Sincethe 1950s, linguistic science has revolutionized the way thattranslation is carried out, and organizations such as Wycliffe BibleTranslators have set themselves the task of giving every person inthe world the Scriptures in their everyday language. Increasingly,translation is carried out by linguistically trained native speakersof the target languages, working wherever possible from the originalHebrew and Greek. Translators understand better than before howextended discourses are constructed at levels above the sentence, andhow social and pragmatic factors affect meaning. The combination oflinguistics and technology has also greatly increased the speed withwhich translations can be produced; sometimes a first draft in a newlanguage can be generated from a closely related language using acomputer program.
Typesof Translation
Alltranslators aim for both accuracy and acceptability, but the work oftranslation constantly involves compromise between these two factors.There are, broadly speaking, two types of translation: formalcorrespondence and functional equivalence.
Ina formal correspondence translation (also called “literal”),the translator, as far as possible, preserves the word order andstructure of the original text and translates each word the same wayevery time it occurs, even if the result is slightly wooden. This ishelpful for word studies, and it preserves patterns of repetitionthat give structure to the text. There is always a danger, however,that the closest formal match to the original actually conveys ameaning different from the original in a particular context.Literalness is not the same as accuracy. Pushed to its extreme,formal correspondence produces the kind of semitranslation found ininterlinear texts (where the English is reproduced word for wordbelow a line of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek); it is not grammaticallyacceptable, cannot be used on its own for public or private reading,and loses many of the nuances of the original. However, formalcorrespondence translations that avoid such extremes are importantfor detailed Bible study.
Ina functional equivalence translation (also called “dynamic,”“idiomatic equivalence,” or “meaning-based”),the translator aims to produce the same response in a modern readeras the original text would have done in an ancient reader. To achievethis, the syntactic structures and figures of speech of Greek andHebrew are replaced by their equivalents in the target language. Aword may be translated many different ways in different contexts,even when it has a single basic meaning in the original. While thispreserves some nuances, it loses others, obscuring structure and thedeliberate echo of one verse in another. In this case there is alwaysa danger that the translator has misunderstood the original meaningand the response that it would have produced. Pushed to its extreme,this type shades into paraphrase, and it may be overly subjective orjeopardize the historical particularity of the text. However, dynamicequivalence translations that avoid such pitfalls are valuable forevangelism, new readers, and public and devotional reading.
Inpractice most translations sit somewhere on the spectrum betweenthese two extremes. Some intermediate translations are a deliberatecompromise, aiming to keep as close as possible to the original whilecommunicating its meaning clearly in a common language that isaccessible to all. The NIV is a widely used example. One problem inusing such a translation is knowing when form has been preserved atthe expense of meaning, and when meaning has been preserved at theexpense of form. For serious study, therefore, it is useful tocompare intermediate translations with translations of the other twotypes, and to learn from the introductory material what translationprinciples have been used.
Toillustrate the differences between the types of translation, considerhow Rom. 3:21 is rendered by the NASB (formal correspondence), theNIV (intermediate), and the NLT (functional equivalence):
Butnow apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested,being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. (NASB)
Butnow apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (NIV)
Butnow God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keepingthe requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Mosesand the prophets long ago. (NLT)
FurtherChoices in Translation
Withinthis spectrum translators have further detailed decisions to make.
First,what are the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, asdetermined by the discipline of textual criticism?
Second,what style should be used? An elevated or archaic style is sometimespreferred in order to convey the dignity of the word; others use adeliberately colloquial style in order to maximize accessibility.Different books of the Bible themselves have different styles andgenres, ranging from vivid stories and evocative poems to precisedoctrinal formulations, and a translation may attempt to reflect thisdiversity. At the same time, the style and range of vocabulary chosenwill depend to some extent on the needs of the target audience.
Third,should the translation contain complexity and ambiguity when theoriginal does, or should it clarify and simplify? Some parts ofScripture were never easy reading even in the original (see 2 Pet.3:15–16). However, it is sometimes necessary to disambiguate inorder to produce grammatically acceptable text in the targetlanguage. In modern books it is also normal to divide text intoparagraphs and chapters, often with subheadings. Ancient texts,however, were written without any such breaks, so this too is aninterpretation of the text for the sake of clarity.
Fourth,what should the translator do when there is no equivalent word orphrase in the target language? Many people groups have never seen asheep! Sometimes a choice must be made between coining a new word andrefocusing the meaning of an existing word. This is particularlydifficult when deciding how to refer to God in a pagan culture.Translating gesture can also be challenging. For example, in Jer.31:19 the Hebrew is literally “I slapped my thigh,” whichis an indication of distress; but in Western culture slapping one’sthigh would probably mean enjoying a good joke, so the NIV translatesthe Hebrew as “beat my breast.” Footnotes may benecessary to ensure that the meaning is fully understood.
Finally,in cultures that have possessed the Bible for many generationstradition plays a role. A previous translation of a particular versemay be so well known that, unless it is seriously wrong, it ispreferable to let it stand than to “modernize” it.Conversely, tradition may so change the meaning of “biblical”words (such as “saint”) that verses containing them needto be retranslated.
Asa result of all these decisions, there is scope for many differenttranslations even in a single language. Where several translationsexist, serious study should always include comparison betweentranslations along with the use of commentaries. Where availableresources as yet permit only one translation in a language, the typeof translation to be produced must be chosen with great care. Ineither case, new translations will always be needed. On the one hand,although God’s word never changes, scholars can improve ourtextual, linguistic, and exegetical understanding of the Hebrew andGreek originals. On the other hand, the human languages into whichthe Bible is translated are in a process of constant change.
Gender-NeutralTranslations
RecentEnglish-language translations have grappled in particular with thequestion of gender neutrality. All languages differ in the way theydenote gender. Until recently, the masculine gender in English wasalso the inclusive gender; hence, “man” could simply mean“person” or “humanity.” In many cases, thebiblical languages work the same way, so that the older dynamictranslations could, like formal correspondence translations, mirrorthe original. Feminist concerns, however, have changed English usage.It is increasingly unacceptable to use the masculine genderinclusively, and everyday language now substitutes plurals (“person,”or “they” with singular meaning) or expansions (“manor woman,” “he or she”). This introduces adivergence between formal correspondence translations, which preservethe gender usage of the original, and functional equivalencetranslations, which prefer inclusive forms to masculine forms if themeaning of the original is entirely inclusive. To complicate mattersfurther, many careful readers of Scripture disagree on wheremasculine nuances exist and how important they are, in each specificinstance, to the meaning of the text.
The book of Genesis (“Origins”) is well namedbecause it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible andspeaks of the beginnings of the world, humanity, sin, redemption, thepeople of God, covenant, marriage, Sabbath, work, and much more.Genesis is the first chapter of the Pentateuch, a five-part story ofthe origins of the nation of Israel. Genesis is the preamble to thataccount, leading up to the pivotal moment of the exodus and the movetoward the promised land.
Authorship
Asnoted above, Genesis is the opening to the Pentateuch as a whole, sothe question of the authorship of Genesis is connected to thequestion of the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Genesis (andthe entire Pentateuch) is anonymous, though Moses is said to havewritten down certain traditions that were included in the Pentateuch(Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:22).
Latertradition speaks of the “law of Moses” (Josh. 1:7–8)or the “Book of Moses” (2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18;Neh. 13:1), though it is not certain whether these refer to theentire Pentateuch or merely to portions of it that were associatedwith Moses. The NT writers, as well as Jesus himself, speak of thePentateuch in connection with Moses (e.g., Matt. 19:7; 22:24; Mark7:10; 12:26; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:23).
Thequestion of Moses’ role in writing the Pentateuch is morecomplicated, however. For instance, there are indications thatGenesis was updated well after the death of Moses. Traditionally,these passages are called “post-Mosaica,” because theycontain information that could be available only after the death ofMoses. For example, Deut. 34 speaks of Moses’ death and burial.Apparently so much time has elapsed since his death that the writercan say, “to this day no one knows where his grave is”(v. 6). The writer then states, “since then, no prophet hasrisen in Israel like Moses” (v. 10), which also presumes aconsiderable length of time has passed. Other examples include Gen.11:31, which refers to Abraham’s hometown as “Ur of theChaldeans.” Although Ur was a very ancient city, the Chaldeanswere an Aramaic-speaking tribe that only occupied Ur long after thetime of Moses. Similarly, in Gen. 14:14 a city by the name of “Dan”is mentioned, but we know from Judg. 18 that this city only receivedthis name during the period of the judges.
Despitethese considerations, some scholars are still comfortable ascribingsome “essential” authorship role to Moses. (For the mainalternative theory for the authorship and date of the writing ofGenesis, see Documentary Hypothesis; Pentateuch.)
Structureand Outline
Genesismay be outlined in more than one way. One method is to follow thetoledot formulas that serve as an organizing structure for the book.The phrase “these are the toledot of X” (where X is thepersonal name of the character whose sons are the subject of thenarrative that follows) is repeated ten times: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 (cf. 36:9); 37:2 (see also 10:32; 25:13).For instance, Gen. 11:27 begins, “These are the toledot ofTerah” (NIV: “This is the account of Terah’s familyline”), while the account that follows is the story of Terah’sson Abraham. Toledot is best translated as “family history”or “account.” Hence, one can take Genesis as having aprologue (1:1–2:3) followed by ten episodes.
Interms of content and style, the book falls into three main units asfollows:
I.The Primeval History (Gen. 1:1–11:26)
II.The Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43)
III.The Joseph Story (Gen. 37–50)
I.The primeval history (Gen. 1:1–11:26).The book opens with an account of creation given in two parts.Genesis 1:1–2:4a provides a creation account that describes thesix days in which God created the heavens and the earth, followed bya seventh day of rest. Genesis 2:4b–25 then provides a secondaccount of creation, this time with a focus on the creation of Adamand Eve. Genesis 3 then narrates the first sin of humanity, whichintroduces sin and death into the world. Genesis 4–11 providesfour additional stories (the murder of Abel by Cain, theintermarrying of the “sons of God” with the “daughtersof men,” the flood, and the tower of Babel). These stories showa creation gone wrong, God’s move to start over again with Noahand his family, and the persistence of sin thereafter. All of thisleads to the story of the patriarchs, where God’s plan to setthings right takes a decisive turn. These stories are connected bygenealogies that mark the march of time as well as providesignificant theological commentary.
II.The patriarchal narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43).The middle section of the book of Genesis turns its attention to thepatriarchs, so called because they are the fathers of the nation ofIsrael. The style of the book changes at this point, so that ratherthan following the story of all the world and moving at a fast pace,the narrative slows down and focuses on God creating a people to obeyhim and to bring those blessings to the whole world (12:1–3).God now determines to restore the blessing lost at Eden by reachingthe world through the descendants of one individual, Abraham.
Abraham’sfather, Terah, took Abram (as Abraham was then known), Abram’swife Sarai (Sarah), and Terah’s grandson Lot and left Ur tosettle in Harran in northern Mesopotamia. No explanation is givenwhy. While they are settled in Harran, God commands Abraham to leaveUr in Mesopotamia and travel to Canaan. God promises that he willmake him a great nation (implying land and many descendants), andthat he will be blessed and will be a blessing to the nations (Gen.12:1–3). That blessing requires Abraham and Sarah to havechildren, and this sets up much of the drama of his story. OftenAbraham reacts in fear and not faith, but at the end of his story hehas a solid confidence in God’s ability to take care of him andbring all the promises to fulfillment (Gen. 22).
Isaac,not Ishmael (Abraham’s son through Sarah’s maidservantHagar; see Gen. 16), is the conduit of the promises to futuregenerations. Even so, Isaac is not a highly developed character inthe book of Genesis, although his near sacrifice in Gen. 22 iscertainly a matter of great interest. The episode in his life thatreceives the lengthiest attention is the courtship with Rebekah (Gen.24), and there the focus is primarily on her.
Theaccount of Isaac’s life gives way to an account of his sonJacob. Jacob is a complex character. The first episodes of his storyare about how he, the younger, inherits the blessing and becomes theconduit for the promise rather than his older brother, Esau. Jacobbecomes an example of how God uses the foolish things of the world toaccomplish his purposes. That the story of the patriarchs is apreamble to the story of the founding of Israel becomes obvious whenJacob’s name is changed to “Israel” after he fightswith God (Gen. 32:22–32) and his wives give birth to twelvesons, who give their names to the twelve tribes of Israel.
III.The Joseph story (Gen. 37–50).The third section of Genesis focuses on the twelve sons of Jacob, inparticular Joseph. A main theme seems to be God’s providentialpreservation of the family of the promise, in the context of adevastating famine. Joseph himself expresses the theme of thissection at the end of the narrative, after his father dies and hisbrothers now wonder whether he will seek revenge against them. Hereassures them by his statement that although they had meant theiractions to harm him, he knows that God has used these very actionsfor good, for the salvation of the family of God (Gen. 50:19–20).Yes, they had just wanted to get rid of him, but God has used theirjealousy to bring Joseph to Egypt. The wife of his owner had wantedto frame him for rape, but God has used this false accusation inorder to have him thrown into jail, where he meets two of Pharaoh’schief advisers. He had demonstrated to them his ability to interpretdreams, so when the chief cupbearer is restored to a position ofinfluence, he can advise Pharaoh himself to turn to Joseph tointerpret his disturbing dreams. These dreams have allowed Pharaoh,with Joseph’s help, to prepare for the famine. Joseph has risento great prominence in Egypt, so when the famine comes, he is in aposition to help his family, and the promise can continue to the nextgenerations.
Amongother secondary, yet important, themes of the Joseph narrative arethe rising prominence of Judah and the lessening significance ofReuben. Judah at first is pictured as self-serving (Gen. 38), but bythe end of the story he is willing to sacrifice himself for the goodof his father and family (Gen. 44:18–34). This story thusdemonstrates why the descendants of Judah have dominance over thedescendants of the firstborn, Reuben, in later Israelite history.Also, the Joseph story recounts how Israel came to Egypt. This setsup the events of the book of Exodus.
Styleand Genre
Style.Genesis is written in Hebrew prose of a high literary style. Wordsare carefully chosen not only to communicate the message of the bookbut also to attract the reader’s interest and attention.
Genre.Genesis is an account of the origins of the cosmos, humanity, and thepeople of God. Thus, it is proper to refer to the book as a work ofhistory. Of course, there is more than one type of history. Somehistories focus on wars, others on economics or politics. Moreover,Genesis is not history in the modern sense but follows ancientconventions, which do not call for scrupulous accuracy. The centralconcern of Genesis, as with the majority of biblical histories, isthe relationship between God and his people. So, it is appropriate toidentify Genesis as a theological history.
Somereaders misunderstand the nature of the historical information thatthe book provides. For example, Gen. 1–2 communicates to thereader that it is the true God, not a god such as the BabylonianMarduk or the Canaanite Baal, who created the cosmos. The way some ofthe stories are told provides a challenge to rival stories from otherancient religions. One example is how the Bible describes thecreation of Adam from the dust of the ground and the breath of God.This contrasts with the Mesopotamian creation account Enuma Elish, inwhich the god Marduk creates the first humans from the clay of theearth and the blood of a demon god. The biblical flood story also maybe compared to other ancient flood stories, especially the account ofthe flood found in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis clearlyinteracts with such mythological stories to communicate importanttruths about the primeval period.
Message
Therich and complex book of Genesis pre-sents a profound messageconcerning God and his relationship with human beings. This shortarticle cannot do justice to the book’s depth and importance,but it can point to what is perhaps its most important theme: God’sblessing.
Genesis1–2 teaches that God created Adam and Eve and blessed them.They had everything they needed in the garden of Eden. They enjoyed aperfectly harmonious relationship with God and with each other. Theywanted for nothing.
Genesis3 explains how this blessed existence was disrupted. By choosing torebel against God, Adam and Eve ruptured their relationship with Godand, in consequence, with each other as well. They were expelled fromthe garden of Eden.
Evenin the midst of his judgment, however, God began the work ofrestoring the blessing to his human creatures (Gen. 3:15). Thusbegins the relentless work of God to bring restoration to his people.
NewTestament Connections
Genesisis the foundation not just of the Pentateuch, and not just of the OT,but of the entire Bible. The story that begins with creation and fallis followed by the history of redemption, which continues into the NTand which understands Jesus Christ as the one whose death andresurrection serve to restore God’s blessing to his people. Thefull restoration of relationship awaits the consummation of historyand the new Jerusalem, which is described in language telling us thatheaven is a restoration (and more) of the conditions enjoyed by Adamand Eve in the garden of Eden (Rev. 21–22, esp. Rev. 22:2).
Ofthe many allusions to and quotations of Genesis found in the NT, onlya few representative examples may be described here.
Paulpoints to the Abrahamic promise of the seed in Gen. 12:1–3 andproclaims that Jesus is that seed (Gal. 3:15–16). This claim issurprising in light of the OT’s clear understanding that it wasthe multiple descendants of Abraham constituting Israel who fulfilledthis promise (Gen. 15:15). Paul would have known this, but herecognizes that Jesus is the ultimate descendant of Abraham, and thatanyone who belongs to Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is also a participant inthe Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:29).
Asecond example comes from the way in which the author of Hebrewscites the Melchizedek tradition of Gen. 14:17–20. In Genesis,Melchizedek is a mysterious figure who is introduced as thepriest-king of Salem (Jerusalem), whom Abraham acknowledges as afellow worshiper of the true God. In order to make his argument thatJesus is the ultimate priest, the author of Hebrews connects Jesuswith Melchizedek rather than with Aaron and asserts the superiorityof Melchizedek because Abraham (and thus also Levi, Aaron’sancestor) paid respects to this man (Heb. 7:1–10).
Afinal example comes from the Joseph narrative. Earlier, we observedthat the narrative shows how God used the evil actions of people inorder to save many people. In this, the Joseph narrative anticipatesthe death of Christ, who was nailed to the cross by the hands ofwicked people, but God used this very action to accomplish a muchgreater salvation than he did through Joseph (see Acts 2:22–24).
Joel is the second of the twelve Minor Prophets. The book isbest known for its frightening depiction of God’s judgment inthe form of a locust plague and the stirring description of thatfuture day when God will pour his Spirit out on all people (2:28–32).
HistoricalBackground
Joelis notoriously difficult to date. Most prophets have superscriptionsthat associate their prophecy with the reigns of specific kings, butJoel only provides the name of his father, Pethuel. While the name“Joel” occurs elsewhere in Scripture, none of these canbe clearly identified with the prophet. Internal indications do nothelp much either. The locust plague described in the first chapterwas almost certainly a contemporary event, but locust plagueshappened on a number of occasions, and we have no other reference tothis particular plague. From passages such as 1:9, 13–16;2:15–17, which describe the temple and its rituals, we can ruleout times in which the temple did not exist (before the mid-ninthcentury BC and 586–515 BC), but even this consideration doesnot enable us to be much more precise. The names of enemies provideno help (Phoenicia, Philistia, Egypt, etc.) because these may simplybe a listing of traditional enemies (though it is interesting thatneither Assyria nor Babylon is mentioned). Since the Minor Prophetshave a roughly chronological arrangement, it may be that whoeverorganized this part of the canon thought that the book was from arelatively early date (like Amos and Hosea, from the eighth centuryBC). Fortunately, the message of the book is not diminished by ourinability to date it specifically.
LiteraryConsiderations and Outline
Joelis a collection of prophetic oracles. Like most prophetic books, thebook has both judgment and salvation oracles, although there are moresalvation oracles than usual. Another viewpoint argues that the bookis not so much a collection of oracles as it is a temple liturgy.Since a liturgy is repeated time and again, this is yet anotherreason why it is so difficult to date the book.
Thefirst chapter describes an actual locust plague that Joel understandsto be a judgment on the people of God. The second chapter also speaksof a locust plague, but this time the locusts are a metaphor forfuture devastation by a human army. On this basis, Joel calls for thepeople’s repentance and also places before the people a pictureof God’s future salvation, which includes judgment on the othernations.
Thestructure of Joel is as follows:
I.A Locust Plague on the Land (1:1–20)
II.A Future Locust Plague (2:1–11)
III.The People’s Repentance (2:12–17)
IV.Oracles of Salvation (2:18–3:21)
TheologicalMessage
Joeluses a recent locust plague to paint a picture of the devastation ofa coming day of judgment, referred to here and elsewhere in theprophets as the “day of the Lord” (2:1; see also Amos5:18–20). This vivid and horrifying teaching on judgment isintended not simply to frighten readers but to encourage theirrepentance. As frightening as Joel’s language about judgmentseems, his language of future salvation is encouraging to an evengreater degree.
NewTestament Connections
Contemporaryreaders need to hear Joel’s warnings about judgment and hiscall to repentance and also receive the encouragement of his pictureof salvation. Most notable in terms of the latter, and best known, isGod’s promise in Joel to pour out his Spirit on all people—notjust the old, but also the young, and not just men, but also women(2:28–32). Much earlier, Moses himself said, “I wish thatall the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would puthis Spirit on them!” (Num. 11:29). Joel anticipated such a day,and the day of Pentecost witnessed the initial fulfillment of thissalvation oracle (Acts 2:14–21).
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock”in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,”which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, Godwas able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishmentof the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’sidentification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classicmissionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find hisbrother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ”(John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took placelater, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued thewell-known invitation “Come, follow me, ... and Iwill send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peterwas the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi whenJesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”(Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Sonof the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father(16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you arePeter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, andthe gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peteralmost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesuswhen he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem andsuffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another majorfailure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesushad warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, youwill disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, therewere tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored afterJesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John21:15–19]).
Jesus’death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit onthe day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the otherdisciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing ofthe replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the publicspokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key playerin the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), inreceiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and inreceiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11).Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time ofthe Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but bythis time he had been replaced by James as the leader of theJerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary(1Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised”(Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was stillhuman, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal.2:11–21).
Duringhis travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his laterletter 1Peter (and possibly 2Peter) in north central AsiaMinor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia andBithynia” [1Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1Cor.1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself.According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19).Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’sfight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, thatyour faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
The NT begins with the claim that Jesus is the “son” or descendant of King David, presupposing the significance of the biblical narrative about the kings of Israel for understanding the gospel (Matt. 1:1, 6; see also Rom. 1:3; 2Tim. 2:8). The epithet also creates an almost immediate conflict with Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1–2), who was given the title “King of the Jews” by the Roman senate in 40 BC, although he was not a Jew. Herod unsuccessfully attempts to kill the infant king, but Jesus finally is executed by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate as “King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37 pars.).
Greco-Roman and Jewish Backgrounds
The conflict between the king and the child somewhat parallels a more extensive Greco-Roman motif. Virgil, in his Fourth Bucolic, offers a vision of a golden age to attend the birth of a child king. (Christians in the Middle Ages interpreted his poem as a prophecy of Christ’s birth.) The threat upon Jesus’ life also resembles Herodotus’s account of Cyrus: King Astyages has a dream vision that the magi interpret to be a prophecy that the child of his daughter will eventually rule in his place. He commands Harpagus, his most faithful servant, to take the male child, “adorned for its death,” and kill him. Overcome with emotion, Harpagus pawns the child off to a cowherd, Mitradates, who is instructed to lay the child “in the most desolate part of the mountains.” When Mitradates’s wife sees the beauty of the child, she pleads for his life and devises a plan to switch her stillborn child with Cyrus. They then raise Cyrus under a pseudonym as their own (Herodotus, Hist. 1.107–30). Interestingly, the prophet Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the Lord’s “messiah” or “anointed” (Isa. 45:1), a uniquely positive role for a non-Israelite king. By God’s power, Cyrus will free the exiles (Isa. 45:13).
In the OT, God promises David, the king of Israel, an eternal reign for his “offspring” (2Sam. 7:12–16). After the fall of the Davidic monarchy, the prophets reiterate the promise in visions of God’s future salvation (Isa. 55:3; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:8; 5:1–5 [cited in Matt. 2:5–6]; Zech. 3:8). By the first century, “son of David” had become a popular messianic title, signifying a warrior who would free the Jews from Roman oppression and establish an everlasting kingdom. Although not viewed as a supernatural being, the Davidic messiah, some claimed, would be without sin, ruling with perfect wisdom, justice, mercy, and power—different from his predecessors. He would restore the ancient tribal divisions and regather the Diaspora, Jews living outside Judea and Galilee. The nations (non-Jews) would pay him homage (see Psalms of Solomon).
Jesus’ Kingship
The popular Jewish emphasis on a violent overthrow of Rome probably explains why in the Gospels Jesus himself does not emphasize his kingship in his ministry, except for the explicit fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble king riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.; cf. Zech. 9:9; see also Isa. 62:11). However, following his resurrection and final instructions to his disciples, Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:6–11; 2:33–36), a coronation ceremony foretold in the psalms (Pss. 2; 110). He presently reigns from heaven (Rev. 1:5; cf. Matt. 28:18), but he will return to make his authority explicit on earth, which includes the dispensing of justice (2Thess. 1:5–12). His rule is present, however, in the lives of those who obey him and wherever the Holy Spirit is manifested. Through his ministry, the God of Israel comes near so as to once again exercise sovereign power on behalf of God’s people. For Christians, Jesus alone is Lord and Savior (Phil. 3:20). Paul presents Jesus as the “Savior of all people” (1Tim. 4:10). This title was given to the Roman emperors. (The preamble to a decree by the council of the province of Asia describes Augustus as “the father who gives us happy life; the savior of all mankind.”)
The Western church has largely maintained a distinction between two spheres of authority: political and ecclesiastical. Hosius, bishop of Cordova (AD 296–357), wrote to Emperor Constantius, “For into your hands God has put the kingdom; the affairs of his Church he has committed to us.... We are not permitted to exercise an earthly rule; and you, Sire, are not authorized to burn incense.” Paul affirms the continuing role of government despite the overarching lordship of Jesus Christ, who preferred to speak of the kingdom of God, a restored theocracy that incorporates yet transcends the Davidic covenant (Rom. 13:1–7; cf. John 18:36). But this process does begin a delegitimizing of all contrary claims to authority and will lead to their complete withdrawal. For this reason, the kingdom of God cannot be separated from the political, economic, and religious conflicts taking place in Roman Palestine in the first century and wherever similar conflicts occur today.
Terminology
TheNT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means“gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greekthe term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Inparticular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of thecitizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city.Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not tothe citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, theywere not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records threeinstances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Themost important background for the Christian use of the term is theLXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundredtimes, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. Whileqahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah,the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering,translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’ssacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, whereqahal is linked with the covenant.
Inthe NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’speople 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although theword occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it isof special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instancesin James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn fromthis usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and theplural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those whoprofess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsiadesignates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28;15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23;Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation(1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
TheNature of the Church
Thenature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning ofone word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a richarray of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are thosemetaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church,five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom ofGod, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and thebody of Christ.
Thepeople of God.Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in thecovenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be mypeople” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer.7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28;Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus,the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras whor*sponded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin restsexclusively in God’s grace.
Tospeak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT andthe NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship betweenthe church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize thematter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the churchand Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuitybetween them.
Continuitybetween the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that thechurch and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuousrelationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel insome sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding toDeut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in thewilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from theintimate association noted earlier existing between the wordsekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified bythe phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewedin some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein theprototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal.4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).
Second,Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OTnames for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact.Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph.2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people”(1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29;Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16;Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “theelect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood”(1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Discontinuitybetween the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totallyidentical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes therelationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological(end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is aprogression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor.5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced bythe fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel,without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter asGentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Althoughthe church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be thepermanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).
Thekingdom of God.Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping ofthe two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete.The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and thesecond aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the ageto come has broken into this age, and now the two existsimultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining therelationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because thechurch also exists in the tension that results from the overlappingof the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as theforeshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition:first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, thechurch is not equal to the kingdom of God.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after theresurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about thechurch. However, there are early signs of the church in the teachingand ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general,Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in thathe gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted thebeginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant.More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in twopassages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesuspromised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition,thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of thechurch overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that thekingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks theintimate association between the church and the kingdom. The secondpassage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlikethe Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimatelyrelated as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does notequate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christianspreached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g.,Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is theinstrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt.16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church becomethe keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
Theeschatological temple of God.Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple inthe future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9;1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he wasgoing to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of thefulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited thechurch, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36).Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit inthe Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor.3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; seealso Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However,that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in thepreceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for thechurch to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fullyaccomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In themeantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform theirsacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb.13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
Thebride of Christ.The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (seeIsa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied toChrist and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, hassacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph.5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is tobe faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia theofficial wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternalunion of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9;21:1–2).
Thebody of Christ.The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to thePauline literature and constitutes one of the most significantconcepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph.4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is todemonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within thechurch, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body ofChrist is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of theend time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage ofthe image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that thechurch, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to gospiritually. It is not yet complete.
Sacraments
Atthe heart of the expression of the church’s faith are thesacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The formersymbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter providesspiritual sustenance for the church.
Baptism.Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Threeobservations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament.First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association ofrepentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek.36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipatedChristian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance inexpectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiahwould exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesusas Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may bean allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes thatlead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practicedbaptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 //Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34;cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor.1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thesepassages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism isintimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the personwith the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates theperson into the community of believers.
Lord’sSupper.The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This ritesymbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as itcelebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblicaldata concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted byChrist (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20;1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of thePassover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introducedtwo changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened breadwith a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; hereplaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood onthe cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early churchpracticed the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunctionwith the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). Atwofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NTauthors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways:participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death ofJesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’sSupper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination pointof the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supperinvolves identification with the body of Christ, the community offaith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).
Worship
Theultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ andin the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). Theearly church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met inhomes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15;Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many JewishChristians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, theestablished time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday,the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Theearly church most probably patterned its order of worship after thesynagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess.1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col.1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col.4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to theneedy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9;James 2:15–17).
Serviceand Organization
Fiveobservations emerge from the NT regarding the service andorganization of the early church. First, the ministry of the churchcenters on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believersby God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good ofothers (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believerpossesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third,it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christmatures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph.4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership inthe NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called“pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28;1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13),there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy”and the “laity” in the church of the first century;rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all thesaints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth,spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).
In its more prominent use, “conviction” refers tothe experience of becoming aware of one’s guilt before God.Isaiah’s vision of the throne of God provides a dramaticillustration of conviction. He describes the feeling of dread andself-revulsion that he experienced in the presence of God, who isholy: “ ‘Woe to me!’ I cried. ‘I amruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, . . . and my eyeshave seen the King, the Lord Almighty’ ” (Isa.6:5). After a miraculous catch of fish, when Peter recognized thatJesus was the Christ, his initial response was similar: “Goaway from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8).
Jesussaid that after his departure he would send the Spirit, who wouldconvict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness andjudgment (John 16:8). Sin has the effect of dulling one’sconscience to its pervasiveness. God is light, and his presenceexposes our darkness. To be convicted is to become aware of one’sneed for forgiveness and cleansing from sin. Confession, or inwardagreement, is the only appropriate response. The initial fulfillmentof this promise occurred at Pentecost, when in response to themiracle that drew crowds, Peter preached the resurrection of Christto the multitudes, who only recently had handed Christ over to becrucified. Upon hearing Peter’s sermon, they were “cut tothe heart” and asked, “What shall we do?” Peterthen commanded them to repent so that they might receive forgivenessfor their sins (Acts 2:37–38). This illustrates that the Spiritworks through the proclaimed word of God, which is able to expose thethoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12). It is, however,possible to resist conviction, which eventually leads to thehardening of one’s heart (Acts 7:51).
Thebook of Hebrews uses “conviction,” in its secondarymeaning, to refer to the internal persuasion that characterizes faith(11:1 ESV, NRSV, NASB).
The Apostles’ Creed announces that following his deathand burial, Jesus “descended into hell.” Is there abiblical basis for such a statement?
Thisdoctrine is drawn from various NT passages, but especially 1Pet.3:18–20, which says that Jesus “was put to death in thebody but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he wentand made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits--—to those whowere disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days ofNoah while the ark was being built.” And 1Pet. 4:6 says,“For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to thosewho are now dead” (cf. Acts 2:25–31; Eph. 4:8–10).
Thereare various interpretations of these passages. First, some claim thatChrist preached to the people of Noah’s day, either throughNoah or in a preincarnate state. Second, some assert that Christdescended to Hades after his death and preached to Noah’scontemporaries who had died in the flood. The “spirits”would be the spirits of dead people. A third view is that Christdescended to Hades (or hell) after his death and there proclaimed hisvictory to the fallen angels (“spirits”). These may havebeen the “sons of God” of Gen. 6:1–4 (see 2Pet.2:4; Jude 6). The intertestamental Jewish book 1Enoch (secondcentury BC) develops an interpretation of this puzzling Genesis text,telling of angels who had brought evil to the world by marrying womenand fathering demons. Before the flood they had been put in prisonunder the earth. A fourth view is similar to the third but claimsthat Jesus’ proclamation to these fallen angels took place notduring a descent into hell, but at his resurrection and ascension.
Thislast interpretation is the most likely one. Jesus’ descent to“Hades” (meaning the place of the dead) refers generallyto his death, not to an entrance into hell. Jesus’ proclamationwas his announcement of victory over sin, Satan, and death at hisresurrection and ascension. Peter here is reassuring his readers thatJesus rules, and that his death and resurrection have sealed the fateof all powers, real or not, that evoke fear. Paul says simply thatJesus triumphed over all such powers by the cross (Col. 2:15). Jesusdid not go to hell; rather, like every believer, when he died, hisspirit went to be with the Father in heaven (Luke 23:43), to remainthere until reunited with his body at his resurrection.
In Christian theology, doctrine is the synthesis of Christianteaching, especially as set forth in its various related themes. Theearly disciples frequently referred to the teachings of Christ and tothe teachings of the apostles and the church. These were memorized,compiled, and passed through the generations in the church (2Tim.2). As early as Acts 2 reference is made to the teaching of theapostles and the devotion of the church to it. By the second century,a body of teaching had crystallized into a doctrinal treatise calledthe Didache. Doctrinal teaching as a set structure is especiallyemphasized in the Pastoral Epistles, such that it has caused some toconjecture a later date and early catholic outlook for those letters.Regardless of the validity of this postulation, these lettersevidence an early doctrinal and confessional outlook within thechurch.
Thiswas, of course, nothing new, since the Israelites had a body ofteaching that they had passed on through the generations: the law,both written and oral. For the Israelites, the law, both written andoral, was memorized, taught, interpreted, and heeded through all ofsociety. The church simply followed suit in forming its teachings.
Inthe NT two words, didachē and didaskalia, are commonlytranslated “teaching” and in some cases are rendered bysome translations as “doctrine.” The term didachēappears more widely throughout the NT, whereas didaskalia is usedlargely in the Pastoral Epistles (referring to both the content andthe act of teaching). The term didaskalia is sometimes used with theterm logos when the latter indicates sound speech (Titus 2:7–8)and words of the faith (1Tim. 4:6). In fact, in one verse inthe Pastoral Epistles all three terms are used together as “thefaithful word,” “in accordance with the teaching,”and “in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9 NASB).
Thefirst body of teaching for the church is the teaching of Jesus (Matt.7:28), such as that found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesusnotes the ethic of his messiahship and his followers. The teaching ofJesus, which is authoritative (Mark 1:22, 27), and confrontational(Mark 12:38), is an astonishing answer to the religious leaders(Matt. 22:33; cf. Luke 4:32). Jesus notes the vanity of teaching thehuman commandments as if they were the doctrine from God (Mark 7:7).When questioned, Jesus sets forth his teaching as from the Father(John 7:16–17). The chief priests seek to destroy both Jesusand his followers because of the teaching (Mark 11:18; John 18:19;Acts 5:28). On Cyprus the proconsul is astonished at the doctrine ofChrist taught by Paul (Acts 13:12), and in Athens Paul’steaching about Christ is new and unusual to those of the Areopagus(Acts 17:18–20).
ForPaul, doctrine is fundamental for believers. He notes the commitmentto the teaching of Christ after conversion as normative for the Romanbelievers (Rom. 6:17), and he instructs further that they keep an eyeout for those who cause division and hinder adherence to sounddoctrine (Rom. 16:17). In fact, God has given gifted people to thebody for building up the saints to avoid such doctrinal problems(Eph. 4:12–14). Further, a straightforward expression ofteaching has priority over gifts such as tongues (1Cor. 14:6,26). Paul also points out that the Colossian heresy is the doctrineof human beings rather than that of God (Col. 2:22).
Inthe Pastoral Epistles the injunction from Paul to Timothy is that hebe nourished on and persevere in sound doctrine (1Tim. 4:6, 16)and set forth doctrine in preaching (1Tim. 4:13 [along withpublic reading of Scripture]; 2Tim. 4:2). All this is certainlyfitting for Timothy, as he has followed the teaching of Paul (2Tim.3:10). The injunction to Titus is to hold to the word and to thesound doctrine and teaching as he corrects the church (Titus 1:9).Those who are servants are encouraged to show honesty and good faith,so that the teaching of the Savior will be respected (Titus 2:10). Itis clear for Paul that Scripture is the basis of doctrine (2Tim.3:16). This doctrine (teaching) will be tolerated by few; as a whole,sound doctrine will be rejected in favor of a message more palatableto human interest (2Tim. 4:3). The task of the servant of Godis to stand against heterodox teaching (1Tim. 1:3; 6:3).Heterodoxy leads to heteropraxy (1Tim. 1:10). Paul notes thedoctrine of demons, false teaching that is ultimately based insatanic teaching (1Tim. 4:1).
Theinjunction of the writer to the Hebrews is that they are not tosubmit to strange teachings, which deny grace (13:9). This accordswith the book’s argument as a whole. For John, staying in thedoctrine of Christ is salvific, but going outside it is not (2John9). John’s readers are not to receive those who pervert thedoctrine of Christ (2John 10).
Inthe book of Revelation, Jesus warns the church at Pergamum about thefalse teaching of Balaam (2:14) and that of the Nicolaitans (2:15).The church at Thyatira is likewise warned to shun the teachings ofthe false prophetess known as “Jezebel” (2:20,24).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2Kings 23:21–23; 2Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m.Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m.Rosh HaSh.1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses...” (m.Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m.Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices.... Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2Kings 23:21–23; 2Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m.Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m.Rosh HaSh.1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses...” (m.Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m.Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices.... Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2Kings 23:21–23; 2Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m.Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m.Rosh HaSh.1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses...” (m.Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m.Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices.... Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
In systematic theology, “foreknowledge” usuallyrefers to the doctrine that God knows all things, events, and personsbefore they exist or occur and that this knowledge has been his fromall eternity. No single Hebrew term in the OT corresponds to theEnglish term; the concept is expressed rather on the phrase orsentence level. In the NT, the Greek verb proginōskō andnoun prognōsis are translated “foreknow” and“foreknowledge,” respectively. Recently in evangelicalcircles there has been intense debate as to whether foreknowledge andomniscience are in fact taught in the biblical texts.
OldTestament
Inthe OT narratives, especially in the Pentateuch, there are numerousinstances that indicate some limitations to God’s knowledge ingeneral and his foreknowledge in particular. God appears to besomewhat surprised by how wicked humanity has become before hedecides to send the flood (Gen. 6:5). God comes down and discoversthat the inhabitants of Babel have started to build a tower andconsiders how to stop the activity (11:5–7). God comes down toascertain whether the outcry that has come to his ears about the sinof Sodom and Gomorrah is actually as bad as the reports wouldindicate (18:20–21). God tests Abraham by commanding him tooffer Isaac as a sacrifice, and when Abraham begins to do so, hedeclares that now he knows that Abraham really fears him (22:1–18).
Often,narratives such as these are regarded by theologians as cases ofanthropomorphism, statements made about God that speak of him as ifhe had human characteristics—in this case, limited knowledge.And certainly there are many other narratives in the Pentateuch thatappear to give the opposite picture. God asks Cain where his brotherAbel is, though he apparently already knows the answer (Gen. 4:9–10).God relates to Abraham the course that Israelite history will takefor the next several hundred years (15:13–16). God seems to bein a real-time chess match with Pharaoh, but in actuality God knowsall the moves that both he and Pharaoh will make before the game everbegins (Exod. 3:19–22; 4:21–23; 7:1–5).
Giventhis data, perhaps the better explanation for what is happening inthese texts is not that the biblical narrator is employinganthropomorphism but rather that God is accommodating himself both tothe characters in the narrative and to the narrator of the stories.That is, at this stage of revelatory history God is not yet revealinghimself as fully omniscient and prescient of the future in itsentirety. In the conceptual world of the ancient Near East, deitieswere regularly portrayed as being interactive—deliberating,investigating, discovering, making decisions, and so forth. Godtherefore may well have accommodated himself to the larger milieu inrevealing himself to the patriarchs and earliest biblical narrators.
Whateverthe case may be, later biblical revelation certainly seems to presentGod as fully omniscient and prescient. “Death and Destructionlie open before the Lord—how much more do human hearts!”(Prov. 15:11). Before words reach our tongues, God knows themcompletely (Ps. 139:4). No one has ever had to keep God informed orprovide him with counsel (Isa. 40:13–14). There are no limitsto his understanding (Ps. 147:5). The God of Israel challenges allidols and all other gods to a foreknowledge contest: if they areable, let them tell what is going to happen, as Yahweh does (Isa.42:9; 44:6–8; 48:3–8). God alone makes the end known fromthe beginning (Isa. 46:10), and he has been doing so from ancienttimes (Acts 15:17–18). God knew Jeremiah long before he wasever a fetus (Jer. 1:5). Our prayers do not make God finally aware ofour situation; he already knows what our needs are (Matt. 6:8).Indeed, God answers our prayers before they are even prayed (Isa.65:24). “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’ssight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare” before his eyes(Heb. 4:13).
NewTestament
Oneespecially important exegetical question for the NT involves theprecise meaning of the aforementioned Greek words, proginōskō(“foreknow”) and prognōsis (“foreknowledge”).The question concerns whether these words, in their contexts, aremerely cognitive terms, indicating simply that God knows thingsbefore they happen, or whether the terms are volitional terms and/oraffective terms. That is, do they indicate foreordaining and/orforeloving? Are they terms that have basically the same meaning as“election” and “predestination”?
Givingcredence to this position is the fact that in some of the passageswhere these words occur there are other words that definitely referto God willing things to happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter declares thatJesus was handed over to his crucifiers by “God’sdeliberate plan and foreknowledge.” The verse can hardly meanthat God decided to do this because he already knew it was going tohappen. Rather, the terms “deliberate plan” and“foreknowledge” act together to convey the single idea ofGod’s complete control, planning, and sovereignty in the deathof Jesus. Likewise, in 1Pet. 1:20 the word does not mean thatthe Son was simply “foreknown” before the foundation ofthe world, but rather that he was “chosen” (NIV),“destined” (NRSV), “foreordained” (KJV).
InRom. 11:2, Paul states that God has not rejected “his people,whom he foreknew.” Again, it is hard to read this as being onlycognitive. Rather, the use of the term appears to imply some kind of“affective” foreknowing, a “setting his love upon”(cf. Deut. 7:7–8), a choosing. It is important to note that thetext says God foreknew not things but people. On the one hand, Godforeknew all people who would ever exist, but in this passage theforeknowing refers to a particular people. And the foreknowing mostlikely takes its sense from the use of the word “know” inthe OT, which on numerous occasions refers to the relationship ofacknowledgment and love between God and his people.
Inthe same way, in Rom. 8:29 “those God foreknew he alsopredestined,” “foreknew” again appears to be avolitional, affective term—that is, “those whom God sethis love upon.” That it means that God knew how these peoplewould respond to the gospel and then chose them seems to be excludedby passages such as Rom. 9:11–12, where God’s purposes inelection are not determined by people’s actions. Finally, in1Pet. 1:1–2 the “elect” to whom Peter iswriting are elect according to “foreknowledge of God”;not that God foreknew things about them, but that God foreknew them.This understanding of the terms in context seems preferable.
In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the bodyor items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body.For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures inrelation to the different body parts that are identified with thegestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line onclassifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described inProv. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signalswith his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclearwhether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether allsignify different things or the same thing.
Head
Gesturesthat relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolentacts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting ofone’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head inmourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery andderision (2Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult(Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).
Acommon action is the shaving of the head, which can be forpurification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all bodyhair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer.16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer.41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden fromshaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), whilethe high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificialduties (Exod. 29:6).
Anointingof the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7;Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing ona person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand onthe head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod.29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals isa symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24,29, 33; 8:18, 22).
Inthe OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut.21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be acause for disgrace (1Cor. 11:5–6).
Face.Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching orcovering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6)or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh.7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2Chron. 20:18; Ps.138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1Sam. 20:41;25:41; 28:14; 2Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1Kings 1:23;1Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod.3:6]).
Theface can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev.13:45), in grief/mourning (2Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), inresignation (1Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery(Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12).It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).
Godcan be described as hiding or turning away his face againstwickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer.33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholdingblessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8;59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment(Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of thePhilistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant,apparently overpowered by Yahweh.
Actsof humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num.12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face(1Kings 22:24; 2Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic.5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shamingjudgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone bythe nose (2Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek ishumiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the othercheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke6:29).
Onecan lift one’s face in worship (2Kings 20:2; Job 22:26;Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it inshame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards inmourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37),the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting(2Sam. 10:4; 1Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).
Eyes.Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act(Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship andexpectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).
Mouth.Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while ahand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5;40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the deserttribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” indefeat.
Ears.An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his orher earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut.15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear forpurification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), whilesupplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear(2Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifiespaying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20;5:13).
Neck.The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor(Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched inarrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns againstheaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put ayoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonianconquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in ayoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on theneck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation(Josh. 10:24).
Body
Nakednessin public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev.3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment(Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign ofpromiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a signof mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2Sam. 19:24). A certainkind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection(Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is anact of humiliation (2Sam. 4:12).
Chest.In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning(Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts ofsacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering”before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).
Hand,arm.Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship,clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth inawe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut.4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1Kings 8:42; 2Kings17:36; 2Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21;Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is oftenused of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies andenemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act forthe sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).
Sincethe right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the righthand indicates being favored (1Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt.22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2;1Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under thethigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen.48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).
Clappingthe hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse(25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job clapshis hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission andrepentance (Job 40:4–5).
Handscan be lifted in worship (1Kings 8:22; 1Tim. 2:8), tobeseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath(Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1Sam. 24:6, 10;2Sam.1:14; 18:12).
Pilatewashes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus(Matt. 27:24), while 1Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humblethemselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that indue time they will be lifted up.
Buttocks.Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult andprovocation, as happens to David’s men (2Sam. 10:4;1Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cush*te captives (Isa. 20:4).
Leg.The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductiveorgans, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen.24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animalthighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21;10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery causea guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).
Themost common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship orreverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), indefeat (2Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps.57:6), or in respect (1Kings 1:31). In what seems to be asomewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees inprayer (1Kings 18:42).
Feet.Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures inthe Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;43:24; 1Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), orin supplication (1Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as ablessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8;cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandalscan be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace(Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplicationbefore the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans cansignal deception (Prov. 6:13).
Enemiescan be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1Kings5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), havetheir feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15;105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation anddefeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the bloodof their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).
Thoseoverwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2Kings4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), whilethose emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2;3:24; Dan. 8:18).
Inthe NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication ofdivine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying ata person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt.15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37;5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipesthem with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an actof love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared hisbody for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washeshis disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood anddiscipleship (John 13:5–14).
Fingers,Toes.Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. Afinger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15;9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of theright thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20;Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).
Onewears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture ofrestoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motionin deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writeswith his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture ofindifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).
Clothesand Shoes
Garments.Garments attain significance as they are related to specificemotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen.37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments inmourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6;21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1Kings 21:27;2Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).
Rippingsomeone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2Sam.10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer.13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’sclothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons withdefiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing tornclothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).
Bylaying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may beacknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).
Sandals.A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10),while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicategiving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). Asandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast overa piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).
PropheticGestures
Propheticgestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentanceand approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiahputs a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekielcooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 daysand then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah stripsoff his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries anunfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).
Inthe NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment(Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinkswine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46;20:11; 27:35; 1Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christianpractices.
Both speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues are listedamong the various gifts of the Spirit that God may choose to give tobelievers according to his will (1Cor. 12:10, 28). The act ofspeaking in tongues is referred to as “glossolalia” (fromGk. glōssa [“tongue”] and laleō [“speak”]).
NarrativeRecord
Instancesin which believers exercise the gift of tongues are recorded in threebiblical narratives, with Acts 2 detailing the most notableoccurrence. When the Holy Spirit first was poured out upon Christianbelievers gathered at Pentecost, visible tongues of fire wereaccompanied by a Spirit-enabled ability to speak in languages thatwere foreign to them (2:3–4). In this instance, the tonguesspoken are identified as the actual human languages and dialects ofvarious people groups who resided throughout the Mediterranean world(2:8–11). The phenomenon resulted in the ability of many tohear the wonders of God in their native languages and prompted bothcuriosity and scoffing (2:12–13).
Asimilar outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his fellowGentiles in connection with the ministry of Peter was accompanied byspeaking in tongues (Acts 10:44–46). This ability to speak intongues provided undeniable evidence that God had indeed poured outthe Holy Spirit upon Gentile Christians by manifesting the Spirit’spresence in a way comparable to the initial Pentecost experience ofthe Jewish Christians (11:15–18). A final account from thePauline ministry notes the coming of the Holy Spirit upon a dozendisciples in Ephesus with the accompanying ability to speak intongues (19:6). The text does not reveal what languages were spokenin either of these latter episodes.
Itis sometimes argued that the gift of tongues normally accompaniesChristian salvation or baptism with the Holy Spirit and is a giftthat believers should earnestly seek. However, this argument cannotbe sustained by the historical narratives of Acts. All three recordedinstances of tongues detail the gift coming upon groups of peoplerather than individuals, and the gift is poured out upon them withouttheir praying for it or seeking it out in any way. Furthermore, theseare the only three instances in Scripture where tongues clearlyaccompany salvation, whereas numerous other Lukan accounts of thesalvation of various individuals (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:36–39;13:12, 48; 16:14, 34), including Paul (9:1–19; 22:6–16),contain no mention of the gift of tongues.
Paul’sTeaching
Thefirst-century Corinthian church exercised a variety of spiritualgifts, including the gift of tongues. When Paul writes to thatchurch, he includes teaching designed to correct various abuses ofthese spiritual gifts. A lengthy discussion about spiritual gifts in1Cor. 12–14 affirms the practice of speaking in tonguesin the Corinthian assembly under certain conditions (14:39–40)while also relegating it to a status lower than the gift of prophecy(14:5). By its very nature, Paul asserts, those who speak in tonguesare not understood by their human audience; utterances in tonguesspeak to God, not to human beings (14:2). Therefore, on its own,glossolalia cannot edify those who hear it unless an interpretationis also provided for them. For this reason, Paul directs theCorinthians to other spiritual gifts (14:6) that can function tobuild up the church (14:12). Nonetheless, Paul affirms the practiceof glossolalia in the Corinthians’ public worship when it islimited to two or three speakers, when it is done in an orderlymanner with the speakers taking turns, and when it is coupled withinterpretation so that the church can be edified by its message(14:26–27).
ContemporaryDebates
Threequestions dominate modern discussions about the gift of tongues:(1)What is the primary purpose of speaking in tongues? (2)Whatis the nature of the language spoken when the gift of tongues isexercised? (3)Does the gift of tongues continue beyond theapostolic era? Answers to these questions vary and reflect diversetheological positions.
Primarypurpose.One position maintains that when the Spirit gives the gift oftongues, it is always a public exercise that produces infalliblerevelation from God. The primary, or perhaps sole, purpose of thisgift of miraculous utterance is as a sign to authenticate the gospelproclamation and thus contribute to the common good of the church asa whole by reaching unbelievers with the gospel in a powerful way.Proponents of this view find support in 1Cor. 14:22, where Paulspeaks of tongues as a sign for unbelievers. Also, the Pentecostexperience, narrated in Acts 2, can be understood as a use of tonguesthat fits into this framework. Opponents object to thisinterpretation by noting that it was Peter’s subsequent sermonrather than the gift of tongues itself that served an evangelisticpurpose.
Othersfind biblical support for an additional private use of tongues bybelievers in their prayer and praise directed toward God (1Cor.14:2, 28). Although the teaching in 1Cor. 14 focuses on whetherand how tongues are to be used in the public assembly, some adherentsof this position point to 14:14–19 for evidence of Paul’sown use of the gift of tongues in his devotional life. This use oftongues is thought to contribute to the common good of the churchthrough the personal edification of the individual believers whopractice this gift (14:4) and who make up the believing community.
Natureof the language.It is not entirely clear from Scripture whether the tongues spoken bythose with the gift of tongues are human languages otherwise unknownto the speaker, whether they consist of otherworldly (heavenly,angelic, spiritual) languages, or whether both constitute validoptions. The record of Pentecost in Acts 2 is the only scripturalnarrative of tongues that explicitly identifies the languages spokenby those exercising the gift of tongues; they are human languages.However, three NT passages are cited in support of the broader view.
First,in 1Cor. 13:1 Paul alludes to the possibility of speech “inthe tongues of men or of angels.” While this may affirm theidea of an angelic language being spoken by believers with the giftof tongues, those who limit tongues to human languages see in thisstatement hyperbole rather than a description of reality.
Second,when Paul discusses tongues in 1Cor. 14:2, he indicates that noone who hears understands the language. This statement is easily trueif the language spoken is “angelic,” but it would also betrue of a human language generally unfamiliar to those in theCorinthian worship assembly.
Finally,Rom. 8:26, by describing the Spirit’s intercession in prayer asgroans and utterances too deep for words, may support the idea thatthe gift of tongues consists of a spiritual rather than a humanlanguage. Opponents argue that this text in no way speaks of the giftof tongues.
Continuationbeyond the apostolic era.Finally, nowhere does Scripture expressly teach that the gift oftongues will continue throughout the entire church age, nor does itclearly state a time, be it the end of the apostolic period, theclosing of the NT canon, or some other time, when the gift of tongueswill cease. Because the NT describes the gift of tongues functioningamong believers in the first century, many believe that the gift oftongues continues to be expressed by God’s new covenant peopletoday.
Continuationistsargue that Scripture nowhere anticipates a change in the HolySpirit’s work or empowerment for ministry, and so the life ofChristians today should be similar to that of NT believers withregard to the expected and empowering presence of tongues.
Onthe other hand, cessationists believe that passages such as Eph.2:11–21 identify the first century as a unique, foundationaltime in salvation history, characterized by apostolic leadership andan open canon. Just as there are no longer apostles today, one shouldnot be surprised if the practice of miraculous gifts, including thegift of tongues, should significantly decrease or stop entirelyfollowing that foundational time. Some also point to 1Cor. 13:8as evidence that a time will come when the gift of tongues willend.
Othersopt for an intermediate position, arguing that while speaking intongues is not the standard for the church era, it is possible thatthe gift continues to operate today on a more limited scale, mostlikely only in places where the gospel is making inroads for thefirst time, a situation comparable to that of the NT era.
God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting”(NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makessense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overallends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes toachieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’sinteraction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore,God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprisetwists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm allthis and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both humanprayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God toachieve his purposes.
Textsthat speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a newcourse of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgmentit*elf represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’sbasic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “hisstrange work ... his alien task” (Isa. 28:21),undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be graciousand compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa.54:7–8; Hos.2).
Terminology.To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham,which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. Oncertain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels inreaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18;1Sam. 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest thatGod is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret formistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakhamis used to speak of God “relenting,” it means somethingmore than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves theheart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf.Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent iswrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13;106:44–45).
Exodusand Jonah.Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted.In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf isfollowed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. Adramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, inresponse to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequenceon its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcingNineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent,which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent frombringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce,which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as anantihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God,unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link betweenhuman repentance for sin and divine relenting from previouslyannounced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.
Theprophets.Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing onecourse of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibilityof an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or ifa prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, thenGod may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move thatGod chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20;Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12;Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).
Inthe book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle ofseven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminatingin the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speechopens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, Iwill not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he hascommitted himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verbshub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question ofreprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation isirrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent”(nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shownAmos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment isnot the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and thesetemporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’sdetermination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, eventhough Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearersto repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—thatis, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’sfall (5:4–6, 14–15).
Salvationand judgment.This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OTaccounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcementof the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary,judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe thegood news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers toescape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus(Acts 2:40).
The English word “gospel” translates the Greekword euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being usedseventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,”angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary usein the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather adeclaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empirewith reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, whowas thought of as a savior with divine status. These events includeddeclarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and hisaccession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be tracedto the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to thecoming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This goodnews, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’spromises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.
TheGospel Message
Theapostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death,burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1Cor. 15:1–5). Hestates that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation ofeveryone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1Tim. 1:11),the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncementthat requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2Cor. 11:4; 2Thess.1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesusin the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people torespond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is alsoin the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with theproclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).
Therecords of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliestpublic declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three suchspeeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whosecontent can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment hasdawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of JesusChrist (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days”foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection,has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the newIsrael (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to thechurch as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation(10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the returnof Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appealis made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the HolySpirit, and salvation (2:37–41).
Thisdeclaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what waspreached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of thisgospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek isclosely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2Tim.4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oraltransmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form throughrepetition, which helps explain some similarities between laterwritten accounts of the gospel.
FromOral to Written Gospel
Later,this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons.With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book ofActs, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the messageof Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was aneed to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died(e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing oppositionand persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catecheticaland liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continuefollowing Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness throughgreat suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples ofthose who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied himand betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followedhim became foundational documents for the early church.
Itshould be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to giveit greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oralculture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts wasintegral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minorwho died around AD 130, states his preference for oral traditionrather than written information about Jesus: “For I did notthink that information from books would help me as much as the wordof a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospelpreached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the namesof Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that theauthors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/orwritten sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospelswere written in the second half of the first century.
Themajority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel tobe written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author wasJohn Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1Pet. 5:13) anda part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says,“Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter,accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, aboutthat which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement ofAlexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publiclypreached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed thegospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one whohad followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken,to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, anddistributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).
Itis widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of theirsources: of the material in Mark, over 97percent is repeated inMatthew and over 88percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke alsocontain material that appears to come from a common written sourcethat is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q”(from the German Quelle= “source”), although thismay be a collection of sources rather than a single document.
Furthermore,the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes backto Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of theLord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel whileliving at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel”is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers tothe “memoirs of the apostles” (1Apol. 67) andIrenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name(Haer. 3.11.7).
ThePurpose and Genre of the Gospels
Purpose.The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirmfaith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life ofJesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemnthose who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies inthat they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the eventssurrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event inJesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtuallyincidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers andsisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonicalGospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of thesixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the oneweek from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.
Theprimary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels werenot to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to anacknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purposeof his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes,however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historicalaccuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who livedwithin a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be moreconcerned than the other evangelists with historical details, givinga rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a morespecific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).
Genre.The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questionsconcerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion isimperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece ofliterature will largely be determined by the function of the textwithin a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholarsbelieved that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and weretherefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. Thisconclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels werecollections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, andthat the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, thispresupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars haveseen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who werenot just collecting primitive source material but were using thatmaterial to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospelstherefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written insuch a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Suchan overall intention may have stronger similarities with differentgenres in the Greco-Roman world of theNT.
TheGospels have been associated with several genres. They bear someresemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divinepersons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. Thesestories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birthor death or during life, and they included the presence of bothdisciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative wassecondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies,therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention tomoral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded.Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collectionof wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view againgives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of thenarrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularlythe miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue theopposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts inparticular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus onmiracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on eithersayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that theGospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). Thesecontained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, anda concern for character.
Althoughthe Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective ofdifferent genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactlyreplicate a known genre. They contain material not found in otherHellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillmentof OT expectations and their desire to address particular issuesfaced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission;the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death,and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlikeother literature of the time, they do not name their authors, andwith the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devicessuch as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or atleast as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.
Canonicaland Noncanonical Gospels
Theprogression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oralpreaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the storyled to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body ofliterature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels.These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed asauthoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature ofearly Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospelof Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered atNag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain aresurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.
Thecanonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections ofScripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, withparticular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw theattention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose inthe life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of greatimportance within Scripture.
The English word “gospel” translates the Greekword euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being usedseventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,”angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary usein the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather adeclaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empirewith reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, whowas thought of as a savior with divine status. These events includeddeclarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and hisaccession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be tracedto the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to thecoming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This goodnews, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’spromises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.
TheGospel Message
Theapostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death,burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1Cor. 15:1–5). Hestates that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation ofeveryone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1Tim. 1:11),the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncementthat requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2Cor. 11:4; 2Thess.1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesusin the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people torespond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is alsoin the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with theproclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).
Therecords of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliestpublic declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three suchspeeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whosecontent can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment hasdawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of JesusChrist (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days”foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection,has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the newIsrael (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to thechurch as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation(10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the returnof Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appealis made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the HolySpirit, and salvation (2:37–41).
Thisdeclaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what waspreached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of thisgospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek isclosely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2Tim.4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oraltransmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form throughrepetition, which helps explain some similarities between laterwritten accounts of the gospel.
FromOral to Written Gospel
Later,this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons.With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book ofActs, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the messageof Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was aneed to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died(e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing oppositionand persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catecheticaland liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continuefollowing Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness throughgreat suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples ofthose who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied himand betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followedhim became foundational documents for the early church.
Itshould be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to giveit greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oralculture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts wasintegral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minorwho died around AD 130, states his preference for oral traditionrather than written information about Jesus: “For I did notthink that information from books would help me as much as the wordof a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospelpreached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the namesof Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that theauthors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/orwritten sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospelswere written in the second half of the first century.
Themajority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel tobe written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author wasJohn Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1Pet. 5:13) anda part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says,“Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter,accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, aboutthat which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement ofAlexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publiclypreached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed thegospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one whohad followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken,to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, anddistributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).
Itis widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of theirsources: of the material in Mark, over 97percent is repeated inMatthew and over 88percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke alsocontain material that appears to come from a common written sourcethat is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q”(from the German Quelle= “source”), although thismay be a collection of sources rather than a single document.
Furthermore,the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes backto Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of theLord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel whileliving at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel”is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers tothe “memoirs of the apostles” (1Apol. 67) andIrenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name(Haer. 3.11.7).
ThePurpose and Genre of the Gospels
Purpose.The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirmfaith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life ofJesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemnthose who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies inthat they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the eventssurrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event inJesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtuallyincidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers andsisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonicalGospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of thesixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the oneweek from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.
Theprimary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels werenot to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to anacknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purposeof his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes,however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historicalaccuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who livedwithin a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be moreconcerned than the other evangelists with historical details, givinga rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a morespecific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).
Genre.The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questionsconcerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion isimperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece ofliterature will largely be determined by the function of the textwithin a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholarsbelieved that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and weretherefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. Thisconclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels werecollections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, andthat the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, thispresupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars haveseen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who werenot just collecting primitive source material but were using thatmaterial to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospelstherefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written insuch a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Suchan overall intention may have stronger similarities with differentgenres in the Greco-Roman world of theNT.
TheGospels have been associated with several genres. They bear someresemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divinepersons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. Thesestories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birthor death or during life, and they included the presence of bothdisciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative wassecondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies,therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention tomoral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded.Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collectionof wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view againgives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of thenarrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularlythe miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue theopposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts inparticular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus onmiracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on eithersayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that theGospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). Thesecontained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, anda concern for character.
Althoughthe Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective ofdifferent genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactlyreplicate a known genre. They contain material not found in otherHellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillmentof OT expectations and their desire to address particular issuesfaced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission;the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death,and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlikeother literature of the time, they do not name their authors, andwith the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devicessuch as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or atleast as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.
Canonicaland Noncanonical Gospels
Theprogression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oralpreaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the storyled to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body ofliterature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels.These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed asauthoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature ofearly Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospelof Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered atNag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain aresurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.
Thecanonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections ofScripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, withparticular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw theattention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose inthe life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of greatimportance within Scripture.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Infant baptism, or paedobaptism, is the practice ofadministering baptism to children before they are capable ofrequesting or even acknowledging it. According to paedobaptists, thechild becomes a member of God’s family through this act of hisor her parents. Around the age of twelve years, the child will berequested to confirm acceptance of the earlier baptism. Churchesfollowing this tradition do not refer to it as “infantbaptism,” but rather consider it part of normal baptism.
Thosechurches affirming infant baptism find the practice in the NT. Thereare several reports of a household or other unspecified group beingbaptized (Acts 2:38; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1Cor. 1:16; cf. 1Cor.10:2). These groups presumably included children, who were thenconsidered part of the church.
Theapostle Paul seems to relate Christian baptism to Jewish circumcision(Col. 2:11–12), the entrance ritual to inclusion in the OTcovenant (Gen. 17:10–14). Infant boys were circumcised on theeighth day after birth as a sign of the continuing relationshipbetween God and Israel. Having one’s children (and any slavesin the household) circumcised was a demonstration of obedience by thehead of the household; an adult who was not circumcised wasdisobedient (Gen. 17:14).
Baptizinginfants functions in a similar way. The child’s parentsannounce their own association with the body of Christ and theirdesire that the child be considered a member as well. This baptism,as with adults, does not convey salvation but does convey a type ofgrace. Entering early adulthood, the child will be given a chance tomake an affirmation of faith through confirmation. Although the childwill have no memory of the baptism, he or she will grow from infancyaware of having been entered conditionally into the church throughthe act initiated by the parents. Thus, infant baptism is an act offaith by the parents that the child must claim later.
Accordingto this perspective, a person baptized as an infant has no need forbaptism later in life. He or she is already a member of the universalchurch; subsequent baptism would be of no effect, and the request forbaptism likely would be refused by the church. See also Baptism.
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
To seek guidance from God. In the OT, this usually was donethrough an intermediary such as a prophet, priest, or seer (Exod.18:15; Judg. 18:5; 1Sam. 9:9; 22:15; 2Kings 8:8; 22:18;Jer. 37:7). The priests could also inquire of God through the use ofthe ephod and the Urim and Thummim, which were God-ordained lots(Num. 27:21; 1Sam. 23:9–13; 28:6). Warfare, health, andgovernance were primary concerns for inquiries to God but were by nomeans the only issues (1Sam. 23:2; 2Sam. 5:23; 2Kings3:11; 2Chron. 18:4, 6–7). Of course, inquiring of God didnot guarantee a favorable answer or any answer at all (Ezek. 20:3).Only certain avenues of inquiry were acceptable to God. For example,the Israelites were prohibited from consulting wizards, mediums, andnecromancers (Deut. 18:10–11; 1Sam. 28:3, 7). Naturally,the Israelites were forbidden to inquire of other deities, such asBaal-Zebub, and doing so had harmful consequences (2Kings1:2–6). Although people were dependent on God’sself-revelation, God did not need to wait on them to inquire. Hecould communicate in dreams, visions, by sending a prophet or anangel, or more directly (Gen. 20:3; Exod.3:2).
Theavenues to inquiring of God changed with the advent of Jesus and theloss of the second temple. This change was foreshadowed in Jesus’conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. Previously, accessto God involved seeking him at the proper place. With no temple,access to God was severely limited. As a result, in rabbinic Judaism,Torah study and interpretation became the primary means for inquiringof God. In the NT, when Christ’s death tore in half thetemple’s curtain, and when the Spirit came, access to Godbecame open to all who were believers (Matt. 27:51; Acts 1:5, 8;2:33; Heb. 6:19–20). Thus, for the disciple of Jesus, toinquire of God is as simple as asking (John 11:22; James 1:5).
The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning“preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma”was coined as a scholarly term by C.H. Dodd, a professor of NTat Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “TheApostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed thatfour of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow anidentifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted throughthe eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1)The ageof prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2)This has occurredthrough the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3)Jesusis exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel.(4)The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’spresent power and glory. (5)The messianic age will soon beconsummated in the return of Christ. (6)Therefore, hearers areto repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.
Doddfurther developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding thatthey conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Markparticularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in thewritings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core ofinformation: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially throughthe ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus,his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation ofthese events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples ofkerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41;17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1Cor. 15:1–11.
Noticeablyabsent from all these passages, however, is any mention of theethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma bedistinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal,ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understoodas appropriate to the life and thought of those already establishedin the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation ofkerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation inChrist. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching issecondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those whohave already repented and believed.
SinceDodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, whereit refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly tothe NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss.78; 105; 106; 135; 136.
The keys of the kingdom picture the power and authorityentrusted to Simon Peter by Jesus immediately after Peter’sconfession of faith (Matt. 16:16). Jesus responded, “I tell youthat you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build mychurch, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matt.16:18). It is at this point that Jesus tells Peter, “I willgive you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind onearth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth willbe loosed in heaven” (16:19). Roman Catholics have understoodthese keys, along with this symbolism of loosing and binding, torefer to a special authority in the forgiveness of sins and in thepractices of penance and absolution given to the apostle Peter, andby extension to the institution of the papacy as his spiritual heir.Protestants have often understood this power as involving theapostles in general, or perhaps even the entire church (see 18:18).
Thesymbolism of keys is normally used in the Bible to refer to a meansof entry. Jesus is addressing Peter in particular in Matt. 16:19, notthe apostles as a whole, since the “you” is singular inthe Greek text. Perhaps the best way to understand this phrase is tointerpret it in its original context of something that Peter was todo in the initial establishment of the NT church. Significantly,Peter is given an unparalleled initiatory role in the spread of thegospel. Peter is the one who takes on leadership in the upper roomprayer meeting in Acts 1 and also in the process of finding anotherapostle to replace Judas Iscariot. Peter is the spokesman for theapostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as well as in thesubsequent events involving the Jerusalem church (Acts 3–5).Peter (along with John) goes down to Samaria to examine the newbelievers in Samaria and to be the human channel through which theywould receive the Spirit (Acts 8:14–17). Peter is the one whois entrusted by God with reaching out to Cornelius, the first Gentileconvert (Acts 10–11). At every step along the way, Peter is theone whom God used to open the door to new groups of people in thespread of the gospel.
The Letter of James has been hailed as possibly the earliest,most Jewish, and most practical of all NT letters. James 3:13 aptlycommunicates the book’s theme: “Who is wise andunderstanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, bydeeds done in humility that comes from wisdom.” The terms“wise” and “wisdom” occur five times in thebook (1:5; 3:13 [2×], 15, 17). Hence, the author instructed hisreaders on leading a life of faith that was characterized by a wisdomexpressed through speech and actions (2:12).
LiteraryFeatures
Theauthor’s employment of picturesque, concrete language has closeaffinities to OT wisdom literature and reflects Jesus’ teachingin the Sermon on the Mount.
James1:2 – Matthew 5:10-12
James1:4 – Matthew 5:48
James1:5; 5:15 – Matthew 7:7-12
James1:9 – Matthew 5:3
James1:20 – Matthew 5:22
James1:22 – Matthew 7:21
James2:5 – Matthew 5:3
James2:13 – Matthew 5:7; 6:14-15
James2:14-16 – Matthew 7:21-23
James3:12 – Matthew 7:16
James3:17-18 – Matthew 5:9
James4:4 – Matthew 6:24
James4:10 – Matthew 5:3-4
James4:11 – Matthew 7:1-2
James5:2 – Matthew 6:19
James5:10 – Matthew 5:12
James5:12 – Matthew 5:33-37
Likethe OT wisdom literature, the teaching in James has a stronglypractical orientation. Although the book contains some lengthierparagraphs, much of it consists of sequential admonishments andethical maxims that in some cases are only loosely related to oneanother. The sentences generally are short and direct. There arefifty-four verbs in the imperative. Connection between sentences issometimes created through repeated words. Yet the overall topic ofpractical faith and wisdom links these exhortations together.
Backgroundand Occasion
Afterthe death of Stephen, many disciples were scattered into the regionsof Judea and Samaria (Acts 7:54–8:3). In Acts 11:19 thenarrator notes, “Now those who had been scattered by thepersecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far asPhoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.”James may have written this letter to instruct and comfort thosescattered believers, as he addressed his letter to “the twelvetribes dispersed abroad” (1:1 NET). These Jewish Christians nolonger had direct contact with the apostles in Jerusalem and neededto be instructed and admonished in their tribulations. Apparently,the rich were taking advantage of them (2:6; 5:1–6), and theirtrials had led to worldliness, rash words, and strained relationships(2:1; 4:1, 11; 5:9). In view of persecution, some may have beentempted to hide their faith (5:10–11). James exhorted them todemonstrate a lifestyle that would reflect their faith.
James’sView on Works and Salvation
Somereaders of this letter have observed a seeming contradiction betweenJames’s call for good works and Paul’s insistence onsalvation by grace through faith apart from works (cf. James 2:14–26with Eph. 2:8–10). The discussion is complicated by James’sargument that a faith without works cannot “save” and byhis observation that Abraham was justified by what he did, not byfaith alone (James 2:14, 20–24). Paul, by contrast, maintainsthat Abraham was justified exclusively by faith (Rom. 4:1–3).
Referringrhetorically to people who claim to have faith but have no deeds,James asks, “Can such faith save them?” (2:14). That is,can the kind of faith that results in no works be genuine? Theexpected answer is no. The kind of faith that produces no workscannot be genuine faith; rather, it is “dead” (2:17, 26)and “useless” (2:20). This kind of faith is “byitself,” meaning that it produces no lasting fruit (2:17).James’s point is that genuine faith will produce good works inthe believer’s life. By way of contrast, a mere profession isnot necessarily an indication of genuine faith. Even demons believein God, but they are not saved; the kind of belief that they exhibitis merely an acknowledgment of God’s existence (2:19).
Accordingto James, Abraham was justified not in the sense of first beingdeclared righteous, but rather in the sense that his faith wasdemonstrated as genuine when he offered up Isaac (2:21). Paul, on theother hand, argues that salvation is obtained not through works butrather by faith alone. He quotes Gen. 15:6 to show that Abrahamtrusted God and was declared righteous several years before heoffered up Isaac (Rom. 4:3).
Accordingto Paul, Abraham was justified (declared righteous) before God whenhe believed God’s promise (Gen. 15:6), but for James, he wasjustified in the sense of giving observable proof of salvationthrough his obedience to God. Whereas Paul refers to the point andmeans of positional salvation, James refers to a subsequent eventthat confirmed that Abraham was justified.
I.Faith
A.Paul (Romans 4:1-3):
1.Is personal trust in God
2.Justifies one before God
3.Is not proof of Salvation
B.James (2:14-26)
1.Is a mere claim if there is no resulting fruit
II.Works
A.Paul (Romans 4:1-3):
1.Precede salvation
2.Attempt to merit salvation
3.Cannot justify before God
B.James (2:14-26)
1.Follow conversion
2.Are evidence of salvation
3.Confirm one’s salvation
Itis important to keep in mind that each author wrote with a differentpurpose. Paul wrote against Judaizers, who taught that a man had tobe circumcised and keep the OT law to be saved. James was warningagainst a mere profession of faith that leads to self-deception(1:22). John Calvin correctly expressed the biblical teaching thatfaith alone saves, but that kind of faith does not remain alone; itproduces good works (cf. Rom. 3:21–6:14; Eph. 2:8–10;Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7).
Authorship
Theauthor identifies himself as “James, a servant of God and ofthe Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). The NT mentions five personshaving the name “James”: (1)James the son ofZebedee and the brother of John (Matt. 4:21); (2)James the sonof Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3); (3)James “the younger”(Mark 15:40); (4)James the father of the apostle Judas (notJudas Iscariot; Luke 6:16); and (5)James the brother of Jesus(Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).
Jamesthe brother of John was executed by Herod AgrippaI, who died inAD 44 (Acts 12:2). Since the Letter of James probably was writtenafter this date, the brother of John could not have written it.Neither James the son of Alphaeus, James the younger, nor James thefather of Judas was as prominent in the early church as the writer ofthis letter, who simply identified himself and assumed that hisreaders would know him (1:1). James the son of Alphaeus is mentionedfor the last time in Acts 1:13, and nothing is known of James thefather of Judas apart from the listing of his name in Luke 6:15; Acts1:13. (It is uncertain whether James the younger should be identifiedwith one of the other four or is a separate figure.) Thus, it isunlikely that any of them wrote the book. James the brother of Jesusis most likely the author of this letter.
Jamesthe Brother of the Lord
Atthe beginning of Jesus’ ministry, James, as well as hisbrothers Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon, did not believe that Jesuswas the Messiah (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:5). However, they cameto believe in him after the resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1Cor.15:7). Paul called James, along with Peter and John, the “pillars”of the church (Gal. 2:9). James does not claim to be an apostle inthis letter; however, he is identified as one in Gal. 1:19. But therethe term “apostle” probably refers to a group of leadingdisciples outside the Twelve (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 1Cor. 15:7;Gal. 2:9). Since the author of this letter employed many imperatives,his readers clearly accepted his authority. James, the brother ofJesus, who also became a key leader of the church in Jerusalem,possessed such authority (Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18; Gal. 1:18–19;2:9).
Date
Somescholars hold that the Letter of James was written around AD 62,while others argue that James wrote this letter sometime in AD 45–50.Those who favor the earlier dates point out that the Jewish characterof this letter fits with this period when the church was mainlyJewish, based on the following criteria: (1)There is no mentionof Gentile Christians in the letter. (2)The author does notrefer to the teachings of the Judaizers. If the letter had beenwritten at a later date, we would expect the author to address theissue of circumcision among Christians. (3)The mention of“teachers” (3:1) and “elders” (5:14) as theleaders in the church reflects the structure of the primitive church.(4)The word “meeting” in 2:2 is the same Greek wordas for “synagogue.” It describes the gathering place ofthe early church. This implies a time when the congregation was stillprimarily Jewish (Acts 1–7).
Outline
I.Introduction (1:1)
II.The Wise Christian Is Patient in Trials (1:2–18)
A.How the Christian should face trials (1:2–12)
B.The source of temptations (1:13–18)
III.The Wise Christian Is a Practical Doer of the Word (1:19–2:26)
A.Hearers and doers of the word (1:19–25)
B.True religion (1:26–27)
C.Prejudice in the church (2:1–13)
D.Faith that works (2:14–26)
IV.The Wise Christian Masters the Tongue (3:1–18)
A.The power of the tongue (3:1–12)
B.The wisdom from above (3:13–18)
V.The Wise Christian Seeks Peace in Relationships (4:1–17)
A.The cause of quarrels (4:1–3)
B.Warning against worldliness (4:4–10)
C.Warning against slander (4:11–12)
D.Warning against boasting and self-sufficiency (4:13–17)
VI.The Wise Christian Is Patient and Prays When Facing Difficulties(5:1–20)
A.Warning to the rich (5:1–6)
B.Exhortation to patience (5:7–12)
C.The power of prayer (5:13–18)
D.The benefit of correcting those in error (5:19–20)
The English word “messiah” derives from theHebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greekcounterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh)is christos, which in English is “Christ.”
OldTestament
InEnglish translations of the Bible, the word “messiah”(“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT,kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil asa means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respectiveoffices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1Sam.16:1–13; 2Sam. 2:4, 7). Samuel anointed Saul (1Sam.9:16; 10:1; 15:1) and David (1Sam. 16:12–13). Later,Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest anointed Solomon, thesuccessor of King David (1Kings 1:34). The word “anoint”occurs even earlier, in the book of Judges, in a parable aboutAbimelek becoming king (Judg. 9:7–15). In 1–2 Samuel andPsalms the king is sometimes called “the Lord’s anointed”(1Sam. 16:6; 24:6; 26:9; Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 20:6). The anointingof priests occurs very early in Israelite tradition, in which Aaronand his sons are consecrated for their priestly service (Exod. 28:41;30:30). In Num. 35:25 the high priest is anointed with “holyoil.” Sacred objects for use in the tabernacle also wereanointed (Exod. 29:36; 30:26; Lev. 8:10–11). As for theanointing of prophets, God commanded Elijah to anoint Elisha as hissuccessor (1Kings 19:16). The prophet Isaiah also claimed to beanointed for his work of proclamation (Isa. 61:1–2).
Theexpectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,”arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2Sam.7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a kingwho would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal kingbegan with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa.9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidickingdom.
Theharsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule insuch a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an idealson of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its currentplight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son(v.7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v.2), willreceive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of theearth your possession” (v.8). God promises that “youwill rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieceslike pottery” (v.9; see NIV footnote). In Ps. 89 thepsalmist yearns for the establishment of David’s kingdombecause God has been “very angry with your anointed one”(v.38). Later, the psalmist pleads with God, “For thesake of your servant David, do not reject your anointed one”(Ps. 132:10). In the postexilic literature, Zerubbabel, for example,appears to be understood as a messianic figure. Speaking ofZerubbabel and Joshua, the angel says, “These are the two whoare anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth” (Zech. 4:14).
Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha
Insome apocalyptic literature a messiah-like figure ushers in God’skingdom, overthrowing the current evil powers that oppress God’speople. In 1Enoch the “son of man” (46.1–3)is an anointed figure (52.6) who will judge the kings and the mightyfrom his heavenly throne and will champion the cause of the faithful(46.4–8; 62.5). In 2Baruch “my anointed”(39.7; 40.1) will reign over the remnant in a place chosen by God(40.2). Finally, in a nonapocalyptic Jewish text, Psalms of Solomon,the author expects deliverance from the Roman oppressors and thecorrupt Hasmonean dynasty by the “Lord Messiah” (18.7):“See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David,to rule over your servant Israel” (17.21). These texts confirmthe diversity of first-century messianic expectations. Yet the mostcommon hope centered on the “Davidic messiah,” the comingking from David’s line who would establish justice andrighteousness and reign forever on David’s throne.
NewTestament
Jesusdemonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.”In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The twokey Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselvesenigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession(8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “Youare the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the sufferingof the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphasat his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”(Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “Iam,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “Youhave said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as theexalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.
Jesusno doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating aninadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role.Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism,he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secureits physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “sonof David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteousrulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trampleher to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distancehimself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “sonof David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as othercharacters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47;15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a groupof Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them(John 6:15).
InMark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandingsof the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he issomething more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with histeaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiahwho will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, thechief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and throughwhom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Romanlegions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.
Inthe book of Acts, Peter reaffirms the messiahship of Jesus at theconclusion of his sermon: “Therefore let all Israel be assuredof this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord andMessiah” (2:36 [cf. 5:42; 9:22]). Since it is now apparent thatthrough suffering and death Jesus the Messiah would effect salvation,there is no risk of the Jews misunderstanding Christ’smessiahship. However, he is still a deliverer and savior like theLord’s anointed of the OT, but he brings about this salvationthrough unexpected means (3:18–20). Further, Jesus is now theascended and exalted messianic king in the style of Ps. 110:1 (cf.Acts 2:34–36), which he predicted during his earthly ministry(Mark 14:62). The reality of Jesus’ exalted messianic status isso pervasive in early Christian thinking that the title Christosbecomes a synonym for “Jesus” or is used in combinationwith “Jesus.” And indeed, the earliest followers of Jesusafter the resurrection become know as Christianoi (Acts 11:26).
The moral course of the world is simultaneously moving in twodirections. The morally innocent state in which God created humankindwas lost at the fall (Gen.3), and since then, sin, death, andcorruption have reigned over all humanity (Rom. 5:12). In Noah’stime the world so declined morally that God had to wipe out nearlythe entire human race (Gen. 6–8), and the Bible predicts thatsin will come to a similar crescendo before Christ’s return(1Tim. 4:1; 2Pet. 3).
Despitethis moral degeneration, the kingdom that Christ inaugurated in hisfirst coming (Mark 1:15) will make continual progress in renewingcreation until the consummation (Matt. 13:31–33). The newheavens and earth have already broken into the present age at theresurrection of Christ, who is now ruling at the right hand of theFather (Acts 2:33). Therefore, the age subject to death is passingaway, but those in Christ are being renewed daily (1Cor. 7:31;2Cor. 4:16). The Holy Spirit represents their down payment onthe riches that await them at the final redemption (Eph. 1:14).
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.
Introduction
Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).
Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.
TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.
Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).
Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.
TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.
NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.
Jesus’Life
Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.
Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).
Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.
Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.
Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.
TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.
Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.
Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.
AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.
DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).
TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).
Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).
PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).
Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
TheIdentity of Jesus Christ
Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).
Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.
Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).
ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).
Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).
Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.
Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).
Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.
TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.
Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).
Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).
Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.
Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).
Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.
Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).
Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).
SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.
Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).
ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).
Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).
Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).
Jesus’Purpose and Community
Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).
Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.
Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).
Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.
Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).
Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).
TheQuests for the Historical Jesus
Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.
Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.
In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.
Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.
Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.
The age to come is the time when Christ will return andestablish his kingdom in all its fullness and glory. The Jews livingin intertestamental times experienced great persecution andsufferings and looked ahead in hope and anticipation to a futurecoming age of a messiah, with all its associated blessings. Both Johnthe Baptist and Jesus pointed to how this new age had already drawnnear with their message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven hascome near” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus taught that “thekingdom of God has come upon you” during his earthly ministry(Matt. 12:28), and he promised that anyone who has been born againcan “see” or “enter” the kingdom right then(using present-tense verbs in John 3:3, 5). At the same time, Jesuswas equally clear that the kingdom had not come in all its fullnessduring his earthly ministry, and he instructed his disciples tocontinue to look ahead and pray specifically, “your kingdomcome” (Matt. 6:10). Consequently, many have described thekingdom as being both “already” and “not yet”in the sense that God’s kingdom has already begun with Christ’sfirst coming, even though the fullness of the kingdom still lies inthe future. Thus, in one sense “the age to come” beganwith Jesus’ earthly ministry, especially his death andresurrection. Peter could also describe the giving of the Holy Spiriton Pentecost as taking place in “the last days” (Acts2:17), thus marking the beginning of the age to come. Consequently,believers find themselves living in the tension between alreadyexperiencing the transforming power of a new life in Christ and stillliving in what the Bible elsewhere describes as “the presentevil age” (Gal. 1:4) under the power of Satan as “the godof this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). The challenge for believers isto look ahead by faith and “lay up treasure for themselves as afirm foundation for the coming age” (1 Tim. 6:19), whenChrist will return and fully establish his kingdom. See also Advent,Second; Eschatology; Second Coming.
An oration is a formal public speech; an orator is a personskilled in delivering an oration. Classical oratory flourished infifth-century BC Athens, when itinerant intellectuals, known asSophists, trained pupils in the art of persuasive speech. The Greekphilosopher Plato disdained the Sophists as hucksters more concernedwith making money and winning arguments than with presenting truth.He and his successor Aristotle extolled reason and virtue over merepersuasiveness in rhetoric. Greek oratory was admired and taught bythe Romans to their young men, who needed to speak persuasively inlawcourts and public assemblies. The Roman orator Cicero stressedskills necessary for effective oration: proper word choice andsentence construction, practiced gestures and vocal modulation,appropriate emotion, wit, andcharm, along with a prodigiousmemory and copious knowledge of history and law.
Skilledoration is particularly stressed in the Greek and Roman venues of theapostle Paul. But even in the OT the “eloquent orator” ispart of Judah’s support system (Isa. 3:3 KJV). Moses decrieshis inadequacy as God’s spokesperson due to his lack ofeloquence (Exod. 4:10). Before Paul’s apostleship, theunschooled Peter becomes an effective orator of the gospel to hisJewish audiences (Acts 2:14–40; 3:12–26; 4:8–13),while the Greek Jew Stephen’s oratorical defense of the HebrewScriptures’ fulfillment in Christ so inflames the Sanhedrinthat they stone him (Acts 7:2–57).
Paulorates the gospel to the pagan Greek cultures of the Roman Empire. InAthens, his orations arouse the interest of philosophers (Acts17:17–20). He quotes Greek poets in his oration at theAreopagus (17:22–31). In Ephesus, Paul’s orations aboutthe kingdom of God (19:8–9) jeopardize the idol trade,antagonizing the local artisans. An oration by the city clerk calmsand diffuses the resultant riotous mob (19:35–40). Paul usesoratory in his legal defense before the governor Felix (24:10–21)and in his attempt to persuade King Agrippa of the truth andreasonableness of the gospel (26:2–29). But Paul’sspeaking skills are not admired by all (2Cor. 10:10), and Paulhimself disdains the so-called wisdom of those who value sucheloquence (1Cor. 1:18–22; 2Cor. 10:5; 11:6). Hestresses that his message is not a matter of clever and confidentoratorical skills but is instead taught by the Holy Spirit andempowered by God (1Cor. 2:1–4, 13; 4:20).
An oration is a formal public speech; an orator is a personskilled in delivering an oration. Classical oratory flourished infifth-century BC Athens, when itinerant intellectuals, known asSophists, trained pupils in the art of persuasive speech. The Greekphilosopher Plato disdained the Sophists as hucksters more concernedwith making money and winning arguments than with presenting truth.He and his successor Aristotle extolled reason and virtue over merepersuasiveness in rhetoric. Greek oratory was admired and taught bythe Romans to their young men, who needed to speak persuasively inlawcourts and public assemblies. The Roman orator Cicero stressedskills necessary for effective oration: proper word choice andsentence construction, practiced gestures and vocal modulation,appropriate emotion, wit, andcharm, along with a prodigiousmemory and copious knowledge of history and law.
Skilledoration is particularly stressed in the Greek and Roman venues of theapostle Paul. But even in the OT the “eloquent orator” ispart of Judah’s support system (Isa. 3:3 KJV). Moses decrieshis inadequacy as God’s spokesperson due to his lack ofeloquence (Exod. 4:10). Before Paul’s apostleship, theunschooled Peter becomes an effective orator of the gospel to hisJewish audiences (Acts 2:14–40; 3:12–26; 4:8–13),while the Greek Jew Stephen’s oratorical defense of the HebrewScriptures’ fulfillment in Christ so inflames the Sanhedrinthat they stone him (Acts 7:2–57).
Paulorates the gospel to the pagan Greek cultures of the Roman Empire. InAthens, his orations arouse the interest of philosophers (Acts17:17–20). He quotes Greek poets in his oration at theAreopagus (17:22–31). In Ephesus, Paul’s orations aboutthe kingdom of God (19:8–9) jeopardize the idol trade,antagonizing the local artisans. An oration by the city clerk calmsand diffuses the resultant riotous mob (19:35–40). Paul usesoratory in his legal defense before the governor Felix (24:10–21)and in his attempt to persuade King Agrippa of the truth andreasonableness of the gospel (26:2–29). But Paul’sspeaking skills are not admired by all (2Cor. 10:10), and Paulhimself disdains the so-called wisdom of those who value sucheloquence (1Cor. 1:18–22; 2Cor. 10:5; 11:6). Hestresses that his message is not a matter of clever and confidentoratorical skills but is instead taught by the Holy Spirit andempowered by God (1Cor. 2:1–4, 13; 4:20).
A God-established observance, often given as a remembrancefor generations, a memorial, always a commandment or an edict to becarried out, noted because God’s people are a covenant people,a perpetual statement of how God wants his people to relate to him.
OldTestament
Inthe OT the use of the word “ordinance” to translatecertain Hebrew words varies among English translations. Since“ordinance” relates to the law, it is often mentionedwith commandments and statutes, without a clear distinction ofmeaning (Deut. 7:11).
Inthe OT of the NIV, the word “ordinance” is thetranslation of these Hebrew words: (1)khuqqah (“statute,decree”), at least twenty-three times in Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers, and Ezekiel; (2)khoq (“action, statute,decree”), twice in Exodus; and (3)mishpat (“judgment,justice”), at least five times in the historical books, Psalms,and Ezekiel.
TheHebrew term khuqqah is used in all but one instance with ’olamto note a “lasting ordinance” in the NIV. This termrefers to the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod.12–13). The oil for the perpetual lampstand is referred to as alasting ordinance (Exod. 27:21), as are also the directions for theDay of Atonement (Lev. 23:31) and the ceremonial cleanliness for theman working with the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19:10). Other,more-specific laws are noted as lasting ordinances. These include,for example, the restriction from wine for the priests (Lev. 10:9),restriction of the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31), andthe grain offering (Ezek. 46:14).
TheHebrew term khoq is also used in conjunction with ’olam inExod. 12:24; 30:21, translated as “lasting ordinance” bythe NIV. It notes the Passover as a lasting ordinance and the ritualcleansing of the priests as a lasting ordinance.
TheHebrew term mishpat, often translated “judgment,” is alsotranslated in the NIV as “ordinance.” In these instancesit notes edicts such as that of the equal division of spoils (1Sam.30:25) and the edicts of David (2Chron. 8:14). The Levitesstate that Israel has sinned against God’s mishpatim (Neh.9:29), and the priests will judge according to God’s ordinances(Ezek. 44:24).
NewTestament
Inthe NT, the KJV (3x) and NASB (1x) translate dikaiōma(“regulation, requirement”) as “ordinance,”and both also once translate diatagē (“that which iscommanded”) as “ordinance”; additionally, the KJVtranslates paradosis(“tradition”) and ktisis (“human authority”)as “ordinance” once each. The ESV, NRSV, KJV, and NASBtranslate dogma (“ordinance, command”) in Eph. 2:15 as“ordinance.” These terms seem to refer to the edict ofGod for his people, his commandments that are to be obeyed. The NIVdoes not translate any noun as “ordinance” in the NT.
ChristianTheology
InChristian theology the use of the word “ordinance” is notdissimilar. It denotes a God-ordained observance given as a commandfor his people to fulfill as a covenant people.
Protestantsgenerally recognize two ordinances in the NT: baptism and the Lord’sSupper (Communion, Eucharist). The common characteristics identifyingthese relate to their ordination by Christ to picture his work in thelife of believers and the church and their participation in him. (Seealso Sacrament.)
Baptism.The concept of baptism is found in five different Greek words, thenouns baptisma (“plunging, dipping”), baptismos(“washing, cleansing, plunging”), and baptistēs(“baptizer”), and the verbs baptizō (“toplunge, dip, wash”) and baptō (“to dip”). Themeanings of these words have been discussedthroughout church history, but all of them seem to denote an actionof dipping or plunging.
Christianbaptism certainly is rooted in the baptisms of John, Jesus, and theapostles. In the book of Acts the disciples simply continue tobaptize those who repent, as they had done at the inception of Jesus’ministry (John 4:2). There is no surprise expressed by the recipientsof baptism; the expression seems a natural follow-up to theirrepentance. The connection to Judaism, however, is unclear. Judaismwas saturated with rituals of purification with water and washings.These washings were similar to baptisms. While Jewish washings wereperpetual, only the Jewish proselyte baptism was a onetime rite. Itis unclear when proselyte baptism started or how it developed. It mayalready have been in place in the time of Jesus. The Talmud laterspeaks of it, but it is not mentioned in the OT and seems to bemissing from Second Temple literature altogether. Just as there werecleansings in the OT rituals, so too the proselyte baptism was apreparatory cleansing of the proselyte candidate. Yet proselytebaptism before the time of Jesus has little extant evidence.Additionally, John would not seem to look to a ritual for Gentiles.
Othershave proposed that John was in continuity with a practice of Qumran.The two were very similar (though the Qumran rite was perpetual). AtQumran, baptismal cleansing and repentance looks to the Messiah(Qumran was an eschatological community). Yet it may be that this, aswell as the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the apostles, was derivedfrom (common?) sources not now known.
ForJohn, too, baptism is a sign of repentance and cleansing inpreparation. John is the forerunner of the Messiah, and as such hisfocus is also eschatological. John brings an immediate focus on theMessiah, and he draws the Israelite community together to recognize,receive, listen to, and follow the Messiah. With this as thesignificance of John’s baptism, it is surprising to find Jesuscoming to him for baptism. Although Jesus has no need for cleansingand preparation, he is baptized in solidarity with John’smessage and his people. When Jesus is baptized, it apparently marksthe inception of the kingdom as the Spirit comes upon him and theFather affirms him. Thereafter, Jesus notes the kingdom as being “athand” in his presence.
Jesusbaptizes at least some of the disciples (John 3:22), though thedisciples are noted as those who regularly do the baptizing (John4:2). No doubt this baptism referenced cleansing and preparation, asthe Messiah was present. Apparently, the baptism of Jesus’disciples subsided, since there is no further reference to it by thefour evangelists.
Onthe day of Pentecost, repentance and baptism with regard to theMessiah are begun by the apostles postresurrection. This is accordingto the command of Jesus before the ascension to make disciples by wayof baptism and instruction (Matt. 28:19–20). This baptismcommanded by Jesus is to be done “in the name” of thethree persons of the Trinity. The early baptismal creed was “Jesusis Lord,” and it may have included a threefold query of beliefin the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Postresurrection baptismsymbolizes cleansing; the inundation in the water symbolizes thiscleansing as effected in the death and resurrection of Christ,“buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4).
Baptismis always assumed of a believer (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3–4;1Pet. 3:21). It would have never occurred to the early churchto dichotomize salvation and baptism as is often done today. Theexception can be seen in Paul’s writings, where he emphasizesthe kerygma over the act of baptism (1Cor. 1:17). For Paul, thewatershed is the preaching of the gospel to be received by faith, buthe perpetually appeals to the baptism of his readers.
Somehave overemphasized baptism by seeing it as the salvific entity. Acts10:47 applies for Cornelius and his family the permanent reception ofthe Spirit before baptism. This reception of the Spirit is laterlikened by Peter to the original gift of the Spirit at Pentecost(Acts 11:15). Although it would be unwise to infer doctrine from themere sequence of narrative events, the passage in Acts 10 at leastshows the nonnecessity of the sequence of baptism to come into unionwith Christ. This is enacted by the operation of the Spirit alone.
Inevery case in the NT, the candidates for baptism are those who havecome to repentance, and they are always adults. There is no directreference to infant baptism. Some in the church have assumed infantbaptism in family contexts, thought to be especially effectual indealing with original sin. But overall, the biblical testimony seemsto indicate that baptism is for believers who have repented. Becauseit is usually NT authority figures who administer baptism, a generalconsensus arose that only the bishop of the church should administerbaptism. Ignatius calls for the bishop only to minister bothordinances. The tradition that baptism be administered by an ordainedofficer of the church is largely maintained today, though there is noedict in the Scripture.
Withregard to mode, the Didache calls for immersion in running water asthe preferred method, with still water being the second choice. Ifwater is not available for immersion, then a threefold pouring isallowed. In church history, those who prioritize the symbol ofcleansing use sprinkling as the mode. In any event, when anythingwith regard to mode can be discerned from Scripture, it involvesdipping into water (“he went up out of the water” [Matt.3:16]; “they came up out of the water” [Acts 8:39]). (Seealso Baptism; Infant Baptism.)
TheLord’s Supper.The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is also referred to as theLord’s Table, Communion, and the Eucharist. The Lord’sSupper is a memorial of the death of Christ. In the partaking of thebread and the cup there is remembrance of the ground of salvationeffected in the sacrifice of the cross. Most evangelical Christiansconsider the bread and the cup to symbolically represent the body andblood of Christ. Other Christian traditions claim that the bread andthe cup are transformed into the real body and blood of Christ(transubstantiation) or that the real body and blood of Christ arepresent alongside the bread and the cup (consubstantiation).
Thenarrative of Jesus’ Last Supper is found in Matt. 26:26–29;Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1Cor. 11:23–26.This meal as recorded in the Gospels is the covenant meal celebratedin view of the ratification of the new covenant that would soon beaccomplished (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood”[Luke 22:20]). Jesus instituted the supper on the night before thecrucifixion. The Last Supper of Jesus with the apostles in the upperroom also looks tothe past redemption effected in the Passoveron that fateful night in Egypt. It looks to the present work ofChrist as the covenant meal. It anticipates the messianic meal in theeschaton. Just as the bread and the cup with Jesus in his Last Supperwere connected with the Passover meal, so in the early church it wasobserved with the love feast. The fellowship of the church containedthe love feast, with the bread given before or after the meal and thecup following the bread. But by the second century, the bread and thecup took on a more liturgical air, being separated from the lovefeast.
Muchof what we know about the Lord’s Supper comes throughdiscussion of problems in the Corinthian church. The very thing thatthe Lord’s Supper was to foster—unity around the cross ofJesus Christ—was denied. The exact abuse in Corinth is unknown,but it probably involved the rich oppressing the poor by exclusion ordenial of food. The response of the apostle is that if they cannoteat in equal moderation with all socioeconomic strata in the body,they are to eat at home (“Don’t you have homes to eat anddrink in?” [1Cor. 11:22]). (See also Last Supper; Lord’sSupper.)
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Theterm “predestination” means “to determine or decidesomething beforehand.” Some form of the Greek verb proorizō(“to determine beforehand”)occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1Cor.2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). It is practically synonymous with the concept offoreordination and is closely related to divine foreknowledge (Acts2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1Pet. 1:1–2, 20). Various Scripturesindicate that God the Father is the one who predestines (John17:6–10; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3–5; 1Pet. 1:2).
Thespecific objects of predestination are humans, angels, and theMessiah. These divine predeterminations occurred before the creationof the world and were motivated by the love of God (Eph. 1:4–5).In regard to humans, this means that in eternity past, God determinedthat some individuals would be the recipients of his salvation.However, this determination does not rule out the necessity of humanchoice, responsibility, and faith. The decision to predestine someindividuals for salvation was based not upon anything good or bad inthe recipients, but solely on God’s good pleasure and accordingto his holy, wise, and eternal purpose (Isa. 46:10; Acts 13:48; Rom.11:33).
Predestinationas Part of God’s Larger Plan
Thescope of God’s plan. Predestinationis a part of God’s all-encompassing eternal plan (Isa.40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; Eph. 1:11). Several terms express God’splan. Among these are his “decree” (Ps. 2:7), “eternalpurpose” (Eph. 3:11), “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23),and “will” (Eph. 1:9, 11). God’s plan involves allthings that come to pass, including major and insignificant events,direct and indirect causes, things appointed and things permitted. Ittherefore encompasses both good and evil (Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:4;Isa. 14:24–27; 22:11; 37:26–27; 46:9–10; Acts 2:23;4:27–28; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).
Theinclusion of evil in the plan of God does not mean that he condones,authorizes, or commits moral evil. The apostle John stresses that Godis light and that there is no darkness in him at all (1John1:5). He is absolutely holy and cannot be charged with the commissionof sin (Hab. 1:13). When addressing the topic of God’s plan andpurpose, the biblical authors are careful to distinguish betweendivine causation and human responsibility. Both fall under thepurview of God’s plan. There is divine certainty about whatwill happen, but moral agents are never under compulsion to commitevil (see Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:11; 1Cor. 2:7; 11:2; Heb. 2:5,10–16; 1Pet. 1:2, 20; 2Pet. 3:17). For example,when Luke refers to the greatest miscarriage of justice in thehistory of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, he indicates that itwas predestined by God, but the moral turpitude of the act isattributed to “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). The dual natureof such events is aptly reflected in Joseph’s statement to hisbrothers who sold him into slavery: “You meant evil against me,but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20 NASB).
Whereasthe all-encompassing plan of God relates to his sovereign controlover all things, predestination appears to be restricted primarily tocertain divine decisions affecting humans, angels, and the Messiah(Isa. 42:1–7; Acts 2:23; 1Tim. 5:21; 1Pet. 1:20;2:4). With reference to humans, Paul states, “In him we werealso chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him whoworks out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”(Eph. 1:11). Some scholars limit predestination to those things “inhim,” thus linking this work of God to his purpose insalvation. Others argue that the following phrase, “who worksout everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,”demonstrates that all things fall under the purview of God’scontrolling and guiding purpose (Eph. 1:11). It seems best to see thephrase “in him” as indicating the sphere in whichbelievers are chosen and the term “predestinated” as onecrucial aspect of the greater plan of God.
Divineforeknowledge and election. Sometheologians argue that election and predestination are merely basedupon God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe in him.Although God surely knows all those who will believe, the term“foreknowledge” connotes much more than simply knowingahead of time who will come to faith. It means that God hassovereignly chosen to know some individuals in such an intimate waythat it moved him to predestine them to eternal life (Rom. 8:29).Whereas the term “election” refers to God’ssovereign choice of those individuals, “predestination”looks forward toward the goal of that selection. Both predestinationand election occur in eternity past (Eph. 1:4–5).
Thepurpose of predestination. Whereaselection refers to God’s choice of individuals, predestinationlooks toward the purpose and goal of that choice. NT believers aredesignated as chosen by God and appointed to eternal life (Acts13:48; Eph. 1:4). The express purpose is that they be adopted as hischildren (Eph. 1:5) and, as beloved children, become “conformedto the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). The idea is that thosewhom God has chosen are predestined in view of the purpose that hedesires to fulfill in them, that of becoming his children who areconformed to the image of his Son. The ultimate purpose behind thisplan is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5–6, 11–12).
Predestinationand Reprobation
Inhis plan, God has chosen some individuals, nations, groups, andangels to fulfill special purposes, implying that other individuals,nations, groups, and angels have not been selected for those samepurposes (2Thess. 2:13; 2Tim. 2:10; 1Pet. 1:2).With regard to God’s choice in salvation, this has led sometheologians to argue that those not chosen for salvation are bydefault chosen for eternal damnation. They maintain thatpredestination applies not only to individuals whom God plans tosave, but also to those whom he does not plan to save (Prov. 16:4;Matt. 26:23–24; Rom. 9:10–13, 17–18, 21–22;2Tim. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:8; 2Pet. 2:3, 9; Jude 4; Rev.13:8; 20:15). This is sometimes called “reprobation.” Thebelief in the combined concepts of election and reprobation has beencalled “double predestination.”
Whilesome scholars in the history of the church have argued that God isjust as active in determining the reprobate as he is the elect,others have pointed out that God’s condemnation of the nonelectis based solely upon their sin and unbelief. A real distinctionexists in the level of divine involvement with regard to the destinyof one class as compared with the other. God does not appear to havethe same relationship to every event or thing in his creation. Thedegree of divine causation in each case differs. Scripture recognizesa difference between God’s direct working and his permissivewill. In this view, God directly chooses some to be saved; however,he does not choose the others to be damned but rather passes them by,allowing them to continue on their own way and eventually suffer thejust punishment that their sins deserve.
Whicheverview one takes, it seems that the Scripture does not teachreprobation in the same way it teaches predestination leading toeternal life. Whereas the assignment to eternal death is a judicialact taking into account a person’s sin, predestination untoeternal life is purely an act of God’s sovereign grace andmercy not taking into account any actions by those chosen. Carryingthe teaching of reprobation to the extreme threatens to view God ascapricious, which clearly is not scriptural (1John 1:5).
Predestinationand Human Responsibility
Godwas in no way obligated or morally impelled to choose or predestineanyone to eternal life. His determination not to choose everyone inno way impinges upon his holy and righteous character (Rom. 9:13). Onthe contrary, justice would demand that all receive the punishmentthat they have rightly earned for their sins (Rom. 3:23; 6:23).Therefore, the predestination of some to become like his Son requiredthat God exercise grace and mercy in providing for the cleansing oftheir sin, which he accomplished through the sacrifice of his belovedSon, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23).
God’spredetermined plan does not force individuals to respond inpredetermined ways, either to accept him or to reject him. In the onecase, the sinner is drawn by God to himself but must also choose toplace trust in Christ (John 6:37, 44). Even in the radicalintervention of God in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus,where the divine call was indeed overpowering, Saul was givenopportunity to respond either positively or negatively. In the caseof those who are headed for eternal judgment, God’s working isnot fatalistic or mechanistic in the sense that a person may want tochoose God but God’s predetermined plan will not allow such aresponse. To the contrary, all are invited to come to Christ (Matt.11:28; John 3:16). The apostle John clarifies, “Whoever comesto me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 [cf. Matt. 11:28]).Those who do not come to God refuse to do so by their own volition(Matt. 23:37; John 5:40). They are not merely unable to come to Godbut unwilling to do so (John 5:40; 6:65; Rom. 3:11). The NT teachesthat Christ died for their sins (John 3:16), pleadingly warns them torepent, and cites their transgressions as the reason for theircondemnation (1Pet. 2:8; 2Pet. 2:21–22; Jude 8–16).When all aspects of the issue are considered, there is indeed amystery that lies outside the boundaries of our comprehensionregarding God’s sovereign working and human choice.
The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning“preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma”was coined as a scholarly term by C.H. Dodd, a professor of NTat Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “TheApostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed thatfour of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow anidentifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted throughthe eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1)The ageof prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2)This has occurredthrough the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3)Jesusis exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel.(4)The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’spresent power and glory. (5)The messianic age will soon beconsummated in the return of Christ. (6)Therefore, hearers areto repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.
Doddfurther developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding thatthey conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Markparticularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in thewritings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core ofinformation: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially throughthe ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus,his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation ofthese events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples ofkerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41;17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1Cor. 15:1–11.
Noticeablyabsent from all these passages, however, is any mention of theethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma bedistinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal,ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understoodas appropriate to the life and thought of those already establishedin the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation ofkerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation inChrist. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching issecondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those whohave already repented and believed.
SinceDodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, whereit refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly tothe NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss.78; 105; 106; 135; 136.
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
ThePhenomenon of Prophecy
Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).
Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.
Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).
Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).
Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.
However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.
TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament
TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.
Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”
Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).
TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).
Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).
Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.
Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.
TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.
Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.
TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).
Prophecyin the New Testament
Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).
Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.
Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).
Five prophetesses are mentioned in the OT: Miriam (Exod.15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4–5), Huldah (2Kings 22:14–20;2Chron. 34:22–28), Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3), andNoadiah (Neh. 6:14). Their exercise of the role seems to have beenentirely legitimate. Miriam’s fault was not prophesying, butrather, like Aaron, being jealous of Moses (Num. 12). Deborah wasboth a prophetess and a judge (Judg. 4:4), and although the narrativesuggests that it was incongruous for her to be engaged in violentwarfare, there is no criticism of the fact that she prophesied. Theaccounts of Huldah treat her like any other prophet, while theproblem with Noadiah in Neh. 6:14 was not that she was a woman, butrather that she, along with some male prophets, was a liar. Women whoprophesy falsely are condemned (Ezek. 13:17), but Joel promises thatin the last days, when God pours out his Spirit, both men and womenwill prophesy truly (Joel 2:28–29).
Similarlyin the NT, Peter recognizes God’s promise through Joel beingfulfilled in the gift of prophetic speech to women as well as men atPentecost (Acts 2:18); and Paul, acknowledging that women prophesypublicly in the congregation, is concerned only with the manner oftheir doing so (1Cor. 11:5). The prophetess Anna proclaims thebaby Jesus as the Messiah (Luke 2:36–38), Luke reports that thefour unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist also prophesy (Acts21:8–9). The only false prophetess in the NT is the apocalypticfigure of Jezebel in Rev. 2:20.
The word “providence” comes from the Latin wordprovidentia, which means “foresight.” However, the moderntheological use of the term refers not to foresight or foreknowl-edgeperse but rather to how God continues to sustain and guide hiscreation. There is no single term in either the OT or the NT thattranslates as “providence.” The one time the word occursin the NIV (Job 10:12), the Hebrew word (peqqudah) is one that theNIV in other places usually translates with words such as “care,”“charge,” or “oversight.” The concept ofdivine providence comes not from any one word but rather fromnumerous statements in the Bible that speak of God’s continuingsupervision of his world. The biblical data can perhaps best beorganized under four headings: created order, world history,salvation history, and individual history. These headings are,however, not discrete; they continually intersect.
CreatedOrder
Scripturetestifies in numerous places to God’s ongoing supervision ofhis creation. The psalms play a special role here. As one commentatorhas remarked, there are no nature lyrics in the psalms, onlyadmiration and awe at how God runs his world. God actively cares forthe land and waters it, causes grass to grow, plants trees, and makessure that they are well watered (Pss. 65:9; 104:14, 16). God bringsdarkness on the land and tells the sun when to set and when to rise(Ps. 104:19–20). God is the zookeeper who makes sure all theanimals are fed (Ps. 104:27). Every birth of every living creature isregarded as a new creative work of God, and he constantly renews theface of the earth (Ps. 104:30).
Godblankets the earth with snow and lays down a sheet of frost (Ps.147:16). When the snow and frost melt, it is because God commanded itby his word and sent breezes to make the melting waters flow (Ps.147:18). Hail, snow, clouds, and stormy winds do their Master’sbidding (Ps. 148:8). God commands the morning to dawn and keeps thesnow and hail in storehouses, ready to be deployed on the day ofbattle (Job 38:12, 22–23). The sea waves roar because God stirsthem up (Jer. 31:35). God even speaks of being in a covenantrelationship with his creation (Jer. 33:20, 25).
Inthe NT, we find that Jesus Christ himself sustains “all thingsby his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3). In him “all things holdtogether” (Col. 1:17).
WorldHistory
Whathappens on the world scene is under God’s sovereign control. Ifthe nations are scattered over the world and speak differentlanguages, it is because God made it so (Gen. 11:1–9). Goddetermines whether the nations are blessed or cursed (Gen. 12:3). Godis the one who has apportioned each nation’s inher-i-tance andhas established their boundaries (Deut. 32:8). Yahweh is the God ofIsrael, which is his special possession, but he has also appointeddeities for the other nations to worship (Deut. 4:19 [evidently falsegods, but still under Yahweh’s sovereignty]). He judges theworld and carries out justice for the peoples, foils the plans of thenations, forms the hearts of all people, reigns over the nations andguides them (Pss. 9:8; 33:10, 15; 47:8; 67:4).
Itis by God’s sanction that kings reign, and a king’s heartis like a watercourse, which God can redirect at will (Prov. 8:15;21:1). God “does as he pleases with the powers of heaven andthe peoples of the earth” (Dan. 4:35). All thrones, powers,rulers, and authorities “were created through him and for him”(Col. 1:16). God is actively working to bring the whole universe andall peoples and nations under one head, his Son, Christ Jesus (Eph.1:10).
SalvationHistory
Withinworld history, God has also worked through one particular people, theIsraelites, to accomplish his redemptive purposes. When Joseph toldhis brothers that what they had intended to do to him for evil, Godhad intended for good, for “the saving of many lives”(Gen. 50:20), he may not have fully realized how much his words werein accord with, and could even be said to summarize, redemptivehistory. God took the harm that Joseph’s brothers intended andused it to fulfill the promises that he had made years earlier toAbraham with regard to what would happen to his descendants (Gen.12:1–3). In the early chapters of Exodus, God’ssovereignty over the “forces of nature” intersects withhis deliverance of the Israelites in the plagues that he brings onthe Egyptians. Of course, God had raised up Pharaoh for the verypurpose of displaying his own glory in victory over Pharaoh and “allthe gods of Egypt” (Exod. 9:16; 12:12; cf. Rom. 9:17).
Throughoutthe ensuing Israelite history, God demonstrates his providential carefor the Israelites. The Jews return from their Babylonian captivitybecause God raised up Cyrus, even though Cyrus did not acknowledgehim (Isa. 44:28–45:13), for the very purpose of issuing thedecree that allowed them to return. Even in narratives in which God’sname is not mentioned, such as the book of Esther, we are tounderstand that God is directing the action, and certainly thenarrator wants us to connect the account ofthe origin of thefestival of Purim (“lots”) with the idea that “thelot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord”(Prov. 16:33).
Inthe NT the act that secures our redemption, the crucifixion of Jesus,is not an unforeseen occurrence that God makes the best of; rather,the death of Jesus is that which he himself would “accomplish”(Luke 9:31 NRSV [NIV: “bring to fulfillment”]). No onetakes Jesus’ life from him; he lays it down of his own accord(John 10:18). Jesus even gives Judas Iscariot directions on the nightof his betrayal (John 13:27). What happens in the crucifixion is inaccord with “God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge”(Acts 2:23) and with what his “power and will had decidedbeforehand should happen” (4:28).
IndividualHistory
Jesuspromises that for those who seek the kingdom of God, “all thesethings will be given to you as well” (Matt. 6:33). If God feedsthe birds of the air and clothes the grass of the field, much morewill he take care to feed and clothe us (Matt. 6:26, 30). Indeed, “inall things God works for the good of those who love him, who havebeen called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).
The term “salvation” is the broadest one used torefer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about byhumankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one ofthe central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis throughRevelation.
OldTestament
Inmany places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued fromphysical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility ofretribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, Ipray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). Theactions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7;47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray forsalvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss.17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).
Relatedto this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its kingwere saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus,whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to theEgyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army(Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history ofIsrael, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether througha judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or evena shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).
Butthese examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritualcomponent as well. God did not save his people from physical dangeras an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to savethem from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation fromsin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does notprovide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearestplaces that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa.40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesiedreturn are seen as the physical manifestation of the much morefundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address thatfar greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servantwould once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa.52:13–53:12).
NewTestament
Asin the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescuedfrom physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being savedfrom various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor.1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fiercestorm, Jesus’ disciplescry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”(Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospelsand Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō,used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman withthe hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road(Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō.The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgivingsomeone’ssins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost fromtheir sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holisticsalvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the newheaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensivedescriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people fromtheir sins (see below).
Components
Inseveral passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term forthe totality of what God has done for his people in and throughChrist. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that ittakes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration”refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person fromspiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7;Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of Goddeclaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis ofChrist’s sacrificial death and life of perfect obedience (Rom.3:21–5:12; Gal. 2:14–21). “Atonement”describes Christ’s payment for sin and resulting forgiveness(Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). “Redemption” capturesthe reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of theirslavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7;5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardenedrebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2Cor.5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extendsthat reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom hereconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom.8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” Godsets his people apart for his special purposes and progressivelychanges them into the image of Christ (1Cor. 1:30 ESV, NRSV,NASB; cf. Rom. 8:29). The final component is “glorification,”when God brings to completion the work of salvation by granting hispeople resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death,and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30;1Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).
Prepositionsof Salvation
Anotherway that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through thevarious prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in thefollowing list are among the more significant.
From.Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is notsurprising that Scripture describes that from which believers aresaved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all mytransgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible onlythrough Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people fromtheir sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus onthe cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death ofChrist believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10).At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus savedpeople from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result ofthese and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the dayof Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from thiscorrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimonyof Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and itsconsequences.
To/into.Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/intocertain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves,believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory ofthe children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through thecross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness andbrought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13).Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace intowhich believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’swork on their behalf (John 14:27).
By.Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to expressthe instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not bysword or spear that the Lord saves” (1Sam. 17:47). In thebroadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel(1Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by thegrace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can alsoexpress the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israelwas that it was saved from its enemies by God (Deut. 33:29; Isa.45:17). The same thing is meant when Scripture speaks of God savinghis people by his right hand (Ps. 17:7) or his name (Ps. 54:1).
Through.The consistent testimony of the Bible is that salvation comes throughfaith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have beenjustified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal.3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “butthat which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). Theremarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have beenaccomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).
In.Especially in Paul’s writings the various components ofsalvation (see above) are modified with the phrase “in Christ”or “in him.” Believers are chosen (Eph. 1:4), redeemed(Eph. 1:7), justified (Gal. 2:17), and sanctified (1Cor. 1:2)in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenlyrealms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).
With.Many of the components of salvation that believers experience aresaid to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united withChrist in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4–11;Gal. 2:20). With Christ, believers have been made alive, raised up,and seated in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:13).Because of their union with Christ, believers share in hisinheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1Pet. 1:4). Eventhe very life of the believer is said to be currently “hiddenwith Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).
Tensesof Salvation
TheBible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses.Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believersthat “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he canalso speak of himself and other believers as those “who arebeing saved” (1Cor. 1:18; 2Cor. 2:15), pointing toa process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuringbelievers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2),he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’swrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).
Theuse of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet”dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, andascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. Butthe final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvationmust still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a newheaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).
Conclusion
Withouta proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of itsrebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makeslittle sense. Because sin is humanity’s greatest problem,salvation is humanity’s greatest need. Given the breadth,width, and depth of what God has done to save his people from theirsins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrewsasks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?”(2:3).
Sanctificationand Holiness
Inthe biblical sense, the word “sanctification” relatesdirectly to the Hebrew and Greek words for “holy” (qadoshand hagiosrespectively). One may even argue that “holy-fication”would be preferable to “sanctification” to underscore theintertwined nature of these terms. In Scripture, English terms suchas “holy”/“holiness,”“consecrate”/“consecration,” and“sanctify”/“sanc-ti-fi-cation”/“saints”express cognates of qadosh/hagios.
Despitecontinued emphasis by many writers that “holy” speaks toseparation and that “to be holy” means “to be setapart,” the biblical terms are relational and speak primarilyof belonging. “To be holy” (sanctified) means “tobelong to God”; separation follows only as the exclusivity ofthis relationship demands it.
Qadoshis God’s adjective. God’s character defines the meaningof “holy,” not the other way around. Holy, then, cannotbe reduced to religious notions of purity (and/or exclusivity) butrather must be understood in light of the full expression of God’scharacter and will. While other adjectives such as “great,”“majestic,” and “powerful” can also describehumans, God exclusively determines the meaning of the adjectiveqadosh(hagios).“Holy” has no meaning apart from God. Humans (and things)become holy only as they belong to God. For example, an ordinarytable dedicated to God becomes aholy table. The peoplebelonging to God area holypeople. Different from otherspirits, the Holy Spirit belongs to God and expresses his presenceexclusively (cf. Isa. 6:3; 52:1).
Itfollows that holiness and divine presence are tightly interwoven. Godopens the door into his presence, enabling sanctification (John17:18; 1Cor. 1:2; Heb. 10:10), and he calls for his people notto violate his relational presence (2Cor. 7:1; 2Tim.2:21; Heb. 12:14). Sanctification, then, is not as much an intrinsic“either/or” quality (granted or not granted) as it is arelational “more or less” quality based on God’sdynamic presence. Put differently, the biblical perspective onholiness resists reduction to a mere “holy versus profane”dichotomy and cannot be reduced to a simple declaration (granted!) orto a specific list of godly requirements (dos and don’ts).
OldTestament
Thegradation of the OT priesthood into levels of holiness that enabledentrance and service in weaker or stronger intensities of God’spresence underscores further this dynamic quality of holiness.Although all the people of Israel were holy (belonging to God), thepriests enjoyed a higher degree of holiness than the ordinaryIsraelite. Within the ranks of the priests, the high priest wentthrough stricter rituals of consecration (Exod. 29:1–8, 20–21;Lev. 8:7–24; 21:13–15), since he alone could minister inthe most intensive presence of God (Lev. 16:1–17). Less holywere those of the Aaronic lineage born with physical defects.Although sufficiently holy to eat from the most holy offerings, theycould not serve at the altar (Lev. 21:16–23).
AverageIsraelites possessed a lower level of holiness than Levites andpriests but could, as individuals, acquire greater levels of holinessthrough obedience (Lev. 11:44–45; Num. 15:40–41).Moreover, special vows, like that of the Nazirite, enhanced theaverage Israelite’s quality as holy. The Nazirite vow (Num.6:1–21) did not transfer priestly status to any person, but itdid elevate one’s holiness to a comparable level during theperiod of dedication.
Thisdynamic connection between divine presence and sanctification becomeseven more evident in the prophets. They were “holy men”because they were endowed with the divine spirit, and as the level ofthis endowment varied from prophet to prophet, so did theireffectiveness as God’s messengers. False prophets still carriedthe name, but their lack of devotion to Israel’s God causedinaccuracy in their message (e.g., Jer. 6:13–14).
NewTestament
Thisdynamic relationship between divine presence and holiness translatesdirectly to the NT use of hagiasmos (and cognates). Although theGospels rarely use “sanctification” vocabulary, Jesus’ongoing polemic against the Pharisees, who had turned their piety(holiness) into a question of mere conspicuous behavior, makes thesame point. John’s correlation of Jesus’ sanctificationas God’s Son with the disciples’ experience of theSpirit’s empowerment (John 10:34–38; 17:17–19)indicates the same. Sanctification could not be separated frompurpose and sending (20:21–23) and could not be reduced to aprocess of learning specified “Christian” behaviors.This, again, follows the pattern outlined in Acts; it was theoutpouring of the Spirit that enabled the disciples to live theChristian life, which required the dynamic, creative power of God’spresence (Acts 1:8; 2:1–21).
Paul’sconversion exemplifies this tight connection between divine presenceand sanctification (holiness). Not attaining the experience of Godthat he expected from keeping the law, Paul found the law-promisedaccess to God in Christ. This turned him into a theologian of theSpirit who focused on the relational quality of God’s presence.In Paul’s vernacular “divine presence,” asexpressed through the language of holiness or sanctification, stemsfrom the relational work of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly,sanctification centers on deepening the relationship between God andthe Spirit-filled Christian. Sanctification as a process of“learning” ethics surfaces only as a derivative; ethicsis a by-product of divine presence, not vice versa. The antidote tothe vices of the flesh (Gal. 5:18–21) is not a contrasting listof virtues of the Spirit but rather a fruit, the product or result,of living in God’s presence (Gal. 5:22–23).
ForPaul, Spirit possession was synonymous with being a Christian (Rom.8:9). His concern involved the intensity of the Spirit’spresence. The Spirit could be grieved and his presence quenched—adevastating situation to the Christian’s power and sanctity(Eph. 4:30; 1Thess. 5:19).
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock”in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,”which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, Godwas able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishmentof the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’sidentification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classicmissionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find hisbrother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ”(John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took placelater, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued thewell-known invitation “Come, follow me, ... and Iwill send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peterwas the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi whenJesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”(Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Sonof the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father(16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you arePeter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, andthe gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peteralmost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesuswhen he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem andsuffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another majorfailure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesushad warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, youwill disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, therewere tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored afterJesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John21:15–19]).
Jesus’death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit onthe day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the otherdisciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing ofthe replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the publicspokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key playerin the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), inreceiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and inreceiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11).Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time ofthe Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but bythis time he had been replaced by James as the leader of theJerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary(1Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised”(Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was stillhuman, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal.2:11–21).
Duringhis travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his laterletter 1Peter (and possibly 2Peter) in north central AsiaMinor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia andBithynia” [1Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1Cor.1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself.According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19).Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’sfight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, thatyour faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2Kings 23:21–23; 2Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m.Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m.Rosh HaSh.1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses...” (m.Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m.Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices.... Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT totake place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of theMessiah.
Spiritbaptism in the Bible.The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon theMessiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out ofthe Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27;37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spiritwith Jesus’ being received by the Father and being grantedmessianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Corneliusin particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45)with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Sevenpassages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/withthe Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’sprediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit incontrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16;John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred toas a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages referto Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spiritbaptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tonguesof fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the HolySpirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciplesspoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival,three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in11:16.
Thefinal reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “Forwe were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whetherJews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the oneSpirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through theircommon experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
Asecond baptism?Whilein 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that allChristians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Actswhere the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. Thequestion then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptismin/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’sinitial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body ofChrist at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normativefor the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularlyprominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examplessuch as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of asecond and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 thedisciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes tothem at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’spreaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spiritonly after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them toreceive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearingGentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on hishousehold. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After helays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they beginto speak in tongues and prophesy.
Inunderstanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Actsdescribes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particularrecounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. Itis possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming ofthe Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and theGentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected thereception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears tobe the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates anincomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’sbaptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in thename of the Lord Jesus.”
Filledwith the Spirit.Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spiritbaptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled”with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit”frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such asin Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine,which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead toworship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can alsoresult in empowerment for ministry.
Theimmediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 isspeaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.”Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’slife, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look afterthe widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
The obligations of relationships within ancient societies andbetween social groups were frequently reinforced by means of oaths,and the practice of oath making (by both God and people) is witnessedto in the pages of the Bible. The name of God was frequently invoked(Judg. 8:19; 2Kings 2:2), but oaths were not to be made usingthe names of foreign deities (Ps. 16:4). For this reason, when anoath was broken, God’s name was profaned (Lev. 19:12). To takean oath was to ask God to witness what was promised, and it invitedhim to act as avenger if the promise was broken (Gen. 31:50; 1Sam.12:3). This made oath taking a religious act, and so oaths often weremade at sanctuaries and under the supervision of cultic officials(Num. 5:11–31; Judg. 11:11; Hos. 4:15).
Thewords of an oath were accompanied by various gestures, such asputting a hand “under the thigh” (near the genitals?)(Gen. 24:2; 47:29) or raising the right hand to heaven (Gen. 14:22;Deut. 32:40; Rev. 10:5–6). Daniel 12:7 depicts a particularlysolemn oath, involving the raising of both hands. By invoking God’sname, an oath invited God to punish the oath breaker, as in Ruth1:17: “May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely”(for similar wording, see 1Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2Sam. 3:9).Such a self-maledictory oath may have been accompanied by the gestureof a hand at the throat, signifying the death penalty forinfringement. People brought a curse upon themselves if an oath wasbroken (e.g., Num. 5:22), either for doing what was wrong (Num. 5:22;1Sam. 19:6) or for not speaking the truth (e.g., Mark 14:71).Two Hebrew words are used in respect to oaths; the stronger one canactually mean a “curse.” The more common word forswearing may relate to the number seven, due to the ceremonies thatcould accompany oath making. For example, Abraham set aside seven ewelambs (Gen. 21:22–31).
Inthe Bible, God is portrayed as binding himself by oaths, most notablyhis sworn promises to Abraham (Gen. 22:16–18; 50:24). This factis used by the author of Hebrews in an argument designed to assurereaders that God meant what he said when he made promises to hispeople (Heb. 6:13–18). The coming of Jesus fulfilled the termsof that oath (Luke 1:73). So too the Davidic covenant was supportedby a divine oath (Pss. 89:35, 49; 110:4; 132:11), and this wasfulfilled by the enthronement of Christ at his resurrection andascension (Acts 2:30–33).
Jesus’teaching on oaths (Matt. 5:33–37) does not necessarilycontradict OT legislation (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21–23)but rather brings out the true heart of God behind the legislation.Oaths are unnecessary, Jesus said, for those who habitually tell thetruth. An emphatic yes or no is all that is needed. The teaching ofJames 5:12 reflects what is found in Jesus’ teaching on thissubject. This may not outlaw all oath taking, and certainly theapostle Paul did not understand there to be a blanket prohibition ofoaths, for in his letters he is on record as making oaths (Gal. 1:20;Phil. 1:8).
The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yetthey also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father,the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these threepersons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesusprays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heavenconcerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send theSpirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will dowhat Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). Thechallenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate adoctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of whichsurfaces in both Testaments.
OldTestament
Inthe OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicitlevel. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8),Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “Butyou are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israelacknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of oldis your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as“Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son”(Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where Goddeclares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have becomeyour father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NTevidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father”certainly appears in the OT.
Messianictexts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “childis born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, MightyGod, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of“Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowedin Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipatesthe appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt.3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with theclouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory andsovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh saysto David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right handuntil I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
Similarly,the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh whileimplying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes thatcase, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spiritof God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1Sam. 16:14 acontrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” thatleaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” thattorments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God wouldnot take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spiritcan be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy(Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek.36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Sonand the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable fromone to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.
NewTestament
TheNT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” oftenbecause of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appearsseveral times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9,14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which heidentifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10;and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God theFather and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Graceand peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ”(also 1Cor. 1:3; 2Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1Tim.1:2; 2Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in1Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, fromwhom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live”(see also 1Cor. 15:24; 2Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil.2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1Pet. 1:2–3;in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have beenchosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through thesanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ andsprinkled with his blood.... Praise be to the Godand Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “Godthe Father” is clear.
Biblicaltexts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for thesecond claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say asmuch, but one can take this case further. In context, John’sprologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims thathe was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1).Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, ashe declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ inJohn 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages thatidentify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, asPeter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of theliving God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They callout, “What do you want with us, Son of God? ...Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”(Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider“equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance ofGod’s glory and the exact representation of his being”(1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “imageof the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and theone by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell inhim.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great Godand Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlightsthe deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sitson the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory andpower, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and theLamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).
TheNT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personalityof the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by theSpirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus isbaptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speakagainst the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’sGospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we alsosee in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18,38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the HolySpirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ(5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor andteacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’sinstructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance ofsonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). Thisperson even knows the very thoughts of God (1Cor. 2:11).Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of theFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three membersof the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, theSpirit no less than the Father and the Son.
Relationshipsbetween Father, Son, and Spirit
Theevidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons arecalled “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command intheir relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and theSpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of thecross to the church. This “functional subordination” ofthe Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from theanalogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son”would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though theyshare a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share acommon humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that theyrelate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22)Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by myFather” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authorityto the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season)knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About thatday or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifiesthe Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all hedoes” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please hisheavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares inJohn 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do onlywhat he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does theSon also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Sonupon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son issaid to have “offered up prayers and petitions with ferventcries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he washeard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, helearned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated bytheologians whether this functional subordination relates only to theperiod of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is aneternal subordination.
TheSpirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father andthe Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross andempower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “TheAdvocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, willteach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said toyou.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends theSpirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to youfrom the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from theFather—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveyswhat he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he willspeak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”(John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father ismine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he willmake known to you.”
TrinitarianHeresies
TheFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while beingdistinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these twopersons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement ourdeliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity willrespect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustratethem with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms ofpolytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came fromMarcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father ofJesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves uswith more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism andsubordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons ofthe Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God.One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the HolySpirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond thefunctionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that theSon and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentiallysubordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into thislatter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but notthe Creator God.
Theseearly heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of theTrinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coinedprecise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so thatGod’s “threeness” and “oneness” arepreserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the ChristianGod and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sharethe same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the HolySpirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk.hom*oiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial”(Gk. hom*oousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit.The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in sodoing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spiritwas created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea alsorejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promotedby endowing him with supernatural powers.
Eachof these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism ofIslam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claimsthat constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians willremember that tensions and paradoxes are not automaticcontradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expresslydemonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, andChristianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in thiscase. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, andquite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On thepositive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of thechurch because it affects all the others, especially the entire workof redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if heis not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as ourLord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in thatcase, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us ofwhat Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannotspeak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives usthe word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune,and sinners need him to be so.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Showing
1
to
50
of552
results
1. Let Us Make A Name For Ourselves
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
"When you're No. 1 in the world ... you're like a god to (people)." Burt Reynolds made that statement a few years ago. It was reported in the Chicago Tribune in an article written by Howard Reich. Mr. Reynolds had come to Chicago with his one-man stage show. The show was titled: "An Evening With Burt Reynolds: The Laughs, the Loves, the Legends, the Lies (Not Necessarily in That Order)." Howard Reich interviewed Mr. Reynolds while Reynolds was in Chicago for the show.
Burt Reynolds, of course, made a marvelous name for himself in show business. From 1977 to 1982 he was the No. 1 box office draw in the world. That's fame all right. That's a name all right. "It was an incredible, extraordinary experience," Reynolds is quoted as saying. "It's almost impossible to explain what it feels like to be that big in the first place. When you're No. 1 in the world (it means) you go to China and Bali, and you get off a plane, and they know you. And they not only know you ... you're like a god to them."
Burt Reynolds knew what it was like to be No. 1. He knew what it was like to be "like a god" to people. He had achieved a great name for himself. But, as with any achievement we make as humans, it can be taken from us in an instant. Being "like a god" to people never lasts. The gods always come crashing down. So did Burt Reynolds. And he was miserable. "You're going to find yourself so unhappy after you're No. 1," he was quoted as saying. "There's only one way to go. You can't stay there, so you're going to drop eventually, and you have to prepare yourself for that." 71 Mr. Reynolds paid a steep price for falling from his No. 1 ranking. Being god, he discovered, was very hard on his body. "I was tired, depressed, hyperventilating, fainting all the time," he said in the interview. There were rumors at the time that he was dying from AIDS. His friends quickly deserted him! "When you're dropped by everyone the way I was," Reynolds said, "you need an enormous faith in God or Zen or Buddha or whatever. If you don't have something, you're going to go directly to whatever puts you out of this world, whatever pill, whatever you smoke, whatever you can stick in your arm, whatever you can drink."
"There's a saying in the South," said Reynolds, "that no man is a man until his father tells him he is. Well, my father unfortunately didn't tell me until I was 46. So for 46 years I was a little crazy. I was looking for an adult to put his arms around me and say ... 'You're a grown-up; you can start acting differently now.' "
Burt Reynolds had made a great name for himself. Without the love and support of his father and his friends, however, he could sustain neither his status nor his health. "When I fell from my pedestal nobody remembered me," he confessed. "No one called me with offers of work. No one stopped by to see me." He had made a name for himself which attracted all kinds of people into his life. When his name became tarnished, however, the human family on which he so much depended fractured all around him.
Making a name for ourselves can be done in this world. But it comes with a great price. When we make a name for ourself we inevitably get cut off from the very community of people that sustain our life in the first place."
2. Drunk and Disorderly
Illustration
John T. Seamonds
Dr. Halford Lucco*ck, former professor of homiletics at Yale Divinity School, loved to tell this incident from his personal experience. One day a policeman friend of his stopped him in the midst of street traffic and asked, "What is the degree which many preachers have which makes them doctors?"
Dr. Lucco*ck answered, "It is usually a D.D. - Doctor of Divinity. Why did you ask?"
"Well," said the policeman, "down at the police station that is the most common entry on the charge sheet. To us it means, ‘Drunk and Disorderly.’ So when I saw Reverend So and So, D.D., I was naturally curious."
Dr. Lucco*ck pulled away safely before reeling from that blow, but when he reached home, he began to meditate on the policeman’s words. Suddenly it came to him that those were the very same charges brought against the early disciples on the Day of Pentecost. The crowd said, "These men are drunk with wine." Later on, the disciples were dragged before the rulers of the city and were charged with being disorderly. "These men have turned the world upside down," shouted their accusers. And then, in his inimitable way, Dr. Lucco*ck commented, "How I would love to stand before every congregation in the church and say in most solemn tones, 'Now with the authority invested in me as a minister of the Gospel, I confer upon each and every one on you the degree of D. D. - drunk and disorderly.' That, in figurative terms, is a very honorary degree, a degree that every Christian should possess."
The early Christians had this degree. How we need it today!
3. Consecrate That Trumpet to God
Illustration
Barbara Brokhoff
While preaching a revival in Florida, a man told me that, as a young man, he had played with Artie Shaw's band. His father had been a concert pianist, but neither of them knew the first thing about Christian music. One day the young man was invited by a friend to play his trumpet at a huge Billy Sunday evangelistic crusade. He did it, and then, at the close of the service, as he stood there watching Billy Sunday pray with those who had responded to the call, the great evangelist looked up, saw him, came over to him, and said, "Young man, have you consecrated that trumpet to God?" "I had no idea what he was talking about -- consecrate. So when I shook my head, Billy Sunday took me to an old wooden folding chair, laid my trumpet on it, put his hands -- one on the horn and the other on my shoulder -- and prayed and gave us both to God." Then the man continued, "And you know, Barbara, it made a difference. It made a difference the way I played that trumpet and it made a difference in me!" The Holy Spirit does make a difference. He makes a big difference! Let him fill you today. Drink deeply of this Divine New Wine. There is no telling what he will do for you, with you, and through you!"
4. Peace of Mind
Illustration
Duke University did a study on "peace of mind." Factors found to contribute greatly to emotional and mental stability are:
- The absence of suspicion and resentment. Nursing a grudge was a major factor in unhappiness.
- Not living in the past. An unwholesome preoccupation with old mistakes and failures leads to depression.
- Not wasting time and energy fighting conditions you cannot change. Cooperate with life, instead of trying to run away from it.
- Force yourself to stay involved with the living world. Resist the temptation to withdraw and become reclusive during periods of emotional stress.
- Refuse to indulge in self-pity when life hands you a raw deal. Accept the fact that nobody gets through life without some sorrow and misfortune.
- Cultivate the old-fashioned virtues--love, humor, compassion and loyalty.
- Do not expect too much of yourself. When there is too wide a gap between self-expectation and your ability to meet the goals you have set, feelings of inadequacy are inevitable.
- Find something bigger than yourself to believe in. Self-centered egotistical people score lowest in any test for measuring happiness.
5. Waiting to Exhale
Illustration
A character in John Updike's novel, A Month of Sundays, reflecting on his youthful experience of the church, says, "Churches bore for me the relation to God that billboards did to Coca-Cola; they promoted thirst but did nothing to quench it."
The Holy Spirit empowers the church to be the agent of change in the world, a counter-cultural entity. The task of the church is to breathe in the Spirit and be inspired by the Spirit to act on behalf of God. But the church has been waiting to exhale far too long. As the Spirit of God flows into us, it also ought to flow from us in the way we treat one another, the way we speak to one another, in the way we treat others in our community, in the way we live out the new life we receive when we accept Jesus Christ as Lord.
6. Sermon Opener or Ender for Pentecost
Illustration
Rick Kirchoff
Welcome to Pentecost in the 2020s!
It is a time to open up to the mind-blowing, heart-warming, life-changing power of God.
The power of God can invade the body, inflate the mind, swell the soul, lift the Spirit and make us more than we ever imagined.
It'll make you young when you're old, and it'll make you live even when you die.
The power and presence of the Spirit will disturb, delight, deliver and lift.
When God sends forth the Spirit, "the whole face of the earth is renewed."
When God sends forth the Spirit chaos is changed into creation the Red Sea opens up to a highway of freedom.
When God sends forth the Spirit:
A young woman says "Yes". Jesus is born and life is never the same.
When God sends forth the Spirit amazing things happen:
[Ask the congregation to join you by repeating the following]
barriers are broken,
communities are formed,
opposites are reconciled,
unity is established,
disease is cured,
addiction is broken,
cities are renewed,
races are reconciled,
hope is established,
people are blessed,
and church happens.
Today the Spirit of God is present and we're gonna' have church. So be ready, get ready...God is up to something...
[Read these yourself with no response]
discouraged folks cheer up,
dishonest folks 'fees up,
sour folks sweeten up,
closed folk, open up,
gossipers shut up,
conflicted folks make up,
sleeping folks wake up,
lukewarm folk, fire up,
dry bones shake up,
and pew potatoes stand up!
But most of all, Christ the Savior of all the world is lifted up.
7. Unless…
Illustration
William Blake
The poet William Blake wrote a poem about Pentecost. Part of the poem says:
Unless the eye catch fire, God will not be seen.
Unless the ear catch fire, God will not be heard.
Unless the tongue catch fire, God will not be named.
Unless the Heart catch fire, God will not be loved.
Unless the mind catch fire, God will not be known.
8. What if Jesus Were Really Boss?
Illustration
Donald B. Strobe
Some years ago Charles Sheldon wrote a book titled, In His Steps. In that book he told about the revolution which occurred in the lives of a church and a congregation when the people decide to put every moral issue to the test of one question—"What would Jesus do?". Perhaps his book was a bit naive. We are not always sure of what Jesus would do in every situation. Many of the moral issues which we must face as we come to the end of the Twentieth century were never part of His First-century world. Perhaps a better form of the question is: "Given what I know of the mind and spirit of Jesus Christ, what would Christ have me do?" I am confident that a revolution would follow if we were to ever really take that question seriously. But that is what we mean when we confess our faith that "Jesus Christ is Lord." "Lord," in the vernacular, means "Boss." What if Jesus Christ really were Boss around here?
9. The Regenerating Work of the Spirit
Illustration
Phil Newton
John Tennant, a contemporary of Jonathan Edwards, and who died faithfully preaching the gospel when he was twenty-five, identified eleven evidences of the regenerating work of the Spirit. I will adapt these for our attention [edits in brackets].
The understanding is renewed…a light from on high shines into it, whereby its natural darkness is in some measure dissipated, so that it [has] new apprehension of things.
He has a new assent, his understanding being enlightened to perceive the precious truths of Christ; he assents to them with a kind of [full certainty], in a lively, sensible manner.
His judgment is changed.
His estimate of things is changed.
His purposes are changed, he has vastly different designs from those he was [accustomed] to entertain and indulge before his new birth…In short, his purposes were for sin and self, but now they are for God and his soul, now he strives as much daily to get his heart and affections deadened to the world, as he did before to secure and advance his interest in it.
His reasonings are changed.
The will is changed. It has got a new bias and centre of its actings…He aims at God's glory in all his actions universally, and singly, the inclinations of his will bend toward God freely from an inward and powerful principle of life…Furthermore, his will has new enjoyments.
The affections of the soul are changed.
The conscience is changed…now, when the soul feels the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit, what a tender sense fills the renewed conscience! For what small things it will smite, rebuke and check the sinner! How strongly will it bind to duty, and bar against sin!
The memory; now is more apt to embrace and retain divine things than formerly.
Their conversation is changed. They were [accustomed] to be like moles groveling in the earth, now their mind and conversation are in heaven [Tennant, 275-285].
10. The Ability to Hear - Listening
Illustration
Will Willimon
Communication, an ability to hear, to know what other people "are getting at" and "where they're coming from," has got to be one of the chief characteristics of the effective pastor. I want to be a good communicator, a skillful preacher. Yet before that, I know that I must be a good listener. As someone has said, "A preacher must listen for six days a week -- listening to God and to the hopes, fears, and aspirations of the congregation -- for the right to speak one day a week." I agree.
Yet our modern world has also shown us how difficult, how very, very difficult, it is to hear. A number of years ago, Deborah Tannen, wrote, Why I Can't Hear You. It was a book about the difficulty of communication between women and men. Men and women speak different languages, says Tannen. When men are trying to say, "I need you to help me," they say it in ways which women can't hear. Likewise, when women say, "Give me some space; I need to be more independent for awhile," men get the message all messed up and hear something else.
Add to this gender-gap, the gaps in our communication due to differences in economics, education, race and class, what hope is there for us ever to understand one another?
The story we have read today, the story of Pentecost, is a story about hearing. Remember the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel, that time when the original "one language and few words" of humanity was disrupted forever by the profusion of languages and speech? Some believe that this Pentecost story is meant to signify a gracious reversal of Babel.
11. True Communication
Illustration
Will Willimon
The disciples, despite the presence of the Holy Spirit, were misunderstood. They were perceived, because of their exuberant behavior, as being loaded. Sauced. Drunk. How rare it is to experience real communication. The kind of communication where every word is clearly and completely understood.
Years ago a conscientious homeowner wrote to a manufacturer of cast iron pipes, telling them that he had found that by pouring pure hydrochloric acid down his drain, he immediately opened his grease clogged pipes. He asked if there was any way in which the acid might be harmful to the pipes.
The plumbing manufacturer wrote him back. "Thank you for your letter. The effect of such acid upon ferrous-constructed materials is certain to be deleterious. We therefore strongly urge you to cease such activity in the interest of the future of your plumbing."
He read their letter and responded, thanking them for their letter, telling them that he was relieved that he was doing the right thing in using the acid on the pipes.
Another letter from the manufacturer: "We fear that there may have been some miscommunication in our correspondence. Acid, of that density, applied to cast iron pipe, is certain to have dubious results. Therefore, please desist from your current practices."
The homeowner read the letter, then wrote back, thanking the company for its response, telling them once again that he was delighted that he was doing nothing which might harm the pipes.
Finally, an exasperated manufacturer sent a telegram: DON'T USE ACID. IT RUSTS THE HELL OUT OF THE PIPES!
The possibilities for misunderstanding are limitless.
12. The One Who Builds the Kingdom
Illustration
Pope John Paul II
In our day too, the Spirit is the principal agent of the new evangelization. Hence it will be important to gain a renewed appreciation of the Spirit as the One who builds the Kingdom of God within the course of history and prepares its full manifestation in Jesus Christ, stirring people's hearts and quickening in our world the seeds of the full salvation which will come at the end of time.
13. Some Pentecost Thoughts
Illustration
Bruce D. Prewer
As I see it, the Holy Spirit is graciously and unobtrusively busy all over the place. The quiet Helper. The unpretentious Friend. The Helper is quietly at work:
- in the sincere concern of a friend for our health,
- in the grace of folk who go the second mile,
- in the inner resources we discover in times of crisis,
- in those who dare to go against the tide of popular opinion,
- in the grace that enables us to admit when we are wrong,
- in the resilience of people who fight for the rights of others,
- in times when we share the Gospel in spite of our inadequacy,
- in finding joy in unexpected places,
- in taking on responsibilities that we once thought beyond us,
- in refusing to let the greed of society take over our soul,
- in giving thanks always, even through the hard times of life,
- in rising above past failures and putting past hurts behind us.
- in finding a central core of peace in the midst of turmoil,
- in daring to laugh in situations where some would curse,
- in knowing ourselves to be children of God,
- in knowing ourselves loved, even when we have been very unlovable.
14. Why Do Things Hold Together?
Illustration
Maurice A. Fetty
The late Harvard mathematician and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, maintained that the whole scientific enterprise of the western world rested upon the belief that at the bottom of things science would find order rather than chaos. Even western scientists dissected, investigated, explored and probed into the depths of the atom, they believedorder and organization would be found rather than disorder and disarray.
"What was at the bottom of this conviction?" asked Whitehead. It was the theological concept of the Logos, the Word or Reason or Mind of God, which held everything together. Why do things cohere and hold together? It is because the Mind or Logos, or the Spirit of God, holds them together.
The Spirit who comes at Pentecost is the same spirit that hovered over the face of the deep at creation. Order and beauty is central to God's movements throughout creation and throughout history.
15. Someone Had Tripped the Switch
Illustration
James W. Moore
Bishop Bob Morgan in his book Who's Coming To Dinner? tells a powerful story about a Dutch pastor and his family who during the second World War got into big trouble with the Nazis.The Dutch pastor and his family had been hiding Jewish people in their home to keep them safe from Hitler's forces.They were eventually found out.And one night in the darkness, they heard the sound of heavy boots and the loud impatient knocking on the door.They were arrested and loaded into a cattle car to be taken to one of the notorious death camps.All night long the Dutch pastor and his family rode along in heart-breaking anguish, jostling against one another and against the other prisoners who were jammed into the train cattle car.They were stripped of any form of dignity and absolutely terrified. They knew they were being taken to one of Hitler's extermination centers.But which one?Would it be Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or Dachau?
Finally, the long night ended and the train stopped. The doors of the cattle car were opened and light streamed into that tragic scene. They were marched out and were lined up beside the railroad tracks, resigned to unspeakable pain, as they knew they would be separated from each other and ultimately killed. But in the midst of their gloom, they discovered some amazing good news… good news beyond belief. They discovered in the bright morning sunlight that they were not in a death camp at all, not in Germany at all. Rather, they were in Switzerland!
During the night, someone through personal courage and daring had tripped a switch… and sent the train to Switzerland… and to freedom. And those now who came to them were not their captors at all, but rather their liberators. Instead of being marched to death, they were welcomed to new life. In the midst of his joy and relief, the Dutch pastor said, "What do you do with such a gift?"
Something like that happened to the disciples at Pentecost. They were afraid, confused, unsure, overwhelmed… and then came this incredible gift… the gift of the Holy Spirit! It turned their lives around… and empowered by this amazing gift, they went out and turned the world upside down.
16. He Lives In Me Right Now!
Illustration
James W. Moore
Norman Neaves some years ago told about a teacher asking the students in her fourth grade class to name the person they considered the greatest person alive in the world today. Their responses were varied and interesting.
One little boy said, "I think it's Joe Montana because he led the 49ers to all those Super Bowl wins." A little girl said, George Bush… and still another named Oprah… and on and on it went with the students mentioning a wide variety or celebrities.
But then it was little Donnie's turn. Without hesitation Donnie said, "I think it's Jesus Christ because He loves everybody and is always ready to help them." Mrs. Thompson smiled and said, "Well, I certainly like your answer, Donnie, because I'm a Christian too… and I also admire Jesus very much. But there's one slight problem. I said the greatest living person… and of course, Jesus lived and died almost two thousand years ago. Do you have another name in mind?" I love the simple, innocent, confident, wide-eyed response of little Donnie. He said, "Oh no, Mrs. Thompson, that's not right at all. Jesus Christ is alive! He lives in me right now!"
That's the good news of our faith and the message of Pentecost… God is with us right now working from the inside out, giving us the Breath of Life, the Fire Power of Commitment… and the Peace That Passes All Understanding.
17. The Irresistible Influence Of The Holy Spirit
Illustration
James W. Moore
The Holy Spirit warms us and melts our cold, cold hearts. The following parable makes the point:
Once upon a time there was a piece of iron, which was very strong and very hard. Many attempts had been made to break it, but all had failed.
“I’ll master it,” said the axe… and his blows fell heavily upon the piece of iron, but every blow only made the axe’s edge more blunt, until it finally ceased to strike and gave up in frustration.
“Leave it to me,” said the saw… and it worked back and forth on the iron’s surface until its jagged teeth were all worn and broken. Then in despair, the saw quit trying and fell to the side.
“Ah!” said the hammer, “I knew you two wouldn’t succeed. I’ll show you how to do this!” But at the first fierce blow, off flew its head and the piece of iron remained just as before, proud and hard and unchanged.
“Shall I try?” asked the small soft flame. “Forget it,” everyone else said. “What can you do? You’re too small and you have no strength.” But the small soft flame curled around the piece of iron, embraced it… and never left it until it melted under its warm irresistible influence.
There’s a sermon there somewhere. Perhaps it means that God’s way is not the way of force but love. God’s way is not to break hearts but to melt them. Perhaps it means that that is our calling – to melt hearts… under the irresistible warmth of God’s gracious love.
18. A Pentecostal Church - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
The well known author and preacher Fred Craddock tells a rather funny story about a lecture he was giving: A few years ago, when he was on the west coast speaking at a seminary, just before the first lecture, one of the students stood up and said, "Before you speak, I need to know if you are Pentecostal." The room grew silent. Craddock said he looked around for the Dean of the seminary! He was no where to be found. The student continued with his quiz right in front of everybody. Craddock was taken aback, and so he said, "Do you mean do I belong to the Pentecostal Church?" He said, "No, I mean are you Pentecostal?" Craddock said, "Are you asking me if I am charismatic?" the student said, "I am asking you if you are Pentecostal." Craddock said, "Do you want to know if I speak in tongues?" He said, " I want to know if you are Pentecostal." Craddock said, "I don't know what your question is." The student said, "Obviously, you are not Pentecostal." He left.
What are we talking about this morning? Is the church supposed to use the word Pentecost only as a noun or can it be used as an adjective? And so I ask you: Are you Pentecostal?
In spite of the fact that the church doesn't know what the adjective means, the church insist that the word remain in our vocabulary as an adjective. The church is unwilling for the word simply to be a noun, to represent a date, a place, an event in the history of the church, refuses for it to be simply a memory, an item, something back there somewhere. The church insists that the word is adjective; it describes the church. The word, then, is "Pentecostal."
If the church is alive in the world it is Pentecostal. And you thought we were Methodist! [Insert your own tradition here.]
How do we keep this aliveness, this fire burning, this spirit moving? What must exist in us, around us, and through us, if we are to be Pentecostal? Simply these three things:
1. We Are To Be Of One Accord
2. We Are To Join Together Constantly in Prayer
3. We Are To Repent
19. A New Way of Seeing
Illustration
Brett Blair
We are too often stuck in seeing the world in only one way and forget that we can be led to different viewings.
A wealthy oil baron once commissioned Picasso to paint a portrait of his wife. When the work was completed, the baron was shocked to see the image that had been created. "Why that looks nothing like my wife! You should have painted her the way she really is!" Picasso took a deep breath and said, "I'm not sure what that would be." Without hesitation, the oil baron pulled out his wallet and removed a photograph of his wife saying, "There, you see, this is a picture of how she really is! Picasso, bending over, looked at it and replied, "She is rather small and flat, isn't she?"
Now, Picasso's cubism isn't exactly realistic but the point is clear: The man was so wrapped up in HIS view of his wife he could not understand anyone else's view or interpretation of her. On the day of Pentecost there were many Jews who understood, who saw Gods new view of the world through the eye of the Spirit but there were also many there who did not, who could not see the world around them in any other way than the way it had always been.
20. Keep the Pressure Out
Illustration
Brett Blair
There are two ways of handling pressure. One is illustrated by a bathysphere, the miniature submarine used to explore the ocean in places so deep that the water pressure would crush a conventional submarine like an aluminum can. Bathyspheres compensate with plate steel several inches thick, which keeps the water out but also makes them heavy and hard to maneuver. Inside they're not alone. When their lights are turned on and you look through the tiny, thick plate-glass windows, what do you see? Fish! These fish cope with extreme pressure in an entirely different way. First, they don't build thick skins; they remain supple and free. Second, they compensate for the outside pressure by equalizingpressure inside themselves - where we have a lot of air pockets inside us that equalizes the pressure of ouratmosphere, fish have less air pockets and more water within. So, that water on the inside equalizes the outside water pressure.
So under extreme pressure, my advice to you is first, don't be so thick skinned. Second, learn to appropriate the water of your Baptism. Receive God's power within to equal the pressure without.
21. Wait For the Storm To Pass
Illustration
Brett Blair
Robert Schuller told the following family story: I remember one winter my dad needed firewood, and he found a dead tree and sawed it down. In the spring, to his dismay, new shoots sprouted around the trunk. He said, "I thought sure it was dead. The leaves had all dropped in the wintertime. It was so cold that twigs snapped as if there were no life left in the old tree. But now I see that there was still life at the taproot." He looked at me and said, "Bob, don't forget this important lesson. Never cut a tree down in the wintertime. Never make a negative decision in the low time. Never make your most important decisions when you are in your worst mood. Wait. Be patient. The storm will pass. The spring will come."
And so, the disciples waited 24 hours, then another day, then a week, and now it has been 10 days, but still they waited - waited and prayed! From the last time they saw Jesus, when he ascended into the heavens and the day of Pentecost, it had been 10 days. They were not going to rush it. Jesus said he would send a helper. They didn't know what that meant. He said it would be his Spirit, but what was that? They were soon to figure that out.
22. What's Our Purpose?
Illustration
Brett Blair
If we are to reach people for Christ we need people with passion and power. But we also need people with a purpose.
In the late 1800’s, no business matched the financial and political dominance of the railroad. Trains dominated the transportation industry of the United States, moving both people and goods throughout the country.
Then a new discovery came along—the car—and incredibly, the leaders of the railroad industry did not take advantage of their unique position to participate in this transportation development. The automotive revolution was happening all around them, and they did not use their industry dominance to take hold of the opportunity. In his video tape The Search for Excellence, Tom Peters points out the reason: The railroad barons did not understand what business they were in. Peter observes that "they thought they were in the train business. But, they were in fact in the transportation business. Time passed them by, as did opportunity. They couldn’t see what their real purpose was."
If the railroad barons at the turn of the century had understood that they were in the transportation business and not the train business we would all be driving a Gould and not a Ford. The same thing happened in the watch and clock industry. The Swiss had dominated time keeping. They controlled 90% of all revenues made in their industry. They made the most precise gears and springs in the world. Their watches and clocks were perfect.
Then something new happened called the Quartz movement—LCD readout. Guess who invented it. A Swiss man. But because it had no gears or knobs or springs it was rejected. They failed to recognize that they were in the business of helping people tell time not making precision gears. They lost their dominance in the industry. They now control 20% of all revenue. Seiko is the dominant leader.
"If Sports Illustrated magazine understood it was in the sports information business, not the publishing business, we would have the Sports Illustrated Channel, not ESPN."
And folks, if we in the Methodist Church, forget that our purpose is making disciples for Jesus Christ we will also become obsolete. If we loose our focus and get distracted by tradition, habit, custom, ritual, routine, we will go the way of the trains, the Swiss, and Sports Illustrated. We must remember our basic identity. We must—whenever, however, wherever—fulfill our basic purpose.
I want to be part of a church whose soul purpose is to win people to Jesus Christ.
I want to be part of a church that is empowered by the Holy Spirit. A church that is going out into the streets with spiritual power and the authority. The Holy Spirit compels us to go.
23. Spirit Power - Sermon Starter
Illustration
King Duncan
In 1926, a wealthy Toronto lawyer named Charles Vance Millar died, leaving behind him a will that amused and electrified the citizens of his Canadian province. Millar, a bachelor with a wicked sense of humor, stated clearly that he intended his last will and testament to be an "uncommon and capricious" document. Because he had no close heirs to inherit his fortune, he divided his money and properties in a way that amused him and aggravated his newly chosen heirs. Here are just a few examples of his strange bequests:
He left shares in the Ontario Jockey Club to two prominent men who were well‑known for their opposition to racetrack betting.
He bequeathed shares in the O'Keefe Brewery Company (a Catholic beer manufacturer) to every Protestant minister in Toronto.
But his most famous bequest was that he would leave his fortune to the Toronto woman who gave birth to the most children in the ten years after his death.
This last clause in his will caught the public fancy--concerning the woman who produced the most children over a ten-year period. The country was entering the Great Depression. As people struggled to meet even their most basic economic responsibilities, the prospect of an enormous windfall was naturally quite alluring. Newspaper reporters scoured the public records to find likely contenders for what became known as The Great Stork Derby. Nationwide excitement over the Stork Derby built quickly.
In 1936, four mothers‑‑proud producers of nine children apiece in a ten‑year time span‑‑divided up the Millar fortune, each receiving what was a staggering sum in those days, $125,000. Charles Millar caused much mischief with his will. This was his final legacy to humanity.
Let's talk about legacies for a moment. This Memorial Day weekend we remember those who died in our nation's service. Regardless of how we might feel about war in general, or any war in particular, it is only right that we should pay homage to those who lay down their lives for our country. This is the legacy that they bequeathed to us--a free and prosperous land.
When Jesus of Nazareth left this earth, he bequeathed a legacy to his followers. He left his Holy Spirit--to comfort, to guide, to empower them to be all that God had called them to be. Today we celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit on the church.
1. The Birthday of the Church.
2. A Spirit-filled Church.
3. The Bold Spirit of Christ in Us.
24. Driven by Great Purpose
Illustration
King Duncan
A schoolmaster in France was discouraged with one of his student Louis. He wrote in his roll book concerning this student: "He is the smallest, the meekest, the most unpromising boy in my class." Half a century later, an election was held in France to select the greatest Frenchman. By popular vote, that meekest, smallest, most unpromising boy was chosen. His name? Louis Pasteur, the founder of modern medicine. At age seventy-three, a national holiday was declared in his honor. He was too old and weak to attend the ceremony in Paris, so he sent a message to be read by his son. The message read: "The future belongs not to the conquerors but to the saviors of the world."
Louis Pasteur was driven by a great purpose. Your name and my name may never be a household word like Pasteur's, but we, too, can be driven by a great purpose. Christ can give us that purpose. But there is one thing more Christ gives us. He gives us the presence of the Holy Spirit.
25. Leaning, Leaning, Leaning
Illustration
King Duncan
The year was 1887, and a humble music professor named A.J. Showalter received some sad news. Two of his former students had just lost their wives. Both of these men were in despair, and looked to their old music professor for comfort.
Showalter had always been deeply devoted to his students. He had no comforting words of his own, so he turned to Scripture, where he found this verse from Deuteronomy 33:27, The eternal God is your refuge, And underneath are the everlasting arms . . ." Out of this verse, professor Showalter wrote a chorus to send to his students. You might recognize it:
Leaning, leaning, Safe and secure from all alarms;
Leaning, leaning, leaning on the everlasting arms.
Jesus did not tell his disciples that they would not have problems. In fact, their problems would dwarf most of our problems. What he did promise them was peace of mind. He would send upon them the gift of the Holy Spirit to give them courage and comfort. They would be warriors and not worriers. And that is the same promise Christ offers us today. Perhaps you have come to this house of worship today like Jake seeking "the assurance from someone that things are going to be okay." I can give you that assurance. God's Holy Spirit is here to give both courage and comfort. Let go and lean on the everlasting arms of God.
26. Shaken from Our Sanctuaries
Illustration
King Duncan
A few years ago, AT&T had a major snafu in New York City. They had an agreement with the city that, when electrical demand peaked, AT&T would switch to their backup generators. One day they did that, and something went wrong. When they switched over, the resulting power surge blew a number of rectifiers. Not only did that knock out phone service in the area, it also disrupted communications for air controllers at Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark airports. Over a thousand flights were affected.
Usually, technicians would fix that kind of blackout quickly. However, they didn't respond quickly on that particular occasion. While alarm bells rang unheard, the technicians were--believe it or not--attending a training session on how to handle an emergency.
I worry that something like that often happens in the church. Christ has called us to serve the world for which he died. Worship is that time when we strengthen our spirits for service to the world. When worship becomes an end in itself, we are not being what Christ has called us to be. We need to be shaken from our sanctuaries and into the streets.
27. An Amazing Organization
Illustration
Russ Blowers
At a rotary club, local business owners were introducing themselves and explaining their businesses. Finally, thelocal minister stood (you might, for a bit of humor, name your denomination - example:"the local United Methodist Minister stood") to address the gathering. He began his speech by describing his "business":
"I'm with a global enterprise. We have branches in every country in the world. We have our representatives in nearly every parliament and boardroom on earth. We're into motivation and behavior alteration.
We run hospitals, feeding stations, crisis pregnancy centers, universities, publishing houses, and nursing homes. We care for our clients from birth to death.
We are into life insurance and fire insurance. We perform spiritual heart transplants. Our original Organizer owns all the real estate on earth plus an assortment of galaxies and constellations. He knows everything and lives everywhere. Our product is free for the asking. (There's not enough money to buy it.)
Our CEO was born in a hick town, worked as a carpenter, didn't own a home, was misunderstood by his family, hated by enemies, walked on water, was condemned to death without a trial, and arose from the dead. I talk with him everyday."
The church is the most amazing organization in the world!
28. What Is Your Other Plan?
Illustration
James W. Moore
Erasmus, the famous Renaissance scholar, once told a classic story which was designed to emphasize how important it is that we take up the torch of Christ’s ministry with great commitment. In the story, Jesus returns to heaven after His time on earth. The angels gather around Him to learn what all happened during His days on earth. Jesus tells them of the miracles, His teachings, His death on the cross, and His resurrection.
When He finishes his story, Michael the Archangel asks Jesus, “But what happens now?” Jesus answers, “I have left behind eleven faithful disciples and a handful of men and women who have faithfully followed me. They will declare My message and express My love. These faithful people will build My church.” “But,” responds Michael, “What if these people fail? What then is Your other plan?” And Jesus answers, “I have no other plan!”
Jesus is counting on you and you and you and me. But the good news is, we are not alone. The Holy Spirit is here to melt us, mold us, fill us, and use us.
29. How Were You Attired?
Illustration
Leonard Sweet
A judge was presiding over a case in a small, rural county. The defendant was charged with drunk driving and trying to assault the police officer who arrested him. To convict the defendant on the assault on an officer charge, the District Attorney had to prove that the defendant knew the person he was assaulting was a police officer. And the easiest way to do that is to show that the officer was wearing a police uniform.
So the District Attorney asked the officer on the witness stand "And how were you attired when you pulled the defendant over?"
The witness looked at him blankly. It was clear he didn't know what the District Attorney meant by "attired". Everyone saw this but the District Attorney.
"Would you repeat the question, please?"
In a slightly irritated voice the District Attorney said, "And how were you attired when you pulled the defendant over?"
The witness still was puzzled. "Say that again", he pleaded.
"How were you attired when you pulled the defendant over?" barked the District Attorney.
My friend said you could suddenly see the light bulb come on in the officer's head, and he proudly proclaimed "I was traveling on standard issue radial tires!"
This officer needed an interpreter even within the English language!
That's what I'm getting at: We all need our own personal interpreter, full time, 24/7. So much of what we hear, even within the English language, we don't understand. And nowhere is that truth more evident than with people who are new to the church.
30. A Way to God
Illustration
King Duncan
Legend has it that before the Reformation, before he transformed the church, Martin Luther was in his room in the monastery weeping because of his sins. His confessor, a young man, simply didn't know what to do, so he began repeating the Apostles' Creed
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
"I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins; the . . . ."
Wait!" Luther interrupted his confessor. "What did you say?"
What do you mean, what did I say?"
That last part. What was it again?"
Oh, that. I said, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.'"
"The forgiveness of sins," Luther said as if savoring each word. "The forgiveness of sins.Then there is hope for me somewhere. Then maybe there is a way to God."
There is a way to God. Jesus Christ died to provide that way. We may not be a woman of the city but there are sins that break our hearts as well. And there is One who sees those broken hearts and cares, and forgives, and heals, and makes whole.
31. The Law and the Gospel
Illustration
David Ernst
The primary purpose of the Law is, like a mirror, to teach man the true knowledge of his sin. We see this in the example of the publican. The publicans were tax-collectors for the Roman imperialists. They were Jews, but were not respected by their people. They were considered traitors and thieves, with some justification.
So the publican did not approach God with pride, demanding what was owed him. On the contrary, he approached the Lord with maximum humility and true repentance. Repentance is essential to receive the forgiveness of sins in Christ. That is why the Law should be preached to unrepentant sinners, but the Gospel to those who are troubled by their sins and terrified of damnation.
The Law demands, threatens and condemns; the Gospel promises, gives and confirms our forgiveness and salvation. God offers forgiveness of sins only in the Good News that we are saved because Christ fulfilled the Law, suffered, died and rose from the dead for us. So let us draw near to God in humility and repentance, of course, but also in the hope and faith that we are justified through faith, not by works, and that in Christ we are children of God.
32. What Kind of Cross?
Illustration
Larry Powell
Not long ago, a hard-rock singer reknowned for his notorious over indulgence in mind-altering drugs appeared on television to scream, lunge, and gyrate through one of his bestselling songs. Inasmuch as the rather badly garbled words were totally incomprehensible to me, I turned my attention to the bizarre, uninhibited attire of this widely heralded "artist." Not to dwell on the flamboyance of his appearance, I wish only to point out that dangling from an expensive chain around his neck was a large cross. Perhaps it was there as a counterstatement, a message of rebellion to institutional religion, or perhaps he simply counted it as an attractive piece of jewelry. I do not know. But more and more, the cross is appearing on necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and the like as fashionable symbols, which is all right, I suppose, except that the behavior of those brandishing them is not always consistent with what the cross represents. If a person in ancient Rome had adorned himself with a cross, it would have been the equivalent of someone today wearing the likeness of the electric chair around his neck. The cross was originally not considered to be a thing of beauty. It conveyed pain, humiliation, and death. It still does, except in the Christian context. Another dimension was added to Calvary ... victory.
Jesus issued a call to discipleship, but the invitation contained an inherent inhibitor: "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." A cross of adornment or embellishment was not what Jesus had in mind. Self-denial and risking the consequences of following the way of Christ are at the heart of the call to discipleship.
In the eighteenth century, a German artist, Stenberg, was walking through the market place of his home town when he was attracted to the face of a dancing gypsy girl. He invited her to sit for him in his studio as a model. Accepting his invitation, she enabled Stenberg to paint his famous "Dancing Gypsy Girl." There is more. The young girl was greatly impressed by what she saw in the artist’s studio, particularly a painting in progress titled "Crucifixion." Arrested by the painting, she said one day to Stenberg, "He must have been a very bad man to have been nailed to a cross like that." Stenberg replied, "No, he was a good man. The best man who ever lived. Indeed, he died for all men." The girl asked, "Did he die for you?" Stenberg had never really made such a personal application of his explanation. He was led to search the Scriptures, and in a few short weeks, he discovered the answer and surrendered himself to Christ. Returning to his painting of the "Crucifixion," he added these words beneath the likeness of Christ on the cross: "This I did for thee; what hast thou done for me?" There is more. A young aristocratic count, Zinzendorf by name, chanced to observe the painting, paused to meditate at both the depiction and the words, and was so moved that he went on to found the Moravians.
There are elements of power and attraction about the cross. There also is an inaudible appeal: "This I did for thee; what hast thou done for me?" Have we denied ourselves and taken up our cross, whatever it may be, and followed him?
33. Who Is Jesus?
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Now, more than ever, we need to face the question, "Who is the real Jesus?" Is the Christ of faith the Jesus of history? What is the truth about Jesus? What can we believe? We turn to the Apostles' Creed which has given the church's answer for 2,000 years.
Different Positions
It is not strange that the most popular question of our time is, "Who is Jesus?" Was this question not answered in Matthew 16:16 when Peter said to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"? In Jesus' day, too, there were different opinions about Jesus. When on a retreat with his disciples, he asked them what people were saying about him. The public was divided: Jesus was considered to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What more of an answer do we need than the answer of Peter? Jesus accepted his answer as the truth, for he said, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Yet, after twenty centuries, we do not believe what Peter said about the identity of Jesus. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Jesus is the Son of God." A recent report from Germany indicated that only one out of every four believe in Jesus Christ. Throughout Christian history down to the present, there are different views of Jesus. Now let us look at some of them.
1. The All-Human Jesus
Human
According to this position, Jesus is 100 percent human. It was held as early as the first centuries of Christianity by the Ebionites. They denied that Jesus was divine. He was only a teacher, prophet, miracle-man, and one with an outstanding character. But he was not divine, the Son of God. Today this view is held by many, including atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, and other non-Christian religions.
2. The All-Divine Jesus
Divine
Opposite the Ebionites, Docetists held that Jesus was entirely divine. He was not at all human. This view was originally taught by Eutychus, a monk in a monastery near Constantinople. In the fourth century, Appolonarius, bishop of Laodicea, popularized the teaching. It was known as Docetism, from the Latin word docere meaning "to seem." It just seemed that Jesus was human. It was based on the idea that the physical and material were inherently evil. The human body therefore was sinful. Jesus therefore was not human, for God could not be identified with sin. Docetists held that Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by the divine. This denied the Incarnation, the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh."
3. The Half And Half Jesus
Human/Divine
Nestorians took the view that Jesus was half human and half divine. It was taught by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in the fifth century. To this day it is a very popular understanding of Jesus. When we see Jesus hungry, thirsty, and tired, we say it was because he was human. When he struggles in prayer and on the cross cries out, "My God, why ...?" we see the human Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus is God when he walks on water, feeds 5,000, raises the dead, heals lepers, and rises from the grave. The problem with this view is that we have a divided Jesus -- two persons in one body.
4. The Adopted Jesus
Divine
Human
This is known as adoptionism. According to this position, Jesus came into the world as a human. Because of his moral excellence, his perfect obedience to God, his wisdom, his compassion for people, and his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross, the Father adopted him as his son at his baptism. This adoption was confirmed by the resurrection and the ascension. Jesus then became a deified man.
5. The Both And Jesus
Human & Divine
The above different positions concerning Jesus caused great concern, for the gospel was at stake. If Jesus were only human, then he was just a martyr on the cross and not the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. If he were only human, the resurrection was a fairy tale. His promises of forgiveness and eternal life were meaningless. His claims to know God and to be one with God would then be the words of a religious fanatic who was deluded into thinking he was the Son of God.
On the other hand, if Jesus were only divine and not human, humanity would be the loser. Because he was human, he became one of us. As a human, he fulfilled the law for us. Through his humanity we could see the nature of God. Above all, he became sin for us so that sin, through him, could go out of the world. As a human Jesus knows our human condition. Like all of us he was tempted and he showed that by the power of God we can overcome temptation to sin.
Consequently, the church had to take a stand on the question of Jesus. Is he only human, only divine, or half and half? In 451 A.D. the church held a council at Chalcedon to decide the issue. The church decided that it was not a matter of Jesus being fully God or fully human, or half and half, but it was a matter of both, both fully human and fully divine. To this day the church holds to this truth stated at Chalcedon:
We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, or a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father with respect to the Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect of the manhood, like us in everything but sin ...
This is to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man. These two natures are blended into one integrated personality. He is not a split personality, nor does he suffer from schizophrenia. It is like a blender in your kitchen. Suppose you put apples, peaches, and pears in it and pushed the "on" button for a minute. Now what do you have -- apples, peaches, and pears? Yes, you do, but can you tell which is which? They have become one fruit, one substance. Also, it is like hom*ogenized milk. When the raw milk comes from the farm, a dairy runs it through a hom*ogenizer. As the milk runs through the machine, pistons compact the milk so that the cream and skim milk are made one. As a result you cannot take cream off the milk. In the same way, the human and divine natures of Jesus are compacted into one integrated person.
This means that the Father and the Son are one. When Jesus prays, God also prays. When the human Jesus suffers and dies on a cross, God is in Jesus enduring the cross. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). When the human Jesus speaks, it is also God who speaks. When Jesus weeps, God weeps. This truth makes us realize the seriousness of the cross. It was not only a human on the cross, but God was there in Jesus. Good Friday is the day God died in Jesus. Indeed, the murderers did not know what they were doing; they did not know they were killing God! As the spiritual says, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble."
34. Walked Away Without a Word
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Simon Wiesenthal spent many years searching for Nazi war criminals who were responsible for the holocaust. When he was a prisoner in a Nazi forced-labor camp, he was ordered to visit an SS trooper who was wounded and dying in a hospital. Knowing he was going to die, he wanted to clear his conscience by confessing his sins of shooting and burning up Jews in the Ukraine. The dying officer begged Wiesenthal, a Jew, to forgive him. Wiesenthal listened, turned, and walked away without a word in reply. After the war Wiesenthal sent the story to 32 leading religious leaders asking them whether he did the right thing. The majority agreed that he did the right thing by not forgiving the Nazi.
Though some do not forgive because they do not believe in forgiving, true Christians do believe in forgiveness. In the Apostles' Creed they confess that they believe in "the forgiveness of sins."
35. He Forgives and Forgets
Illustration
David H. Bolton
In A Forgiving God in an Unforgiving World, Ron Lee Davis retells the true story of a priest in the Philippines, a much-loved man of God who carried the burden of a secret sin he had committed many years before. He had repented but still had no peace, no sense of God's forgiveness.
In his parish was a woman who deeply loved God and who claimed to have visions in which she spoke with Christ and he with her. The priest, however, was skeptical. To test her he said, "The next time you speak with Christ, I want you to ask him what sin your priest committed while he was in seminary." The woman agreed. A few days later the priest asked., "Well, did Christ visit you in your dreams?"
"Yes, he did," she replied.
"And did you ask him what sin I committed in seminary?"
"Yes."
"Well, what did he say?"
"He said, 'I don't remember'"
This is what God wants you to know about the forgiveness He freely offers you. When your sins are forgiven, they are forgotten. The past—with its sins, hurts brokenness, and self-recrimination—is gone, dead, crucified, remembered no more. What God forgives, He forgets.
36. Easter Without A Cross?
Illustration
In a certain church marketing newsletter, called the Church's Advertising Network, a campaign has been developed to attract people to church during the season of Easter. In this public relations campaign, it is suggested that the cross be removed from the alter. According to the author, a survey has revealed that the cross is one of those symbols that the new generation of church goers considered too "churchy " One pastor interviewed for the campaign gave his wholehearted endorsem*nt. "We are going to attempt to concentrate on the resurrection, and not the death of Jesus.
Easter without the cross. Rather an interesting thought. Is it possible to have resurrection without crucifixion? No. It distorts the entire gospel if crucifixion is separated from resurrection. The road to the empty tomb will forever pass by a cross. The one who is raised from the dead is none other than the crucified Christ. Easter without a cross is a hoax.
37. No More Tears
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
Can you imagine a four-year-old boy falling to his death from the 53rd floor of a New York City apartment building? Unimaginable as it seems, that is precisely what happened to the son of British rock star, Eric Clapton. Clapton's life was filled with tears of grief as the result of this shocking event. His son's death haunted him so much that he finally wrote a song about it. He called it, "Tears in Heaven." In February of 1993 this song of Clapton's won the Grammy as the "Song of the Year." Mr. Clapton himself won the Grammy as Male Vocalist of the Year. Eric Clapton, however, would have given up all the success of these Grammys in an instant if he could just have had his son back. Clapton's song begins with these words: "Would you know my name, if I saw you in heaven? Would it be the same, if I saw you in heaven?" Mr. Clapton's separation from his son is real. His son is gone forever. As with others who grieve the loss of loved ones, however, Clapton desperately wants to communicate with him again. Clapton's song continues. He envisions heaven for a moment. He knows that heaven is a place that he does not belong. That means that he must somehow find the strength to carry on when he knows, "I don't belong here in heaven." The singer gets a glimpse of heaven, a glimpse of hope. But in heaven he does not belong.
Verse two of "Tears in Heaven" returns to the same theme. He wonders if his son would hold his hand if he saw him in heaven? He wonders, further, whether his son would help him stand if he saw him in heaven? Clapton does not know the answers to his questions. He just believes that if he could get a glimpse of his son again his grief might be lightened. In his grief he cries out for some kind of contact with his son. But it is not to be. So, he sings, "I will have to find my own way, because I just can't stay, here in heaven." The burden of grief rests squarely on his shoulders. Heaven is of no help. Heaven is beyond his grasp. His son is beyond his grasp. He'll just have to make do as best he can. He'll have to "find his own way through night and day." Clapton's song is a very sad song! The grief is so real and the hope so illusory. Clapton knows he doesn't belong in heaven for whatever reason. Therefore, he will have to carry his own grief and his grief is a terribly heavy load.
Clapton sings of this heavy load in the next verse of his song. "Time can bring you down," he sings. Time can be devastating when you are locked in grief. Time can bend your knees; it has you "beggin' please." Such is Clapton's plight. He is reduced to begging. Surely he has begged God to give him a reason for his son's death. Why, God, Why? Surely he has begged God to bring his son back again. Surely he has begged God to lighten his load in life. There is a lot of begging going on in the midst of human tears of grief. Clapton sees one bright ray of hope in the midst of his grief. He is sure that in heaven there are no tears. That's the source of the song's title: "Tears in Heaven." Tears are for the earth. Tears are grief's constant companion. Tears are grief's way of showing us the pit of emptiness that tugs so heavily upon us in our time of loss. Tears are vital to the healing process. Through the ears, however, Clapton sees a vision of a place where tears shall be no more. "There will be no more tears in heaven," he sings. "There will be no more tears in heaven." "
38. THE CROSS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
The cross best proclaims the indisputable fact that we worship a caring God. It is the most popular of all Christian symbols. There is no Christianity without the cross.
The cross shouts God’s words of love to each of us. It is his proclamation of possibility beyond the present. In it is hope for the hopeless, love for the loveless, encouragement for the depressed, and the pronouncement of life beyond death for those who grieve the loss of a friend or contemplate their own demise. Its importance to our faith cannot be over-emphasized, its proclamation must never be subdued. It trumpets, "God cares!" That’s music to our ears - the best news we could ever hear.
As I look at the cross, I cannot help but think of a movie I saw years ago. Few movies in my life have had the impact of Ben Hur. Many scenes made an indelible impression - the great sea battle, the exciting chariot race, the repugnant leprosy colony. Yet, none hit harder than the crucifixion of our Lord. The sound of hammer on nail rings through the air, the cross rises until it suddenly thumps into place. Slowly Jesus’ blood begins to flow - one drop, then another ... a puddle forms beneath the cross. It begins to rain. Water mixes with more blood, and together they begin to trickle down the hillside. The trickle becomes a stream as the blood washes over God’s creation. We are reminded that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
At Calvary God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. The blood of Christ pouring down the cross restored our relationship with the Father. We cannot fully understand the mystery of God’s plan to recapture a creation gone astray. We only know that all who come to the cross in simple, trusting faith are cleansed by his blood and find peace with the Father.
By his death Jesus has unchained us. Unchained - there is no better word for it. He has set us free from the wages of our sins that only pay dividends in hell and has set us on the positive pathway of a life with God. Our eyes need no longer be downcast; our head has no reason to be between our knees. We are no longer oppressed with our weighty sins, for we have been touched by none other than God. He has cared not just a little but powerfully. His power encountered our sin, and it was no more. His incredible desire to rescue us in spite of everything dispels even the worst sin. But we must be wise enough to permit ourselves and our sins to be encountered by that desire.
39. The Cross Has Always Caused Problems
Illustration
Richard J. Fairchild
A Pastor on Northern Vancouver Island wrote to online study group this message:"I'm having difficulty with the Gospel this week; what is thiscross that I am to take up, and what am I to deny in followingJesus?" Another Pastor, a student minister in the United States wrote:“I find this a hard gospel text because it talks about suffering rather than joy.”
The cross has always caused problems to people. Brutal and barbaric - the cross was a tool of political power for the Romans. They maintained their power because of the fear of death on the cross. When one was condemned by the state, the condemned literally had to "take up his cross" and carry it to the public place where he was to be crucified. It was part of the humiliation process, the mechanism of socialcontrol for which crucifixion was invented.
The cross was an instrument of suffering and shame - and no more so than among the Children of Israel - where the scriptures themselves declare: "cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree". To die on a cross was a sign that one died cut off from God, and cut off from the people of God - a sign that the person was rejected. And of course in the case of Jesus this was very true.
40. Backward Christian Soldiers
Illustration
Staff
Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.
Christ our rightful master Stands against the foe
Onward into battle, we seem afraid to go.
Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.
Like a might tortoise Moves the church of God.
Brothers we are treading, Where we've often trod.
We are much divided, Many bodies we,
Having different doctrines, but Not much charity.
Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.
Crowns and thrones may perish, Kingdoms rise and wane,
But the cross of Jesus Hidden does remain.
Gates of hell should never 'gainst the Church prevail,
We have Christ's own promise, but we think it might fail.
Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.
Sit here then ye people, Join our sleeping throng.
Blend with ours, your voices in a feeble song.
Blessings, ease and comfort Ask from Christ the King,
But with our modern thinking, We won't do a thing.
Backward Christian soldiers, Fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus, Nearly out of sight.
41. The Apostles' Creed
Illustration
Staff
The earliest known mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of AD 390 from a synod in Milan. The most traditional version of the creed is as follows:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places
The Old RomanSymbol (Latin: vetus symbolum romanum), or Old Roman Creed, is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles’ Creed. It was based on the 2nd-century Rule of Faith and the interrogatory declaration of faith for those receiving Baptism.It is said that this earlier and first adopted version wasbased on the Trinitarian formula found in The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. It was widely accepted in the 4th century, that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article to the twelve articles of thiscreed:
I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting)
The Apostles' Creed (100 A.D.) is the oldest and shortest creed with only 109 words in the traditional version. Only the New Testament creed, "Jesus is Lord," is older. It is also the most often used -- practically every Sunday, except for festivals and seasons when the Nicene Creed is confessed. Undoubtedly, it is the most universal statement of the Christian faith.
By 100 A.D. the Apostles' Creed became the basic statement of faith for the church. In the first century, it was the rule of faith for baptismal candidates. In 390 it became known as the Apostles' Creed, even though it was not written by the apostles but contained the beliefs of the apostles. An ancient legend has it that after Pentecost the apostles agreed on a summary of what they were going to preach. The summary was the Apostles' Creed. Yet, the creed did not reach its final form until the sixth or seventh century. Martin Luther held this creed in such high regard that he used it in his Small Catechism to teach families what a Christian believes. To this day the Small Catechism is used as the basis for youth and adult preparation for church membership in Lutheran churches.
42. Death and Resurrection
Illustration
We, as human beings, whoever we are and whatever station in life we are in, all stand on common ground when we realize that we all at sometime in life fear death, we all live in the presence of death, that all men, in some way or another, have been hurt by death. And it does not only touch the life of the elderly. In his preface of "Bread For the World", Author Simon reminds us that before we complete reading this brief preface that four people in the world will have died of starvation, most of them children. So no matter who you are, whether you are in the sunset years and expect to live fewer years than you have lived to date, or whether you are just beginning life's journey—death is real. All of the wars in the world have not increased the death toll by one. It robs people of valuable years of their life but it in no way increases the death toll, for all of us, one day, shall have to go through the experience of death.
I have always wondered about the cynics and non-believers. What do they do at Easter? Have you ever wondered about that. On that day when the Christian church joyfully celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ, what do they do. Humanism is all right for the classroom, but it leaves you nothing at an icy graveside. It is precisely at that point that Christianity responds: Yes, we shall see our loved ones again and all be reunited.
Some demand that they need proof and documentation. I wonder what kind proof that they desire. There is more documented evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead than there is that Julius Caesar ever lived. There is more evidence of the resurrection than there is that Alexander the Great died at age 33. I have always found it interesting that some will accept thousands of facts for which there are only shreds of evidence, but in the face of overwhelming evidence of the resurrection they cast a skeptical doubt, because it is so unique. We say that we want the facts. Well the facts are that in the history of the ancient world the resurrection has been attested to as much as most of the events that we routinely accept and read in the history books.
In the early nineties the ABC news show 20/20 had an interesting segment on the shroud of Turin. If you were completely out of touch at that time and have not heard of the shroud of Turin, let me tell you that it is supposed to be the cloth that Jesus was buried in. And on this cloth is an imprint of the person of Jesus. It is now housed in a cathedral in Turin, Italy. Several years ago an international team of scientists, consisting of Christians, Jews, Moslems, and non-believers, set about to prove or disprove the story behind this ancient cloth. The results of their findings were published in an issue of National Geographic magazine.
The interesting thing to me about the 20/20 story was an interview that they had with one of the scientists, an Air Force colonel who was a specialist in laser technology. He openly admitted that he began the project not only as a non-Christian, but as a person who was openly anti-religious. I relished this opportunity, he said, to debunk what I considered a childish myth. Haraldo Rivera asked him: Now that you have spent four years on this project what is your response. His response not only shocking, but it was shocking that 20/20 allowed it to go on the air. He said: After four years on this project, I now fall upon my knees and worship a resurrected Christ.
It would be nice if we could hold some physical evidence in our hands to prove it all, but I would mislead you this Easter Day if I left the impression that the resurrection was a matter of fact. For in the end, the resurrection is a religious belief. In the end you cannot prove it or disprove it. And that is why some brilliant people believe and why some brilliant people do not believe. Because you cannot prove it one way or the other. There just are not any photographs. In the end we must fall back upon the words of the resurrected Christ to the disciple Thomas: Thomas, you have believed because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.
43. Sermon Opener - New Wine
Illustration
Barbara Brokhoff
On the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit fell upon the waiting disciples, there were a number of extraordinary events occurring: there was the sound of a rushing wind, cloven tongues of fire appeared, and they all began to speak in other languages and the Holy Spirit gave them ability. The Jews who were visiting Jerusalem, from all nations, hearing them speak in their own tongues, were amazed at this startling phenomenon. They came to the hasty, false conclusion that the disciples must be drunk, and accused them, saying, "They have had too much wine!" "Not so!" said Peter. "It is only nine in the morning -- far too early to be fixed. They are not drunk, but rather filled with the new wine of the Spirit. This is what Joel the prophet foretold many years ago."
In other words, the Holy Spirit is New Wine and it cannot make you drunk. The Spirit will not cloud your mind, it won't cause you to talk stupidly, it won't make you an unsafe driver, and it won't give you a hangover. The disciples were not inebriated, but rather filled with God the Holy Spirit. They had not imbibed on the fruit of the vine, nor had they drunk the nectar of the gods, but they had been filled with the Divine Nectar, the New Wine from heaven. This Spirit will be a wine for all occasions, for all people.
Before his Ascension, Jesus had wanted his followers to know that the same Lord who had called them and ministered to them in his physical presence would now, through the Holy Spirit, always be with them. They must realize that the crucified, resurrected, and now ascended Lord would return. The same Spirit which dwelt in him would now dwell in them.
On this anniversary of the Day of Pentecost, when the Christian Church was born, let us be deeply grateful that the Spirit of Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, has come to us. Without the Holy Spirit, Christian discipleship would be impossible. We would have no understanding of spiritual things without the Spirit of Truth. We would never enjoy Christian fellowship with one another without the unity of the Spirit. We could never be effective Christian witnesses without the Spirit's power. In fact, we would have no life without the life-giving Spirit. Just as the body without breath is a corpse, so a church without the Holy Spirit is dead!
The rest of the sermon follows this outline:
1. They Waited And Prayed
2. The Specifics Of The Spirit's Coming
3. This New Wine Makes A Difference
44. Give To God The Things That Are God's
Illustration
Phyllis Faaborg Wolk
"Tell us what you think, Teacher. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" When the Pharisees asked Jesus that question, he responded with a request, "Show me the coin used for the tax," and someone handed Jesus a coin embossed with the head of the current Roman emperor, Tiberius. Engraved around his head was the inscription, "Tiberius Caesar, majestic son of the majestic God, and High Priest." "Whose image is on this coin?" Jesus asked. "The emperor's," they responded. "Well then," Jesus said, "give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor." The image of the emperor was embossed on the coin, therefore the coin belonged to him.
But in answering the Pharisees' question, Jesus didn't stop with the issue of taxation. He continued, "and give to God what belongs to God." As Jesus spoke the words, "give to God what belongs to God," standing right before him were those on whom the image of God had been embossed. The Pharisees, teachers of the law of Israel, children of Abraham whom God had claimed as his own, had been created from the very beginning in the image of God. In the image of himself, God had created them. They belonged to God. Those in whose eyes Jesus looked as he spoke were the coins of God. "Give to God what belongs to God," Jesus said. But when he spoke those words, the Pharisees left him and went away.
Should we pay taxes to the government? Yes, Jesus would say. But again, Jesus wouldn't stop there. Today he looks you in the eye and says, "Give to God what belongs to God." And as he looks at you, Jesus sees the image of God. In the beginning God created you and embossed his image upon you. In the waters of baptism, God marked you with the cross of Christ forever. God has given himself to you and has promised to love you and be with you forever.
Mrs. Detweiler was created in the image of God. She worked at Murray Elementary as the special education teacher. It didn't take her students long to recognize the image of God within her which made them feel special and loved. Even though she was a special education teacher, the students of Murray Elementary considered it a privilege to be invited to Mrs. Detweiler's room. The walls of her small classroom were covered with stars made out of bright yellow construction paper. Neatly written in black permanent marker on the star at the top of each row was the name of one of her students. As soon as a student finished reading a book, the title of that book was placed on another star that soon appeared directly beneath the star bearing the student's name. The more books a person read, the more stars accumulated under the name. Whenever her students finished a book, Mrs. Detweiler made them feel like stars, themselves. Her ability to make her students feel special and important was a mark of the image of God shining through her.
Mrs. Detweiler bore the image of God. She loved her students -- that was the image of God. She gave of herself by teaching them to read -- that was the image of God. She believed in her students -- that was the image of God. But even as one created in the image of God, Mrs. Detweiler would be the first to say that she had her faults. There were times when she let her students down; times when she lost her patience; times when her mood affected her ability to respond to her students enthusiastically. Mrs. Detweiler wasn't perfect, but she had been created in the image of God, claimed as God's child through her baptism and renewed each day with the gift of forgiveness. As she gave God what belonged to God by giving of herself to her students, Jesus worked through her. Through Mrs. Detweiler, God's love, acceptance and encouragement was shown to many students as they grew and matured into the people God had created them to be. As she gave God what belonged to God, God continued to give himself to her, revealing his love again and again through the sparkle in her students' eyes.
You are God's. His image has been placed within you. When I look at you, I see the image of God. I see the image of God in your faces as you greet one another before worship. I see the image of God each time you pray for each other and share one another's concerns. I see the image of God when I go to the nursing home and watch you hug and hold and gently speak with those who reside there. I see the image of God when I watch the Sunday school staff relate with the children -- so often God's love is given and received in the simple interactions they share. I see the image of God in the church kitchen, as members of this congregation work side by side to prepare a meal after a funeral or before a fellowship event. I see the image of God every time one of you gives to the Lord's work in a generous and cheerful way, sharing with others the blessings God has given you. God's image shines when you invite and welcome your neighbors to church -- not only those who are like you, but those who bring different perspectives and talents and needs to this body of Christ. I see God's image as this congregation reaches beyond itself to support missionaries and relieve world hunger. Whenever you give of yourself to others, the image of God within you is being revealed.
You are the bearers of God's image. Jesus said, "Give to God the things that are God's." You are God's. Jesus says, "Give yourself to God." But before you can even respond to Jesus' call to give yourself to God, God gives himself to you. Even before you have a chance to respond to Jesus' command, Jesus goes to the cross. Jesus goes to the cross to give to God what belongs to God. Jesus goes to the cross to give you to his Father in Heaven, who then blesses you with salvation and eternal life. Jesus goes to the cross for you and gives you life.
Give to God the things that are God's. When you give yourself to God, God will nurture his image within you. Jesus who now lives in you will give himself to others whenever you give of yourself to those in need. Jesus will use you to reveal God's love and forgiveness, to show all God's children how special they are to God, and to proclaim salvation to all who have been created in the image of God. Give to God things that are God's, remembering that Jesus has already given himself for you. Amen.
45. Around the Cross
Illustration
During China's Boxer Rebellion of 1900, insurgents captured a mission station, blocked all the gates but one, and in front of that one gate placed a cross flat on the ground. Then the word was passed to those inside that any who trampled the cross underfoot would be permitted their freedom and life, but that any refusing would be shot. Terribly frightened, the first seven students trampled the cross under their feet and were allowed to go free. But the eighth student, a young girl, refused to commit the sacrilegious act. Kneeling beside the cross in prayer for strength, she arose and moved carefully around the cross, and went out to face the firing squad. Strengthened by her example, every one of the remaining ninety-two students followed her to the firing squad.
46. The Cross: A Sign of Hope
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
In Alexander Solzhenitsyn's book, Gulag Archipelago, he described life in a Siberian prison.At one point he was so physically weak and discouraged that all he could hope for was death. The hard labor, terrible conditions, and inhumane treatment had taken its toll.
He knew the guards would beat him severely and probably kill him if he stopped working. So, he planned to help them by simply stopping his work and leaning on his shovel. But when he stopped, a fellow Christian reached over with his shovel and quickly drew a sign of the cross at the feet ofSolzhenitsynthen erased it before a guard could see it.
Solzhenitsyn later wrote that his entire being was energized by that little reminder of the hope and courage we find in Christ through the cross. It was a turning point. Through the cross and a fellow believer, he found the strength and the hope to continue.
In today's scripture we see a turning point in the life and ministry of Jesus. From this point on, Jesus' focus changes. From this point on, Jesus' mind and heart and mission are pointed to Jerusalem and the cross that awaits him. He has one purpose: the cross.
47. Atonement: Because He Died
Illustration
Oswald Chambers
We trample the blood of the Son of God if we think we are forgiven because we are sorry for our sins. The only explanation for the forgiveness of God and for the unfathomable depth of His forgetting is the death of Jesus Christ. Our repentance is merely the outcome of our personal realization of the atonement which He has worked out for us. It does not matter who or what we are; there is absolute reinstatement into God by the death of Jesus Christ and by no other way, not because Jesus Christ pleads, but because He died. It is not earned, but accepted. All the pleading which deliberately refuses to recognize the Cross is of no avail; it is battering at a door other than the one that Jesus has opened. Our Lord does not pretend we are all right when we are all wrong. The atonement is a propitiation whereby God, through the death of Jesus, makes an unholy man holy.
48. Cross Purposes
Illustration
Leonard Sweet
All around the upper ledges of the curved glass windows in our living room perches a collection of dappled and dimpled art glass tumblers. These brightly colored tumblers come from an old family collection. They were put together long ago by grandparents long gone. They bring hundreds of different shades and hues of color into the room on a sunny day.
Of course, our house is also located in an earthquake zone.
In fact, every year at least a couple low-number, rocking-n-rattling sessions roll through the Puget Sound area. Although a tiny drop of museum putty helps give the glassware a bit of a foothold, we're ever mindful that any good shake could easily bring them all down. It would seem that our wish to keep the tumblers in clear view and the inherent instability of the land we sit on are at, well, cross-purposes.
Cross-purposes keep the pet-lover with allergies continually sneezing and snuffling while joyously playing fetch with the dog.
Cross-purposes keep the gardener moving slowly and cautiously on arthritic joints while gleefully playing in the dirt.
Cross-purposes keep football-loving dads at a daughter's Sunday afternoon ballet recital instead of at the stadium.
Making choices that run counter to our good sense or best interests, making decisions that are at cross-purposes with that which is easiest or even most enjoyable, is the central paradox of the Christian faith.
49. Romanticizing the Cross
Illustration
When we view the cross I think that somehow we must learn to see our complicity in it. We cannot dismiss this as an act by self-righteous Jews and brutal Romans. We must somehow understand the horrible fact that Satan sometimes uses religious people to accomplish his means. We distort things and before long we call evil good and good evil. Every time we allow sin to seduce us with its distortions, we nail Jesus on the cross once again.
There is an old episode of MASH, in which a rather co*cky young pilot comes to the MASH unit because his plane has been shot down, but he is not seriously injured. He tells everyone in a rather boasting voice that flying really gives him a high. If I could not fly this war would really be a drag, he says. He brags that every time he flies a couple of missions they send him back to Japan for several weeks of R & R. The war to him was really quite a lark.
Then one day a Korean child is brought to the MASH unit and her arm has been horribly mangled in an air attack. The young pilot is taken back. Even though it was not his plane that did it, for the first time he must face his own complicity in the brutality of war. For the first time he sees things not from the perspective of 10,000 feet, but in the eyes of a child.
There is a danger in romanticizing the cross. I love the old hymns about the cross just as much as anyone. But the cross is not meant to lull us, it is meant to jolt us.
50. Why Must We Carry a Cross? - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Canpeople change instantly at salvation?Some traditions call it repentance and renewal. Some call it Sanctification of the believer. Whatever you call it most traditions expect some quick fix to sin. According to this belief, when someone gives his or her life to Christ, there is an immediate, substantive, in-depth, miraculous change in habits, attitudes, and character. We go to church as if we are going to the grocery store: Powdered Christians. Just add water and disciples are born not made.
Unfortunately, there is no such powder and disciples of Jesus Christ are not instantly born. They are slowly raised through many trials, suffering, and temptations. A study has found that only 11 percent of churchgoing teenagers have a well-developed faith, rising to only 32 percent for churchgoing adults. Why? Because true life change only begins at salvation, takes more than just time, is about training, trying, suffering, and even dying (adapted from James Emery White, Rethinking the Church, Baker, 1997, p. 55-57).
Peter took Jesus aside and rebuked him. Why? Peter believes the kingdom of God can be obtained instantly by force. Peter has a worldly view of the Kingdom and Jesus is speaking about a heavenly kingdom. For a moment I would like you to listen to this story with new ears and see Jesus through the eyes of Peter and the rest of the disciples. Get rid of all your notions about who Jesus is. Take away from your mind Jesus as the Son of God. Strip from your memory that he died on the Cross and that he did that for your sins. Forget that Jesus ever said love your enemies or love your neighbor.
Now I want you to think of Jesus only as a military leader like Norman Swartscoff. Imagine that your country has been invaded and is being ruled by godless men. Sense, now, that the tension is mounting and you about to go into battle. That you are about to conduct a coup d'etat. That you and this band of ruffians are going to attempt to overthrow this government by a sudden violent strike. That the odds are stacked against you but you have a very strong belief that God is on your side despite the overwhelming odds.
Now you are thinking like Peter. Jesus comes before his disciples and lays out his military strategy. Look at verse 31. Jesus says, "We are going to march into Jerusalem and your General will suffer many things. We are not going to get any help from our Jewish brothers the Elders. Even the Chief Priest and the Saducees will not join us. Our government the Sanhedrin is corrupt and can be of no help to us. We are going it alone and I will die in this battle.
On this day Jesus spoke plainly to his disciples about the events soon to transpire and even though it was plain language it was not plain enough. Peter was not able to shake his understanding of Jesus as his General so he pulls Jesus aside and rebukes him. He says, "Sir, this is not a very good military strategy. You are not going to die, don't say that. It's not good for morale. We are going to be there with you and we will fight to the end and we will throw these godless Romans out of Israel, you will ascend to the throne in place of Herod, and we will be at your right and left hand as the new leaders of Palestine.
It is fascinating to note that just before Jesus rebukes Peter he turns and looks at his disciples. It is as if Jesus is putting two and two together and realizes the disciples have put Peter up to this. It is a perilous moment in the life of Christ. He must dispel this error from their minds and teach them the meaning of his mission. So, he rejects Peter outright calling him a tool of Satan and says, you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.
Jesus is up against a formidable foe. And in the end this foe may posses more power then he. But the foe is not Peter and it's not the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate, or Rome. This formidable foe is not even Satan himself. The powerful enemy of Jesus is our quest for positions of rank and status.
To address the confusion Jesus pulls his disciples together and brings them before a crowd. And in front of the crowd he corrects the disciples aspirations for privilege, rank, and power and he gives them this simple little directive: You must take up your cross and follow me. This morning I would like to ask the question "Why must we carry a cross?" and give three reasons we must do so. We must carry a cross to remind us that…
- We are not the center of the Universe.
- There are others who suffer and we must fight for justice in the lives of others.
- We are responsible in part for the cross that Jesus carried.
Showing
1
to
50
of
552
results
- Nicaragua detains over a dozen priests in renewed crackdown on Catholic Church
- Gordon College may have to repay $7M PPP loan for violating guidelines, judge rules
- Team Fiji goes viral singing worship hymns in Olympic Village: 'So beautiful'
- Is Trump the candidate who best represents a Christian worldview? 'Politics in the Pews' podcast explores
- IHOP franchise to pay employee fired for not working Sundays
- Banning puberty blockers for kids is lawful, UK High Court rules
- DUI, tampons in boys' bathrooms: 4 controversies to know involving Tim Walz
- 'Thank you, Jesus': Kenneth Copeland praises God for Bentley with Breitling clock as seed offering from dying man
- Most pastors lack extensive secular work experience, survey finds
- Christian investors ask Costco, Walmart, major retailers not to sell abortion pill
- Choctaw Bibles Connect Christians with Lost Heritage
- An Assassination Attempt in Brazil Brought Politics into Churches
- In Asian American Churches, Generational Differences Deter Young Leaders
- What Wrestling Taught an Olympic Gold Medalist About God
- O Say Can You See God in These 5 National Anthems?
- Nigerian Church Watches, Prays as Ocean Rises
- New Alliance Aims to Unite Chinese Churches Divided by Geopolitics
- Americans Are Still Inviting People to Church
- ERLC Retracts Announcement Firing President Brent Leatherwood
- Homelessness Hits Record High, Straining Rescue Missions
- Ohio father's shocking religious act leaves community in mourning
- Moses is well-known in religious texts for parting the Red Sea, but what about for his leg drop? This image of professional wrestler Hulk Hogan isn’t a 3D rendering of the Hebrew prophet.
- Former Indian cricketer confused after ‘crazy’ and ‘ridiculous’ decision for third ODI vs Sri Lanka
- J.D. Vance Used to Be an Atheist. What He Believes Now Is Telling.
- Small North Texas town rejects Mormons' plans to construct massive temple
- 7 Lost Books of the Christian Bible: What Were They About?
- Bangladesh: ISKCON temple torched in Bangladesh amid surge of anti-government violence
- 'Thank you, Jesus': Kenneth Copeland praises God for Bentley with Breitling clock as seed offering from dying man
- Open Source: IQVIA cuts, hires, acquires | More Bandwidth workers talk | G1 goes private
- Bangladesh seen heading toward political crisis
- What Protestants Can Learn From Catholics
- Rwanda Govt Shuts More than 5,000 Churches, Claiming Code Violations
- Walz's Brand Is More Left than Lutheran Among Minnesota Evangelicals
- Paris Blasphemy: What Took the Vatican So Long to Respond?
- Vatican Loosens Stance on Food, Water for Patients in Vegetative State
- An Open Call to Murder Jews in a Belgian Magazine
- The Nagasaki Mission House Built by St. Maximilian Kolbe
- 'Father Anne' Sees Signs of Opening for Catholic Women Priests
- The Leader as Servant
- I'm Agnostic. Here's Why I Went Back to Church
