17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
15 Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Be Kind
Ephesians 4:17--5:21
Sermon
by James McCormick
Since before I can remember, I went to Vacation Bible School every summer. I loved Vacation Bible School and I have many fond memories of my experiences there. I remember rousing games of “Red Rover” in which the boys tried to impress the girls. I remember making first century houses out of clay. There were times when we dressed up in bath robes and re-enacted Biblical dramas. I remember spatter painting – I loved spatter painting! We would get a leaf or a flower or some other object and put it on a piece of paper. Then we would take a section of window screen, and, holding it over the paper, we would dip a toothbrush in paint and rub it across the screen, spattering the paint on the paper below. When the ink had dried, we removed the leaf or the flower, leaving its outline on the paper. In this way, even a non-artist like me could produce a lovely work of art. That is to say nothing of the spattered artwork on my clothes! But I loved it! There were caring people who gave generously of their time and energy to play games with us, teach us songs, tell us stories, and each day drill us on the memory verse - we always had a memory verse. I still have some of those verses, stored in my brain that I first learned at Vacation Bible School. “Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the lands. Serve the Lord with gladness. Come before His presence with singing.” “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only”. And one came back into my mind recently which is the text of this sermon. Of course, all the memory verses were in King James English – it was the only Bible we had way back then! But it is just as fresh in my memory today as it was back then: “Be ye kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another.” I’m glad that someone loved me enough to teach me that verse, because basic kindness is as important as anything else I know.
Probably we don’t emphasize it enough. In our fast paced world, we talk a great deal about getting a good education, gaining as much academic mastery as possible. We talk about hard work, accomplishing a great deal in our chosen field, and earning as much as possible while we are at it. We talk about personal growth and development, about becoming the best we can be, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. All of those are good things, worthy of aspiration. But we probably don’t emphasize enough the importance simply of being kind to one another. While we are doing all the other things we do, while we are reaching for all the other goals to which we aspire, how do we treat people? Do we see people? Do we care about people? Do we act lovingly toward people?
We have all lamented a breakdown in basic civility. You know what I’m talking about: acting as if others don’t matter. We all see it: guests in a motel talking and laughing ‘til all hours, not thinking that other guests are trying to sleep. The person driving past other cars in a line wanting to get ahead, assuming that someone up ahead will let them in. People talking loudly in a restaurant as if they are the only patrons there. Taking a cell phone call in the middle of a movie or a concert. People breaking into the front of a line as if their business is more important than anyone else’s. People dropping litter. Golfers neglecting to rake a bunker or repair a ball mark on a green. Not holding a door open for others. Common courtesy. I’ll bet that a poor disposition has ruined more marriages than infidelity ever did. I’ll bet that grouchiness and self-centeredness have spoiled more friendships and destroyed more careers than we know. And, at the same time, probably, more than anything else, the one thing that has endeared people to others is thoughtfulness and simple kindness. We admire people who are smart and competent, but we love those who are kind!
We see that at work in Jesus’ life. He modeled kindness for all of us who follow him.
When he fed crowds of people, it was because he was concerned about their hunger. He was motivated by kindness. When he healed the sick, it was not to show His power. In fact, he often asked people not to tell anyone. He was just moved to compassion because of his basic kindness. In that first century world, women and children didn’t matter to most men. But Jesus included women in his inner circle and he rebuked the disciples when they tried to keep children away from him. Jesus was concerned about everybody. He had compassion for everybody: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, lepers, thieves, prostitutes, tax collectors - everybody! He expressed that compassion in kindness. One of his best known parables, the parable of the Good Samaritan, is about one person helping another person in need. It’s about human kindness.
It was so important to Jesus, in fact, that he made it the essential mark of authentic discipleship. He said, “This is how people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Not if you believe all the right things. Not if you pray a lot. Not if you give a tithe of your income. Not if you worship in the right way. Those are all good things, but they are not the most important thing. According to Jesus, the way we show that we belong to Him is that we love one another, and that we act out our love by being kind to one another.
Of course, the reason we are to do that, and the reason we are able to do that is because of God’s kindness toward us. The Bible says, “We love because He first loved us.” Or, as our text from Ephesians puts it: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.” So, God is kind to us, loving us, forgiving us, guiding us, strengthening us, blessing us, and we pass that on by being kind to one another. Hear me loud and clear - I can’t say this often enough - we can’t do it apart from God. It is God acting in us and through us that enables our kindness. But, clearly, if we do not act with kindness toward others, it is evidence that we have not received God’s kindness toward us.
It is a constant source of sadness for me, to see people who claim to be followers of Jesus who are not very kind to others. They believe all the right things. They say all the right words. They espouse the right values and work for the right causes. They do so many right things, but do them in wrong ways. I remember a man who was a member of a former congregation. He had high standards. His ethics were impeccable. But he beat people over the head with his standards. People hated to see him coming. He was right about what he said and what he stood for, but so wrong in how he did it all. He was not very kind.
I love the prayer of the little girl: “God make the bad people good, and make the good people nice.” There are too many religious people who are not very nice. Jesus, our model, stood for all the right things, but it was clear that he loved people, even bad people. And it was clear that his goal was not condemnation, but redemption. Even when he was saying hard things, he was still tenderhearted, and his basic kindness showed through.
Could the key to life really be that simple: that God loves us, so we can love one another? God is kind to us, so we can be kind to one another? Could it be that the most important things we do each day are to receive God’s kindness and then to pass it on to others? To every person we meet in every thing we do? That’s embarrassingly simple. But if I read the Bible correctly, that’s what it’s all about.
This sermon began forming in my heart and mind several years ago when I first saw the movie, “Wit,” a Mike Nichols film, starring Emma Thompson. A great movie, not so much entertaining as disturbingly thought provoking. The movie is about Dr. Vivian Bearing, a first rate scholar, specializing in 17th century English literature, especially the poetry of John Donne. She had a biting wit which educated but also alienated her students. She had poured her life into becoming a scholar without peer. She was in control of her life, and she needed nothing, she thought, other than her scholarship and her career.
Then she was diagnosed with a rare form of ovarian cancer. She was confronted with a life situation for which all her scholarship had not prepared her. She no longer had all the answers. And she was no longer in control.
The usual treatments would not work, so she entered a teaching and research hospital, and agreed to experimental treatments. For eight months she underwent treatments which were painful and humiliating, and the outcome uncertain. She was no longer a teacher, but a subject for others to study. Her doctors were well versed in the latest treatments and technologies. They were very competent, and very detached and clinical. They would come into her room and talk about her instead of with her. She became, not Dr. Bearing, a real live human being with feelings and needs, but a certain disease being studied. They gave her the best medical treatment, but no human warmth. That was left to her nurse, Suzie, a wonderfully caring person.
In one of those moments when Vivian was talking out loud to herself, she said, “They always want to know more things - I always wanted to know more things, too. After all, I’m a scholar, or at least I was. We are discussing life and death, and not in the abstract. We are discussing my life and my death….nothing would be worse than a scholarly analysis.” She goes on to say, “Now is the time for simplicity. Now is the time for, dare I say it - kindness.” She concluded, “I thought being extremely smart would take care of it, but now I am being found out. I’m scared. O God, I want to hide!”
The experimental treatments weren’t working. Her condition continued to deteriorate. Toward the end, she would go into and out of comas. One day while she was unconscious, the young research assistant came into the room, making rounds. The caring nurse began asking questions about “Why? Why?” Without even looking up from the chart he was examining, he replied: “You can’t go around thinking about that meaning of life stuff all the time. You’d just go nuts.” And with that, he left. The nurse responded by getting some lotion and gently massaging Vivian’s hands, who was not even aware of what she was doing. Her response to the “meaning of life stuff,” as the doctor put it, was a simple act of kindness.
One day, toward the end of the movie, Vivian Bearing’s teacher, the one under whom she had done her doctoral work, came to see her. She had not been aware of Vivian’s sickness. She had come to town to visit a grandchild who was having a birthday. When she tried to call her former student, she learned that she was in the hospital, so she came by for a visit. Near death, Vivian was barely conscious, and in great pain. The elderly scholar tried to comfort her, but clearly was unsure of what to do. She said, “I’ll recite something by Donne.” Vivian said, “Nooooo!” Looking around, as if lost, the professor saw the books she had bought for her grandchild’s birthday. So, she took a child’s book from the bag, got up on the bed with Vivian, and held her in her arms while she read, “The Runaway Bunny.” These two eminent scholars were comforted by a child’s book about a mother bunny who assures her child that she will pursue him wherever he goes, because he is her little bunny. Of course, when you hear it with the ears of faith, you know the book is really about a God whose love will never let us go, wherever we are, and whatever we are going through. So, holding her tenderly, and reading the simple story of unfailing love, the professor helped Vivian drift into a peaceful sleep. What kindness.
In the final scene, the nurse had helped Vivian to accept her death. She helped her work through a decision to let death come. She wrote on the chart an order not to resuscitate. But when, mercifully, her heart stopped beating, the young doctor rushed in and began trying to revive her. When the nurse protested, the doctor said, “But she is research!” At that, the nurse physically got between Vivian and the doctor and made him stop. She allowed her to die in peace - the final kindness.
That movie drove me from complexity to simplicity. With all that we know, with all that we can do, does it all finally come down to this - is this the most important thing of all: are we kind to one another, as God is kind to us? At the end of the day, what you have accomplished and how much you have accumulated is not nearly as important as whom you have loved. The basic question is, “Are you kind?”
I want to conclude by sharing a true story, just as it was written by the person who had the experience. He wrote: “Twenty years ago, I drove a cab for a living. It was a cowboy’s life, a life for someone who wanted no boss. What I didn’t realize was that it was also a ministry. Because I drove the night shift, my cab became a moving confessional. Passengers climbed in, sat behind me in total anonymity, and told me about their lives. I encountered people whose lives amazed me, ennobled me, made me laugh and weep. But none touched me more than a woman I picked up late one August night.
When I arrived at 2:30 a.m., the building was dark except for a single light in a ground floor window. Under these circ*mstances, many drivers would just honk once or twice, wait a minute, and then drive away. But I had seen too many impoverished people who depended on taxis as their only means of transportation. Unless a situation smelled of danger, I always went to the door. “The passenger might be someone who needs my assistance,” I responded to myself. So, I walked to the door and knocked. “Just a minute,” answered a frail, elderly voice. I could hear something being dragged across the floor. After a long pause, the door opened. A small woman in her 80’s stood before me. She was wearing a print dress and a pillbox hat with a veil pinned on it, like somebody out of a 1940’s movie. By her side was a small nylon suitcase. The apartment looked as if no one had lived in it for years. All the furniture was covered with sheets. There were no clocks on the walls, no knickknacks or utensils on the counters. In the corner was a cardboard box filled with photos and glassware.
“Will you carry my bag out to the car?” she asked. I took the suitcase to the cab, then returned to assist the woman. She took my arm and we walked slowly toward the curb. She kept thanking me for my kindness. “It’s nothing,” I told her. “I just try to treat my passengers the way I would want my mother treated.” “O, you’re such a good boy,” she said. When we got to the cab, she gave me an address, then asked, “Could you drive through downtown?” “It’s not the shortest way,” I answered quickly. “O, I don’t mind,” she said. “I’m in no hurry. I’m on my way to a hospice.” I looked in the rear view mirror. Her eyes were glistening. “I don’t have any family left,” she continued. “The doctor says I don’t have very long.”
I quietly reached over and shut off the meter. “What route would you like me to take?” I asked. For the next two hours, we drove through the city. She showed me the building where she had once worked as an elevator operator. We drove through the neighborhood where she and her husband had lived when they were newlyweds. She had me pull up in front of a furniture warehouse that had once been a ballroom where she had gone dancing as a girl. Sometimes she’d ask me to slow in front of a particular building or corner and she would sit staring into the darkness, saying nothing. As the first hint of sun was creasing the horizon, she suddenly said, “I’m tired. Let’s go now.” We drove in silence to the address she had given me. It was a low building, like a small convalescent home, with a driveway that passed under a portico. Two orderlies came out to the cab as soon as we pulled up. They were solicitous and intent, watching her every move. They must have been expecting her. I opened the trunk and took the small suitcase to the door.
The woman was already seated in a wheelchair. “How much do I owe you?” she asked, reaching into her purse. “Nothing,” I said. “You have to make a living,” she answered. “There are other passengers,” I responded. Almost without thinking, I bent over and gave her a hug. She held onto me tightly. “You gave an old woman a little moment of joy,” she said. “Thank you”.
I squeezed her hand, then walked into the dim morning light. Behind me, a door shut. It was the sound of the closing of a life. I didn’t pick up any more passengers that shift. I drove aimlessly, lost in thought. For the rest of that day, I could hardly talk. What if that woman had gotten an angry driver, or one who was impatient at the end of his shift? What if I had refused to take the run, or had honked once, then driven away?
On a quick review, I don’t think that I have ever done anything more important in my life.”
Is that what it’s about? At the end of the day, is it about kindness - first God’s and then ours? Listen: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.”
Prayer: Father, help us to love as we have been loved by You. Help us to reflect Your kindness to us simply by being kind. In Jesus’ kind name we pray. Amen.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Selected Sermons, by James McCormick
In the last three chapters Paul employs a theme: a New Walk in Christ (4:1–6:9). God’s magnificent plan to give new life and create a new community in Christ (Ephesians 1–3) results in a new walk for the believer (Ephesians 4–6). The important word “then” (or “therefore”) in 4:1 marks a transition from the calling, blessings, and privileges of believers (1–3) to the conduct and responsibilities of believers (4–6).
Walk in unity (4:1–16): Believers are urged to live (or walk) worthy of their calling (4:1), and this worthy walk begins by maintaining the unity of the Spirit (4:3). The word “one” is used seven times in 4:4–6 to illustrate how the Triune God perfectly exemplifies a diverse unity. Next, Paul illustrates how diversity within the body of Christ actually enriches unity (4:7–13). Fol…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
15 Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
4:17–32 · Therefore walk in newness: Efforts to walk in unity succeed to the degree to which they reflect the indwelling influence of Christ. Confident that he communicates the very counsel of the Lord, Paul negatively urges his Gentile readers to conduct their lives no longer as their fellow unconverted Gentiles do (4:17). This does not imply that Paul recommends a “Jewish” lifestyle; by “Gentile” here he means “pagan,” “Christless.” That is, he warns against living life apart from Christ, according to the old, or natural (2:3), walk. The contrast between the old and the new does not become explicit until 4:22–24, but Paul characterizes the old now in 4:17–19.
In 1:15–23 Paul stressed the importance of human thought for appropriating the message. Now he returns to the role of the mind, this time in regard to successfully (or unsuccessfully) living a life worthy of the calling inherent in that message. The unacceptable lifestyle he describes results from a futile, vain mind, focused on concerns that in the end come to nothing. Such a mind does not understand what God’s true values and standards are; it has no light from the mind of God. In matters of everlasting consequence, it is full of ignorance brought about by hardened refusal to acquiesce where the truth is available (4:18; there is no real distinction between “heart” and “mind” or “understanding” here, as if they refer to separate compartments in a human being). The natural result of such a state is alienation from the life of God. The progression is downward. Out of basic human need for sensitivity and tenderness, those with hardened minds turn to sensuality. Rejecting the one in favor of the other, and with calloused sensitivity, they practice incredibly inventive impurity, with neither end nor satisfaction in view (4:19). This pagan lifestyle formerly followed by the readers does not resemble the Christ they have learned to know (4:20). In saying this, Paul assumes that what they have heard and been taught about Jesus corresponds with what is actually the case (4:21). The “truth that is in Jesus,” as it concerns inward change, he sums up as a three-step progression, in which the focus is on newness.
First, with respect to their previous habits of life (4:17–19), they are to lay aside the “old self,” the ignorant, insecure, self-centered ego rotting away from entanglement in the deceitful (futile) values of this world (4:22). Removing the old, dying self is nothing less than the act of repentance, the death of the sinful nature, repeated again and again throughout life whenever conviction of sin is worked by the power of the Spirit through the message. Second, upon the (daily) death of the old nature, the mind is made new, furnished with the light of God’s mind, enabled to see as God sees and to make godly decisions (4:23). Third, to make such decisions and actually to live a Christlike lifestyle is to put on the new self, a creature not of one’s own making but designed by God according to true righteousness and genuine dedication to the purposes of his eternal will (4:24). Thus the ongoing change from a godless and selfish deathbound life to the Christlike, eternal life of God involves newness, renewal, an inward change of mind wrought by God himself in bringing the new creation to present reality. Paul writes these things to believers, people who are already Christians. Thus, we must distinguish between becoming Christian and becoming a Christian, between what are sometimes called sanctification and justification. The implication is that justified believers are gradually transformed into Christlikeness, and this transformation consists of many “small” considerations.
Paul’s instructions for being transformed outwardly into the earthly family of God fall into five categories (4:25–32). First, he commands readers to “put off” falsehood (like the old self) and, quoting Zechariah 8:16, urges truthfulness with neighbors (4:25). “Neighbor” probably applies to members of the new covenant community, but it can also extend to nonbelievers. The startlingly practical reason for this is that members of Christ’s body injure themselves by lying to each other and conversely benefit the community by telling the truth. Second, citing Psalm 4:4, Paul warns against uncontrolled anger. While useful and appropriate (indeed commanded), anger must not be permitted to fester and thus to overpower the angry person (4:27). To “lose it” is to be diabolically selfish. Third, those accustomed to stealing should, as new creatures, do so no longer but by their own labor should make themselves useful (4:28). Remarkably, the reason for this admonishment is not a matter of independently earning one’s own living. The purpose for avoiding theft and for working with one’s own hands is to provide for the needs of other people, an entirely fitting purpose in a new community. Fourth, Paul cautions the readers against obscene and worthless talk, enjoining them instead to speak in ways that meet hurting people in their need, to speak words that ultimately encourage and strengthen the whole group (4:29). Fifth and finally, in this new life of Christlikeness believers must forgive one another in imitation of God’s having forgiven them in Christ (4:31–32). Forgiveness springs from kindness and compassion and has nothing to do with bitterness, anger (4:26), or malicious and vindictive cruelty. Cattiness and a vengeful spirit have no place in God’s new family.
Attending to these injunctions prevents grieving God’s Holy Spirit (4:30). This does not mean that the Spirit becomes sad at our failings. It means that an offense against any human being is an offense against the Father’s newly adopted community and against the Spirit, who has been set as a seal on that newly united humanity (Eph. 1:13). Attending to these injunctions is what it means to put on the new self, to walk in newness.
5:1–6 · Therefore walk in love: Were it not for the intrusion of the phrase “therefore ... walk” in 5:1–2, it would be natural to assume an unbroken connection between 4:32 and 5:1–2, in view of their shared emphasis on imitating God. The break, however, introduces a third way of walking, or perhaps a second way of promoting the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (4:3). Paul now directs readers to imitate God as children imitate their parents (5:1). They are loved by their Father; “therefore,” they can “walk in the way of love” toward one another. The definition of this lifestyle of love is the self-sacrificial love of Christ for us, says Paul. Because of Christ’s giving himself up in love for us, we are secure in our position and future with God. We are secure enough to sacrifice our own interests as an offering to God on behalf of the interests of other people (5:2). It is uncomfortably threatening both to forgive without guarantee of a favorable response and to give up personal anxieties without assurance of provision. But once we realize that our ultimate worth and final provision rest with a God who has been more than favorably disposed all along—and always will be—the threat evaporates (cf. John 13:3–5).
The loving lifestyle that fosters unity within the family can take any number of forms; for the moment, Paul focuses on what might be called “appropriate conversation,” both in the sense of interpersonal relations and in the usual sense of speech (5:3–6). Sexually immoral behavior and any sort of impurity of life are absolutely prohibited. The same is true of greed, classified here with “impurity.” Whereas in most modern congregations greed may be far less frowned on than sexual misbehavior, Paul prohibits them both in the same breath, as if they were identical at root: loveless. Likewise, incongruous with God’s new human family is any ugly coarseness in the form of foul-mouthed joking and foolish talk. Believers’ speech must instead be filled with the natural overflow of thankful hearts (5:4), something they can scarcely avoid when they keep their minds on what God has lovingly done for them.
Paul warns that those who practice such sins have no part in the kingdom of Christ and God (5:5; the lists in 5:3, 5 correspond); worshiping their own lusts, they cannot enjoy the peaceable rule of God. This of course includes all human beings in their fallen state, and that deceitful “old self” (4:22) misleads them even here. Because verse 5 is phrased somewhat elliptically, readers can get the impression that idolaters have no part in the kingdom because of their idolatry. Fallen nature instantly assumes the reverse as well, namely, that living a moral life guarantees participation in the kingdom. But participation in the kingdom, in the new family of God, is a free gift of God’s grace, bestowed on idolaters, on those who do not deserve it. That is the point of chapters 1–3.
Thus 5:5 means that persons having no part in God’s family are also idolaters, and for the same reason: they do not receive the grace of God in Christ but insist on worshiping and protecting the independent old nature. Yet putting to death the old nature, laying off the old self in repentance, is the only way by which people enter the life of God. Thinking otherwise, assuming that God is either obligated to reward morality or too gracious to mind about idolatry, is stupid. God’s wrath is real; whatever it is, the disobedient are promised it (5:6).
5:7–14 · Therefore walk as light:Because of the serious dangers facing the disobedient, Paul warns his readers not to be led astray by worthless talk (5:6) into participation in the deeds of such persons (5:7). Disobedience works against God’s design for unity in his re-created family and is thus characterized as darkness, the opposite of the light of the Lord. Outside Christ, Paul’s readers “were once darkness,” but no longer. In the Lord, they now “are light” (5:8). The metaphor depicts human beings as bearing enormous influence in either direction. As light, they conduct themselves in correspondence to the goodness, righteousness, and truth of God’s nature (contrast 5:3), seeking to know what pleases Christ, which is indispensable for living this way (5:9–10).
In addition, enlightened living refuses to share in what does not please the Lord. In fact, avoiding participation in evil exposes it, both negatively by rejecting it and positively by doing what Christ would do. Enlightened living means being a light in dark places (5:11–12), which has the effect of transforming darkness into light. The light of Christ shining out from his light-filled followers exposes hidden dark deeds for what they are (5:13–14a).
Finally, living as light means continuously receiving the light. Quoting perhaps from an early Christian baptismal hymn, Paul states that the dispersing of darkness is an ongoing process even for the believer, analogous to the resurrection from the dead (5:14b). Death to one’s former, sinful self gives way each new “morning” to a new life of walking in the light of Christ. Likely these words are directed to the believing readers, but they describe exactly the process of divine initiative that wakens all those “dead in [their] transgressions and sin” (Eph. 2:1). Re-created life is response—to forgiveness (4:32), love (5:2), and now light. This hymn fragment encapsulates the “therefore walk” structure of the entire letter.
5:15–21 · Therefore walk in wisdom: In the fifth and final instruction on walking in unity, Paul enjoins wisdom-guided behavior. The contrasts between wise and unwise and between foolishness and understanding (5:15, 17) echo Old Testament wisdom literature, as does the reference to “evil” days (5:16). Psalm 37:19, for example, speaks of “evil times” (NIV “times of disaster”) in which God’s people foolishly fret over the prosperity of the wicked. Walking in wisdom, says Paul, implies understanding “what the Lord’s will is.” God will take care of the wicked; the readers need not worry about it. After all, as members of God’s new family in Christ, they are already members and representatives of the new age to come.
Instead, readers must be Spirit-filled, busy with what the Lord has given them to do and not forfeiting precious opportunities by wallowing in self-pity like those drunk with wine. It is the Spirit who, as God’s seal on the church, implements Christlike behavior in the lives of the family members (5:18). The Spirit-filled life manifests at least four representative characteristics (5:19–21; the list is not exhaustive). Various translations, including the NIV, obscure the original parallel structure that ties all four of these characteristics together. First, the Spirit-filled life fosters mutual encouragement and edification through believers speaking and singing to each other the promises of God and truths of the faith. Second, it includes spontaneous, heart-generated praise to the Lord Jesus. Third, Spirit-filled believers continually thank God the Father for everything he has given them in Christ. Fourth, mutual submission out of reverence for Christ marks the Spirit’s presence in the life of the new family. The personal security found in Christ frees believers to prefer one another in the daily affairs of living. In the following text, three sample situations explain what this means. The structural implication is that Eph. 5:15–6:9 constitutes one long section, parallel to the other four “therefore walk” texts. But because of the special significance of 5:21–6:9, it has its own section in the commentary.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
The Old and the New Life
Up to this point in the epistle there have been only occasional references to the ethical life of the Christian (2:10; 4:1–3, 15). In 4:1 it appeared that the apostle was preparing a lengthy description of the new life in Christ, but this led, instead, into a further exposition of the unifying elements of the church (4:4–16).
At 4:17, however there is a clear break from the theological aspects of unity to an emphasis upon the ethics of unity and how that unity can be maintained within the church. This large section begins by admonishing the readers not to walk—that is, to live—ethically like the heathen and continues with a description of the new standards that are to govern their life. In contrast to Colossians, there does not appear to be any moral crisis that necessitated these exhortations; rather, they form an integral part of the author’s overall theme of unity.
The large ethical section of 4:17–5:21 may be broken up into several smaller parts: First, 4:17–24 forms a general appeal for the readers to abandon their former way of life, on the principle that their new life in Christ has meant a radical change in their behavior. Second, 4:25–5:2 includes a selected list of vices and virtues essential for maintaining unity within the body. Third, the ethical life of the old and new life is contrasted by the imagery of light and darkness (5:3–14). Fourth, there is another appeal to the Christian’s “walk” in 5:15–21, including some exhortations within the context of Christian worship.
4:17 That the apostle feels his ethical exhortations are urgent, significant, and authoritative is implied by his reference to the Lord (lit., “this, therefore, I say and bear witness in the Lord”). His basic concern is that they break away from their former pagan (as the Gentiles) way of life. The description resembles closely the one in Romans 1:18–24.
The Gentile way of life includes futility of … thinking; the Greek word behind this (mataiotēs) expresses uselessness and even vanity. Their life apart from God has no meaning or value.
4:18 The Gentiles also have darkened minds; deprived of the true source of light and the illumination that God gives to his children (1:18), they live in a state of intellectual darkness.
They live in alienation because of ignorance (agnoia) and hardening of their hearts (dia tēn pōrōsin tēs kardias autōn); they are separated from all life with God. The author does not explain how this came about. Paul indicates in Romans that God made himself known through natural revelation but that humanity rejected this revelation and turned to self- and idol worship instead (cf. Rom. 1:18–23). “Stubbornness” (GNB) is an apt translation of pōrōsis and is preferable to “blindness” (see note on 4:18).
4:19 All this has had two further degrading effects upon their lives. Callousness (having lost all sensitivity); and vice, (sensuality or “licentiousness,” RSV), is another way of describing all sorts of sexual license and perversion (aselgeia, “licentiousness,” “debauchery,” “indecent conduct”). And this indecent conduct was practiced with a continual lust for more (“without restraint,” GNB). Pleonexia describes greedy individuals continually seeking to gratify their desires. In this context, the author’s thought is that the pagan way of life is characterized by an increasing desire to participate in more and more forms of sexual immorality.
One can see the futility of paganism. By rejecting God’s revelation the non-Christian becomes hardened in heart and conscience. This sad state of affairs leads to participation in immoral behavior. Ultimately, it becomes a vicious circle because new perversions must be sought to replace the old (Mitton, pp. 161–62).
4:20 In contrast to their former pagan way of life, the apostle reminds them, they learned something quite different when they became Christians—you … did not come to know Christ that way. The Christian walk is the exact opposite of the way of life that he has just described. The references to learning, hearing, and being taught undoubtedly refer to the time when these Gentiles became Christians through the proclamation of the gospel about Jesus. This would include subsequent instruction in the Christian faith. The phraseology suggests the existence of a “school” or at least catechetical instruction being passed on to new converts.
4:21 Although the NIV mentions that the believers “came to know Christ,” the Greek has no infinitive and literally states that they learned Christ (emathete ton Christon)! The implication appears to be that the voice of Christ is actually heard through the apostles who proclaimed the gospel (Mitton, p. 163; Stott, p. 179). In addition to proclamation (kerygma) there is teaching (didachē), of which Christ is the object (you … were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus).
There does not appear to be any reason why the author switches from “Christ” (4:20) to Jesus (4:21). A number of commentators feel that this may be a deliberate reference to the historic personality of the Lord, because some false teachings at that time distinguished between Christ and Jesus. This, however, is speculative, and it could be that the apostle simply wishes to remind his readers that truth is embodied in Jesus—who, of course, is the Christ.
4:22–24 In 4:22–24 the author refers to the kind of instruction that new believers would have received at the time of their baptism (cf. Col. 3:8–12). The Greek text has no new sentence at the beginning of 4:22, so the exhortation to put off your old self and put on the new self must be seen in the context of baptismal instruction. This passage shows the close relationship between baptism and ethics. Christian morality cannot be considered apart from Christian revelation. The point is quite clear that what was begun at baptism must be continued in the experience of the Christian. Baptism is the beginning of a new ethical way of life.
Three important verbs govern 4:22–24. Put off and put on are both aorist infinitives and as such express a single act based on a past experience. The readers have put off (apothesthai) the old self and put on the new self at the time of their baptism. This is the indicative of their Christian life and forms the basis for the imperative to live out that life ethically. Thus the apostle reminds his readers: You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires. The new self, on the other hand, which the believers put on in baptism, is created to be like God.
In Colossians 3:10, Paul talks about this new life as being renewed in God’s image. Undoubtedly, both Ephesians and Colossians allude to the restoration of the image of God in humanity that had been lost after the Fall (Gen. 1:27) but restored through incorporation into Christ. This new creation is created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
But coming between the reminder that the readers have put off the old self and put on the new is the exhortation for continual renewal of their hearts and minds (lit., “in the spirit of your mind”). Ananeousthai is a present infinitive, thus indicating that creation in God’s likeness is a continuing process even though it is an established fact. Here is another reminder to believers that they must become what they are!
Additional Notes
4:17 A helpful table of comparisons between Romans and Ephesians is provided by Mitton, p. 159, and by Stott, God’s New Society, pp. 177–78.
4:18 Robinson supports the translation “blindness.” See his lengthy discussion on the word pōrōsis in his commentary, pp. 264–74.
4:20 Barth, Eph. 4–6, has many helpful comments in his discussion “The School of the Messiah,” pp. 529–33.
Specific Ethical Directions
The moral exhortations in this section are especially appropriate for maintaining unity within the body of Christ. The vices mentioned are destructive to Christian fellowship; the virtues promote the corporate unity of believers. But though the apostle may consciously have selected these qualities to strengthen his central thesis, it should be noted that his teaching has a wider application and is appropriate for people outside the church as well.
Basically, this section includes the vices and virtues that belong to the old and the new life. Consequently, whenever the author lists a vice that is to be “put off,” he substitutes a virtue that promotes human relationships: Lying is replaced by truth (4:25); anger is removed by reconciliation (4:26); a person who once robbed goes to work (4:27); harmful words give way to helpful ones (4:29); bitterness, passion, anger, and insults give way to tender-heartedness, forgiveness, and love (4:31–5:2).
4:25 The exhortation that each one must put off falsehood uses the same word (apotithēmi) that was used in 4:22. Lying is to be put away because it does not belong in one’s new life. Colossians 3:9, 10 is even more explicit when it states: “Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self.” The Ephesians passage appears to be a quotation from Zechariah 8:16 (“speak the truth to each other”). The GNB translates plēsion (neighbor) as “fellow believer,” thus accentuating that we are all members of one body. Although lying is wrong under any circ*mstances, the apostle shows that it is detrimental to the Christian community. “Without openness and truth, there can only be disunity, disorder and trouble” (Foulkes, p. 132).
4:26–27 The second exhortation is directed toward controlling anger. The Greek imperative, “be angry” (orgizesthe), is probably a “concessive” or “permissive imperative” and may be translated appropriately “if you become angry” (GNB, cf. Ps. 4:4). The important point is that anger is restricted by a series of negative admonitions:
In your anger do not sin. Believers must learn to keep their anger in check. If one is legitimately angry (righteous indignation?), caution must be taken that it does not become the cause for such sins as pride, hatred, or self-righteousness.
All anger is to be dealt with before the day is out. The translation do not let the sun go down while you are still angry suggests that there is no justification for carrying anger over into the next day; that surely would lead to sin.
No opportunity should be given to the devil. The apostle understands that anger that is unjustified, that promotes other sinful actions, and that is permitted to remain in one’s life ultimately gives God’s adversary access to the believer’s heart, thus destroying the harmony of the church.
4:28 The third exhortation seeks to terminate stealing (kleptō). Those who became Christians and continued their former practice of stealing are told to end this practice and work. Stealing is an attempt to get something for nothing. Thieves seek to enrich themselves at the expense of someone else’s labors. Individuals practicing this sin are to work, doing something useful with their own hands.
Manual labor, however, is more than a cure for theft or a method of personal gain. The apostle raises the motive of work to a higher level and indicates that those who labor honestly will be able to fulfill their corporate duty to share with those in need. The biblical motive for possessions is not personal or selfish gain but the opportunity to assist others (for biblical injunctions on giving, see Matt. 19:21; Luke 14:13; John 13:29; Acts 2:44; 4:32–37; 6:1–4; Rom. 15:25–29; 2 Cor. 8 and 9). The ultimate goal for work is to have something to give away. The readers of Ephesians are to share in that concern for humanity.
4:29 The fourth injunction deals with unwholesome speech—do not let any evil or rotten (sapros) word come out of your mouth. According to Mitton, this would include “words of a complaining, sneering, cynical, sarcastic type, all of which spread demoralisation in a community” (p. 171). In their place, use only what is helpful. Both individuals and the body of believers need words that build up, that will edify and benefit those who listen. The Greek word translated benefit is charis, meaning grace. Thus, proper speech communicates something about God’s grace. Although silence may be considered a virtue at times, the believer is encouraged to make a positive contribution to the life of the body by graceful speech. “Evil speech grieves the Holy Spirit, who works through good words” (Westcott, p. 80).
4:30 It appears that the author refers to the Holy Spirit because of his connection with a person’s speech. “The Spirit,” states J. A. Robinson, “claims to find expression in the utterances of Christians … (cf. 5:18). The misuse of the organ of speech is accordingly a wrong done to, and felt by, the Spirit who claims to control it” (p. 113). Improper speech grieves (lypeō) the Holy Spirit of God. “The sins against the brotherhood are also an offense against the divine Spirit which inhabits the body of believers” (Beare, p. 701).
Once again, the readers are reminded that they have been sealed with the Holy Spirit—with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (cf. 1:13). Since he is a seal or guarantee of the believers’ destiny (the day of redemption), they are asked to revere him in their speech and thus be worthy of their inheritance.
4:31 The presence of the Holy Spirit within the believer is sufficient reason to clean up one’s speech by abolishing the following vices: Bitterness (pikria) comes from harboring resentful feelings; rage (thymos) is a bitter outburst of anger; anger (orgē) may be understood as resentment that lingers in one’s life; brawling, or clamor (kraugē), is boisterous face-to-face confrontation; whereas slander (blasphēmia) can be abusive and slanderous words spoken about someone.
Lastly, there is every form of malice. This term may be considered a separate category or, as some commentators suggest, it may be a category that embodies all the previous vices (Mitton, p. 173; thus the NIV every form of malice and the NEB “bad feeling of every kind”). Any one or all of these vices grieve the Holy Spirit when they manifest themselves in the life of the believer.
4:32 This verse provides a striking contrast to the previous one by emphasizing the virtues that should characterize believers in their interpersonal relationships. Instead of those negative and destructive qualities, believers are admonished to be kind and compassionate to one another. Both of these virtues promote a spirit of acceptance, tolerance, and patience within the congregation.
Beyond that, the readers are to be continually forgiving each other. The word for forgiveness (charizomai) is also the word from which grace (charis) is derived. Within this context, believers are to respond to each other with the same grace, forgiveness, and generosity that they have experienced from God: hence forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Christians have been forgiven by Christ (echarisato, past/aorist tense), but they are to go on forgiving (charizomenoi, present tense) one another on the strength of the example that Christ has provided.
5:1 The thought of God’s gracious activity in Christ leads the apostle to summon his readers (dearly loved children) to be (imperative, ginesthe) imitators of God. This is the only place in the NT where believers are called upon to imitate God. Elsewhere, Paul asks his converts to imitate him because they are his children (1 Cor. 4:14–16; 11:1; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7, 9) and because he, himself, is an imitator of Christ. Here, the imitation of God is introduced within the context of forgiveness, and the apostle wants to use God’s example in Christ as a pattern for personal relationships. It is doubtful that he would make a distinction between imitating Jesus and imitating God since one can only know God through Jesus.
5:2 Since forgiveness and love are bound together, believers are admonished to live a life of love. That love finds its example in Christ who gave himself up for us. By implication, the Christian’s love is to be expressed as a self-giving sacrifice (cf. 5:25). Love is the essence of God and is to be the main feature of the believer’s walk (peripateō). By mentioning Christ’s death, the apostle recalls words that were applicable to Jewish sacrifices—namely, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. The sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrificial life of love that believers live are pleasing to God.
Living in the Light
In the previous section (4:25–5:2), the apostle concentrated on those vices disruptive to the unity of the Christian community. From there, he moved to the sins of immorality. In a sense, sexual sins also destroy the trust, unity, and respect that Christians have for each other and should, therefore, be banished. But in this case, the main point is that sexual sins are an offense to God, and they incur God’s wrath because they are considered idolatrous. The new walk is explained further by the imagery of darkness and light. As the readers have been admonished to walk in “love” (5:1, 2), they are to walk in “the light” that they have received.
Given the general application of this epistle, it seems unlikely that these exhortations address anything specific that the readers faced. They resemble the denunciations elsewhere in the NT (Romans, 1 Corinthians, Gal. 5:19–21; Col. 3:5–8). But at the same time, a form of Gnostic teaching had possibly gained access to the Christian community. In some cases, for example, the heresy at Colossae (2:8–23), the teaching emphasized a rigid asceticism; but a variation of it tended toward libertinism, taking the attitude that those who had received spiritual knowledge (gnōsis) were free to participate in sexual indulgences. Those who separated body and spirit argued that it did not matter what one did with the body; they thus sinned with impunity. Perhaps these exhortations are addressing a situation in which such teachings were taking hold.
5:3 The writer is emphatic in stating that, since his readers are God’s holy people, the question is not only one of nonparticipation; rather, there must not be even a hint of these sins among them. When believers approach sin with an attitude of indifference (as in Gnostic libertinism), then it is not uncommon to discuss and to make light of one’s personal sins or the sins of others. This is to be avoided in their fellowship.
Sexual immorality (p*rneia) covers a wide variety of unlawful sexual activity, such as prostitution, adultery, fornication, and promiscuity. Impurity (akatharsia) is tied to immorality and probably means sexual perversions of various kinds. Greed, or covetousness (pleonexia), in the context of immoral behavior would be the desire to engage in sexual activity solely for selfish reasons. Christians are to remove such evil from their lives as well as from their conversation. Such perversions are a contradiction to one who is called to imitate God and to walk in Christ’s love (5:1, 2).
5:4 The list of prohibitions goes on (in the Greek there is no new sentence) to include obscenity and foolish talk or coarse joking. Obscene words are ugly, base, shameful (aischrotēs); foolish words (mōrologia) are those uttered by a fool (mōros), words void of any decency or honor; eutrapelia (coarse joking) has a positive side meaning “wit” or “pleasantry.” Here, however, it is used negatively in the sense of crude jesting, dirty insinuations, and so forth. All of these have no place in the life of a believer.
In place of foolish and shameful talk should be thanksgiving. Thankfulness, rather than indecency, should dominate one’s speech. Though thanksgiving should be expressed to God for all things, the context may imply that thanksgiving be expressed to God for sexual activity and speech when it is proper to do so (cf. Mitton, p. 179).
5:5 The emphatic of this you can be sure and the “let no one deceive you with empty words” (5:6) suggest that there was a serious moral threat at the time. Immorality, impurity, and greed exclude people from the inheritance that God has prepared for them. Greed, or covetousness (pleonexia), is equated with idolatry because sexual passions can become objects that dominate one’s life and destroy one’s relationship to God. A similar statement occurs in Colossians 3:5 in the context of “putting off” immoral practices.
Even though much is said about the “kingdom of God” in the NT, Galatians 5:21 is the only passage that specifically mentions this concept within the context of immoral behavior: Those who indulge in the “acts of the sinful nature” will not receive “the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19–21). But the phrase kingdom of Christ and of God is unique in the NT (unless “Lord” in Rev. 11:15 means God). The author of Ephesians makes no distinction between the two, because he understands the rule of Christ and God to be synonymous (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24–28). The main point, however, is that God’s rule (kingdom) is denied to people who practice immoral behavior.
5:6–7 There is no way of knowing specifically who was attempting to deceive these believers with empty words. Since Ephesians does not appear to have a local situation in mind, the no one could mean “everyone” who speaks empty or foolish words. Mitton refers to this as “arguments that sound plausible and attractive but which run counter to true reasoning and intuitive insights” (p. 181). This could be an amplification of the reference to the “men in their deceitful scheming” who teach by error and trickery (4:14).
The false teachers would want the Christians to believe that there is nothing wrong about participating in illicit sexual behavior and dirty talk. Such teaching, however, is deceptive; it leads people to believe something that is not true. The hard fact is that God’s wrath comes upon those who are disobedient; eventually, wrongdoers will be punished for their sins.
Believers are admonished, do not be partners with them. The Greek term “partner” (symmetochos) indicates that they must not join in with these people and participate in their evil practices. This verse does not mean that believers should avoid all contact with immoral people; otherwise the exhortations that follow about light penetrating the darkness would have no purpose (cf. Col. 4:5, 6: “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders”). Rather, they warn against participating in the vices of others.
5:8 The apostle talks about the Christian life in 5:8–14 with the familiar imagery of darkness and light. Since they are light in the Lord, they are no longer darkness; nor do they participate in the unfruitful works of darkness. The life lived as children of light is characterized by goodness, righteousness, truth, and whatever is pleasing to the Lord. The section ends with the quotation of a saying that calls upon the spiritually dead to arise from their slumber and experience the light of the Lord (5:14).
The language, imagery, and theology of this section (5:8–14) strongly suggest that the author has baptism in mind. First of all, there is convincing evidence that the early church possessed a catechetical form that employed the motifs of darkness and light. These motifs play a crucial part in the passage, and it is quite likely that the author is borrowing thoughts from existing tradition.
Second, the contrast between the “then” and the “now,” as has been noted on other occasions, relates to the concept of baptism as a change of status for the individual. Those who had been strangers, alienated from God (2:12–22), and subject to the powers of the world (2:1, 2) had also lived in darkness (5:8, 11). Now, however, in addition to having been brought near to God (2:13ff.), they are victorious and experience salvation in Christ (2:5–9). They are in the light and are admonished to live as children of light (5:8). This imagery reaches a climax in 5:14 with the affirmation that Christ is the instrument of light.
Earlier, the author contrasted the status of these believers in terms of being “dead” and “alive” (2:1–5) and “far away” and “near” (2:11–13). Here, as a continuation of darkened minds (4:18) and renewed hearts (4:23), darkness and light describe their moral condition. Darkness symbolizes their life of sin and participation in the evils just denounced; light is life in obedience to God.
You were once darkness (ēte gar pote skotos) means that they were identified as darkness, not just surrounded by it in their environment. Moule states it succinctly when he writes: “So had the night of spiritual ignorance and sin penetrated them that they were, as it were, night itself, night embodied” (Moule, p. 131). The same language applies to their new status as believers: Now you are light (nyn de phōs) in the Lord. Since they have become light (the indicative) the ethical charge that follows (the imperative) exhorts them to be what they are, that is, live as children of light. This change from darkness to light was, of course, due to their new relationship in the Lord through faith and baptism.
5:9 Just as a seed, plant, or tree fulfills its true nature by producing fruit, a believer, who is light in the Lord, will produce the virtues of goodness, righteousness and truth—quite the opposite of the fruit of darkness in 5:3, 5. By insisting on the moral implications of light, the author would be opposing any false theories, such as those in the Gnostic system, that made enlightenment a mystical experience and viewed the ethical life with indifference and even disdain. To be light is to walk in the light (John 3:19, 20; 1 John 1:5–7; 2:8–11).
The fruit of light is similar to the fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22, although goodness is the only concept that occurs there. The items on this list are probably selected for their relevance to the theme of unity within the body of Christ. The virtues of goodness, righteousness, and truth are essential to healthy personal and social relationships.
5:10 Although part of the process of becoming a Christian is the acceptance of the truth as it is found in the gospel, the other part is learning by careful thought and experience what it means to be a Christian. Earlier, when the author was running through a list of pagan vices, he reminded the believers that they “did not come to know Christ that way” (4:20). Through instruction and guidance, probably in the form of a baptismal catechism, new converts were taught what to believe and how to act. Here they are exhorted to find out what pleases the Lord.
The word dokimazō means “putting to the test,” “proving,” “examining.” The Christian life is not just a simple acceptance of doctrines and rules; believers exercise intelligent judgment as they relate their theology to specific moral situations. The things that please (euarestos) the Lord include the rich harvest of every kind of fruit mentioned in verse 9: all goodness, righteousness, and truth.
Both dokimazō and euarestos occur in Romans 12:2, where Paul writes that because of the inner transformation of their minds, believers “will be able to test and approve [dokimazō] what God’s will is—his good, pleasing [euarestos] and perfect will.” Beare notes that euarestos (“well-pleasing,” “acceptable”) nearly always concerns a sacrificial offering (Rom. 12:1; Phil. 4:18): “So here it suggests the thought that the life of the Christian is ever laid upon the altar. All of our actions are to be an offering to God … and we must therefore take care that they are acceptable to him” (p. 709).
5:11 In contrast to the fruitful works of light (5:9), the works of darkness are unfruitful, or fruitless. Believers are admonished not to have anything to do with people who belong to the darkness. Again, as in 5:7, the apostle uses a syn noun (synkoinōnos), by which he means do not become a participant, a partner, in the unfruitful works of darkness. Rather, believers are to correct, convict, or reprove (elenchō) evil by exposing it to the light. The Christian life is not only the avoidance of evil; it is active participation in the things that expose evil.
5:12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret is a strong admonition against discussing the works of darkness in secrecy. This could be a veiled reference to the secret rites of the mystery religions or just a more general reminder that much of the evil that goes on is done in secret, under the cloak of darkness. Since the evil deeds are so shameful, it is wrong even to talk about them (cf. similar thoughts in John 3:19–21).
5:13 Here the author returns to his thoughts in 5:10 by affirming that everything exposed by the light becomes visible. The repetition of elenchō (5:11) reaffirms the positive nature of light in exposing and reproving the works of darkness. In that process, people will come to see the true nature of evil and, it is hoped, turn to the light. As stated by Beare, “The power of light not only reveals, but penetrates and transforms into its own likeness whatever it illumines” (p. 711).
5:14 The continuing emphasis in the first part of this verse is that darkness cannot exist in the presence of light. It appears that the most reasonable way to understand the imagery of darkness and light and the quotation that follows is in the context of baptism. Darkness, sleep, and death are striking figures symbolizing the condition of an individual apart from Christ. Baptism could be seen as the act by which a person awakens from sleep, rises from the dead, and responds to the light of Christ. Thus: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”
There has been considerable speculation about the origin of this saying. Some scholars see it as a rather free synopsis from ideas in such OT passages as Isaiah 26:19 and 60:1, 2; others speculate that it may come from an apocryphal text or from some Hellenistic literature with a Gnostic or mystery religion’s background; and others have found parallels and allusions to it in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The introductory phrase, dio legei (cf. 4:18, where an OT citation is introduced), suggests that a written source is being quoted. But the failure to find such a literary formula opens the possibility that this was a well-known expression in the Christian community. The NIV this is why it is said leaves room for such a possibility.
Although the reconstruction of the setting of this quotation remains highly speculative, it may have been used by the church at a baptismal service as part of a hymn that was recited or sung. The early church created and used many songs in worship services (Eph. 5:19, 20; Phil. 2:6–11; Col. 3:16; 1 Tim. 3:16), and there is no reason to doubt that hymns could have been used on the occasion of baptism as a “call” to the candidate. It may have been sung when the candidate came out of the water after immersion. In the unbelieving state he or she has been regarded as asleep and dead; consequently, the believer is summoned to rise to a new life.
Another possibility is that the saying, together with the preceding discussion on darkness and light (5:8–13) and the following exhortations on Christian living (5:15ff.), belongs to the context of instruction (catechesis) just prior to baptism. Those being baptized would be reminded of their former life of darkness and then invited to wake up from their sleep and rise from the dead.
Although some of this is speculative, it does appear that the author is consciously alluding to baptism and that his readers would catch this allusion. His purpose, however, is neither to create nor to provide a baptismal liturgy for baptism, even though the material he utilizes is so oriented.
The exhortations of 5:8–14 fall within the context of a larger section (4:17–5:20) and illustrate the apostle’s use of traditional catechetical material. His quotation from an existing baptismal hymn emphasizes that Christ is the source of all spiritual light. Now that Christians are light in the Lord, they are to walk (peripateō) as children of light. This, he goes on to say, includes wisdom (5:15), an understanding of God’s will (5:17), fullness of the Spirit (5:18), as well as joyfulness and thanksgiving (5:19, 20).
5:15 Within the context of Christian teaching, theology and ethics belong together: Behavior must be based upon correct doctrine; knowledge should not be regarded as a substitute for proper behavior. Basically, it is another way of reminding believers to be what they are. Consequently, they are to walk carefully and to live as wise rather than unwise people. Wisdom, here, has a practical dimension, that is, the ability to discern between right and wrong. For Mitton, “This means that the recognition that we live in a world where evil actions are followed by evil consequences is the first step toward wise conduct” (p. 187).
5:16 The next exhortation advises the readers to make the most of every opportunity. Literally, the term agorazō comes from the language of the marketplace and means “to buy up” or “redeem.” Kairos (“time”) is the God-given opportunity that the believer has to walk in wisdom and to demonstrate the qualities of life that project light into darkness. Time is a precious commodity entrusted to believers for the purpose of doing good in a world in which the days are evil. Far too often Christians are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good.
5:17 In this brief exposition on Christian wisdom (5:15–17), the apostle has reminded his readers that wisdom has a practical dimension and that they are wise when they make good use of every opportunity. His final exhortation is that they not be foolish but discern God’s will with respect to the course of their moral action.
5:18 Ephesians 5:18–21 is an exhortation directed toward the worshiping community and stands in sharp contrast to the attitudes and actions of those who live in darkness (5:8–12). Instead of prohibiting certain conduct and conversation, the believers are encouraged to express their spiritual joy with song and thanksgiving. In 5:15–17, they are reminded to be wise and learn God’s will; in 5:18–21 they are shown how that is accomplished.
These verses are adapted from Colossians 3:16, but here the main emphasis is upon the Spirit rather than on Christ’s message (the word of Christ). The admonition—do not get drunk on wine—leads one to suspect that the author was thinking about religious cults, such as the worship of Dionysus, in which intoxication manifested itself in wild frenzies and ecstatic behavior that were interpreted in religious terms. Christians have a better way of experiencing spiritual elation—it is by being filled with the Spirit.
It should be noted that this is not a prohibition against the use of wine but against the excessive use of any alcoholic beverage leading to drunkenness (1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; 2:3; asōtia, “debauchery,” “profligacy,” “waste”). The contrast is not between wine and the Spirit but between the two states that they produce: Intoxication with wine has a degrading effect; intoxication with the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:13) can have an uplifting effect upon the Christian community.
5:19 This uplifting effect manifests itself in several ways. One is in worship: This verse suggests that early Christian worship had a spontaneity about it and had not become fixed by liturgical order. Psalms (psalmos), hymns (hymnos) and spiritual songs (ōdais pneumatikais) are listed as ways believers can praise the Lord. Though it is impossible to make any real distinctions between these categories (cf. disc. on Col. 3:16), some authors think that psalms are OT musical pieces accompanied by the plucking of strings, as on a harp; hymns are songs of praise to God; and spiritual songs are more spontaneous pieces of inspired music or words of exhortation. The important thing is that such worship is a corporate, not an individual, experience. Believers are to speak to one another as they praise the Lord.
5:20 A second manifestation is in giving thanks: Though thanksgiving undoubtedly is a component of worship, it is another sign of being filled with the Spirit. Spirit-filled Christians live in a continual attitude of gratitude for everything. This, as Stott wisely notes, should not be pressed too literally: “For we cannot thank God for absolutely ‘everything’ including blatant evil.… the ‘everything’ for which we are to give thanks to God must be qualified by its context, namely in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father” (p. 207).
5:21 The final manifestation noted is in submission: Scholars, and consequently Bible translators, are divided on how this verse fits into the context. Grammatically, it belongs to the section on worship (5:18–21) and should be seen as another manifestation of the Spirit-filled believer. As singing and thanksgiving are to be expressed corporately, members also must willingly submit to one another. Fullness of the Spirit leads to mutual subordination and unity, not to individual pride and disunity (cf. 1 Cor. 14:26–33; Phil. 2:1–5). At the same time, 5:21 is a transitional verse from which the author proceeds to illustrate how that submission is to be observed in specific domestic relationships (5:22–6:9).
If 5:21 is taken as an independent sentence then it serves as a heading for the specific relationships that follow. Some translations, namely, GNB and RSV, use it this way. The NIV, however, lets it stand with the previous section. In either case, the position of the verse is not as important as its teaching—a teaching in which believers are exhorted to submit themselves to one another out of reverence for Christ. “We are not asked to yield to the wishes of others, no matter what they wish, but only when what they ask of us is in line with reverence for Christ” (Mitton, p. 196).
Additional Notes
5:4 P. W. van der Horst goes through a lengthy examination of the word eutrapelia and concludes that “the warning in Eph. 5:4 need not be read as a denouncement of humor and wittiness in the church” (“Is Wittiness Unchristian? A Note on eutrapelia in Eph. v. 4,” in Miscellanea Neotestamentica, Supplements to NovT, vol. 48, ed. T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, and W. C. van Unnik [Leiden: Brill, 1978], 163–77).
5:8 Cf. disc. on Colossians 1:11–12, pp. 23–25. Extensive studies on the catechetical teaching in the early church can be found in P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism, and Selwyn, I Peter. Especially helpful is Selwyn’s Table II, pp. 376–78, which he calls “Further Catechetical Material: The Children of Light (Filii Lucis).” Much of the language in Ephesians reminds one of the symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, where following Christ as the light of the world means to have the light of life and not to walk in darkness (8:12; cf. also, 3:19ff.; 9:5; 12:35, 36, 46).
5:14 On the history of interpretation of this passage, see Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 573–77; R. Orlett, “Awake, Sleeper,” Worship 35 (1961), pp. 102–5. Houlden, p. 185, lists parallels between this passage and Acts 12:7. Most scholars support some kind of association of this saying with a baptismal hymn, believing that it could have been used as an “awakening call” for the unbeliever to step out of his or her darkness into the light of Christ.
5:18 C. E. Rogers believes that the wild, drunken practices connected with the worship of Dionysus form the general background for this command. See his “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18,” BibSac 136 (1979), pp. 249–57; also, Beare, p. 714; Mitton, pp. 188–89.
In addition to the commentaries on the hymnody of the early church, cf. H. Schlier, “ōdē,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 164–65; G. Delling, “hymnos … psalmos,” TDNT, vol. 8, pp. 498–501.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Arthur G. Patzia, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).
Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.
On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:56). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).
In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.
Blindness was a common ailment in the ancient world. Some causes included old age (Gen. 27:1), trauma, or divine punishment (John 9:2). Israel was given special instructions to care for the blind (Lev. 19:14). True love helped the blind (Job 29:15), and misleading them was a serious violation (Deut. 27:18).
In figurative language, the Bible frequently describes the spiritual condition of people in terms of blindness. Isaiah capitalizes on the metaphor of blindness to describe the rebellious and apostate groups: prophets, priests, and rulers who were divinely afflicted with blindness (Isa. 43:8; 56:10; 59:10; cf. Zeph. 1:17).
Jesus highlighted the onset of the messianic age by fulfilling Isaiah’s promise to proclaim “recovery of sight to the blind” (Luke 4:18). Forty-six of fifty-two references to blindness in the NT are Gospel stories of Jesus’ healing. Because Jesus’ ministry was one of opening blind eyes (cf. Isa. 42:7, 16, 18), calling the Pharisees “blind guides” was a sharp description (Matt. 15:14; 23:16, 24). But on others, Jesus would impose blindness, the very reverse of his mission (John 9:3941), since he came as the “light of the world” (8:12). Spiritual blindness as applied to unbelievers could be used to describe the failure or hard-heartedness of some to accept the true identity of Jesus Christ. Using similar language, Paul describes the pagan unbelievers: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ” (2Cor. 4:4).
Nearsightedness and blindness can also be used to describe believers who have grown dull to the truth (2Pet. 1:9) or tepid in their faith (Rev. 3:17). Believers are blind when they fail to grasp their true spiritual condition.
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).
To harbor an inordinate desire, especially for something belonging to someone else, often with intent to deprive that person of what is rightfully his or hers.
In the OT, the principal Hebrew term, khamad, indicates an unrestrained, selfish desire. A survey of its occurrences shows this desire directed most often toward things that belong to others or that are otherwise illicit (e.g., Josh. 7:21; Prov. 6:25; Mic. 2:2; but see Ps. 68:16: “God chooses”).
Notably, the tenth commandment prohibits coveting another’s possessions (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). It is unique among the Decalogue’s latter commandments (Exod. 20:1217) because it targets an inward attitude rather than outward acts.
In the NT, a principal Greek term, epithymeō, represents a strong desire generally. Paul uses it when referencing the tenth commandment (Rom. 7:7; 13:9), so that the Greek term is similar to the Hebrew one in meaning. In contrast, James 4:2 employs epithymeō broadly to refer to evil desires that promote strife. The exact meaning of this word is determined by context (cf. Matt. 13:17, where Jesus speaks of those who “longed” to experience what his disciples did).
In Gen. 3 the serpent entices humankind to sin. Not until Rev. 12:9 are we told explicitly that the serpent is Satan.
In the OT, “evil spirit” may be a heavenly being sent by God (1Sam. 16:1423; 18:10; 19:9; cf. 1Kings 22:22–23). The OT engages in extensive rebuke of the superstitions of the surrounding nations that included belief in demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; perhaps Isa. 13:21; cf. Rev. 18:2).
Jesus’ encounter with the devil in the wilderness recalls Adam and Eve’s encounter with the serpent in Eden. The setting, significantly, is now a wasteland. The second man to walk the earth with no sin claims the right to take back the dominion that Adam passed to the serpent. Jesus can have the whole world (without the cross) if only he will submit to the devil’s rule (Luke 4:5–7). Jesus rejects the offer. Later, he sees Satan’s fall from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:5–12). Whereas once the devil had access to God’s courtroom, now his case is lost. His only recourse is murderous persecution. Between the ascension of the Son of Man (Acts 1:9) and the final judgment, this is understood to be the experience of Christ’s people (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:17; cf. 1Pet. 5:8).
Whereas the OT provides sparse information about Satan and his angels/demons, the NT opens with an intensity of activity. Demons are also called “evil spirits,” and they are associated with physical illness, madness, and fortune-telling. In Acts 17:22 Paul describes his pagan Athenian listeners as “demon-fearers” (NIV: “religious”). Jesus’ miracles demonstrate his lordship over Satan’s regime as the demons flee in terror before him (Mark 1:23–26; 5:1–15). According to Paul, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 6:19), and John urges believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1John 4:1), assuring them that they need not fear Satan or his forces, “because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.” (1John 4:4). On judgment day Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15) along with all of God’s enemies.
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.
The common experience/sharing of something with someone else.
The close and intimate fellowship that the members of the Trinity experience with one another (John 10:30; 14:10; 16:1415; 17:5) is something that Jesus prays for his people to experience themselves (17:20–26). He asks that believers “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (17:21). Just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father, believers are described as being in both the Father and the Son. The stated purpose for such fellowship is twofold: that the world may know and believe that the Father has sent the Son, and that the Father loves believers even as he has loved the Son (17:21, 23). Central to this fellowship between God and believers is the sharing of the glory that the Father and the Son experience (17:22). Jesus expresses similar truths in John 15:1–11 when he speaks of himself as the true vine and his followers as the branches who must remain in him because “apart from me you can do nothing” (v.5).
Paul frequently speaks of the believer’s fellowship with Christ, even though he rarely uses the word “fellowship” to speak of this reality. It is God who calls the believer into fellowship with Christ (1Cor. 1:9), but such fellowship involves both the “power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10). When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they are participating in the body and blood of Christ (1Cor. 10:16–17). Far more frequently, Paul expresses the concept of fellowship with Christ by his use of the phrase “with Christ.” Believers have been crucified, buried, raised, clothed, and seated in the heavenly realms with Christ (Rom. 6:4–9; 2Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20–21; Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:12–13; 3:1–4). They also share in the inheritance that Christ has received from the Father (Rom. 8:16–17) and one day will reign with him (2Tim. 2:12).
The fellowship that believers have with one another is an extension of their fellowship with God. John wrote, “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1John 1:3). Just as walking in darkness falsifies a believer’s claim to fellowship with God, so also walking in the light is necessary for fellowship with other believers (1:6–7). Paul strikes a similar note when he says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2Cor. 6:14–15). The point is not to avoid all contact with unbelievers (cf. 1Cor. 5:9–10), but rather that the believer is so fundamentally identified with Christ that to identify with unbelievers should be avoided.
From the earliest days of the church, believers found very tangible ways to demonstrate that their fellowship was rooted in their common faith in Jesus. Immediately after Pentecost, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.... All the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:42–44). This common experience led believers to voluntarily sell their possessions and share with any who had a need (2:45; 4:32). This meeting of very practical needs was motivated by a common experience of God’s abundant generosity in freely giving his Son (Rom. 8:32). The self-sacrificial sharing of resources became a staple of the early church (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:6; 1Tim. 6:18) and provided an opportunity for Paul to demonstrate the unity of the church when he collected money from Gentile churches to alleviate the suffering of Jewish Christians in Judea (Rom. 15:26–27; 2Cor. 8–9).
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).
The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.”
In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:68; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).
The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).
Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).
Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.
Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).
However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.
Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.
Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.
The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and good will between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.
Hardness of heart describes a spiritual condition of active resistance against God and his ways. In a certain sense this kind of resistance is found in every human being ever since the fall in Gen. 3. Every human being inherits a sin nature from Adam (Rom. 5:1214) that naturally and inevitably imparts a predisposition to sin.
One of the puzzles and mysteries of Scripture is that God himself is often described as being the one who hardens the hearts of various individuals. Pharaoh in the exodus story is a classic illustration. In Exod. 4:21 God says to Moses, “I will harden his [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, more ambiguous language is used, such as in 7:13, where “Pharaoh’s heart became hard.” Still other times, Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (8:15). The best way to understand this situation is to see hardness of heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. (Salvation and spiritual growth are similar spiritual realities in that both of these also involve a mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response.) Since the Bible so frequently warns against the danger of a hardened heart, there are clearly genuine opportunities for people to cry out to God for mercy and deliverance from this awful situation.
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.
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).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:56) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.
Cleanness does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (various discharges; e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.
One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Ceremonial cleansing is not just a topic in the OT; it appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:111). The OT provides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.
New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world.
A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan.3).
God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:1420). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).
God begins his creation with light, which precedes the creation of sun, moon, and stars and throughout Scripture is an unqualified good (Gen. 1:35, 15–18; Exod. 10:23; 13:21). In the ancient world, people rarely traveled at night and usually went to bed soon after sunset. The only light in the home was a small oil lamp set on a stand, which burned expensive olive oil. Light is a biblical synonym for life (Job 3:20; John 8:12). Seeing the light means living (Ps. 49:19; see also Job 33:30). Conversely, darkness is often a symbol of adversity, disaster, and death (Job 30:26; Isa. 8:22; Jer. 23:12; Lam. 3:2).
John, who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claims that God is light (1John 1:5). The predicate appropriates the intrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s hearts back to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truth and signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of the world (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’s holiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John 3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the place of fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7).
The word “likeness” is used in various contexts. The foundational concept of likeness, however, is found in Gen. 1:26: “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.” This announces the high status of humans as the pinnacle of God’s creation (also Gen. 5:12). Genesis 5:3 says that Adam fathered Seth “in his own likeness, in his own image,” employing both words found in 1:26. The precise meaning of this has been much debated. Three things are to be noted. First, the expression “let us,” versus “let there be,” implies a personal aspect. It refers to the human capacity to relate to God in worship and obedience of his word (2Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:24). Second, the word “likeness” describes human beings as not simply representative of God but representational. Humankind is the visible, corporeal representative of the invisible, bodiless God. Third, being in God’s likeness/image sets human beings apart from everything else that God has made. Humankind’s supremacy and uniqueness are emphasized.
In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]). These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe the whole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describe either a special ministry performed by an official functionary (1Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). In the early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchies but on services performed (1Tim. 3:113).
The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1Pet. 5:3).
Jesus’ ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NT writers describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39; Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministry of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).
The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).
Although ministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were those with special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart for particular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apart Apollos and Paul for special ministries (1Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7). The church called on special functionaries to carry out specific ministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individuals to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry the relief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2Cor. 8:19, 23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the elders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching and preaching and healing for the whole church.
All the ministries of the church, whether performed by believers in general or by some specially appointed functionary, were based on gifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1Tim. 1:12; 1Pet. 4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’s relationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians are equal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paul identifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ calls certain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. The ones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the church but rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph. 4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or her because those gifts were given for ministry to others (1Cor. 4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results in leadership.
It becomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others for ministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turn minister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2Tim. 2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is to build up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ (Rom. 15:15–17; 1Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1Thess. 2:19–20).
The Bible often refers to songs, music, musical sounds and instruments, and dancing.
Instruments
Strings. The most frequently mentioned instrument is the kinnor, a lyre, also often referred to as a harp. The sound box of the harp is at the base, from which a straight or curved neck rises at a sharp angle so that the strings going from the box to the neck are of different length. The lyre has two uprights and a crosspiece on top, from which the strings of similar length stretch down to the sound box. The kinnor-lyre had eight to ten strings (based on Akkadian and Ugaritic findings and Jewish descriptions) and could be played with a pick or by hand. David’s “harp” was such a lyre. The “harp” mentioned in the NT (1Cor. 14:7; Rev. 5:8; 14:2; 15:2) probably was also a lyre. Another OT lyre, or perhaps a harp, the nebel, complemented the kinnor-lyre. Jewish tradition about the strings implies that it produced a lower sound. The nebel-lyre is most often mentioned with other instruments, though occasionally alone. Another stringed instrument mentioned three times, the ’asor, may have been a harp or a lyre with ten strings (Pss. 33:2; 92:3; 144:9). In Pss. 45:8; 150:4 there is mention of “the strings,” which may refer to more than just the stringed instruments specifically mentioned in the Bible. The ancient world also had lutes, an instrument with a long, straight neck, fretted like a guitar or ukulele, proceeding from a small sound box.
Percussion. Timbrels, cymbals, and castanets or rattles are percussion instruments mentioned in the Bible. The timbrel was a hand drum, like a tambourine but without metal jingles. The timbrel accompanies dancing and may have been used by the dancers (Exod. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1Sam. 18:6). Cymbals may have been paired or individual, but it is not certain whether these latter were suspended cymbals or finger cymbals, being four to six inches in diameter. In 2Sam. 6:5 there is mention of another percussion instrument, mena’an’im (the root of this word means “to shake”), perhaps “sistrums” (NIV) or “castanets” (NASB) (although the KJV renders it as “cornets”). Castanets were small hand-clappers joined with a string. Israel likely had all of these, though it is hard to know which is referred to in 2Sam. 6:5. The cymbal is mentioned once in the NT (1Cor. 13:1), though not as musically pleasing in that context.
Woodwinds and horns. The OT attests to both an animal horn, most frequently called a shopar, and a metal trumpet, the khatsotserah (Num. 10:210). The NT refers to a horn with a word used to translate both OT terms (salpinx). The ancient world had both flutes and shawms. Shawms have a bell-like flare at the end, while the shaft of a flute is straight to the end. What is likely a double-reed shawm is frequently translated “flute” (1Sam. 10:5; 1Kings 1:40; Isa. 5:12; 30:29; Jer. 48:36 [NIV: “pipes”]). It is unclear whether the instrument mentioned in Gen. 4:21; Ps. 150:4 commonly translated as “flute” is a woodwind or a stringed instrument. The NT also mentions a flute or reed instrument (Matt. 11:17; 9:23; 1Cor. 14:7; Rev. 18:22) that could be played for dancing or mourning.
Dancing
The dancing mentioned in the Bible is usually celebratory and positive and is combined with singing or the playing of musical instruments. Such dancing may occur at any happy occasion but is mentioned most often in connection with victory or worship (e.g., Exod. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1Sam. 18:6). The women of Shiloh “join in the dancing” (Judg. 21:21) at an annual festival, which implies some manner of folk dancing. The dancing of Herodias’s daughter probably was erotic (Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:22), and the dancing of the Israelites around the golden calf probably was laden with sensuality as well (Exod. 32:19).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1 17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.
1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.
2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group.
4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.
Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John 2:2).
A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OT period, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of different lengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributed to Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 and Ps. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millennium BC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship and private devotion.
Although the psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about God and their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalms is a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe who he is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examples include God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98), and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Each one of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and also the nature of our relationship with God. After all, the aforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’s people as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.
More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.
The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:1213). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).
The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28// Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14).
Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).
Closely related to honor and respect and often translating the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence is directed primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’s sanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name (Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers, the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverence for God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance (Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2Cor. 7:1), and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship (Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may win over unbelievers (1Pet. 3:2).
Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation.
Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this.
Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).
Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).
The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 57), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).
The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).
In the biblical world, documents were sealed with clay or wax (1Kings 21:8; Job 38:14; Neh. 9:38; Jer. 32:10; Rev. 5:1). The integrity of the seal was assured by impressing an image into the soft substance, which would then harden and retain the unique image of the sender’s seal. The archaeological record attests this practice in the form of bullae (the impressions themselves, which survive long after the documents have disintegrated) as well as a large number of seals, which often were carved (Exod. 28:11; 39:6; Sir. 38:27; 45:11) into semiprecious stones or stone cylinders.
A person’s unique seal was closely identified with the owner and could be worn as a ring or pendant (see Gen. 38:18; Esther 8:8; Song 8:6). Besides documents, we have rec-ords of the sealing of caves (Matt. 27:66; cf. Dan. 6:17; 2Macc. 2:5) and bags (Job 14:17; Tob. 9:5). In apocalyptic literature, seals are used to conceal prophecies of the future (Dan. 12:4) and to mark humans as belonging to God (Rev. 7:38).
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.
In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness.... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the 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 the Suffering 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 wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, 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 against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue 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 new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
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.
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).
An alcoholic beverage made primarily by fermenting grapes, wine was valued as both a pleasurable and a functional drink (Ps. 104:15; 1Tim. 5:23) and therefore a staple of ceremonial practice and social gatherings (Exod. 29:40; John 2:13). For this reason, wine is a symbol of God’s blessing (Gen. 27:28; John 2:11), particularly for his covenant people (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; 1Cor. 11:25). Yet the Bible also warns against the abuse of alcohol, which can lead to drunkenness and debauchery (Prov. 9:4–5; Eph. 5:18). Such abuse becomes a symbol of God’s curse for disobedience (Hos. 4:11; 9:2; Matt. 27:48–49).
In the OT, wisdom is a characteristic of someone who attains a high degree of knowledge, technical skill, and experience in a particular domain. It refers to the ability that certain individuals have to use good judgment in running the affairs of state (Joseph in Gen. 41:33; David in 2Sam. 14:20; Solomon in 1Kings 3:9, 12, 28). It can also refer to the navigational skills that sailors use in maneuvering a ship through difficult waters (Ps. 107:27). Furthermore, wisdom includes the particular skills of an artisan (Exod. 31:6; 35:35; 1Chron. 22:15 16). In all these cases, wisdom involves the expertise that a person acquires to accomplish a particular task. In these instances “wisdom” is an ethically neutral term, or at least that dimension is not emphasized. The wise are those who have mastered a certain skill set in their field of expertise.
The uniqueness of the OT wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) is that it highlights the moral dimension of wisdom. Here “wisdom” refers to developing expertise in negotiating the complexities of life and managing those complexities in a morally responsible way that honors God and benefits both the community and the individual. Although it is difficult to pin down a concise definition, one can gain a better understanding of wisdom by investigating two important dimensions: wisdom as a worldview, and the traits of a person who is considered to be wise.
Who is wise? First, the wise are those involved in a lifelong process of character development. They manifest the virtues of righteousness, justice, and equity (Prov. 1:3; 2:9). The embodiment of these virtues culminates in the description of the woman of noble character at the conclusion of Proverbs (31:10–31). She exhibits self-control, patience, care, diligence, discipline, humility, generosity, honesty, and fear of the Lord (cf. James 3:13–18). She is the epitome of wisdom in its maturity and the model that all should emulate.
Second, the wise know the value of words and how to use them. They know when to speak, what to say, and how to say it (Job 29:21–22; Prov. 15:23; 25:11; Eccles. 3:7; 12:9–10). Wisdom and the wise place a premium on the power of words.
Third, the wise place great importance on relationships and on interaction with others. The wise person is the one who is open to the give-and-take of relationships (Prov. 27:5–6, 17, 19). Such a person develops the humility necessary to receive correction and criticism from others. Hearing criticism and changing wrong behavior are integral to wisdom (3:1–11). The wise appreciate insightful criticism because it helps them live life more productively (15:12). Wisdom is, ultimately, relational.
Fourth, the wise person develops the art of discernment (Prov. 1:2, 4–6). The sage is equipped with the ability to think critically. The very quality of wisdom itself invites the re-forming and rethinking of ideas. Sages are not interested in pat answers (26:4–5). Proverbs 16:1–9 throws a wrench in the conventional cogs of wisdom, claiming that although humans make their plans, God has the final say. Both Job and Ecclesiastes go head to head with conventional beliefs, probing more deeply into the complexities of life and the relationship between human and divine. No easy answers exist here. In contrast, fools do not use their mental faculties. They view wisdom as a commodity, a matter of learning some techniques, accepting certain beliefs, and memorizing a few proverbs (17:16). The wise, however, know that wisdom involves the art of critical thinking and interacting with others.
Fifth, and most fundamental, the wise person takes a God-centered focus toward life. Wisdom literature affirms, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10; cf. Prov. 1:7; Job 28:28; Eccles. 12:13). That this is the beginning step in the process of gaining wisdom means that one who misses this step can proceed no further along the path to wisdom. The fear of the Lord is to wisdom as the letters of the alphabet are to forming words. The wise gain wisdom by being in relationship with the Lord (Prov. 3:5–8). The fear of the Lord is the beginning as well as the culmination of wisdom.
Wisdom is a highly prized quality, superior to might and power (Prov. 25:15; Eccles. 9:13–16), and one must diligently seek it (Prov. 2:1–5). Yet in the end, wisdom is a gift that only God can give (Prov. 2:6–8; 1Kings 3:9).
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).
Despite tendencies to downplay the reality of God’s anger (God is classically described as “without passions”), if we are to do justice to both Testaments, we must allow the language of Scripture to stand, where God often is said to be angry with individuals or nations, including Israel. Although God is changeless (Mal. 3:6), he interacts in a personal way with a time-bound world. The Bible writers intend us to understand that there is something in God’s anger to which human anger is analogous, though God’s anger is not identical to ours (Hos. 11:9). God’s anger is not an automatic response; he can restrain it (Ps. 78:38). God is said to be characteristically slow to become angry; that is, his anger is a deliberate response (Exod. 34:6, a text with numerous echoes) and may also be short-lived (Ps. 30:5; Mic. 7:18).
God’s anger against Israel in the wilderness is noteworthy (Heb. 3:10, 17). The apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32:1012), the complaining (Num. 11:1, 33), and the failure to enter the promised land following the report of the spies (Num. 32:10–11) all provoke God to anger. Failure to heed God’s word (Zech. 7:12) or that of his prophets (2Chron. 36:16), neglect of his worship (2Chron. 29:6–8), and intermarriage with idolaters (Ezra 9:14) are behaviors that incur the wrath of God.
God’s anger is directed against individuals, particularly for failures of leadership, as with Moses (Exod. 4:14; Deut. 1:37) and Solomon (1Kings 11:9–11). God’s anger often is directed against the Israelite and Judean kings, not just those who committed idolatry (2Chron. 25:15), but even those who are faithful in most respects, for their failure to remove the idolatrous high places (2Kings 23:19).
Picking up on the warning that God’s anger will be directed against those who do not pay homage to God’s appointed king (Ps. 2:5, 12), Jesus declares that disobedience to God’s Son brings upon one the wrath of God (John 3:36), which evidently is not incompatible with his love for the world (3:16). According to Rom. 4:15, God’s wrath is a consequence of the law; that is, the law, giving concrete expression to the character of God, brings culpability for transgression. God’s wrath is revealed against all forms of ungodliness and its tendency to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18). Those who demonstrate their disobedience to God or his truth will be subjected to his anger (Rom. 2:8; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6).
The judgment that follows as a consequence of God’s anger being aroused takes the form of the withholding of God’s covenant favor (Ps. 95:11; Isa. 54:8) or the implementation of his covenant curses (Deut. 29:27), specifically through drought (Deut. 11:17), plague (Ps. 78:50), the sword (Ps. 78:62), and deliverance into the hands of enemies (2Kings 13:3), leading to exile (2Chron. 6:36). God’s anger can be depicted in various forms of cosmic upheaval or the undoing of creation (2Sam. 22:8–16; Ps. 18:7; Jer. 4:26). God’s anger is beyond human ability to endure (Ps. 76:7), such that hiding in Sheol is considered preferable (Job 14:13).
God’s wrath becomes particularly associated with a coming day of wrath at the end of the age, when God’s justice will be powerfully displayed (Dan. 8:19; Zeph. 2:3; Luke 21:23; Rom. 2:5; Rev. 6:17).
The NT brings to fulfillment these forms of mediation in presenting the ultimate remedy for God’s wrath in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:9; 1Thess. 1:10; 5:9). The use of “propitiation” language (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1John 2:2), though its significance is disputed, is classically understood in terms of the need for God’s wrath to be satisfied. In that case, it is specifically the cross of Christ that ultimately deals with God’s righteous anger against sinners.
Direct Matches
The words “wrath” and “anger” areused in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek wordsthat refer to the disposition of someone (including God) towardpersons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered tobe seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15),and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen.45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5),and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).
Angermay be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in,for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19).Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph.4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness ofhis contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning forLazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” ananger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness ofdeath, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his ownimpending death necessitated by this fallen world.
Onthe other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distortedperceptions or values (Gen. 4:5–6). A tendency to anger inoneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs tobe handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead toviolence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger isassociated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy,selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry,sorcery, and bitterness (2Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31;Col. 3:8).
InPs. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human angerto bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrathagainst human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance ofthis is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civilauthority serves to maintain justice under God.
In the KJV the word “conversation” appears often,carrying the archaic meaning “conduct, behavior, way of life,”usually translating the Hebrew word derek or the Greek wordanastrophē (e.g., Pss. 37:14; 50:23; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 4:22;1 Tim. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:15). In Phil. 3:20 it refers to“citizenship” in heaven, translating the Greek wordpoliteuma (which involves one’s conduct with proper regard forobligations to others in community).
At the beginning of creation, the darkness “over thesurface of the deep” is not a primordial principle of chaos tobe combated by God (as sometimes suggested), but simply somethingthat prepares for his creation of light in Gen. 1:3. The “thickand dreadful darkness” that came over sleeping Abram (Gen.15:12) was an indicator of the reception of a mysterious divinerevelation involving a manifestation of God in the form of a smokingfire pot and a blazing torch (15:17). Likewise, the thick cloud anddarkness that shrouded Mount Sinai (Deut. 4:11; 5:23; Ps. 18:7–10)was a sign of God’s presence and also hid him from the sight ofthe Israelites.
Aplague of darkness was inflicted on Egypt as a prelude to the exodusdeliverance (Exod. 10) and made darkness a sign and symbol of God’sjudgment. In prophetic teaching, the coming “day of the Lord”in judgment upon Israel and the nations is “a day of darknessand gloom” (Joel 2:2, 31; Amos 5:18–20; Zeph.1:14–15).The wicked will be thrust into darkness (Prov. 4:19; Isa. 8:22).Jesus used such imagery when speaking of punishment in hell (e.g.,Matt. 22:13; 25:30). The moral life of a believer involves turningaway from deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:8–11; 1Thess. 5:4–8).
Darknessis associated with Sheol and death (e.g., Job 10:21; 17:13) and soalso becomes a metaphor of a situation of distress, especiallylife-threatening danger (Ps. 107:10, 14). In contrast, the dispellingof darkness becomes a metaphor of God’s saving help in Isa.9:2: “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light”(cf. Isa. 10:17). That salvation will include the provision of afuture Davidic ruler (Isa. 9:6–7), so that the coming of Jesusis the dawning of light (John 1:5; 12:35).
Thisrich OT background gives a context to the three-hour period ofdarkness as Jesus hung on the cross (Matt. 27:45). This began at thesixth hour (i.e., noon) and signaled that the judgment day was takingplace as Jesus suffered in the place of sinners (cf. Amos 8:9).
Wastefulness or lack of moderation. The concept ofdissipation occurs in biblical texts that concern wild behavior ordrunkenness. In Luke 21:34 Jesus instructs his disciples not to lettheir hearts “be weighed down with dissipation and drunkennessand cares of this life” (ESV). Here, “dissipation”(NIV: “carousing”) translates a Greek word (kraipalē)that refers specifically to excessive drinking and its physicalresults. “Dissipation” also translates a different Greekword (asōtia) denoting wasteful or reckless behavior. Paulindicates that any man whose children are open to the charge ofdissipation is ineligible to be an elder (Titus 1:6 NASB, NET [NIV:“being wild”]). Peter calls pagan behavior—“lewdness,lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties and abominableidolatries”—a “flood of dissipation” (1Pet.4:3–4 NKJV). The NIV and other versions translate the sameGreek word as “debauchery” in Eph. 5:18, a well-knownverse in which Paul tells believers to be filled with the Spiritrather than to get drunk.
Wastefulness or lack of moderation. The concept ofdissipation occurs in biblical texts that concern wild behavior ordrunkenness. In Luke 21:34 Jesus instructs his disciples not to lettheir hearts “be weighed down with dissipation and drunkennessand cares of this life” (ESV). Here, “dissipation”(NIV: “carousing”) translates a Greek word (kraipalē)that refers specifically to excessive drinking and its physicalresults. “Dissipation” also translates a different Greekword (asōtia) denoting wasteful or reckless behavior. Paulindicates that any man whose children are open to the charge ofdissipation is ineligible to be an elder (Titus 1:6 NASB, NET [NIV:“being wild”]). Peter calls pagan behavior—“lewdness,lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties and abominableidolatries”—a “flood of dissipation” (1Pet.4:3–4 NKJV). The NIV and other versions translate the sameGreek word as “debauchery” in Eph. 5:18, a well-knownverse in which Paul tells believers to be filled with the Spiritrather than to get drunk.
Although the Bible does acknowledge the limited value ofalcohol or inebriation as a palliative (Prov. 31:6–7),drunkenness is generally presented as the cause of all sorts ofproblems in life: woe, sorrow, strife, bruises, red eyes, lust (Prov.23:29–35), poverty (Prov. 23:21), staggering, vomiting, loss ofdiscernment (Isa. 28:7–8), and public shame (Hab. 2:15; cf.Gen. 9:21). Drunkenness is named as a mark of the disobedient son(Deut. 21:20–21; cf. Luke 15:11–13). It is also acharacteristically negative feature in several incidents (e.g., theincest in Lot’s family [Gen. 19:33–35]; David’splan to cover up his adultery [2Sam. 11:13]; assassinations ofAmnon, Elah, Ben-Hadad and his allies [2Sam. 13:28; 1Kings16:9; 20:16]; Nabal’s feast of wine [1Sam. 25:36]),although it is mistakenly attributed to Hannah in prayer (1Sam.1:13) and the disciples on the Pentecost (Acts 2:13). Drunkenness ofcivic and religious leaders represents the religious and moralcorruption of God’s people (Isa. 5:11–12, 22–23;28:1, 3; 28:7–8; 56:11–12; Amos 2:12; 6:6). It is alsomentioned as a characteristic of the wicked servant (Matt. 24:49) anda sign of division among the believers (1Cor.11:21).
Inthe OT, therefore, abstinence from strong drink not only is regardedas a virtue of the leaders of society (Prov. 31:4–5; Eccles.10:16–17) but also is required of those who should maintainspiritual purity (priests on duty [Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21]; Naziritesduring their vows [Num. 6:3–4; cf. Judg. 13:7]; cf. voluntaryabstainers [Jer. 35:6; Dan. 1:8]). In the NT sobriety is required ofall believers in Christ (Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; especially living inthe last days [Luke 21:34; 1Thess. 5:7]), particularly churchleaders (1Tim. 3:2–3; Titus 1:7–8;2:2–3).
Drunkennessis also a metaphor widely employed in the Bible (e.g., storm-tossedsailors [Ps. 107:27]; Jeremiah before God [Jer. 23:9]; the spiritualadultery of the kings of the earth [Rev. 17:2]; slaughter [Deut.32:42; Jer. 46:10; Rev. 17:6]). Notably, drunkenness signifies God’sjudgment (Jer. 13:13; Ezek. 23:33), and Isaiah frequently comparesdrunkenness to the lack of discernment and wisdom among the leadersof society (Isa. 19:13–14; 24:20; 29:9–10; 63:6; also Job12:25). A wine cup also symbolizes God’s wrath (Ps. 75:8; Isa.51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15–28; 51:7; Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:31–34;Hab. 2:16; Matt. 20:22–23; 26:39, 42; John 18:11; Rev.14:10;16:19).
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.”
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).
The word “Gentiles” is often used to translatewords meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It hasa Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family”and, eventually, “race” or “people.” TheGreek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship.In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other thanIsrael. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,”“peoples,” or “races.”
OldTestament
Ingeneral, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. Godchose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8;10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership inthe covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becomingpart of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).
TheOT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessingthrough Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping thelaw, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. Thelaw is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenantthat God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5;20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6;10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss.119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).
Suchlaw/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OTunderstanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel,the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in andthrough Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3;17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specificallyinvolves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]).Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subjectto Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16;14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed byIsrael’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel,serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fearIsrael’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5;60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic.7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages furtherelucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in theGod of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer.12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations“flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentileparticipation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa.2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).
TheServant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect thislaw/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. Theservant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19;44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14),serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6;49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separatefrom Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who haveharmed Israel.
SecondTemple Judaism and Early Christianity
SecondTemple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, theirnature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end.Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’speople defined by the law, variously understood and contested amongSecond Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’sultimate blessing activities.
SituatingJesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentilesensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread acrossthe Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God ofIsrael in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentilesexperience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.
SomeChristians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought thatGentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God ofIsrael’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’sopponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from Godand his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13;1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation,especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin,lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32;Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).
However,various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keepthe law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’sultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, hasreplaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and hisdeath and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ bythe Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true,redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheritingGod’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25;8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7;Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentilesattain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightlybefore God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30;1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8).Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles withrespect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.
Debatesabout Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for theseissues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocalsaying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and someother NT writings.
The word “Gentiles” is often used to translatewords meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It hasa Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family”and, eventually, “race” or “people.” TheGreek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship.In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other thanIsrael. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,”“peoples,” or “races.”
OldTestament
Ingeneral, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. Godchose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8;10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership inthe covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becomingpart of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).
TheOT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessingthrough Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping thelaw, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. Thelaw is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenantthat God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5;20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6;10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss.119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).
Suchlaw/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OTunderstanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel,the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in andthrough Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3;17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specificallyinvolves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]).Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subjectto Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16;14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed byIsrael’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel,serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fearIsrael’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5;60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic.7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages furtherelucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in theGod of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer.12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations“flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentileparticipation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa.2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).
TheServant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect thislaw/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. Theservant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19;44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14),serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6;49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separatefrom Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who haveharmed Israel.
SecondTemple Judaism and Early Christianity
SecondTemple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, theirnature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end.Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’speople defined by the law, variously understood and contested amongSecond Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’sultimate blessing activities.
SituatingJesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentilesensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread acrossthe Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God ofIsrael in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentilesexperience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.
SomeChristians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought thatGentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God ofIsrael’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’sopponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from Godand his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13;1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation,especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin,lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32;Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).
However,various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keepthe law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’sultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, hasreplaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and hisdeath and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ bythe Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true,redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheritingGod’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25;8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7;Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentilesattain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightlybefore God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30;1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8).Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles withrespect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.
Debatesabout Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for theseissues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocalsaying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and someother NT writings.
In Christian theology, the Third Person of the Trinity. Theusage derives from the NT, in which the divine Spirit is treated asan independent person who is instrumental in salvation and is worthyof the praise accorded to both the Father and the Son (John 14:16–23;Rom. 8:26–27; 1Pet. 1:2).
OldTestament
Thescarcity of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the OT (only inPs. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11) does not imply lack of interest orimportance. While it should be recognized that in the OT the personof the Holy Spirit receives nothing like the systematic reflectionfound in the NT, when one includes correlative terms, such as “Spiritof God,” “my Spirit,” “wind,” or“breath,” it is apparent that OT writers attributed greatsignificance to God’s Spirit. Thus, the Spirit was at work inthe beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2). Adam and Eve are uniquely givenlife by the breath of God (Gen. 2:7). The Spirit enables the buildingof the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3), gives voice to the message of theprophets (Num. 11:29; cf. 2Pet. 1:21), empowers Israel’sleaders (1Sam. 16:13), and provides access to God’spresence (Ps. 51:11). Yet in all this, the work of the Spirit in theOT is sporadic, occasional, and localized. Thus, the prophets longfor a new age when God’s people will more perfectly enjoy theSpirit’s presence (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; 61:1; Joel 2:28).
NewTestament
TheSpirit in the ministry of Christ.The NT views the OT prophetic hope for the Spirit as fulfilled in andthrough Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18–21). The unique relationshipbetween God’s Holy Spirit and the person and work of Jesusexplains the systemic reflection that the Holy Spirit receives in theNT. This is signaled at the very beginning of Jesus’ life, whenthe Holy Spirit “comes upon” Mary, overshadowing her with“the power of the Most High” (1:35). Similarly, at thestart of Jesus’ public ministry, the Holy Spirit “descendedon him” at baptism (3:22). This anointing by the Spiritinitiates and empowers Jesus’ public ministry, from hispreaching, to his miraculous works, to his perfect obedience (Luke4:14–18; John 3:34; Acts 10:38). Even his sacrificial death isaccomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14).
Significantly,just as the Holy Spirit empowered the life and death of Jesus, so toois the Spirit responsible for his resurrection and characteristic ofhis glorious reign. Death is not a defeat for Jesus: he is“vindicated by the Spirit” (1Tim. 3:16), “appointedthe Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead”(Rom. 1:4; cf. 1Pet. 3:18). Furthermore, at his resurrection,Jesus comes into a new phase of full and perfect possession of theeternal Spirit as the reward for his obedience. So complete is thisunion that Paul at one point claims that “the Lord is theSpirit” (2Cor. 3:17).
TheSpirit in the church and the believer.The church and its members are the immediate beneficiaries ofChrist’s spiritual fullness. Since Jesus is now a “life-givingspirit” through his resurrection and ascension (1Cor.15:45), he is able to fulfill the promise of Spirit baptism (Luke3:16). This baptism takes place in the outpouring of the Spirit atPentecost, which marks the birth of the NT church. The apostles,illuminated by the Holy Spirit, provide true and powerful testimonyabout Jesus (John 16:4–15), testimony that serves as thechurch’s foundation and principal tradition (Eph. 2:20). Thework of the Spirit continues within the church in the postapostolicage, uniting its members in Christ for God’s holy purpose (Eph.2:22).
Thissame outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the salvation of individualbelievers. Believers receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:14). TheSpirit in turn unites them to Christ and all his benefits (Gal. 3:2;Eph. 1:3), including his life (Heb. 4:15–16), suffering (Phil.1:29; 1Pet. 4:14), death (Rom. 6:3), resurrection (Rom. 6:5),justification (Rom. 4:25), and glorious reign in heaven (Phil. 3:20).These benefits, though undoubtedly perfected and consummated only atChrist’s return (Phil. 1:6), are characteristic of believers’present experience, enjoyed now because the Spirit dwells within themas the “firstfruits” of the harvest to come (Rom. 8:23;cf. Gal. 2:19–20). This indwelling of the Spirit results in newbirth and new creation (2Cor. 5:17), a newness identified withthe life that Christ received in his resurrection (Rom. 8:11).
Forthis reason, believers are urged to further the work of the Spirit intheir lives until the bodily resurrection of all God’s people.They are to cultivate the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal.5:22), and they are correspondingly warned not to “grieve theHoly Spirit” (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore, since new life isinitiated by the Spirit (John 3:6–8), Christians are to remainin that Spirit, not turning aside in reliance on vain and uselessprinciples (Gal. 3:1–5). Conversely, they are to be “filledwith the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), putting off the old person andputting on the new (4:22). This filling grounds every aspect of thebeliever’s life, from obedience, to worship, to the hope ofresurrection. The Spirit, in uniting believers to all the riches ofChrist and his resurrection, is therefore central in the work ofsalvation. See also Spirit.
In Scripture, honesty usually is associated with uprightbusiness practices and speaking truthful words. Honesty frequently islinked with the use of weights and measures in business transactions.God calls for honesty in the buying and selling of products (Deut.25:15; Job 31:6; Ezek. 45:10). Right conduct must characterize allbusiness, labor, and work activities (cf. Eph. 4:28 NRSV).
Honestyis also used to refer to truthfulness of speech. Truthful, not false,witnessing characterizes God’s people (Prov. 12:17). The sagesays that honest answers are pleasant; they are like a kiss on thelips (24:26). Although Jesus does not specifically use the word“honesty,” he instructs his disciples about honesty inmaking oaths. Let “yes” mean “yes”; nothingelse is necessary (Matt. 5:33–37). Since God is honest andtrustworthy, God’s people display the same quality (2Cor.1:15–22).
A song of worship and praise to God. The NIV only uses theword once in the OT, in Ps. 40:3, referring to a “hymn ofpraise” to God. The Hebrew word behind this phrase is tehillah,which is common in the OT and is elsewhere translated simply as“praise,” especially in the psalms. Psalms were part ofIsrael’s worship, and so such “hymns of praise” toGod are more common than the English suggests.
Thecontent of these hymns is not laid out for modern readers, but itinvolves things such as thanksgiving, gratitude, or generally givingGod due recognition for who he is (e.g., Ps. 66:2) and what he hasdone (e.g., 106:2, 12).
Inthe NT, the word occurs only a handful of times in the NIV, and thereis very little indication what these hymns were about. Here too,generally we can say that a hymn is a particular type of song ofpraise to God.
InMatt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at theconclusion of the Lord’s Supper. Since this meal was patternedafter the Passover, it is likely that one or more of the Hallelpsalms (Pss. 111–118) were sung. (“Hallel” means“praise” in Hebrew and is related to tehillah). The Greekword behind this use in the Gospels, hymneō, is the origin ofthe English word “hymn.” In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silassang hymns at midnight while in prison, although we are told nothingabout their content.
In1 Cor. 14:26 Paul is instructing his readers about orderly worship.According to the NIV, one of the elements of worship includes hymns,although the Greek word here is psalmos (the word used to refer tothe book of Psalms in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:30), which theKJV renders there as “psalm.” There is certainlysignificant overlap between hymns and psalms, since both involvepraising God, but evidently there is some distinction too, as can beseen in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, where Paul makes a distinctionbetween “psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.”Perhaps these terms do not reflect clearly marked categories inPaul’s mind. In Eph. 5:19 all three are directed to God “from[the] heart,” and in Col. 3:16 they are sung with “gratitude,”both of which reflect the use of psalms in the OT.
Biblicalscholars also refer to other portions of the Bible as “hymns,”even though the word is not used. The Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18)and the Song of Hannah (1Sam. 2:1–10) are sometimescalled “hymns” simply as a convenient designation(although Hannah’s is more a prayer). The same goes for Mary’ssong, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), which clearly is modeledafter Hannah’s song, and Zechariah’s song, the Benedictus(Luke 1:68–79), which reflects OT prophetic poems. Elsewherebiblical scholars detect the possibility of fragments of preexisting“hymns” that were incorporated into the NT (e.g., Phil.2:6–11). This suggests to some that there was some hymn-writingactivity in the early church.
At creation, God made human beings to depend on him to revealhis purposes, so that their response to life would always involvetrust in, and loving obedience to, his counsel. The entrance of sincreated a barrier between people and God. Fallen humanity, in itsautonomy, seeks to understand the world apart from knowledge of God(1Cor. 2:14).
InScripture, ignorance frequently refers to one’s inability tounderstand who God is or one’s true identity and purpose (Eph.4:18). In ignorance, humanity disregards God’s revelation (Rom.1:22–25). The darkened, idolatrous heart is the source of humanblindness (Jer. 17:9; Ezek. 14:2–3). Satan holds people captivein blindness (2Cor. 4:4). God revealed himself throughprophetic messengers, but throughout the OT, God’s peopledisregarded their message. Although God raised up judges to lead hispeople, they repeatedly reverted to idolatry: “In those daysIsrael had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judg.21:25).
Jesusis the true light, which gives light to every person (John 1:9). Yetpeople loved darkness and would not come into the light for fear thattheir deeds would be exposed (John 3:20). However, through the Word,the Spirit can transform the hearts of people such as Paul, whoformerly opposed Christ and his church in ignorance and unbelief(1Tim. 1:13).
Ignorance,however, does not always entail sin. Our finitude implies that ourknowledge will always be limited. God has appointed teachers tofacilitate our growth in understanding (Eph. 4:11–12).
That humankind has been created in the image of God indicatesits unique status above the animals because of a special similaritywith God. This status authorizes humankind to rule the earth andrequires respect toward people. The particulars of what the phrase“image of God” means have been understood in many ways.
Thephrase is rather rare. It first appears in Gen. 1:26–27, andthe same or similar phrases occur in five more verses (Gen. 5:1, 3;9:6; 1Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) that refer back to it. The NT alsorefers to Christ as the image of God and to believers becoming likethe image of Christ.
UnderstandingGenesis 1:26–27
Thismakes Gen. 1:26–27 the starting point for understanding thephrase. Several factors come into play: the contrast with thecreation of animals on the same day; the connection with humankindruling the other creatures; other elements of the broader context;the meaning of the words “image” (tselem) and “likeness”(demut); the meaning of the preposition “in”; and themeaning and use of images in the ancient Near East.
Inthe immediately preceding context, animals are made “accordingto their kinds,” whereas humans are made “in the image ofGod.” The context directly following also makes a distinctionbetween the two, granting humans rule, or dominion, over the animals.Being in the image of God certainly involves what makes humans uniquein contrast to the rest of the animal kingdom.
Thehistory of interpretation of the phrase “image of God” islong and voluminous. Just about anything from the broader contextthat seems important to the interpreter might be selected as the keymeaning; or whatever philosophical system is dominant at the timewhen the interpreter writes might be tapped as the “obvious”explanation of what being in the image of God means; or perhaps theinsights of a particular academic discipline or systematictheological system might be given preference. Thus, the meaning ofbeing created in the image of God has been associated with manythings, such as language, eternal soul, rationality, relationality,being male and female (often compared to the Trinity), physicalappearance, dominion, and personhood. The wide variety is possiblebecause the text of Scripture does not spell it out, and the optionsseem reasonable to their various proponents as explaining theuniqueness of humanity, something that clearly serves the context.
Althoughmany of these insights may be reasonable and relevant, it can beproblematic to select one as the key element. For example, to supportthe suggestion that being in the image of God means walking erect ontwo feet, one could point out that (1)humankind’s“walking” is in the broader context, (2)humanbeings “walking” with God uniquely contrasts to thecirc*mstances of other animals, and (3)standing erect on twofeet is a dominance move in the animal kingdom. But this is unlikelyto be convincing to anyone, for good reason. And the many optionsoffered by interpreters often look equally out of place fromanother’s perspective. For example, the text emphasizes thatGod created them “male and female,” a unity with adifference. God is a trinity, a unity with a difference. Is this,then, the image of God? Someone might point out that the animals arealso male and female, and that the text does not necessarily have theTrinity in view (there are other explanations for the plural “us”in Gen. 1:26, which many consider better explanations).
Studyingthe words “image” and “likeness” does notquickly clarify the issue. “Image” normally refers to astatue, typically of a god. And “likeness” normallyrefers to similar physical appearance. The true God is a spirit,lacking a particular physical form, and he forbids making a statue ofhimself. If the three-dimensional human physique is not the point,what remains of the terms “image” and “likeness”is simply some notion of similarity. It is this vagueness that haspromoted diverse understandings.
Thepreposition “in” is also much discussed, for it mightmean “in” or “as.” Thus humanity is perhapsmade in a like appearance to God, or in an unspecified similarity toGod. Or humanity has been created as God’s image on the earth.The first emphasizes what humanity is (being), the second whathumanity is to do (function). Yet the two, being and function,certainly are related, so the difference between them may beoverstated.
Thesurrounding cultures of the ancient Near East made images of theirgods. They believed not that the statue actually was the god butrather that it invoked the presence of the god and represented thegod to the people as a central location for interaction. TheBabylonian word for “image” is similar to the Hebrew andalso usually refers to a statue or artistic representation. It issometimes used figuratively about a king being the image of a god.And in Egypt we find the idea that humanity is the image of gods.This conceptual backdrop aligns with an understanding that being inthe image of God relates to the function of ruling.
Additionally,the phrase “and let them rule over” occurs in a sequencethat can indicate purpose or result. Thus, the passage may berendered, “Let us make man as our image, as our likeness, sothat they may rule.” That is, God set up human beings with adistinct nature for a distinct task, which he expressly includes whenblessing them (Gen. 1:28). We might still infer from generalrevelation some of the details that are relevant to that uniqueness,but we should avoid elevating them in importance.
OtherBiblical Passages
Thepassages that refer back to Gen. 1:26–27 emphasize honor andrespect for human individuals. Humans are to dominate the earth, notone another. They should not kill one another; otherwise they becomesubject to the death penalty (Gen. 9:6), and they should not curseothers but instead treat them with honor (James 3:9). But the motifhas no real prominence other than being in the beginning of theBible. After Gen. 9:6, the OT does not use the phrase “image ofGod.” The concept of human rule appears (e.g., Ps. 8), but theexpression “image of God” is more a subpoint under alarger topic than it is a heading for biblical teaching.
Inthe NT, Jesus is twice identified by the Greek equivalent to theHebrew phrase “image of God” (2Cor. 4:4; Col.1:15). Especially in the context of Col. 1:15, the emphasis is onChrist’s deity and so part of a different topic, despite thesimilar wording. The two verses about believers that refer to thelikeness of God and the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24)deal with moral behavior and the sanctification of the believer (cf.Rom. 8:29; 2Cor. 3:18). Although they do not directly refer toGen. 1, they do address the common metaphor that humankind, bysinning, marred its imaging of God. To be conformed to the image ofChrist restores how humanity images God in the world.
To appropriate the thought or behavior of others. God warnsIsrael not to imitate “the detestable ways of the nations”(Deut. 18:9; cf. Exod. 23:24; Lev. 18:3). Israel’s desire forcultural assimilation, leading to idolatry, incurs divine judgment(2Kings 17:15; Ezek. 20:32; 25:8). The NT carries forward thiswarning to Christians, who must embrace their citizenship in heaven(Phil. 3:20; cf. Rom. 12:1–2; James 4:4; 1John 2:15; 5:5,19).
Inversely,to imitate the humility of Christ, complete submission to the will ofGod, regardless of the cost, is a core virtue (Phil. 2:1–11;Titus 3:2; cf. Matt. 11:28–30). Paul invites others to imitatehim as he imitates Christ (1Cor. 11:1; 2Thess. 3:7–9;2Tim. 3:10–12). By obeying Christ, a disciple imitatesGod (Eph. 5:1–2).
Imitationincarnates faith. To this end, Jesus spends time with his disciples,allowing them to observe his way for approximately three years beforesubmitting to the painful conclusion of God’s will for hisearthly ministry (Mark 3:14; 14:36). Jesus commands his disciples toimitate his washing of their feet, a task normally reserved for thelowest household slave (John 13:12–20), and to pick up theirown crosses (Mark 8:34 pars.). “A student,” he remindsthem, “is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fullytrained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
As a noun, the word “jest” means “a playfuljoke,” as a verb, “to act or speak in a joking manner.”Lot warned his sons-in-law to flee Sodom, but “he appeared tohis sons-in-law to be jesting” (Gen. 19:14 NASB [NIV:“joking”]). Paul warns believers against “coarsejesting” (Eph. 5:4 NASB [NIV: “coarse joking”;NRSV: “vulgar talk”]).
The word “kindness” is used to translate theHebrew term khesed (Gen. 40:14) and the Greek wordschrēstotēs (Col. 3:12) and philanthrōpia (Acts 28:2).Because of the richness of its meaning, khesed is difficult tocapture in English. The word is translated in a variety of ways,including “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”“loyalty,” “steadfast love,”“mercy,” “commitment.” God embodies kindness(Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8; Hos. 2:19). Humans are also called on toreflect this quality of kindness in their relationships with others(1Sam. 20:8; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9).
Inthe NT, God is described as displaying kindness toward humans (Rom.11:22; Titus 3:4; 1Pet. 2:3), even the selfish and ungrateful(Luke 6:36). God pours out kindness on humans in order to lead themto repentance (Rom. 2:4). Christians are to demonstrate kindness evenwhen others are unkind and vengeful (Prov. 25:21–22; Matt.5:43–48; Rom. 12:17–21).
Onediscovers what practicing kindness looks like by observing the wordsassociated with it in Scripture. Kindness involves putting awayanger, bitterness, and slander; being tenderhearted and forgiving;and imitating God (Eph. 4:31–5:2); it finds company withcompassion, humility, meekness, and patience (Col. 3:12); it isassociated with patience, holiness of spirit, and genuine love(2Cor. 6:6).
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.
Six times the KJV translates the Greek word aselgeia asdescribing the evil behavior of “lasciviousness.” The NIVtranslates the Greek word in these same contexts as “lewdness”(Mark 7:22), “debauchery” (2Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19;1Pet. 4:3), “sensuality” (Eph. 4:19), and “licensefor immorality” (Jude 4).
The word “likeness” is used in various contexts.In 2Kings 16:10, King Ahaz wanted to have the exact likenessand pattern of the altar from Damascus, indicating a physicalreplica. In 2Chron. 4:3, “likeness of oxen” (NKJV;NIV: “figures of bulls”) is a physical reference. InEzekiel’s visions the word “likeness” refers tovisual similarities (Ezek. 1). Isaiah 13:4 speaks of “a noiseon the mountains, like that of a great multitude,” referring toan auditory similarity.
Thefoundational concept, however, is found in Gen. 1:26: “Let usmake mankind in our image, in our likeness.” This announces thehigh status of humans as the pinnacle of God’s creation (alsoGen. 5:1–2). Genesis 5:3 says that Adam fathered Seth “inhis own likeness, in his own image,” employing both words foundin 1:26. The precise meaning of this has been much debated. Threethings are to be noted. First, the expression “let us,”versus “let there be,” implies a personal aspect. Itrefers to the human capacity to relate to God in worship andobedience of his word (2Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:24). Second, the word“likeness” describes human beings as not simplyrepresentative of God but representational. Humankind is the visible,corporeal representative of the invisible, bodiless God. Third, beingin God’s likeness/image sets human beings apart from everythingelse that God has made. Humankind’s supremacy and uniquenessare emphasized.
Wickedness, hatred, or ill intentions (Num. 35:20; Mark 7:22;Eph. 4:31; 1Pet. 2:1). Malice characterizes the lives of thosewho are under the wrath of God (Rom. 1:29), but for believers inChrist, malice is a thing of the past (Titus 3:3).
In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb“to associate with.” This is an important connectionbecause relationships of various kinds are central to the issue ofneighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend(2Sam. 13:3), a rival (1Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1),or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentiallydefines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethicalresponsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29).Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technicalmeaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite”(=“brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literatureprohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) aswell as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife(Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor areprohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negativestipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 areclimactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically.Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev.19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even theresident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev.19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).
Whenthe NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that isroutinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotesLev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt.19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Whois my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan(Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more importantthan conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor wasanyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” inpurely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits ofone’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism,denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in”or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expandsocial, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality ofrelationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NTnow prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal.6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
Closely related to honor and respect and often translatingthe Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence isdirected primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’ssanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name(Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers,the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverencefor God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance(Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2Cor. 7:1),and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship(Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may winover unbelievers (1Pet. 3:2).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
A song of worship and praise to God. The NIV only uses theword once in the OT, in Ps. 40:3, referring to a “hymn ofpraise” to God. The Hebrew word behind this phrase is tehillah,which is common in the OT and is elsewhere translated simply as“praise,” especially in the psalms. Psalms were part ofIsrael’s worship, and so such “hymns of praise” toGod are more common than the English suggests.
Thecontent of these hymns is not laid out for modern readers, but itinvolves things such as thanksgiving, gratitude, or generally givingGod due recognition for who he is (e.g., Ps. 66:2) and what he hasdone (e.g., 106:2, 12).
Inthe NT, the word occurs only a handful of times in the NIV, and thereis very little indication what these hymns were about. Here too,generally we can say that a hymn is a particular type of song ofpraise to God.
InMatt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at theconclusion of the Lord’s Supper. Since this meal was patternedafter the Passover, it is likely that one or more of the Hallelpsalms (Pss. 111–118) were sung. (“Hallel” means“praise” in Hebrew and is related to tehillah). The Greekword behind this use in the Gospels, hymneō, is the origin ofthe English word “hymn.” In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silassang hymns at midnight while in prison, although we are told nothingabout their content.
In1 Cor. 14:26 Paul is instructing his readers about orderly worship.According to the NIV, one of the elements of worship includes hymns,although the Greek word here is psalmos (the word used to refer tothe book of Psalms in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:30), which theKJV renders there as “psalm.” There is certainlysignificant overlap between hymns and psalms, since both involvepraising God, but evidently there is some distinction too, as can beseen in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, where Paul makes a distinctionbetween “psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.”Perhaps these terms do not reflect clearly marked categories inPaul’s mind. In Eph. 5:19 all three are directed to God “from[the] heart,” and in Col. 3:16 they are sung with “gratitude,”both of which reflect the use of psalms in the OT.
Biblicalscholars also refer to other portions of the Bible as “hymns,”even though the word is not used. The Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18)and the Song of Hannah (1Sam. 2:1–10) are sometimescalled “hymns” simply as a convenient designation(although Hannah’s is more a prayer). The same goes for Mary’ssong, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), which clearly is modeledafter Hannah’s song, and Zechariah’s song, the Benedictus(Luke 1:68–79), which reflects OT prophetic poems. Elsewherebiblical scholars detect the possibility of fragments of preexisting“hymns” that were incorporated into the NT (e.g., Phil.2:6–11). This suggests to some that there was some hymn-writingactivity in the early church.
Evil, malicious talk or lies intended to defame or destroyanother person or another’s reputation (Pss. 31:13; 50:20;Ezek. 22:9). Both Testaments frequently condemn the sin of slander.Mosaic law forbade it (Lev. 19:16), and the ninth of the TenCommandments specifically condemns bearing “false testimony”(Exod. 20:16). Slandering was an especially malicious act, withaccompanying consequences (Prov. 30:10), and was viewed as a crimeworthy of God’s displeasure or punishment (Pss. 101:5; 140:11).Paul includes slander among destructive ways of relating and speakingto one another (Rom. 1:30; 2Tim. 3:3; cf. 2Cor. 12:20;Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8). The great accuser and slanderer of God and hispeople is Satan (Gen. 3:4–5; Job 1:9–11; 2:4–5;Zech. 3:1). There is no truth in him; he is a liar and the father oflies (John 8:44).
The KJV uses “tenderhearted” in 2Chron.13:7 to translate the Hebrew phrase rak-lebab,meaning “weak of heart, timid” (NIV: “indecisive”),and in Eph. 4:32 to translate the Greek word eusplanchnos,meaning “compassionate.”
An alcoholic beverage made primarily by fermenting grapes,wine was valued as both a pleasurable and a functional drink (Ps.104:15; 1Tim. 5:23) and therefore a staple of ceremonialpractice and social gatherings (Exod. 29:40; John 2:1–3). Forthis reason, wine is a symbol of God’s blessing (Gen. 27:28;John 2:11), particularly for his covenant people (Isa. 25:6, 55:1;1Cor. 11:25). Yet the Bible also warns against the abuse ofalcohol, which can lead to drunkenness and debauchery (Prov. 9:4–5;Eph. 5:18). Such abuse becomes a symbol of God’s curse fordisobedience (Hos. 4:11; 9:2; Matt. 27:48–49).
The words “wrath” and “anger” areused in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek wordsthat refer to the disposition of someone (including God) towardpersons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered tobe seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15),and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen.45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5),and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).
Angermay be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in,for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19).Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph.4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness ofhis contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning forLazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” ananger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness ofdeath, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his ownimpending death necessitated by this fallen world.
Onthe other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distortedperceptions or values (Gen. 4:5–6). A tendency to anger inoneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs tobe handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead toviolence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger isassociated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy,selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry,sorcery, and bitterness (2Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31;Col. 3:8).
InPs. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human angerto bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrathagainst human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance ofthis is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civilauthority serves to maintain justice under God.
Despite tendencies to downplay the reality of God’sanger (God is classically described as “without passions”),if we are to do justice to both Testaments, we must allow thelanguage of Scripture to stand, where God often is said to be angrywith individuals or nations, including Israel. Although God ischangeless (Mal. 3:6), he interacts in a personal way with atime-bound world. The Bible writers intend us to understand thatthere is something in God’s anger to which human anger isanalogous, though God’s anger is not identical to ours (Hos.11:9). God’s anger is not an automatic response; he canrestrain it (Ps. 78:38). God is said to be characteristically slow tobecome angry; that is, his anger is a deliberate response (Exod.34:6, a text with numerous echoes) and may also be short-lived (Ps.30:5; Mic. 7:18).
God’sanger against Israel in the wilderness is noteworthy (Heb. 3:10, 17).The apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32:10–12), thecomplaining (Num. 11:1, 33), and the failure to enter the promisedland following the report of the spies (Num. 32:10–11) allprovoke God to anger. Failure to heed God’s word (Zech. 7:12)or that of his prophets (2Chron. 36:16), neglect of his worship(2Chron. 29:6–8), and intermarriage with idolaters (Ezra9:14) are behaviors that incur the wrath of God.
God’sanger is directed against individuals, particularly for failures ofleadership, as with Moses (Exod. 4:14; Deut. 1:37) and Solomon(1Kings 11:9–11). God’s anger often is directedagainst the Israelite and Judean kings, not just those who committedidolatry (2Chron. 25:15), but even those who are faithful inmost respects, for their failure to remove the idolatrous high places(2Kings 23:19).
Pickingup on the warning that God’s anger will be directed againstthose who do not pay homage to God’s appointed king (Ps. 2:5,12), Jesus declares that disobedience to God’s Son brings uponone the wrath of God (John 3:36), which evidently is not incompatiblewith his love for the world (3:16). According to Rom. 4:15, God’swrath is a consequence of the law; that is, the law, giving concreteexpression to the character of God, brings culpability fortransgression. God’s wrath is revealed against all forms ofungodliness and its tendency to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18). Thosewho demonstrate their disobedience to God or his truth will besubjected to his anger (Rom. 2:8; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6).
Apervasive metaphor for anger is that of a burning fire (Deut. 32:22;Ps. 89:46; Isa. 66:15) along with associated images of smoke (Ps.18:8) and smelting metal (Ezek. 22:20, 22). Other images are thewinepress (Isa. 63:3; Rev. 14:19), drinking from a vessel (Isa.51:22; Rev. 14:10), and a tempest (Ezek. 13:13).
Thejudgment that follows as a consequence of God’s anger beingaroused takes the form of the withholding of God’s covenantfavor (Ps. 95:11; Isa. 54:8) or the implementation of his covenantcurses (Deut. 29:27), specifically through drought (Deut. 11:17),plague (Ps. 78:50), the sword (Ps. 78:62), and deliverance into thehands of enemies (2Kings 13:3), leading to exile (2Chron.6:36). God’s anger can be depicted in various forms of cosmicupheaval or the undoing of creation (2Sam. 22:8–16; Ps.18:7; Jer. 4:26). God’s anger is beyond human ability to endure(Ps. 76:7), such that hiding in Sheol is considered preferable (Job14:13).
God’swrath becomes particularly associated with a coming day of wrath atthe end of the age, when God’s justice will be powerfullydisplayed (Dan. 8:19; Zeph. 2:3; Luke 21:23; Rom. 2:5; Rev. 6:17).
Subjectionto God’s anger may evoke the cry “How long?” (Pss.79:5; 80:4). While God’s mercy cannot be taken for granted,since his anger against some may be final as an expression of hisjustice (Jer. 30:24; Rom. 12:19), God’s anger may be assuagedor averted through humbling oneself (2Chron. 12:7) and anappeal to God for mercy (Ps. 106:23; Hab. 3:2), by repentance(2Chron. 29:10; Ezra 10:14; Jon. 3:9), by zealous action toroot out evil (Num. 25:11), and by the faithful ministry of God’sappointed servants (Num. 1:53; 18:5).
TheNT brings to fulfillment these forms of mediation in presenting theultimate remedy for God’s wrath in the person and work of JesusChrist (Rom. 5:9; 1Thess. 1:10; 5:9). The use of “propitiation”language (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1John 2:2), though itssignificance is disputed, is classically understood in terms of theneed for God’s wrath to be satisfied. In that case, it isspecifically the cross of Christ that ultimately deals with God’srighteous anger against sinners.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Ephesians 4:17--5:21
is mentioned in the definition.
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 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.”
By its title, Song of Songs claims to be the most sublime song of all. The history of its interpretation also reveals that it may be the most misunderstood song as well. The reader of this book is dazzled by its intensity and honest expression of desire for intimate relationship. No wonder that early theologians who thought that the body was only a temporary casing for the all-important spirit felt that this book could not be talking about what it appeared to be talking about. Thus, for example, when the woman describes the man as a sachet of myrrh lodged between her breasts (1:13), this had to be a reference to Christ spanning the OT and the NT (so Cyril of Alexandria). But over time this book could not be suppressed by such interpretive strategies. Today most readily acknowledge that Song of Songs is love poetry that articulates human desires as well as our joys and worries.
Genre, Structure, and Outline
As implied by the preceding paragraph, Song of Songs is not an allegory. It is love poetry, in which a man and a woman express their deepest longings and desires to each other. They want to be in each other’s passionate embrace. This book celebrates love between a man and a woman.
Some interpreters believe that Song of Songs is a drama or at least tells a story of a particular love relationship. Although there are almost as many different suggestions of a story as there are advocates of the so-called dramatic approach, two main types emerge. One approach believes that there are two characters, a lover and his beloved, and the plot entails their growing relationship, sometimes following the pattern of courtship, engagement, marriage, honeymoon, and so forth. Occasionally this plot is given a historical background, usually with Solomon as the man (thanks to the superscription in 1:1) and a woman who goes by the name of the “Shulammite” (6:13 [curiously, apparently a feminine form of the name “Solomon”]). On the other hand, other interpretations introduce yet a third character, an unnamed shepherd boy, who is the woman’s true love. Thus, the story is that of a love triangle. Solomon is trying or has succeeded in adding the woman to his harem, but she retains her true love toward the shepherd boy. Thus, Song of Songs is the story of true love’s triumph over power and wealth.
Other interpreters point out that if it is difficult to determine how many characters are in this supposed plot or the exact contour of the story, then interpreters must be reading too much into the book to make it work. After all, there is no narrator in the book providing narrative guidelines to the reader. Indeed, there are not even indications of who is speaking when (thus modern translations insert italicized text headings such as “Beloved,” “Lover,” and “Friends” to identify speakers).
Such interpreters argue that Song of Songs does not tell a story but rather is a kind of “love Psalter” containing a number of different love poems. In other words, it is an anthology, a collection, of love poems united by a consistency of character and imagery as well as the occasional recurrent refrain. The book is truly a “Song [composed] of [many] Songs.” The exact number of poems in this anthology can be debated and is unimportant for their interpretation. The important point is that readers do not force connections between poems that are not there. However, the following division, after the superscription (1:1) into twenty-three poems may not be far off the mark.
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)
III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)
IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)
V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)
VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)
VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)
VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)
IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)
X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)
XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)
XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)
XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)
XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)
XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)
XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)
XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)
XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)
XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)
XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)
XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)
XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)
XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)
XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)
Date and Authorship
The conclusion that Song of Songs is a collection of love poems has implications for the date and authorship of the book. It is true that the superscription (1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and this connection must be taken seriously because there is no indication that the superscription is not a part of the canonical final form of the book. In light of a similar superscription in the book of Proverbs, however, this does not mean that Solomon wrote the entire book or that it is about him. Indeed, Solomon’s track record in love is dubious both in the book (Song 8:11–12) and outside it (1Kings 11:1–13). Perhaps as in Proverbs, he is considered the fountainhead of the composition of the book, and like Psalms and Proverbs, the book came into existence over a lengthy period of time and as a result of several composers. If so, the final form bears the mark of a single editor who brought it all together at an unknown date within the period of the formation of the OT.
Theological Message
Song of Songs celebrates love between a man and a woman. It reminds the people of God that intimate relationship is a divine gift that should be enjoyed. Although joy is indeed the dominant note of the book, the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that has its disappointments (so begins the poem in 5:2–6:3). Accordingly, the woman makes sure that the young girls who are watching and looking at her understand that it is important not to hurry love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).
But we must not read Song of Songs in isolation from the rest of the canon. This book describes the man and the woman in the garden as naked and enjoying each other. How can the reader not think of the garden of Eden? God created a man and a woman and established marriage as a source of mutual joy (Gen. 2:23–25). The next chapter, however, narrates the fall, where the rebellion against God results in alienation not only between God and Adam and Eve, but also between Adam and Eve. Their estrangement results in their efforts to cover themselves from the gaze of the other and their ejection from the garden. The poems of Song of Songs, then, may be seen as the story of the “already but not yet” redemption of sexuality.
Last, the broader canon frequently uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between God and his creatures (e.g., Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3). In other words, the more we learn about intimate marital relationships, the more we learn about our intimate relationship with God. Thus, Song of Songs may be read in a way that deepens our understanding of God and his love toward his people (cf. Eph. 5:21–33).
Continuing Significance
The opening chapters of Genesis describe human beings as creatures who were created for relationship, relationship with God to be sure, but also relationship with other people. Genesis 2:18–25 narrates the origin of the institution that formalizes the most intimate of human relationships, that between a man and a woman in marriage. The story continues in Gen. 3 on a tragic note when, because of sin, a barrier is erected between the man and the woman. Song of Songs poetically celebrates the redemption of the marriage relationship and encourages couples to grow closer to each other. The poems are not a how-to manual for courtship or intimate behavior, but they invite couples to cultivate their own love language and intimacies.
In both Testaments of Scripture, marriage is used toillustrate the relationship between God and his chosen people. Isaiahand Jeremiah portray Israel as the bride of Yahweh, sometimes toemphasize his love for her, sometimes to lament her unfaithfulness tohim. Isaiah says that Yahweh will one day rejoice over Israel “asa bridegroom rejoices over his bride” (Isa. 62:5; cf. 61:10).Jeremiah expresses God’s disappointment that his bride (Israel)has lost her first love for him and even forgotten him (Jer. 2:2,32). Hosea uses this metaphor repeatedly to proclaim Yahweh’sundying love for his adulterous wife, the people of Israel (Hos.1–3).
Inthe NT, the church becomes the bride of Christ, both in Paul’sletters and in the book of Revelation (Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17). Paulcompares the church to a bride expressly in Eph. 5, where the love ofChrist for his church sets an example for ordinary husbands: theymust love their wives “as Christ loved the church,” thatis, sacrificially (v. 25). In Revelation the church adornsherself with righteous acts for the sake of Christ, her groom (19:6).Further along in Revelation, the new Jerusalem itself becomes the“bride” of Christ, inhabited by his saved people, thechurch (21:9–10).
The“bride” metaphor communicates powerfully in thesecontexts because of the duties that ancient marriages presupposed.Husbands were to lead, protect, and provide for their wives, and Goddoes this perfectly for his people. He leads them safely out ofEgypt, through the wilderness, and on to victory in battle. They areblessed in faithfulness, and God is slow to anger in spite of theiradultery against him. When his people need a savior, he provides theBridegroom-Messiah, through whom he gives lasting forgiveness, peace,and rest. On the other hand, the church must honor herSavior-Husband, who finds in her obedience the greatest beauty.
By its title, Song of Songs claims to be the most sublime song of all. The history of its interpretation also reveals that it may be the most misunderstood song as well. The reader of this book is dazzled by its intensity and honest expression of desire for intimate relationship. No wonder that early theologians who thought that the body was only a temporary casing for the all-important spirit felt that this book could not be talking about what it appeared to be talking about. Thus, for example, when the woman describes the man as a sachet of myrrh lodged between her breasts (1:13), this had to be a reference to Christ spanning the OT and the NT (so Cyril of Alexandria). But over time this book could not be suppressed by such interpretive strategies. Today most readily acknowledge that Song of Songs is love poetry that articulates human desires as well as our joys and worries.
Genre, Structure, and Outline
As implied by the preceding paragraph, Song of Songs is not an allegory. It is love poetry, in which a man and a woman express their deepest longings and desires to each other. They want to be in each other’s passionate embrace. This book celebrates love between a man and a woman.
Some interpreters believe that Song of Songs is a drama or at least tells a story of a particular love relationship. Although there are almost as many different suggestions of a story as there are advocates of the so-called dramatic approach, two main types emerge. One approach believes that there are two characters, a lover and his beloved, and the plot entails their growing relationship, sometimes following the pattern of courtship, engagement, marriage, honeymoon, and so forth. Occasionally this plot is given a historical background, usually with Solomon as the man (thanks to the superscription in 1:1) and a woman who goes by the name of the “Shulammite” (6:13 [curiously, apparently a feminine form of the name “Solomon”]). On the other hand, other interpretations introduce yet a third character, an unnamed shepherd boy, who is the woman’s true love. Thus, the story is that of a love triangle. Solomon is trying or has succeeded in adding the woman to his harem, but she retains her true love toward the shepherd boy. Thus, Song of Songs is the story of true love’s triumph over power and wealth.
Other interpreters point out that if it is difficult to determine how many characters are in this supposed plot or the exact contour of the story, then interpreters must be reading too much into the book to make it work. After all, there is no narrator in the book providing narrative guidelines to the reader. Indeed, there are not even indications of who is speaking when (thus modern translations insert italicized text headings such as “Beloved,” “Lover,” and “Friends” to identify speakers).
Such interpreters argue that Song of Songs does not tell a story but rather is a kind of “love Psalter” containing a number of different love poems. In other words, it is an anthology, a collection, of love poems united by a consistency of character and imagery as well as the occasional recurrent refrain. The book is truly a “Song [composed] of [many] Songs.” The exact number of poems in this anthology can be debated and is unimportant for their interpretation. The important point is that readers do not force connections between poems that are not there. However, the following division, after the superscription (1:1) into twenty-three poems may not be far off the mark.
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)
III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)
IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)
V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)
VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)
VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)
VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)
IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)
X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)
XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)
XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)
XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)
XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)
XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)
XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)
XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)
XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)
XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)
XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)
XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)
XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)
XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)
XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)
Date and Authorship
The conclusion that Song of Songs is a collection of love poems has implications for the date and authorship of the book. It is true that the superscription (1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and this connection must be taken seriously because there is no indication that the superscription is not a part of the canonical final form of the book. In light of a similar superscription in the book of Proverbs, however, this does not mean that Solomon wrote the entire book or that it is about him. Indeed, Solomon’s track record in love is dubious both in the book (Song 8:11–12) and outside it (1Kings 11:1–13). Perhaps as in Proverbs, he is considered the fountainhead of the composition of the book, and like Psalms and Proverbs, the book came into existence over a lengthy period of time and as a result of several composers. If so, the final form bears the mark of a single editor who brought it all together at an unknown date within the period of the formation of the OT.
Theological Message
Song of Songs celebrates love between a man and a woman. It reminds the people of God that intimate relationship is a divine gift that should be enjoyed. Although joy is indeed the dominant note of the book, the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that has its disappointments (so begins the poem in 5:2–6:3). Accordingly, the woman makes sure that the young girls who are watching and looking at her understand that it is important not to hurry love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).
But we must not read Song of Songs in isolation from the rest of the canon. This book describes the man and the woman in the garden as naked and enjoying each other. How can the reader not think of the garden of Eden? God created a man and a woman and established marriage as a source of mutual joy (Gen. 2:23–25). The next chapter, however, narrates the fall, where the rebellion against God results in alienation not only between God and Adam and Eve, but also between Adam and Eve. Their estrangement results in their efforts to cover themselves from the gaze of the other and their ejection from the garden. The poems of Song of Songs, then, may be seen as the story of the “already but not yet” redemption of sexuality.
Last, the broader canon frequently uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between God and his creatures (e.g., Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3). In other words, the more we learn about intimate marital relationships, the more we learn about our intimate relationship with God. Thus, Song of Songs may be read in a way that deepens our understanding of God and his love toward his people (cf. Eph. 5:21–33).
Continuing Significance
The opening chapters of Genesis describe human beings as creatures who were created for relationship, relationship with God to be sure, but also relationship with other people. Genesis 2:18–25 narrates the origin of the institution that formalizes the most intimate of human relationships, that between a man and a woman in marriage. The story continues in Gen. 3 on a tragic note when, because of sin, a barrier is erected between the man and the woman. Song of Songs poetically celebrates the redemption of the marriage relationship and encourages couples to grow closer to each other. The poems are not a how-to manual for courtship or intimate behavior, but they invite couples to cultivate their own love language and intimacies.
In the Bible chaos primarily refers to an opposite conditionto the orderliness of the creation or a mythical force oftenrepresented by the sea or the sea monster(s) (translated as “dragon,”“Leviathan,” or “Rahab”). The two relatedideas are based on the creation accounts recorded in Gen. 1–2and other places.
OldTestament.In Gen. 1:2 chaos is the state of darkness and desolation (note thephrase “formless and empty” [Heb. tohu wabohu], whichprobably refers to the state of desolation of water with nothing init; cf. Isa. 34:11; 45:18). The rest of the chapter describes how Godin his absolute sovereignty and power—only with hiswords—creates order in place of the chaos. God brings light tothe darkness, separates the land from the sea, and provides the landwith abundance. The portrayal of the garden of Eden (2:4–14)further describes God’s provision of orderliness, fertility,eternal life, and harmony in the original creation.
Althoughthe Genesis account does not directly mention any mythical elements(i.e., the primordial combat between the sea and the prime god),other passages describe creation as the event in which God calmed theraging sea and killed the sea monsters (Pss. 74:12–17; 89:9–12;Job 26:7–14). Still, nowhere are the chaotic forces presentedas an independent power that constantly challenges God’ssovereignty. Rather, God always does whatever he pleases with them,lifting up the waves of the sea (Ps. 107:25; Jer. 31:35; cf. Ps.146:6) and uncovering Death and Destruction (Job 26:6). Isaiahalludes to God’s slaying of the chaotic sea creature not onlyas the past event (51:9), but also as the promise to be realized inthe day of the Lord (27:1).
InGenesis, God’s judgment is frequently described by means of thechaos motif, as a precreation condition reversed—forexample, loss of harmony, fruitfulness, and eternal life (Gen.3:15–24), return of the waters over the land (Gen. 7–8),loss of communication (11:7–9), and desolation of the fruitfulland (19:23–28; cf. 13:10).
Thechaos motif also plays an important role in the propheticdescriptions of God’s judgment against his people and againstthe foreign nations. Noteworthy is Jer. 4:23–26, which depictsGod’s judgment upon his people in terms of chaos’sreturn—that is, the condition of “formless and empty,”without light, creatures, or fruitful land (cf. Hos. 4:3). In Isa.34:11 God’s judgment upon Edom is expressed with thecharacteristic phrase in Gen. 1:2: “God will stretch out overEdom the measuring line of chaos [tohu, ‘formless’] andthe plumb line of desolation [bohu, ‘empty’].” Inother places Isaiah frequently employs the imageries of desolation(5:6; 7:23–25; 13:19–22; 24:1–13; 34:8–17),darkness (5:30; 8:22; 13:10), and flood (8:7–8).
NewTestament.The concept of chaos developed in the OT provides an importantbackground for understanding the NT. The Gospel writers use the chaosmotif in describing Jesus’ person and work—for example,as light in the darkness (John 1:4–9; 3:19), as provider ofabundance and eternal life (John 3:16; 4:14; 5:51; 6:1–15), andas the sovereign ruler of the chaotic sea, who walks on the water(Matt. 14:22–36; Mark 6:47–55; John 6:16–21) andcalms the stormy sea with his words (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25). Jesus’ resurrection is hisultimate demonstration of his reign over death (cf. 1 Cor. 15).
Paulfurther uses the chaos motif to describe the life of sinners or thesinful world. The identity of believers is changed from “darkness”to “light” or “children of light,” who nowmust shine the light in the world (Eph. 5:8; cf. Matt. 5:15–16;Phil. 2:15).
Inthe book of Revelation the ultimate restoration of the perfectcreation order is presented, making allusions to the OT mythicaldescriptions of the chaotic forces (e.g., Satan as the dragon[12:15–16], Death and Hades as the underground forces[20:13–14]). Particularly, the new Jerusalem is the place of nosea or darkness or death (21:1, 4, 23–25) but of fruitfulnessand eternal life (22:1–2).
The word “kindness” is used to translate theHebrew term khesed (Gen. 40:14) and the Greek wordschrēstotēs (Col. 3:12) and philanthrōpia (Acts 28:2).Because of the richness of its meaning, khesed is difficult tocapture in English. The word is translated in a variety of ways,including “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”“loyalty,” “steadfast love,”“mercy,” “commitment.” God embodies kindness(Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8; Hos. 2:19). Humans are also called on toreflect this quality of kindness in their relationships with others(1Sam. 20:8; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9).
Inthe NT, God is described as displaying kindness toward humans (Rom.11:22; Titus 3:4; 1Pet. 2:3), even the selfish and ungrateful(Luke 6:36). God pours out kindness on humans in order to lead themto repentance (Rom. 2:4). Christians are to demonstrate kindness evenwhen others are unkind and vengeful (Prov. 25:21–22; Matt.5:43–48; Rom. 12:17–21).
Onediscovers what practicing kindness looks like by observing the wordsassociated with it in Scripture. Kindness involves putting awayanger, bitterness, and slander; being tenderhearted and forgiving;and imitating God (Eph. 4:31–5:2); it finds company withcompassion, humility, meekness, and patience (Col. 3:12); it isassociated with patience, holiness of spirit, and genuine love(2Cor. 6:6).
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).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denyingourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and liveabundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are inpain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement justwhen others might keep their distance. The compassionate person alsoturns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed intheir character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love ingeneral, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’spain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.
CompassionShown by God
TheOT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward thosewho, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. InExod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they haverebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for theirdeliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them ofhis sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I willhave mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will havecompassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy,yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deservedharm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sinand wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’spatience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to theirjudges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshipedthem!” but God later “was moved to compassion when heheard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them”(2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies onYahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Havemercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according toyour great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1).In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, whocomplains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I wasstill at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious andcompassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God whor*lents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g.,49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).
TheNT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in theGospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowdswho “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”(Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick andfeeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The sameconnection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscoresthis attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father ofour Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the Godof all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is“full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depictsGod as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution andtrial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with brokensinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps.145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for hispeople. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise,and even unrighteous.
CompassionRequired by God
BecauseGod loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflictedwounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parentsought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’sgarment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the onlycovering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When theycry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod.22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, Godrequires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, andacknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt.12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalismand genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “Hehas shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord requireof you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with yourGod.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we mighthave expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it issometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13;Ps. 109:12).
TheNT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is afamiliar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will beshown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion towardthose who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the“Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “sothat we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort weourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is adirect command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners:“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving eachother, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given tous by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there isany “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), wemust follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves]with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience”(Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility andcompassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, besympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble”(1 Pet. 3:8).
TheBible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandablereasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. Wewant always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected byour own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering peopleare burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a readyexcuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior hasshown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.
To ingest a liquid. Drinking and eating, being closely related, commonly occur in the same context. Their primary purpose is to sustain life. The most common drinks are water, wine (or unfermented grape juice), milk, vinegar, and beer, but water is most important for sustaining life (e.g., Gen. 21:19; Exod. 15:22–23; 17:1–3; Num. 20:5). Fellowship is promoted among those who eat and drink together (e.g., Judg. 19:4–7; Job 1:18; Gal. 2:11–12). Food and drink often symbolize the enjoyment of life (1Kings 18:41; Neh. 8:12; Eccles. 2:24; 8:15). Drinking wine commemorates the blood of the Passover and Jesus’ crucifixion, but its abuse is condemned (e.g., Eph. 5:18). On occasion, drinking accompanies the making of a covenant: old (Exod. 24:11) and new (Luke 22:20). Drinking is also used metaphorically to represent partaking of something, such as sexual activity (Prov. 5:15; 9:5) or violence (Isa. 34:5; Rev. 16:6).
Any substance that, after being absorbed by the body, altersits normal function. The most common drug in the Bible is alcohol,particularly wine, which replaces the sugar in grape juice duringfermentation. Noah drinks wine, becomes intoxicated, and actsshamefully by exposing his nakedness (Gen. 9:21). The Bibleunequivocally condemns drunkenness (e.g., Eph. 5:18) but not themoderate consumption of alcohol (Ps. 104:15; Eccles. 10:19; Isa.25:6). Physicians used drugs medicinally, apparently without sanctionor stigma. In the first century, Dioscorides wrote a treatise ondrugs, De materia medica, which became a standard of botanicalknowledge for well over a millennium. Medicine often was derived fromnatural herbs and roots (synthetic drugs were not available untilfurther gains in chemistry). The author of Sirach praises the work ofphysicians and allows the use of medicines because they are part ofGod’s creation (38:1–15). Paul encourages Timothy todrink a little wine for his ailments (1Tim. 5:23), and heappreciated the services of Luke, whom he calls the “belovedphysician” (Col. 4:14 KJV, RSV). But the Bible also condemnssorcery and magic (Gal. 5:20), which often appropriated drugs tomanipulate the divine. Sorcerers carried drugs around in bottles(Herm. 17:7). The line between healing and manipulation could beblurred, as with the Roman use of an abortion pill (Juvenal, Sat.595–596).
Although the Bible is dominated by a patriarchal perspective,as one would expect from the ancient Near East, there is also avaluing of women that comes to the surface. Although this falls shortof what we would call “gender equality” today, the Bibledoes make overtures in that direction. Already in the Genesiscreation story, men and women are described as the two halves ofhumanity, who together participate in the mandate to fill and subduethe earth (Gen. 1:26–28). Eve is created from the side of Adam,indicating equality in their very beings (2:21–23).
Inhis own ministry, Jesus includes women in ways that were unusual forhis context. In first-century Palestine, learning from spiritualteachers was a privilege reserved exclusively for men. However, inthe story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), Jesus commendsMary for breaking her expected role as a woman in order to follow himand learn at his feet. Martha, however, receives a sharp rebuke forallowing domestic duties to hinder her discipleship. Jesus’first resurrection appearance is to women in all of the Gospels, eventhough the testimony of a woman was generally not considered valid inlegal matters in first-century Palestine (although rabbinicl*terature suggests it was considered valid testimony for a woman toconfirm a man’s death). Jesus takes particular efforts toelevate the position of women, despite a possible tarnishing of hispublic image.
Theconcern for greater gender equality extends into the rest of the NT.Paul says that in Christ all are one regardless of ethnicity, status,or gender (Gal. 3:28). Paul also refers to women as coworkers in thegospel (Rom. 16:3) and as deacons (16:1). Although frequently citedin order to support a hierarchal family structure, the householdcodes (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10;1Pet. 2:18–3:7) are a step toward gender equality in theGreco-Roman culture, since secular household codes usually placedresponsibilities on wives, not husbands. That Paul givesresponsibilities to husbands is a significant shift toward amutuality of devotion and obligation.
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
In both Testaments “head” can refer to theliteral head of the physical body or be symbolic of leadership andthe source of provision.
Thephysical head played a significant role in Jewish and Christiancustoms. Cutting off an opponent’s head was a symbol of victory(1Sam. 17:46; 1Chron. 10:9–10). The consecration ofpriests and kings was done by anointing the head with oil (Exod.29:7; Lev. 8:12; 1Sam. 10:1). Contrition and shame weredisplayed by covering one’s head (2Sam. 15:30; Jer.14:3). Grief was expressed by casting dust or ashes on the head (Job1:20; 2Sam. 13:19; 15:32; Lam. 2:10; Ezek. 27:30; Rev. 18:19)or shaving one’s own head (Job 1:20; Jer. 16:6). The head wasthe place for receiving blessing, as when Jacob laid his hands onManasseh and Ephraim to bless them (Gen. 48:14), or guilt, as whenSolomon declared that the guilt over the blood of the two Israelitecommanders murdered by Joab would rest “on the head of Joab andhis descendants forever” (1Kings 2:33). Lifting up thehead was associated with the giving of life in terms of success (Gen.40:13; Judg. 8:28; Ps. 27:6).
Becauseof the prominent physical role of the head as the topmost andpreeminent part of the body, it was often used as a symbol forleadership and the source of provision. Ancient medical writers suchas Hippocrates and Galen viewed the head as the leading member of thebody. Ancient political writers adapted the idea and applied it tomilitary and political leaders, such as Nero, who was called the“head” of Rome. For the political writers in particular,the emphasis often was on the power and authority of the head.
Examplesof this use of “head” as leader and source of provisionin the Bible include Judg. 10:18, where the leaders of Gilead declarethat whoever launches the attack against the Ammonites will be thehead of the inhabitants of Gilead. After the elders successfullyappeal to Jephthah, the people make him “head and commander”over them (Judg. 11:11). Christ’s ruling function is emphasizedin Col. 2:10, where he is called the “head over every power andauthority.” In Eph. 4:16 Paul states that Christ as the head isthe one “from [whom] the whole body ... grows andbuilds itself up in love.”
Inthe NT, Paul’s use of the metaphor for the relationship betweenChrist and the church and husbands and wives is particularlysignificant. When Paul applies the metaphor to Christ and the church,he implies that Christ provides both leadership to the body as wellas the nourishment needed for its continued growth. Thus, in Col.2:19 the head is the one “from whom the whole body ...grows as God causes it to grow,” and in Eph. 5:23–24Christ is “the head of the ... body,” the oneto whom the church submits.
Pauluses the head/body metaphor in reference to Christ with someflexibility. Whereas Christ is the head of the church, his body, inEphesians and Colossians, in 1Cor. 11:3 his headship is part ofa series in which God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head ofman, and man is the head of woman. In Eph. 1:22 he is head over theentire universe.
InEph. 5:21–33 the head/body metaphor is applied to therelationship between husbands and wives, and specifically incomparison with Christ and the church’s relationship as headand body. As Christ is the head of the church, so is the husband thehead of the wife. Thus, both provide leadership and growth to theirrespective bodies. It is important to note that the husband’srole as head is defined in terms of loving his wife and bringing herto holiness. The husband’s headship does not consist of anarbitrary power over his wife, especially one based on his owninterests and whims. Rather, it is a sacrificial leadership thatreflects Christ’s love for the church. It is a leadership inwhich he gives his life for his wife as Christ gave his life for thechurch and nourishes her by providing what is most beneficial forher. See also Head of the Church.
In Scripture, honesty usually is associated with uprightbusiness practices and speaking truthful words. Honesty frequently islinked with the use of weights and measures in business transactions.God calls for honesty in the buying and selling of products (Deut.25:15; Job 31:6; Ezek. 45:10). Right conduct must characterize allbusiness, labor, and work activities (cf. Eph. 4:28 NRSV).
Honestyis also used to refer to truthfulness of speech. Truthful, not false,witnessing characterizes God’s people (Prov. 12:17). The sagesays that honest answers are pleasant; they are like a kiss on thelips (24:26). Although Jesus does not specifically use the word“honesty,” he instructs his disciples about honesty inmaking oaths. Let “yes” mean “yes”; nothingelse is necessary (Matt. 5:33–37). Since God is honest andtrustworthy, God’s people display the same quality (2Cor.1:15–22).
The Petrine phrase “inner self” (lit., “hiddenperson of the heart” [1Pet. 3:4]) is nearly identicalwith the Pauline phrase “inner being.” There are threereferences to this inner person in Paul’s writings. Two ofthese clearly refer to a Christian as opposed to a non-Christian(2Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); one is unclear (Rom. 7:22). Ratherthan import the meaning from the first two into Romans 7:22, weshould seek the broader semantic meaning of the phrase. It is theimmaterial aspects of humanity—mind, spirit—indistinction from the outward person, which wastes away (2Cor.4:16). In this inner sphere the Holy Spirit does his renewing andsaving work (Eph. 3:16). Thus, we must distinguish between “innerperson” and “new person” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10),which does seem to have a soteriological sense, because the formermay still be corrupt, vain, and alienated from the life of God (Eph.4:18).
The Petrine phrase “inner self” (lit., “hiddenperson of the heart” [1Pet. 3:4]) is nearly identicalwith the Pauline phrase “inner being.” There are threereferences to this inner person in Paul’s writings. Two ofthese clearly refer to a Christian as opposed to a non-Christian(2Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); one is unclear (Rom. 7:22). Ratherthan import the meaning from the first two into Romans 7:22, weshould seek the broader semantic meaning of the phrase. It is theimmaterial aspects of humanity—mind, spirit—indistinction from the outward person, which wastes away (2Cor.4:16). In this inner sphere the Holy Spirit does his renewing andsaving work (Eph. 3:16). Thus, we must distinguish between “innerperson” and “new person” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10),which does seem to have a soteriological sense, because the formermay still be corrupt, vain, and alienated from the life of God (Eph.4:18).
The word “kindness” is used to translate theHebrew term khesed (Gen. 40:14) and the Greek wordschrēstotēs (Col. 3:12) and philanthrōpia (Acts 28:2).Because of the richness of its meaning, khesed is difficult tocapture in English. The word is translated in a variety of ways,including “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”“loyalty,” “steadfast love,”“mercy,” “commitment.” God embodies kindness(Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8; Hos. 2:19). Humans are also called on toreflect this quality of kindness in their relationships with others(1Sam. 20:8; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9).
Inthe NT, God is described as displaying kindness toward humans (Rom.11:22; Titus 3:4; 1Pet. 2:3), even the selfish and ungrateful(Luke 6:36). God pours out kindness on humans in order to lead themto repentance (Rom. 2:4). Christians are to demonstrate kindness evenwhen others are unkind and vengeful (Prov. 25:21–22; Matt.5:43–48; Rom. 12:17–21).
Onediscovers what practicing kindness looks like by observing the wordsassociated with it in Scripture. Kindness involves putting awayanger, bitterness, and slander; being tenderhearted and forgiving;and imitating God (Eph. 4:31–5:2); it finds company withcompassion, humility, meekness, and patience (Col. 3:12); it isassociated with patience, holiness of spirit, and genuine love(2Cor. 6:6).
The word “kindness” is used to translate theHebrew term khesed (Gen. 40:14) and the Greek wordschrēstotēs (Col. 3:12) and philanthrōpia (Acts 28:2).Because of the richness of its meaning, khesed is difficult tocapture in English. The word is translated in a variety of ways,including “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”“loyalty,” “steadfast love,”“mercy,” “commitment.” God embodies kindness(Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8; Hos. 2:19). Humans are also called on toreflect this quality of kindness in their relationships with others(1Sam. 20:8; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9).
Inthe NT, God is described as displaying kindness toward humans (Rom.11:22; Titus 3:4; 1Pet. 2:3), even the selfish and ungrateful(Luke 6:36). God pours out kindness on humans in order to lead themto repentance (Rom. 2:4). Christians are to demonstrate kindness evenwhen others are unkind and vengeful (Prov. 25:21–22; Matt.5:43–48; Rom. 12:17–21).
Onediscovers what practicing kindness looks like by observing the wordsassociated with it in Scripture. Kindness involves putting awayanger, bitterness, and slander; being tenderhearted and forgiving;and imitating God (Eph. 4:31–5:2); it finds company withcompassion, humility, meekness, and patience (Col. 3:12); it isassociated with patience, holiness of spirit, and genuine love(2Cor. 6:6).
Galatians is often understood as the great letter teachingjustification by faith in Christ alone. Paul inveighs against falseteachers who teach Christians to supplement the work of Christ withtheir own keeping of the law as part of earning salvation.
Thistraditional reading has been powerful and edifying. However, settingGalatians within a plausible ancient social setting reveals furtherpowerful functions of the letter. Galatians turns out to be more thana container delivering the timeless and vital doctrine of salvationby believing and not by doing. The approach to Galatians in thisarticle seeks to establish plausible ancient social settingsprimarily through exploring a constellation of ancient Mediterraneancultural codes. This contextual orienting helps modern readersappreciate how issues that seem to us bizarre or insignificant mighthave been issues of life and death to people in different contexts.
Settingand Message
Culturalcontext.By the time of Galatians (mid-first century AD), a relatively commonmoral sensitivity existed among the diverse spectrum of Greco-Roman(pagan, Jewish, and Christian) intellectuals: self-mastery(enkrateia). The ideal person led a life of virtue by masteringpowerful irrational passions, which led to excessive, weak,irrational, and evil behavior. Although people differed on the meansto self-mastery, this general ideal defined broader notions about thesuccessful life. Elites represented the ideal leader as one definedby self-mastery. This qualified such a person to rule others whosecapacity for and attainment of self-mastery were inferior, to rulethose who cannot even rule themselves. Authority figures projectedthis characteristic and perpetuated social worlds in which prestigeand authority were bound up with the ideal of self-mastery. Manyaverage people also made self-mastery an ideal, whether striving forit in their own lives or allocating authority and prestige to thoseperceived to have attained it. Various Jewish teachers presentedJudaism, especially keeping its laws and studying its sacredwritings, as the premier path to self-mastery and thus a happy life.Some pagans also conceived of Judaism, especially some of its laws,along these lines.
CertainJewish views of Gentiles constitute another important cultural code.Many Jews read the OT as depicting the following concerning Gentiles:They were separated from Israel’s God and his promises for hispeople, the Jews (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1Pet.2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially becausethey were idolaters controlled by their passions and sin, lackingself-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32;Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18). Jews,on the other hand, were by definition God’s special people,whom he had chosen over other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15;26:18–19). He had watched over them and would ultimately rescuethem. Gentiles would experience covenant blessing in and throughIsrael if they functionally became Jews by keeping the law, includingthe parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law was thatspecial life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that Godhad revealed to Israel, which defined Jews as Jews (Lev. 18:1–5;20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6;10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss.119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21). Suchlaw/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OTunderstanding: God had planned to restore the world through Israel,the locus of his saving activity. God would bless the nations inAbraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6;22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Various passages depict this happening as thenations were subjected to Israel, came to Israel, served Israel,presented Israel with their own wealth and possessions, and/or fearedIsrael’s God (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa.11:10–16; 14:2; 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 54:3;55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic.7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages furtherelucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in theGod of Israel’s salvation (Gen. 17:9–14; Exod. 12:48;Isa. 2:2–5; 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Mic. 4:1–5;Zech. 14:16–21). God would condemn Gentiles who remain separatefrom Israel, especially Gentiles who harm Israel. For many Jewsaround the time of Galatians, salvation for Gentiles thus remainedIsrael-centered.
Manyancient Jews also construed the world through apocalyptic views ofreality. This understanding conceived of the present visible world ascharacterized by the influence of evil supernatural beings (demons),suffering, and evil. One day God and his angels would completelytriumph in the invisible heavenly reality; the events in this realitydetermine life in the lower visible world. Then the evil age of thepresent world of suffering would be over. Evil and suffering would bevanquished, God’s people would be rescued, the agents ofsuffering in the old age would be judged, the Spirit would be pouredout, the nations would come to Israel’s God, and the heavenlyreality would fully break in and renew the visible world. God’speople, Israel, would experience ultimate salvation, having beenrescued from the evil age. The law remained a defining reality inGod’s plans to rescue the world in most Jewish apocalypticscenarios. Experiencing this salvation remained a matter of beingpart of God’s righteous people, Israel.
Situationof the letter.With these cultural codes in view, the following situation for theletter of Galatians seems plausible. Paul proclaimed to some of thepredominantly Gentile population of Galatia the good news (“gospel”)of the God of Israel’s salvation through Jesus the Messiah(Gal. 1:8–9, 11; 4:13). Some accepted this message of faith anddevoted themselves to Jesus and the God of Israel (1:2, 9; 3:1–6;4:14–20). After Paul left, other Christian teachers came toGalatia. They possibly claimed association with the Jerusalem churchand, perhaps, with Peter and James. In line with some of the Jewishviews of Gentiles discussed above, they taught that the GentileChristians in Galatia must functionally become Jews and keep the law(for other examples of such early Christian teachers, see Acts11:1–3; 15:1, 5). These other teachers probably drew onScriptures and traditions about Abraham to make their arguments. TheGod of Israel would save his people, “the righteous,” andthrough them the rest of the world, through the relationship that hehad initially established with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6;22:18; 26:4; 28:14). The teachers could easily show from theScriptures that circumcision and the law defined God’srelationship with Abraham and were always intended to do so (17:9–14;26:5). They, like most contemporary Jewish writers, thought thatobedience to the law (26:5) defined Abraham’s faith toward God(15:6). If the Galatians were to be Abraham’s descendants, theytoo must keep the law and be circumcised like their new father,Abraham. The teachers could also deploy passages from the Scripturesto the effect that everyone who did not keep the law was cursed(Deut. 27:26; cf. Gal. 3:10), but that everyone who kept the lawwould live (Lev. 18:5; cf. Gal. 3:12). For these teachers, Jesus theMessiah was part of the final stage in the God of Israel’slaw-shaped apocalyptic plan to rescue his people (the Jews) and,through them, the nations.
Itseems that the teachers also capitalized on the moral sensitivity ofself-mastery and the not uncommon understanding of the Jewish law asan ideal means for attaining it. Thus, they also urged the Galatiansto keep the law through representing it as a means to attaining theprestigious moral and social ideal of self-mastery. Furthermore, theGalatians may have thought that the law offered them a concrete guideto life because of its numerous detailed prescriptions. It alsoprovided substantive ways for the Galatians to reinforce theiridentity in the midst of their villages, especially because itcommanded practices that could set them apart. As a result, at leastsome of the Galatian Christians decided to keep the law, perhapsseeking circumcision. They were persuaded that the God of Israel andJesus only save those within the Jewish space defined by the law.These Galatians sought to keep the law, looking to its power forself-mastery.
Outline
I.Greeting (1:1–5)
II.The Law-Defined Gospel Is a Different Gospel (1:6–10)
III.Paul’s Gospel Is Straight from God (1:11–24)
IV.The Jerusalem Apostles Recognize Paul’s Law-Free Gospel(2:1–10)
V.Paul and Peter on Whether Gentiles Should Live Like Jews (2:11–21)
VI.Works of the Law or Christ’s Faithfulness? (3:1–5)
VII.Paul Addresses the Situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31)
A.Scriptural arguments to answer Paul’s question (3:6–14)
B.Incorporation into Christ means incorporation into Abraham (3:15–29)
C.Heirs versus slaves (4:1–11)
D.The Galatians’ past experience with Paul and the gospel(4:12–20)
E.Heirs versus slaves: Sarah and Hagar (4:21–31)
VIII.Summary and Restatement of Paul’s Argument (5:1–12)
IX.The Faithfulness of Christ and Communal Living (5:13–6:10)
A.Freedom in Christ (5:13–15)
B.Self-mastery (5:16–24)
C.The way of the Spirit and Christ’s cruciform faithfulness(5:25–6:10)
X.Conclusion and Summary (6:11–18)
Structureand Contents
I.Greeting(1:1–5).When Paul hears of this situation among the Galatian churches, hewrites them a frustrated letter. He commences by stressing how Jesus,through giving himself for our sins, is God’s means fordelivering us from the present evil age (1:3–4). As Paul willmake clear, Jesus and the law represent mutually exclusive means ofdeliverance (3:21–22). In contrast to most Jews, Paul will thusshockingly dissociate the law from the God of Israel’sapocalyptic deliverance.
II.Thelaw-defined gospel is a different gospel (1:6–10).Paul continues by making clear his point of view: despite what theother teachers say, their law-defined gospel is in fact a damnable“different gospel” (1:6–10).
III.Paul’sgospel is straight from God (1:11–24).While the other teachers may claim that their gospel comes from theauthoritative Jerusalem church, Paul explains that his gospel comesstraight from God and not from other men (1:11–24).
IV.TheJerusalem apostles recognize Paul’s law-free gospel (2:1–10).However, when he had met with the Jerusalem apostles, they hadrecognized his law-free gospel (1:18–2:10). Indeed, they hadnot forced Titus to be circumcised (2:3). Also, 1:18–2:10represents Paul as an embodiment of the radical transforming power ofthe gospel. Whereas Paul previously had advanced far and zealously“in Judaism,” persecuting the church, now he steadfastlyserves the church and boldly stands against Jews who zealously seekto impose the law (“Judaism”) on Gentile Christians.
V.Pauland Peter on whether Gentiles should live like Jews (2:11–21).Paul then narrates an account of an incident that speaks directly tothe Galatian situation (2:11–21). Previously in Antioch Peterhad acted so as to imply that Gentiles would have to live like Jews(e.g., keep the law) in order to truly be unified with God’speople (2:11–14). Paul, however, has rebuked Peter (2:14). Paulcontinues with a speech about how Gentiles are made righteous(“justified”) not within the space demarcated by the“works of the law,” but rather within the faithfulness ofJesus the Messiah (2:15–16). The works of the law, or theduties commanded by the law, do not define those who are“righteous”—that is, God’s true people whowill be saved. Rather, the faithfulness of Christ defines God’strue people, the ones who believe in Jesus. Here Paul for the firsttime explicitly dissociates the law from the God of Israel’sapocalyptic salvation in Jesus (the) Christ. The law, which definesGentiles as “sinners,” has been torn down in Christ’scrucifixion (2:17–18). Paul then presents himself as anembodiment of God’s saving work in Christ. In being crucifiedwith Christ, he has died to the law. Paul no longer lives, but nowChrist lives in him. The faithfulness of Christ, who loves him andhas given himself for him, now defines Paul’s life, not the law(2:19–20). From a more traditional Jewish perspective, Paul hasundermined God’s grace because he has marginalized the law, thepremier means of grace and life that God has given to his people. Infact, however, the law is utterly opposed to Christ’s faithfulsaving death, which is the true means of God’s ultimate savingand gracious actions toward his people (2:21).
Thisunderstanding of 2:11–21 revolves around how Paul considers hisentire discussion of justification, the faithfulness of Christ, andthe words of the law to be dealing with the issue of whether Gentilesshould be forced to live like Jews (2:14). This might seem surprisingto us. Does this not reduce Paul’s discussion of the greatdoctrine of justification to dealing merely with social and identityissues? Within the logic of Jewish apocalyptic thought, however,issues of the identity of God’s people and what defines themare by definition ultimate salvation issues, not merely socialissues. The God of Israel will rescue only his true people. Thusquestions of who really constitutes his true people and how they aredefined are paramount, life-and-death, salvation issues. Paul neverabandons Jewish apocalyptic salvation logic; he simply redefines itaround Christ and not the law.
Thisreading understands the phrase pistis Christou as “thefaithfulness of Christ,” a shorthand reference to Jesus’faithful saving death on the cross. Traditionally people translatethe phrase as “faith in Christ.” In line with much recentscholarship, however, this discussion understands the phrasedifferently, while still recognizing that Paul considers belief inChrist to be of paramount importance: “so we also have believedin Christ Jesus in order to be justified by the faithfulness ofChrist and not by the works of the law” (2:16 [all translationsare the author’s]).
VI.Worksof the law or Christ’s faithfulness? (3:1–5).So far, Paul has not addressed the powerful scriptural arguments andappeals to the law as a means to self-mastery through which theopposing teachers have gained influence. As becomes clear from therest of the letter, Paul does not anchor his counterargumentsultimately in interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures, possiblybecause the scriptural arguments of the opposing teachers would havemore cogency. Again, they draw on understandings about Gentiles thatthey can easily ground in the God of Israel’s sacred writings.Paul instead appeals directly to how the Galatians have experiencedsalvation initially. Have they received and experienced the workingsof the Spirit “out of/from the works of the law, or from themessage of (Christ’s) faithfulness” (3:1–5)? Paul,of course, knows that the answer is “from the message ofChrist’s faithfulness” (often translated as “hearingwith faith”) apart from the works of the law. Paul thus plays atrump card that undercuts the opposing teachers. The Galatians havereceived the Spirit, a classic end-time blessing for the God ofIsrael’s people, apart from the law. Thus, in Christ, God’speople clearly cannot be defined by the law (see also Acts10:44–11:18; 15:6–11). The law-defined gospel of theopposing teachers simply cannot be right, since the Galatians havereceived the Spirit and experienced salvation apart from the law. Onecannot overstate the importance of this obvious argument from theGalatians’ experience for Paul. This settles the entire issuewithin the logic of his letter. All of Paul’s followingarguments using the Jewish Scriptures presuppose that his readings ofthem, depicting Gentile participation in the God of Israel’speople apart from the law, must be correct, and that the opposingteachers’ arguments from Scripture also must be wrong.
VII.Pauladdresses the situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31).For the rest of 3:6–4:31, Paul continues to address thesituation in Galatia within the cultural codes and kinds of concernssketched above. In 3:6–13 Paul launches into a densely packedexcursus of scriptural arguments to set up an answer to hisrhetorical question “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you andworks miracles among you do so out of/from the works of the law, orfrom the message of (Christ’s) faithfulness?” (3:5). Hesets up the answer to his question, which comes in 3:14, by focusingon the nature of the Galatians’ Abra-hamic sonship—thatis, the nature of their identity as the God of Israel’s specialpeople. Paul argues that Christ’s faithfulness, and not thelaw, defines their Abrahamic sonship. Within this excursus it seemsplausible that Paul draws upon and undercuts texts that the opposingteachers have used (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 27:26). In 3:15–29 Paulelucidates how the Galatians’ incorporation into Christ throughhis faithfulness can actually mean that they are incorporated intoAbraham, become his descendants, and thus become “heirsaccording to promise” (3:29).
In4:1–7 Paul restates parts of his preceding discussion in adifferent way, introducing the language of slavery. In 4:12–20Paul returns to reminding the Galatians of their past experience withhimself and the gospel. Paul has embodied Christ to them, and they tohim. He has brought them Christ in his weakness, and they haveaccepted him as such. Their turn to the opposing teachers marks adeparture from how they first received Paul.
VIII.Summaryand restatement of Paul’s argument (5:1–12).In 5:2–6 Paul quickly summarizes the substance of his argumentsthus far, while in 5:7–12 he resummarizes the situation.
IX.Thefaithfulness of Christ and communal living (5:13–6:10).In 5:13–6:10 Paul finally depicts the positive content of thefaithfulness of Christ for the Galatians. This section, in which Paulfocuses on how the Galatians live communally, has been his drivingfocus all along. Not only must he offer something in place of the lawfor self-mastery in order to wrench the Galatians from the influenceof the opposing teachers, but also Paul considers it absolutelynecessary for the Galatians to live together in ways embodyingChrist’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness (2:19–20;4:19; 5:13–6:10). Paul does not view the law simply as aneutral, ineffectual means to self-mastery; rather, he thinks thatthe law will positively work death, slavery, and irrational passions,the things that would bar the Galatians from inheriting the kingdomof God (5:22). Thus, 5:13–6:10 is the most important part ofthe letter for Paul. All his earlier arguments serve his purposeshere.
Paulbegins his positive sketch of the faithfulness of Christ in 5:13–15by talking about their freedom in Christ (5:1). This freedom from thelaw by no means implies freedom from the obligation to livefaithfully. In fact, this freedom paradoxically means freedom for theGalatians to become slaves to one another through love (5:13). Thisis what Paul means by the cross-shaped faithfulness of Christdefining God’s people. This is what Paul means when he writesthat he longs for Christ to be formed in them (4:19). Christ’sfaithfulness redefines the law itself, such that becoming slaves toone another through love by loving your neighbor fulfills the wholelaw (5:14; 6:2). In 5:13–14 Paul thus surprisingly informs theGalatians that freedom in Christ means other-oriented, love-driven(cf. 5:6), cross-shaped freedom. Cross-shaped faithfulness leadingthem to become slaves to one another through love is the onlyantidote to their biting and devouring one another (5:15), classicGreco-Roman language for describing the control of irrationalpassions.
Paulgets more specific in 5:16–25, explicitly moving his discussionwithin the discourse of self-mastery. His earlier argumentsdissociating the Spirit and Christ’s faithfulness from the lawinform this passage, as does Paul’s implicit association of thelaw and the opposing teachers with “flesh” in 4:29. Onlyby the Spirit can the Galatians overcome the desires of the flesh(5:16–17). In 5:18–19 Paul makes clear his association ofthe law with the desires of the flesh, especially in 5:19, where hespeaks of the “works of the flesh,” an obvious play onhis frequent phrase “works of the law.” The works of theflesh in 5:19–21 read like a catalog of the vices with whichbroader Greco-Roman moral discourse characterizes people who lackself-mastery. People who engage in such vices, who lack the struggleto self-mastery empowered by the Spirit, “will not inherit thekingdom of God” (5:21). Paul then spells out the positivecontent of the faithfulness of Christ for the Galatians in terms ofthe fruit of the Spirit. He concludes this list of virtues, whichcharacterize people who have the Spirit, with enkrateia,“self-mastery” (5:22–23). He continues, “Andthe ones who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh, with itspassions and desires” (5:24). Paul’s language here seemsreminiscent of his earlier self-representation as one who has beencrucified with Christ (2:19–20; see also 6:14–15). TheSpirit, who belongs exclusively to those who are God’s childrenthrough Christ’s faithfulness and not the law (3:14; 4:4–6),empowers the Galatians to attain self-mastery. Not only does the lawfail to help them attain self-mastery, but also, as part of the old“evil” age, it works with the desires of the flesh toproduce everything contrary to self-mastery, everything thatdisqualifies people from inheriting the kingdom of God.
Paulcontinues in 5:25–6:10, stressing the way of the Spirit andChrist’s cruciform faithfulness. In 6:6–10 Paulunderlines the ultimate importance of the Galatians living inaccordance with the Spirit and not the flesh. For Paul, this does notimply that salvation and self-mastery result from the Galatians’own autonomous effort. That would miss the point entirely. OnlyChrist’s faithfulness and the Spirit can bring about thecross-shaped lives and self-mastery of which Paul speaks. Apart fromChrist’s faithfulness and the Spirit, the Galatians wouldremain people mastered by their passions and desires and cut off fromGod’s salvation and blessings, since they would not beAbraham’s descendants in Christ. At the same time, Paul writesthe letter with such passion because he is convinced that whereChrist’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness andself-mastery do not characterize people, God’s saving blessingsare absent as well. Thus Paul “is again in the anguish ofchildbirth” until Christ is formed in them (4:19).
X.Conclusionand summary (6:11–18).Paul concludes in 6:11–18, summarizing most of his main points.The law and circumcision now count for nothing; only faithfulnessworking through love and new creation in Christ count for anything(5:6; 6:15).
ForPaul in Galatians, the other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness ofChrist offers a more concrete communal identity and practical way tolife than the law ever could. The faithfulness of Christ and Spiritdefine the Galatians as a people of the new creation. Justificationin Galatians involves more than the traditional doctrine. It involvesthe unification associated with the fruit of the Spirit, not thedivision and strife of the works of the flesh/law. It relates to andestablishes the conditions for the radical and tangibleother-oriented and cross-shaped communal faithfulness (of Christ)that must define God’s people.
An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.
Theologyof Marriage
Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.
First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.
Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.
Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.
Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.
Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.
Marriagein the Old Testament
TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.
Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.
TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).
Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).
Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.
Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).
Marriagein the New Testament
Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.
Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).
TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).
SymbolicUse of Marriage
Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.
TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).
Behind the English translation “mercy” liediverse biblical words in Hebrew (khesed, khanan, rakham) and inGreek (charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon). These words are alsotranslated as “love,” “compassion,” “grace,”“favor,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”and so on, depending on context. Hence, a conceptual approach to themeaning of “mercy” is best.
God’sMercy
Mercyas part of God’s character.Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God iscalled “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV[NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich inmercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’smercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people(1Kings 8:23–24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed theoppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy,which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.Here, the rekindling of God’s mercy toward the Israelites wasdepicted in terms of remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob (Exod. 2:23–25). Mercy is a manifestation of God’sfaithfulness to his covenant. Hence, God’s mercy to hiscovenant people never ceases (Pss. 119:132; 103:17).
Godhas absolute sovereignty in electing the people to whom he wills toshow mercy. A classic expression appears in Exod. 33:19: “Iwill have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassionon whom I will have compassion.” Paul quoted this to explainGod’s sovereignty in electing Jacob as the recipient of God’smercy (Rom. 9:13–15). God’s mercy cannot be acquired byhuman effort or desire (Rom. 9:16). God even ordered the Israelitesto show no mercy to the Canaanites because of their corruption andidolatry (Deut. 7:2).
Diverseimages are used to describe God’s mercy. God is compared to aloving father who has compassion on his children (Jer. 31:20; Mal.3:17). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lordhas compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed,he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:13–14). God’scompassion is also compared to that of a nursing mother who feeds herbaby at her breast (Isa. 49:15). The images of the loving father andthe loving mother reflect closely the heart of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. God is especially merciful to the needy,the weak, the afflicted, and the oppressed (Exod. 2:23–24; Ps.123:2–3; Isa. 49:13; Heb. 4:16). God is called “a fatherto the fatherless” and “a defender of widows” (Ps.68:5). Sinners appeal for God’s mercy when they requestforgiveness (Ps. 51:1). “Have mercy on me” is a commonform of expression when the psalmist entreats God for his forgiveness(Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is also shown in his act ofsalvation and blessing (Exod. 15:13; Deut. 13:17–18; Judg.2:18; Eph. 2:4–5).
God’smercy in redemptive history.Redemptive history is a successive demonstration of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. It was because of God’s mercy that hetook the initiative to save fallen human beings (Gen. 3:15). Deathwas the due penalty for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17), but God preachedthe good news of mercy that the descendant of the woman would somedaycrush the head of the serpent. In Rev. 20:2 that ancient serpent inthe garden of Eden is identified as “the devil, or Satan,”whose head was crushed by Jesus Christ on the cross and is bound bythe coming Messiah “for a thousand years” and will be“thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:2, 10).In spite of God’s judgment on Cain, the first murderer, Godshowed mercy by putting a mark on him so that no one would kill him(Gen. 4:15). As the psalmist later confesses, God proves himself asthe merciful God who “does not treat us as our sins deserve orrepay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10).
Noahand his family were saved from the judgment of the flood because ofGod’s special mercy toward them (Gen. 6:8). Immediately afterGod confused the languages of human beings because of their challengeto him (Gen. 11:1–9), God showed mercy on Abram, “awandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), and designated him to be thefather of his chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3). Jacob’selection originated solely from God’s mercy, as Paul pointedout by quoting Scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”(Rom. 9:13). The exodus is also the clearest evidence of God’sdemonstration of mercy toward his chosen people (Exod. 2:23–25).They were saved not by their own righteousness but rather by God’smercy on the covenant people, who suffered under the bondage ofPharaoh’s slavery. God’s mercy reached its climax when hesent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners (Rom. 5:8). It isbecause of God’s mercy that we are saved, not because of ourrighteousness (Titus 3:5).
Christ’sMercy
JesusChrist lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodilymanifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercywhenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospelsdescribe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed theblind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and thedead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, whodid not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheepwithout a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
Jesus’ministry of healing and evangelism was motivated by his deep mercyand compassion toward people in physical and spiritual need (Luke4:16–21; cf. Isa. 61:1–2). Whenever the sick appealed tohis mercy, Jesus never refused to dispense it to them (Matt. 15:22;17:14–18). For example, he healed the two blind men whoentreated his mercy (Matt. 20:30–34). When a leper, kneelingbefore him, entreated his mercy, Jesus touched him (risking his ownuncleanness according to the law) and healed him (Matt. 8:2–3).When a centurion asked for Jesus’ mercy on his sick servant, hewas willing to go and heal the sick man (Matt. 8:5–13). Jesus’mercy was aroused especially when he saw people crying for the dead,and even he shed tears (John 11:33–35). When Jesus saw a widowcrying for her dead son during a funeral procession, he comforted andhad compassion on her and made her son alive (Luke 7:12–15).
Accordingto Heb. 2:17–18, Jesus became “a merciful and faithfulhigh priest” to make atonement for the sins of his people. Heis also compared to the high priest who is able to sympathize withour weaknesses because he “has been tempted in every way, justas we are” (Heb. 4:15). His high priestly work on earth washighlighted in terms of his ministry of mercy toward his people. LikeGod’s mercy, Jesus’ mercy was shown in his actions ofsalvation (Luke 19:10; Eph. 5:2; 1Tim. 1:14–16; Titus3:4–7), of blessing (Mark 10:13–16), and of forgiveness(Mark 2:10; Luke 23:34). Paul’s personal experience led him toconfess, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we haddone, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5). Jesus’character of mercy was most vividly manifested on the cross when heprayed for the forgiveness of the crucifying soldiers and the cursingcrowds (Luke 23:33–37).
HumanResponse to God’s Mercy
Whatis the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? Godexpects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people.One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant(Matt. 18:23–35). The central focus of this parable is on theunmerciful servant, to whom a tremendous mercy is shown by the king,but who refuses to show a little mercy to his fellow servant. Theparable concludes with the king’s statement that no mercy willbe shown to those who do not show mercy and forgiveness to others.Hence, a forgiving attitude is a must for believers, who havereceived immeasurable mercy from God when he forgave their sins atthe time of repentance. The Lord’s Prayer also includes thebeliever’s forgiveness of others as being inseparably linked tothe request for forgiveness from God (Matt. 6:12). Jesus affirms thisidea in a subsequent statement: “For if you forgive otherpeople when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will alsoforgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Fatherwill not forgive your sins” (6:14–15).
Mercyis one of the eight blessings in the Beatitudes: “Blessed arethe merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Jesus’response to the critical Pharisees reveals that our merciful lifeshould precede our religious life (9:13). According to the parable ofthe good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the true neighbor is theone who shows mercy to the afflicted. Its conclusion, “Go anddo likewise” (10:37), requires believers to show mercy to theirsuffering neighbors. At the last judgment the righteous arecharacterized by their lives of showing mercy to the hungry, thethirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned(Matt. 25:37–40). In Luke 6:36, Jesus summarizes the law ofmercy: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”According to James, “judgment without mercy will be shown toanyone who has not been merciful”; however, “mercytriumphs over judgment” (James 2:12–13). And according tothe prophets, a merciless life is characteristic of godless people(Isa. 13:18; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42; Amos 1:11–12).
Itis by God’s mercy that believers can persevere during the timeof suffering (2Cor. 4:1). Their prayer is the channel throughwhich they draw God’s mercy. Hence, the writer of Hebrewsexhorts believers to “approach God’s throne of grace withconfidence, so that we may receive mercy” (Heb. 4:16).
The word “Gentiles” is often used to translatewords meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It hasa Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family”and, eventually, “race” or “people.” TheGreek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship.In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other thanIsrael. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,”“peoples,” or “races.”
OldTestament
Ingeneral, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. Godchose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8;10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership inthe covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becomingpart of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).
TheOT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessingthrough Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping thelaw, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. Thelaw is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenantthat God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5;20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6;10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss.119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).
Suchlaw/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OTunderstanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel,the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in andthrough Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3;17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specificallyinvolves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]).Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subjectto Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16;14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed byIsrael’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel,serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fearIsrael’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5;60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic.7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages furtherelucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in theGod of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer.12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations“flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentileparticipation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa.2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).
TheServant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect thislaw/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. Theservant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19;44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14),serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6;49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separatefrom Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who haveharmed Israel.
SecondTemple Judaism and Early Christianity
SecondTemple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, theirnature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end.Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’speople defined by the law, variously understood and contested amongSecond Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’sultimate blessing activities.
SituatingJesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentilesensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread acrossthe Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God ofIsrael in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentilesexperience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.
SomeChristians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought thatGentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God ofIsrael’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’sopponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from Godand his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13;1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation,especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin,lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32;Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).
However,various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keepthe law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’sultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, hasreplaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and hisdeath and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ bythe Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true,redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheritingGod’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25;8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7;Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentilesattain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightlybefore God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30;1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8).Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles withrespect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.
Debatesabout Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for theseissues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocalsaying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and someother NT writings.
Both Testaments proclaim, “The earth is the Lord’s,and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1; 1Cor. 10:26). Only theLord and Creator of the universe can rightfully claim ownership overanything, be it physical, spiritual, or moral (Job 41:11). Thus,“every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down fromthe Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). He even ownshuman beings themselves. In a biblical worldview, God alone exercisesownership. People, however, exercise stewardship over what he hasgiven.
Scriptureguides and regulates human relationships with respect to owningproperty. While people are ultimately only stewards, they must neverwrongly take or desire what God has entrusted to others. ThereforeGod commands, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15) and“You shall not covet” (20:17). The book of Proverbsexplains how to wisely dispose of one’s goods (Prov. 3:9, 10;11:25; 22:9), as does Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt.25:14–30). Numerous passages teach that human “ownership”should be earned through work, if possible (Jer. 29:5–7;2Thess. 3:10). People should acknowledge their possessions asgifts from God by giving to the poor (Eph. 4:28) and to God’sappointed leaders, both secular and Christian: “Give back toCaesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”(Mark 12:17 [cf. Rom. 13:6; 1Tim. 5:18]).
Infact, the whole Bible can be read as the drama of the divine ownerrelating to his human stewards. At creation, God charges Adam and Eve“to work ... and take care of” the garden(Gen. 2:15), thereby entrusting all creation to human care. Indisobedience they abuse their stewardship, as will their offspring.In the fall, humankind forfeits God’s benefits in paradise(Gen. 3); he disowns his unfaithful stewards. The rest of Scripturerelates how God redeems a people for himself, adopting thedisinherited back into his household. He begins by promising Abrahamthat his offspring, Israel, will possess a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:8),which will be a kind of new paradise (Exod. 3:8). The Israelitesconquer the territory, but over time they prove to be unfaithfulstewards. After breaking God’s covenant, they lose the land inexile.
Jesus’parable of the landowner in Matt. 21:33–44 is basically acapsule version of this grand biblical story. Both come to a climaxwhen God sends his Son, Jesus Christ. He comes to “buy back”his people from their sins as the one faithful servant (Mark 10:45),even unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Jesus pays for his elect’sadoption with his blood, so now believers partake in God’sownership over all things. “All things are yours, whether ...the world or life or death or the present or the future—all areyours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (1Cor.3:21–23).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.
Theologyof Marriage
Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.
First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.
Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.
Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.
Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.
Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.
Marriagein the Old Testament
TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.
Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.
TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).
Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).
Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.
Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).
Marriagein the New Testament
Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.
Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).
TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).
SymbolicUse of Marriage
Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.
TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).
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).
The words “sacrifice” and “offering”often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers toa gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a giftconsecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice”is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other“sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices wereoffered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important,they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for theirsins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have withpeople and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.
OldTestament
OTofferings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground intoflour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water),and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Althoughthe Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people hadtheir own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the Godof Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how tosacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrificesare recorded as taking place before the law was given.
Priorto the law.Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a commoninterpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it didnot include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts,minkhah,usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cainonly brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), whileAbel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from thefirstborn of the flock).
Immediatelyafter the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burntoffering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and othersacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicatesthat God approved of and accepted it. It is significant thatimmediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, hisdescendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closelyrelated to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story ofAbraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israelreceiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen.31:43–54).
Sacrificiallaws in Leviticus.Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most beingin Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understoodsacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means tobring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in thecommunity, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use,and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas aredeveloped in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israelwas required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made ofclean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain orwine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering wasconnected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer personbeing allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat wasunaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases,only the best—what was “without defect”—wasto be offered.
Priestas mediator.Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, thepriest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned orbecome unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid ahand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s deathrepresents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin orwhether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead isunclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of thesacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of theoffering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously giventhe sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restoredto fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancientworld, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts thatcould manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting animproper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motiveresulted in rejection.
Typesof sacrifices.Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17;6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), theshelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t(4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most ofthese focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought suchan offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly givento God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice,their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that itbelonged to him.
1.The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrificeconnected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, itwas accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” Theworshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, oryoung pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killedit. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, therest was burned up.
2.The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is oftenused for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler.When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grainoffering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, onoccasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21).Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consistedof unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and waspresented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burnedas a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to thepriests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drinkoffering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offeringsfrequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. Theshowbread may have been considered a grain offering.
3.The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) hastraditionally been called the “peace offering,” as theterm is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated thatthe worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’srelationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could beused to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, orsimply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God outof free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer ashelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper broughta male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid ahand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its bloodon the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the majororgans. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”
Thisoffering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existingbetween those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, theofficiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests thebreast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan,tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgivingoffering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow orfreewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eatenin the prescribed time period was to be burned.
4.The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of anindividual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in thetabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering couldpurify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who wereunclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and soforth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).
Thekind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with theoffender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregationsinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before theveil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place.The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinnedsacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar,and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought andslaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on thehorns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest givento the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, andthe very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiationapparently indicated that the sins of some members of the communityhad more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contactwith the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring amore costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more thanthey could afford.
5.The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins.A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on thealtar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. Therest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what wasmisappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the personwronged or to the priests.
Altars.According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle theblood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at thetabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history othersacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitlyused for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’sinstruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of thesewere used by priests making rounds so that people from differentareas could sacrifice to God (1Sam. 7:17). Others were used byindividuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name ofthe Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars weremainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grainand drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings wereoffered only at the tabernacle or temple.
Timesand purposes.The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regularsacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented everymorning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8).Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon(Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebratethe major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39),particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might alsoaccompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’sdeliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be broughtalong with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2Sam.24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowshipofferings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having beencaptured by the Philistines (2Sam. 6:1–19).
Sacrificescould also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task.When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were broughtfor twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, andgrain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated(1Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when apriest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vowdedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God sothat they could again become a normal member of the congregation(Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied theannouncement of or installation of a king (1Sam. 11:14–15;1Kings 1:9,25).
Althoughthe sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back intofellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them fromhim. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual thanin obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1Sam.15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel wereguilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertilitycults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites wereaimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence.Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship thatthey looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in itspure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).
NewTestament
TheNT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in theearly first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Marybrought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could bepurified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev.12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passoverlamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate theFeast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went withthem, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he wastwelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after hegrew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalemto celebrate the feasts.
Jesus’disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after hisresurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the timewhen sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem churchleaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for thepurification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serveas Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felixthat he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poorand present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentilebelievers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), earlyJewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing thegospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. Theylikely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple inAD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.
Evenso, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as thefinal sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authorsconsider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relateit to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in themost detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merelythe shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals couldnot adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb.10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lambwhose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3;1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev.5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered apropitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John2:2).
Theend of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come toGod through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead ofanimal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made(1Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followersshould offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom.12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could beconsidered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one anacceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of thegospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering(Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types ofsacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, andsharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last ofthese points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as afragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).
To understand the persons and events of the NT, it isimportant to have at least a cursory understanding of Roman law. Romeheld absolute power over its people and vassals from the time of itsfoundation (c. 750 BC) until the collapse of its empire (c. AD 500);thus, its understanding of law had influence on both philosophicaland pragmatic levels. Roman law was remarkable for the detailed yetsuccinct way cases were treated. Roman law was primarily private lawin character; that is, it was law focused on relationships betweenpeople. Fathers of families were significant figures in Roman law andcustom. They held great power over their wives, children, and slaves.Precedent also played an important role in Roman law, with ritualizedlegal formulas and style being the key components. Generallyspeaking, parties determined the outcome between themselves with thehelp of an arbitrator. Only when such arbitration was unsuccessful,or at the end of arbitration when contractual steps had to be taken,was a jurist/judge brought in. Public trials were more a case oforatory and debate than legal wrangling and procedure.
Romancitizenship.Much of Roman law and activity was dependent on the status of theparticipants. Roman citizenship itself carried with it a privilegedstatus in terms of law, property, and governance. Citizenship and therights related to it also varied, depending on the class of theperson. The native peoples who lived in territories conquered byRome, citizens of Roman client states, and Roman allies could begiven a limited form of Roman citizenship such as the Latin Right,which permitted land ownership, marriage rights, and certain rightsin matters of punishment and detainment. Women’s rights variedover time; however, women were never accorded all the rights ofcitizens, since they could not vote or hold office. They could,however, own property. Slaves were considered property and had onlycertain very limited rights as granted by statute. They couldessentially be treated in any fashion considered appropriate by theirowners. Despite this, a freed slave was granted a form of Romancitizenship. All slaves freed by Roman owners automatically receiveda limited Roman citizenship. The law of the magistrates as applied toforeigners focused on three areas of interest: trade law, finding away to apply Roman law to foreign societies, and the procurator’sown sense of fair play and justice.
Paulwas a Roman citizen from birth (Acts 22:28), though given hislineage, this citizenship would have been similar to that of theLatin Right. He took advantage of his citizenship at numerous pointsduring his missionary travels by limiting punishment and by an appealto Caesar (Acts 22:24–29; 25:10–12). There is littleinformation about how people were able to document their citizenship,though undoubtedly some sort of official document would have servedsuch a purpose.
Householdand family.As noted above, the father of a household had almost absolute powerin that sphere. In relation to this, Paul and Peter’sinstructions to the various churches about household relationshipsstand in stark contrast to the culture within which they wereexpressed (see Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 2:18–3:7).Like Jews, Romans viewed the family as the core element of theirsociety. What occurred in the family was an expression of the corevalues of the society. For the church to have granted the freedom itdid to women and others (Gal. 3:28) would have been difficult formany in the culture to accept. Furthermore, Paul in several placesseems to call for restraint in Christian expression of freedom so asnot to cause ill repute for the Christian community.
Historyand hierarchy.Concerning Roman jurisprudence, the system went through many phasesof development over the periods of the republic and the empire.During the period of the republic (753–31 BC), the civil lawwas the primary focus of development. Roman law, like other ancientsystems, originally adopted the principle of personality: laws of thestate applied only to its citizens. Foreigners had no rights in theircourts unless protected by a treaty. Gradually, a more generalizedlegal code developed in Rome that was applied to everyone, and by thetime of the empire, such perspectives of law were well established.This may explain the different treatment received by Paul (andothers) in relationship to whether they were known to be citizens.
Procuratorsand prefects were governors appointed by Rome over Judea after theremoval of Archelaus in AD 6 and over all of Palestine at the deathof Herod Agrippa. Governors such as Pontius Pilate were the highestpower in their province, but they answered to the legate, who couldreplace them, and ultimately to Caesar, who could overrule them. Theyhad to give their assent to lower local courts before a sentenceinvolving death could be carried out. Because of the lower standingthat noncitizens held, the governor often was quick to sacrifice themin order to maintain peace and avoid disturbances. Pilate’streatment of Jesus seems to fall into such a category.
Ingeneral, disputes between members of the same subject state weresettled by that state’s own courts according to its own law,whereas disputes between provincials of different states or betweenprovincials and Romans were resolved by the governor’s courtapplying these principles.
Religion.Since Rome had no centralized cult, the Romans would not executesomeone simply on religious grounds. Instead, there needed to be aperception of political revolt, and the charges had to be specific(Matt. 27:12; John 18:29). Because Roman law and trial were more amatter of oratory and reason than legal maneuvering and loopholes, itis not surprising that both Pilate and Felix allowed such leeway inthe questioning of Jesus and Paul (John 18; Acts 24).
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).
A song of worship and praise to God. The NIV only uses theword once in the OT, in Ps. 40:3, referring to a “hymn ofpraise” to God. The Hebrew word behind this phrase is tehillah,which is common in the OT and is elsewhere translated simply as“praise,” especially in the psalms. Psalms were part ofIsrael’s worship, and so such “hymns of praise” toGod are more common than the English suggests.
Thecontent of these hymns is not laid out for modern readers, but itinvolves things such as thanksgiving, gratitude, or generally givingGod due recognition for who he is (e.g., Ps. 66:2) and what he hasdone (e.g., 106:2, 12).
Inthe NT, the word occurs only a handful of times in the NIV, and thereis very little indication what these hymns were about. Here too,generally we can say that a hymn is a particular type of song ofpraise to God.
InMatt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at theconclusion of the Lord’s Supper. Since this meal was patternedafter the Passover, it is likely that one or more of the Hallelpsalms (Pss. 111–118) were sung. (“Hallel” means“praise” in Hebrew and is related to tehillah). The Greekword behind this use in the Gospels, hymneō, is the origin ofthe English word “hymn.” In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silassang hymns at midnight while in prison, although we are told nothingabout their content.
In1 Cor. 14:26 Paul is instructing his readers about orderly worship.According to the NIV, one of the elements of worship includes hymns,although the Greek word here is psalmos (the word used to refer tothe book of Psalms in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:30), which theKJV renders there as “psalm.” There is certainlysignificant overlap between hymns and psalms, since both involvepraising God, but evidently there is some distinction too, as can beseen in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, where Paul makes a distinctionbetween “psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.”Perhaps these terms do not reflect clearly marked categories inPaul’s mind. In Eph. 5:19 all three are directed to God “from[the] heart,” and in Col. 3:16 they are sung with “gratitude,”both of which reflect the use of psalms in the OT.
Biblicalscholars also refer to other portions of the Bible as “hymns,”even though the word is not used. The Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18)and the Song of Hannah (1Sam. 2:1–10) are sometimescalled “hymns” simply as a convenient designation(although Hannah’s is more a prayer). The same goes for Mary’ssong, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), which clearly is modeledafter Hannah’s song, and Zechariah’s song, the Benedictus(Luke 1:68–79), which reflects OT prophetic poems. Elsewherebiblical scholars detect the possibility of fragments of preexisting“hymns” that were incorporated into the NT (e.g., Phil.2:6–11). This suggests to some that there was some hymn-writingactivity in the early church.
By its title, Song of Songs claims to be the most sublime song of all. The history of its interpretation also reveals that it may be the most misunderstood song as well. The reader of this book is dazzled by its intensity and honest expression of desire for intimate relationship. No wonder that early theologians who thought that the body was only a temporary casing for the all-important spirit felt that this book could not be talking about what it appeared to be talking about. Thus, for example, when the woman describes the man as a sachet of myrrh lodged between her breasts (1:13), this had to be a reference to Christ spanning the OT and the NT (so Cyril of Alexandria). But over time this book could not be suppressed by such interpretive strategies. Today most readily acknowledge that Song of Songs is love poetry that articulates human desires as well as our joys and worries.
Genre, Structure, and Outline
As implied by the preceding paragraph, Song of Songs is not an allegory. It is love poetry, in which a man and a woman express their deepest longings and desires to each other. They want to be in each other’s passionate embrace. This book celebrates love between a man and a woman.
Some interpreters believe that Song of Songs is a drama or at least tells a story of a particular love relationship. Although there are almost as many different suggestions of a story as there are advocates of the so-called dramatic approach, two main types emerge. One approach believes that there are two characters, a lover and his beloved, and the plot entails their growing relationship, sometimes following the pattern of courtship, engagement, marriage, honeymoon, and so forth. Occasionally this plot is given a historical background, usually with Solomon as the man (thanks to the superscription in 1:1) and a woman who goes by the name of the “Shulammite” (6:13 [curiously, apparently a feminine form of the name “Solomon”]). On the other hand, other interpretations introduce yet a third character, an unnamed shepherd boy, who is the woman’s true love. Thus, the story is that of a love triangle. Solomon is trying or has succeeded in adding the woman to his harem, but she retains her true love toward the shepherd boy. Thus, Song of Songs is the story of true love’s triumph over power and wealth.
Other interpreters point out that if it is difficult to determine how many characters are in this supposed plot or the exact contour of the story, then interpreters must be reading too much into the book to make it work. After all, there is no narrator in the book providing narrative guidelines to the reader. Indeed, there are not even indications of who is speaking when (thus modern translations insert italicized text headings such as “Beloved,” “Lover,” and “Friends” to identify speakers).
Such interpreters argue that Song of Songs does not tell a story but rather is a kind of “love Psalter” containing a number of different love poems. In other words, it is an anthology, a collection, of love poems united by a consistency of character and imagery as well as the occasional recurrent refrain. The book is truly a “Song [composed] of [many] Songs.” The exact number of poems in this anthology can be debated and is unimportant for their interpretation. The important point is that readers do not force connections between poems that are not there. However, the following division, after the superscription (1:1) into twenty-three poems may not be far off the mark.
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. Poem 1 (1:2–4)
III. Poem 2 (1:5–6)
IV. Poem 3 (1:7–8)
V. Poem 4 (1:9–11)
VI. Poem 5 (1:12–14)
VII. Poem 6 (1:15–17)
VIII. Poem 7 (2:1–7)
IX. Poem 8 (2:8–17)
X. Poem 9 (3:1–5)
XI. Poem 10 (3:6–11)
XII. Poem 11 (4:1–7)
XIII. Poem 12 (4:8–9)
XIV. Poem 13 (4:10–5:1)
XV. Poem 14 (5:2–6:3)
XVI. Poem 15 (6:4–10)
XVII. Poem 16 (6:11–12)
XVIII. Poem 17 (6:13–7:10)
XIX. Poem 18 (7:11–13)
XX. Poem 19 (8:1–4)
XXI. Poem 20 (8:5–7)
XXII. Poem 21 (8:8–10)
XXIII. Poem 22 (8:11–12)
XXIV. Poem 23 (8:13–14)
Date and Authorship
The conclusion that Song of Songs is a collection of love poems has implications for the date and authorship of the book. It is true that the superscription (1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and this connection must be taken seriously because there is no indication that the superscription is not a part of the canonical final form of the book. In light of a similar superscription in the book of Proverbs, however, this does not mean that Solomon wrote the entire book or that it is about him. Indeed, Solomon’s track record in love is dubious both in the book (Song 8:11–12) and outside it (1Kings 11:1–13). Perhaps as in Proverbs, he is considered the fountainhead of the composition of the book, and like Psalms and Proverbs, the book came into existence over a lengthy period of time and as a result of several composers. If so, the final form bears the mark of a single editor who brought it all together at an unknown date within the period of the formation of the OT.
Theological Message
Song of Songs celebrates love between a man and a woman. It reminds the people of God that intimate relationship is a divine gift that should be enjoyed. Although joy is indeed the dominant note of the book, the reader is warned that love is a powerful emotion that has its disappointments (so begins the poem in 5:2–6:3). Accordingly, the woman makes sure that the young girls who are watching and looking at her understand that it is important not to hurry love (2:7; 3:5; 8:4).
But we must not read Song of Songs in isolation from the rest of the canon. This book describes the man and the woman in the garden as naked and enjoying each other. How can the reader not think of the garden of Eden? God created a man and a woman and established marriage as a source of mutual joy (Gen. 2:23–25). The next chapter, however, narrates the fall, where the rebellion against God results in alienation not only between God and Adam and Eve, but also between Adam and Eve. Their estrangement results in their efforts to cover themselves from the gaze of the other and their ejection from the garden. The poems of Song of Songs, then, may be seen as the story of the “already but not yet” redemption of sexuality.
Last, the broader canon frequently uses marriage as a metaphor of the relationship between God and his creatures (e.g., Ezek. 16; 23; Hos. 1–3). In other words, the more we learn about intimate marital relationships, the more we learn about our intimate relationship with God. Thus, Song of Songs may be read in a way that deepens our understanding of God and his love toward his people (cf. Eph. 5:21–33).
Continuing Significance
The opening chapters of Genesis describe human beings as creatures who were created for relationship, relationship with God to be sure, but also relationship with other people. Genesis 2:18–25 narrates the origin of the institution that formalizes the most intimate of human relationships, that between a man and a woman in marriage. The story continues in Gen. 3 on a tragic note when, because of sin, a barrier is erected between the man and the woman. Song of Songs poetically celebrates the redemption of the marriage relationship and encourages couples to grow closer to each other. The poems are not a how-to manual for courtship or intimate behavior, but they invite couples to cultivate their own love language and intimacies.
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.”
Spousal abuse is most succinctly defined as mistreatment ofone’s marriage partner through physical or emotional means. Thesource of abuse can be traced to the fall, as both partners strugglefor control of the relationship (Gen. 3:16b). As such, abuse is anexpression of a relational problem with God as well as with one’sspouse.
Becauseabuse is rooted in the desire to exploit another, it can never beunderstood as consistent with the biblical understanding of marriage.Marriage is expressed in Scripture as a covenant between twoindividuals who were intended to work together as persons who“correspond” to each other and are “one flesh”(Gen. 2:18 NET; 2:24). The exploitation inherent in abuse is alsocounter to the ideas of mutual submission and of each person in amarriage belonging to the other. Neither person is to be driven byselfish motivations (1Cor. 7:3–5; Eph. 5:21). Ultimately,abuse is counter to the Christian message because it cannot be anexpression of the nature of love (1Cor. 13) or the fruits ofthe Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). Although abuse can be perpetratedupon either the husband or the wife, Scripture takes special care toinstruct the husband to be gentle in relation to his wife, calling onhim to treat her as Christ does the church and to be mindful of hissignificant role for the wife’s well-being (Eph. 5:28–31;1Pet. 3:7).
The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.
Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.
Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).
Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.
1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.
2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.
3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.
4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).
Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).
Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).
The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.
Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.
Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).
Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.
1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.
2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.
3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.
4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).
Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).
Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
Those who offer themselves freely and willingly, withoutcompulsion or consideration of value in return, to perform a task,make a vow, or serve another. In the OT, volunteers usually serve God(Deut. 23:23; 2Chron. 17:16; Ps. 110:3), Israel (Ezra 7:13;Neh. 11:2), or a leader in Israel (Judg. 5:2, 9; 1Chron.28:21). God himself is the ultimate volunteer, as he freely givesplace, purpose, and a partner to Adam (Gen. 2:15–22);unilaterally covenants with Abram to give him descendants, blessing,and land (Gen. 12:2–3; 15:17–21); liberates Israel frombondage in Egypt (Exod. 6:6–8; Deut. 20:1; Josh. 24:17; Ps.81:10); and remains faithful to Israel despite its repeated failures(Pss. 68:35; 106:44–46).
Inthe NT, God is also the sender of Jesus (Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke4:18–21; John 4:34; 5:24, 30, 36–37), who heals of hisown volition (Luke 5:13), gives rest to the weary (Matt. 11:28), andlays down his life of his own accord for our redemption (Mark 10:45;John 10:18; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 5:2; Titus 2:14; 1Pet.1:18–19). With Jesus as the standard, the concept of willinglygiving of oneself and one’s possessions runs throughout the NT(Eph. 5:1–2). Christians are called to love and serve oneanother in spiritual and practical ways (Acts 2:44–45; Rom.12:9–21; 1Thess. 5:15–18; Philem. 14). They arealso to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors (Matt.5:44; Luke 6:27, 35). Those who wish to lead must first volunteerthemselves as servants to others (Matt. 20:27; Mark 9:35; Luke22:26). Elders are to shepherd voluntarily (1Pet. 5:2). Paul,who urges Christians to offer their bodies as living sacrifices (Rom.12:1), is himself a model of volunteerism and self-sacrifice (Acts20:34–35; 21:13; 1Cor. 9:19–23; 2Cor. 4:5;11:23–27).
Governmental agencies established to distribute money,vouchers, medical coverage, and other necessities to those who are inneed and who qualify for such distributions according togovernment-established rubrics. Welfare programs as we know them inour own modern societies are modern creations of secular states andare not aspects of the biblical or ancient Near Eastern world. TheBible, however, significantly addresses the complex subject ofpoverty and Israel’s responsibility to the poor.
TheOT emphasizes Israel’s responsibility for the poor, especiallyfellow Israelites, but also foreigners sojourning in Israel (Exod.22:25; Lev. 25:25, 35; Ruth 2:10). Because of the blessings bestowedon them by God, Israelites were commanded to be personally generousto those in need (Lev. 25:36–38; Deut. 15:7–13). Theywere to underharvest their fields, vineyards, and groves so that thepoor might glean from them (Lev. 19:9–10; Deut. 24:19–22;Ruth 2:2–3, 7–11). Those who aided the poor were promisedblessing (Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:27).
Thepowerful were not to oppress the poor by lending to them usuriously(Lev. 25:36–38) or enslaving them indefinitely (Lev. 25:39–42;Deut. 15:12; 24:14–15). Oppression was a grave offense becauseGod had led Israel out from oppression in Egypt (Exod. 22:21; 22:9;Ps. 72:4, 12–14; Prov. 22:16; Jer. 22:17–19; Ezek.18:5–9; 22:29–31; Amos 4:1–3).
Particularlyin Proverbs, Israel is also cautioned against behaviors that lead topoverty, including sloth (6:6), slacking (10:4), neglectingdiscipline (13:18; 20:13), loving sleep (20:13), loving pleasure(21:17), heavy drinking and gluttony (23:21), and empty pursuits(28:19).
TheNT builds and expands on the OT’s admonitions about treatmentof the poor. Giving to the poor remains an imperative (Acts 2:45;Rom. 12:13; James 2:15; 1John 3:17), but it is to be donewithout fanfare (Matt. 6:2–3; Mark 12:38–40). Generosityought to be from the heart and regardless of means (Luke 21:2–4;2Cor. 8:1–5), yet not under compulsion (2Cor.8:8–9; 9:7). Christians are called to assume responsibility forthemselves (2Cor. 11:9; Eph. 4:28; 2Thess. 3:7–11)and their families (1Tim. 5:8, 16).
Showing
1
to
50
of365
results
1. Have You Taken Inventory Lately?
Illustration
The renown teacher and author Dr. David McLennon tells a story of his very first job in a small town general store. This was the day before mails and supermarket chains at least it was in his community. At age thirteen he was hired as a handy boy. He would sweep the flour, bag items for customers, put up stock. On one particular Saturday, he recalled, he heard the owner say to one of the clerks "It's that time of the year again, it's time to take inventory." Dr. McLennon wrote that this was a word that had not yet entered into his vocabulary. When an opportune moment arrived, he went up to the kindly older man and asked, Sir, what is an inventory? Patiently the owner explained that it was a time when you made a list of everything that you had from groceries on the shelves to wrapping paper and string. Still somewhat puzzled, the young McLennon then asked, Why?
"Well," responded the owner, "it's easy to forget exactly how much you have each year. Every now and then you have to take an inventory just to see what all you have."
That little story, to me, pretty well sums up what Thanksgiving is all about. It is a time when each of us needs to ask ourselves the question: Have I taken inventory of my life lately? Have I made an effort to count all the things that I do have in life instead of complaining about the things that I don't have. It is a good exercise especially when we are of a mind to brood or whine in self pity. Have you taken inventory lately?
What I am suggesting here is not some shallow "count your blessings" platitude. But from time to time, in a genuine kind of a way, we need to sit down and do some talking to ourselves about all of the gifts and opportunities and challenges that God has given each one of us. Perhaps there is a deep underlying wisdom in the children's poem that says: "Count your blessings one by one, and you might be surprised what the Lord has done."
2. Seven Things to Be Thankful For
Illustration
Seven things to be grateful for:
Forautomaticdishwashers. They make it possible to get out of the kitchen before the family come infortheir after-dinner snacks.
Forhusbands who attack small repair jobs around the house. They usually make them big enough to call in professionals.
Forthe bathtub the one place the family allows Mom some time to herself.
Forchildren who put away their things and clean up after themselves. They're such a joy you hate to see them go home to their own parents.
Forgardening. It's a relief to deal with dirt outside the housefora change.
Forteenagers. They give parents an opportunity to learn a second language.
Forsmoke alarms. They let you know when the turkey's done.
3. Better Not Bitter
Illustration
If we are not thankful then we can become bitter. If we are not thankful, then it becomes too easy to sit around and ponder the question: why me?
Dr. Jim Moore, pastor of St. Luke's UMC in Houston wrote a book entitled "You Can Grow Bitter or You Can Grow Better."He writes that he got the idea for the title from a young woman who once came to him in a most tragic moment in her life. She had tears in her eyes and her knuckles were white as she twisted a handkerchief. She had just received word that her twenty-six year old husband had been killed in a farming accident, leaving her alone with three pre-school age children. One moment he was alive and vibrant, the next moment gone. "I don't know how I am going to be able to get along without him," she sobbed. "But I do know one thing. I can either get bitter or I can get better."
One way that we can get better rather than bitter is to develop a thankful heart. We must learn to be grateful to the Lord with whom we shall spend eternity. Our morning prayer should always begin: O Thou who has given me so much, I pray that you give me yet one more thing a grateful heart.
4. Taking Our Blessings for Granted
Illustration
A story is told of Abraham Lincoln. One day the President summoned to the White House a surgeon in the Army of the Cumberland from the state of Ohio. The major assumed that he was to be commended for some exceptional work. During the conversation Mr. Lincoln asked the major about his widowed mother. She is doing fine, he responded. How do you know asked Lincoln. You haven't written her. And then Lincoln added: "But she has written me. She thinks that you are dead and she is asking that a special effort be made to return your body home."Then theCommander and Chief placed a pen in the young doctor's hand and ordered him to write a letter letting his mother know that he was alive and well.
Oh, the blessings that we take for granted. Oh, the wretchedness of ingratitude. It was Shakespeare who worded it more appropriately than ever we could. He wrote: Blow blow thou winter wind. Thou art not so unkind as man's ingratitude.
5. For That I Am Especially Thankful
Illustration
During a harvest festival in India, an old widow arrived at her church with an extraordinarily large offering of rice - far more than the poor woman could be expected to afford. The itinerant pastor of the church did not know the widow well. But he did know that she was very poor and so he asked her if she were making the offering in gratitude for some unusual blessing. "Yes," replied the woman. "My son was sick and I promised a large gift to God if he got well." "And your son has recovered?" asked the pastor. The widow paused. "No," she said. "He died last week. But I know that he is in God's care; for that I am especially thankful."
6. The Gratitude Attitude
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
Rev. John R. Ramsey tells how in one church a certain person provided him with a rose boutonniere for the lapel of his suit every Sunday. At first he really appreciated it but then it sort of became routine. Then one Sunday it became very special.
As he was leaving the Sunday Service a young boy walked up to him and said, "Sir, what are you going to do with your flower?" At first the preacher didn't know what the boy was talking about. When it sank in, he pointed to the rose on his lapel and asked the boy, "Do you mean this?"
The boy said, "Yes, sir. If you're just going to throw it away, I would like it."
The preacher smiled and told him he could have the flower and then casually asked what he was going to do with it. The boy, who was probably no more than 10 years old, looked up at the preacher and said, "Sir, I'm going to give it to my granny. My mother and father divorced last year. I was living with my mother, but she married again, and wanted me to live with my father. I lived with him for a while, but he said I couldn't stay, so he sent me to live with my grandmother. She is so good to me. She cooks for me and takes care of me. She has been so good to me that I wanted to give her that pretty flower for loving me."
When the little boy finished, the preacher could hardly speak. His eyes filled with tears and he knew he had been touched by God. He reached up and unpinned the rose. With the flower in his hand, he looked at the boy and said, "Son, that is the nicest thing that I've ever heard but you can't have this flower because it's not enough. If you'll look in front of the pulpit, you'll see a big bouquet of flowers. Different families buy them for the Church each week. Please take those flowers to your granny because she deserves the very best."
Then the boy made one last statement which Rev. Ramsey said he will always treasure. The boy said, "What a wonderful day! I asked for one flower but got a beautiful bunch of flowers."
That's the thankful spirit. That's the gratitude attitude. And it's that attitude that should guide our giving and our lives. Like that boy's granny, God has blessed us so much. God has been so good to us that giving shouldn't even be a question. It should just flow from us naturally.
7. First National Thanksgiving Proclamation
Illustration
George Washington
Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; Whereas, both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness!"
Now therefore, I do recommend next, to be devoted by the people of the states to the service of that great and glorious being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be, that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country.
8. Food for the Soul
Illustration
Johnold Strey
The Wisconsin State Fair has a reputation for offering lots of fat- and calorie-laden food. Cream puffs and fried cheese curds are among the food items at the state fair. This year a new item appeared on the menu: chocolate covered bacon!I'm not exactly the healthiest person on the planet, but that just seems like it crosses the line. Maybe the obligatory cream puff should be a part of one's Wisconsin State Fair experience, but too much of the fair's menu might not be a good thing.
It is important to fill up our bodies with the proper kind of nourishment. It will probably come as no surprise that the same can be said for our souls. In the Gospel of John chapter six, in his "Bread of Life" discourse, Jesus explained to his listeners how important it was to fill up their souls with the proper kind of nourishment—nourishment that comes from feeding on the gospel. Fill up your soul. Don't fill your soul up foolishly with sin, but fill it up wisely with the Spirit.
9. Truly Thankful
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
According to an old Guideposts story, for Christmas one year, PhyllisWohlfarth'shusband gave her a gold lapel pin. Phyllis said she only took a second to thank her husband for his gift. A week later, as she put on the lapel pin, she reflected on her husband's thoughtfulness. With more sincerity, she thanked him again. Her husband explained that the pin had belonged to his grandmother, so it was very special to him. Phyllis noted that if she hadn't offered the second "thank you," she might have never learned the significance of the pin. It was only when she took the time to reflect on the gift and offer a more sincere "thank you" that she really learned to appreciate her husband's gesture.
How often do we offer God a quick "Thank You" for our many blessings, and then forget about them? Or how often do we just take the blessings of God and never even say "Thank You."
10. Always Prepared
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
The Coast Guard'smotto is"SemperParatus" - Always Ready. The main focus of the Coast Guard issearch and rescue. Their primary purpose isto save lives.
No matter how horrible the storm, no matter how high the waves, the Coast Guard wascalled to go out. As a matter of fact, the saying was: "You have to go out, but you don't have to come back." That's how dedicated the crews were.
No matter how boring it got,the Coast Guarddrilledfor everything possible event, so that they could live up to theirmotto of "Always Ready."
In our Daily Walk with Christ, we're called to be just as ready. We're called to BE PREPARED. Why? Because we never know when our faith will be tested or when we'll have the opportunity to share the Good News with others, which, as Paul says,is "making the most of thetime."
11. Life Can Be Dangerous
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
The Road Runner cartoons, Wile E. Coyote and all the Acme products he bought, may be the reason we have so many warning labels on products toady. Warning labels point to dangers in life. Most warning labels make sense but some of them are just downright ridiculous and makes you wonder WHY a company had to put that warning label on their product.
There are a couple of websites devoted to nothing but inane warning labels. Here's a few of them.
"Do not put in mouth." On a box of bottle rockets.
"Not dishwasher safe." On a remote control for a TV.
"Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand." In the manual for a Swedish chainsaw.
"Warning: May contain nuts." On a package of peanuts.
"Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish." On a bottle of shampoo for dogs.
"Do not use in shower." On a hair dryer.
"Warning: May contain small parts." On afrisbee.
"Not suitable for children aged 36 months or less." On a birthday card for a 1 year old.
"For use by trained personnel only."On a can of air freshener.
"Fragile. Do not drop." Posted on a Boeing 757.
"Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." On a portable stroller.
"May be harmful if swallowed."On a shipment of hammers.
Are we all related Wile E. Coyote? Are we all dumber than a bowl of pudding? Apparently the Warning Label people think so.
Let's face it, life can be dangerous. Sometimes it can be like nothing more than an ongoing obstacle course.Or a minefield.You never know when something's going to blow up in your face or what the next challenge is going to be. Maybe that's why the reality TV show Survivor is so popular.
This passage from Ephesians could be the warning label for the Christian life. Not a funny one but a serious one.
12. My Childhood Promise
Illustration
Charles Swindoll
I recall, as a little barefoot boy with a cowlick of snow-white hair on my forehead, standing erect in my classroom and repeating the "Pledge of Allegiance" one Thanksgiving season. Our nation was at war and times were hard. My teacher had lost her husband on the blood washed shores of Normandy. As we later bowed our heads for prayer she wept aloud. I did too. All the class joined in. She stumbled through one of the most moving expressions of gratitude and praise that ever emerged from a soul plunged in pain. At that time in my young life, I fell strangely in love with Thanksgiving. Lost in sympathy and a boy's pity for his teacher, I walked home very slowly that afternoon. Although only a child, I had profound feelings of gratitude for my country . . . my friends . . . my school . . . my church . . . my family. I swore before God that I would fight to the end to keep this land free from foes who would want to take away America's distinctives and the joys of living in this good land. I have never forgotten my childhood promise. I never shall.
13. The Pilgrim Proclamation
Illustration
William Bradford
Governor William Bradford of Massachusetts made this first Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1623:
"Inasmuch as the great Father has given us this year an abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, beans, squashes, and garden vegetables, and has made the forests to abound with game, and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as He has protected us from the ravages of the savages, has spared us from pestilence and disease, has granted us freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience; now, I, your magistrate, to proclaim that all ye Pilgrims, with your wives and little ones, do gather at ye meeting house, on ye hill, between the hours of 9 and 12 in the day time, on Thursday, November ye 29th of the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and twenty-three, and the third year since ye Pilgrims landed on ye Pilgrim Rock, there to listen to ye pastor, and render thanksgiving to ye Almighty God for all His blessings."
14. Mr. Thanksgiving
Illustration
Ashley Johnson
Years ago, Bob Vogelbaugh of Moline, Illinois, noticed that many of the customers at his grocery store made no special plans for Thanksgiving. Some of them were single and had no family with which to celebrate the holidays. Some were elderly and didn't want to travel far for the family gatherings. Vogelbaugh invited a couple dozen of his customers to his store on Thanksgiving day, where he prepared a feast for them. The community Thanksgiving gathering was such a hit that Vogelbaugh made it a yearly tradition. Today they call him Mr. Thanksgiving. In 2020 he was still going strong marking his 50th year providing afree Thanksgiving banquet to more than 2,000 residents of Moline.
15. Asleep During the Big Moment
Illustration
Wallace H. Kirk
Thomas Bell. He went to sleep just before his big moment. In 1858 he was president of a scholarly organization in London called The Linnean Society. It was a groupdedicated to the study and dissemination of information concerning natural history.As he was writing his annual report, he said that there had been "no striking discovery" announced to the group in that year. Oh yeah? Among those who had delivered papers to this society during the year were Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin! Now what ever you might think about evolution both those presentations outlined revolutionary theories on biological evolution. The intellectual history of mankind took a gigantic intellectualleap on the theories of Wallace and Darwin, but Thomas Bell missed it all. He was intellectually asleep and thought that nothing vital had happened in that cozy little group. How we miss the big moment! How we fall asleep just before the great revealing. How we need to stay awake.
16. Friendless Freud
Illustration
Charles Sell
Armand M. Nicholi, M.D., professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, explains that Sigmund Freud died at the age of 83, a bitter and disillusioned man. Tragically, this Viennese physician, one of the most influential thinkers of our time, had little compassion for the common person. Freud wrote in 1918, "I have found little that is good about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all" (Veritas Reconsidered, p. 36). Freud died friendless. It is well-known that he had broken with each of his followers. The end was bitter.
17. Submission: Yield In All Directions
Illustration
Stephen P. Beck
Driving down a country road, a man came to a very narrow bridge. In front of the bridge, a sign was posted: "YIELD." Seeing no oncoming cars, he continued across the bridge and to his destination. On the way back, he came to the same one-lane bridge, now from the other direction. To his surprise, he saw another YIELD sign posted. Curious, he thought, "I'm sure there was one posted on the other side." When he reached the other side of the bridge and looked back, sure enough, yield signs had been placed at both ends of the bridge. Drivers from both directions were requested to give right of way. It was a reasonable and gracious way of preventing a head-on collision.
When the Bible commands Christians to "be subject to one another" (Ephesians 5:21) it is simply a reasonable and gracious command to let the other have the right of way and avoid interpersonal head-on collisions.
18. Twelve Rules for a Happy Marriage
Illustration
Ann Landers
Twelve Rules for a Happy Marriage:
- Never both be angry at once.
- Never yell at each other unless the house is on fire.
- Remember that it takes two to make an argument. The one who is wrong is the one who will be doing most of the talking.
- Yield to the wishes of the other as an exercise in self-discipline, if you can't think of a better reason.
- If you have a choice between making yourself or your mate look good choose your mate.
- If you feel you must criticize, do so lovingly.
- Never bring up a mistake of the past.
- Neglect the whole world rather than each other.
- Never let the day end without saying at least one complimentary thing to your life partner.
- Never meet without an affectionate greeting.
- When you've made a mistake, talk it out and ask for forgiveness.
- Never go to bed mad.
19. Marking the Obstacles
Illustration
Harold Warlick
Sara Jewett tells the story of a woman who ascended the pathway leading to the home of a retired sea captain in the state ofMaine. On the way, the woman sees a number of wooden stakes scattered about the property with no discernible order. Each stake is painted white and trimmed in yellow, like the captain's house. With great curiosity and no small bewilderment, she asks the captain what they mean. He explains. When he first plowed the ground, his plow snagged on many large rocks just below the surface. So he set out stakes where the rocks lay in order to avoid them in the future. That way he did not have to relearn where every rock was every time he plowed.
The captain's caution gives him the opportunity to farm productively in what might otherwise be an inhospitable environment. So it is with our world, according to the scriptures. Evil is there, both within and without, for us. But that which is learned can be unlearned, or at least controlled. Christians are urged not only to be cautious as to their lifestyle but to put out stakes of opportunity: "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
20. Two Verses That Define Christianity
Illustration
Jimmy Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter in his book "Sources of Strength" listed two versus to define the meaning of Christianity: John 3:16 and Ephesians 4:32. Here is what he wrote:
Perhaps as well as any two verses, these two encapsulate the meaning of Christianity. Being blessed and forgiven by God through Christ, we have the motivation to apply his teaching and example in our own lives. There is little here about the broad scope of society, a philosophical dissertation, or international war or peace. The emphasis is on each individual human being, precious in God's sight, alienated because of sin; the acknowledgment of our mistakes; and, through Christ who died for us, total forgiveness and reconciliation.
21. Delayed Baggage
Illustration
Lewis M. Andrews, Ph.D.
Harvard professor William James, perhaps the most famous nineteenth-century American exponent of ethical therapy, cited the case of a writer named Horace Fletcher who with just a little conscious effort at curbing his resentful habits had actually reached the point where, without the slightest feeling of annoyance or impatience, he could watch a train move out of the station without getting angry at the tardy porter carrying his baggage who had caused him to miss it.
This actually happened to Fletcher, who said that when the porter from the hotel finally came panting into the station just minutes later, looking “as if he feared a scolding . . . I said to him: ‘It doesn’t matter at all, you couldn’t help it, so we will try again tomorrow. Here is your fee, I am sorry you had all this trouble earning it.’ The look of surprise that came over his face was so filled with pleasure that I was paid on the spot for the delay in my departure. Next day he would not accept a cent for the service, and he and I are friends for life.”
22. A People of Compassion
Illustration
H. Stephen Shoemaker
Here's a story from the desert tradition: A brother had committed a fault and was called before the council. The council invited the revered Abba Moses to join, but Abba Moses refused. They sent someone to get him, and he agreed to come. He took a leaking jug, filled it with water and carried it with him to the council. They saw him coming with the jug leaving a trail of water, and asked, "What's this?" Abba Moses said, "My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, and today I am coming to judge the error of another?" When the council heard these words they forgave the brother.
In solitude before God, faced only with ourselves, we learn the compassion of God. Perhaps it is not incidental that in the midst of ministry and the unrelenting needs of the crowd, Jesus, the good shepherd, called his disciples to join him in the desert: "Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest awhile."
It is not all rest, all shabbat in the wilderness. There, wrestling with our own hearts in the darkness before God, we learn mercy the shepherd's prerequisite and become a people of compassion.
23. A Story of Meeting Christ
Illustration
Michael Card
Let me tell you of someone who knows about the Spirit of God invading a life. This story is told by Michael Card in his book,Immanuel. It is about Joseph, a tall, slender Massai warrior in Kenya. Some time ago he met a man along a dusty African road who told him the story of Christ. Joseph became a believer and rejoiced in the "Jesus story." Joseph became a fiery witness, to the point that he later made the long journey from Africa to Amsterdam for an Evangelism conference with Billy Graham. His greatest hope was to meet Graham in person. A staff member named Robert was so struck by Joseph's story that he made it possible for Joseph to tell his conversion experience to Dr. Graham. You need to hear Joseph's story in his own words:
"After I met Jesus, I was so excited that I just knew everyone in my village would be happy to meet him also. So I went door-to-door telling everyone I met about the cross of Jesus and the salvation it offered. To my amazement my people not only didn't care, they became hostile. The men held me to the ground while the women began beating me with barbed wire. I was dragged from the village and left to die in the bush." Joseph somehow managed to crawl to a water hole, and there, after two days of passing in and out of consciousness, found he had the strength to get up. He was puzzled about the hostile reception from family and friends whom he had known all his life. "I decided that I must have left something important out of the story I told them about Jesus. So I practiced it over and over, then limped back to tell them the good news. I went again, from hut-to-hut telling about Jesus who died for us so we might find forgiveness and know the living God. Again they held me down and I was beaten, opening anew the former wounds. They dragged me unconscious outside the camp and I was left for dead. I woke up two days later, scarred and bruised, but still alive. For the third time I went back into my home village and started to witness. But they were waiting for me. I was set upon, thrown to the ground and as the beatings began I passed out. When I awakened this time I was in my own bed. The folks who had been whipping on me had now become my nurses. Everyone in my village had become a believer in Christ."After telling Billy Graham his story, Joseph lifted his colorful African shirt and showed his scars. Afterward, Billy said to his staff, "I'm not worthy to untie his shoes, and he wanted to meet me?"
Because most of us have been brought up in the church, we may not realize that there is more to faith than simply going through our normal religious routines, as important as they are. Christ has promised us a comforter, an encourager, someone who will fill us with new excitement about our lives so that we may more easily translate our good intentions into positive actions. Paul tells us to use our head. He tells us to open our hearts to God's Spirit so that we will have power for the living of our lives.
24. In All Things Be Thankful - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Back during the dark days of 1929, a group of ministers in the Northeast, all graduates of the Boston School of Theology, gathered to discuss how they should conduct their Thanksgiving Sunday services. Things were about as bad as they could get, with no sign of relief. The bread lines were depressingly long, the stock market had plummeted, and the term Great Depression seemed an apt description for the mood of the country. The ministers thought they should only lightly touch upon the subject Thanksgiving in deference to the human misery all about them. After all, there was to be thankful for. But it was Dr. William L. Stiger, pastor of a large congregation in the city that rallied the group. This was not the time, he suggested, to give mere passing mention to Thanksgiving, just the opposite. This was the time for the nation to get matters in perspective and thank God for blessings always present, but perhaps suppressed due to intense hardship.
I suggest to you the ministers struck upon something. The most intense moments of thankfulness are not found in times of plenty, but when difficulties abound. Think of the Pilgrims that first Thanksgiving. Half their number dead, men without a country, but still there was thanksgiving to God. Their gratitude was not for something but in something. It was that same sense of gratitude that lead Abraham Lincoln to formally establish the first Thanksgiving Day in the midst of national civil war, when the butcher's list of casualties seemed to have no end and the very nation struggled for survival.
Perhaps in your own life, right now, intense hardship. You are experiencing your own personal Great Depression. Why should you be thankful this day? May I suggest three things?
1. We must learn to be thankful or we become bitter.
2. We must learn to be thankful or we will become discouraged.
3. We must learn to be thankful or we will grow arrogant and self-satisfied.
25. I Told You Not to Bite
Illustration
King Duncan
There is an old story of a Swami at a village temple in Bengal, who claimed to have mastered anger. When his ability to control his anger was challenged, he told the story of a cobra who used to sit by the path and bite people on their way to the temple.
The Swami went to visit with the snake to end the problem. Using a mantra, he called the snake to him and brought it into submission. Telling the snake that it was wrong to bite people, the Swami persuaded it to promise never to do it again. And when the people saw that the snake now made no move to bite them, they grew unafraid.
Unfortunately, before long the village boys were tormenting the poor snake by dragging it through the village. Later the Swami again visited the snake to see if he had kept his promise. He found the snake miserable and hurting. The Swami, on seeing this, exclaimed, “You are bleeding. Tell me how this has come to be.”
The snake was in anguish and blurted out that he had been abused ever since the Swami had made him promise to stop biting people. To which the swami said, “I told you not to bite, but I did not tell you not to hiss.”
There is a place for anger. Paul tells us, “Be angry and do not sin”. There are times when expressing our anger is the proper thing to do.We are wrong if we take these words to mean that all anger is sin.
26. Are You a Beaver or an Otter?
Illustration
King Duncan
Two similar looking animals that reside often side‑by‑side in the streams and ponds of North America. One animal, the beaver, works throughout the day toppling trees to create large river dams. The other animal, the river otter, delights in making a game of everything. Otters catch what they need to survive, but also make time to chase after pebbles, slide down slopes, and tweak the tails of their more industrious neighbors.
"Both animals live about the same length of time, but you have to believe that otters enjoy life just a bit more. Otters seem perfectly content if they have enough food and are happy to live in little mud holes along the river. Even in old age they never miss the opportunity to toss a stone in the water and catch it before it hits bottom."
Are you a beaver or an otter? Both animals have their place in creation, but I wonder how many people miss all kinds of opportunities in life because they are so narrowly focused on the serious business of making a living that they never get around to making a life.
27. It Depends upon Today
Illustration
King Duncan
A manclaimed to be the most accurate fortuneteller in the world. A womancame to this fortuneteller and said she had only one real question about herfuture and that was, "How will my life end?"
The fortuneteller gazed into the crystal ball and then announced, "Your life will end when you die." No wonder he was so accurate.
The womannodded and then said, "Yes, but will I be happy?"
"Ah," said the fortuneteller, "that has nothing to do with the future but what you do in the present."
He was right again. God's will is for us to choose to be happy this day and every day, to believe the Gospel, to cherish the truth that in all things God is with us and we can be victorious in any circ*mstance. That does not mean that we will not go through difficult times. It means that we will not let our circ*mstances determine how we look at life. Rather we will let our faith determine how we look at our circ*mstances.
28. We Are in Charge of Our Attitudes
Illustration
King Duncan
Charles Swindoll wrote a wonderful paragraph about the effect of a positive attitude in his book,Strengthening Your Grip. He said: "The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circ*mstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company . . . a church . . . a home.
The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past…we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have and that is our attitude…I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you…we are in charge of our attitudes."
29. Ways to Handle Your Anger
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
There is nothing wrong with anger -- it’s what you do with anger that gets you in trouble.
Jerry Rubin wrote a little book titled The Angry Book. In it he says there are some common unhealthy ways to handle anger. You can freeze it -- but watch out when it thaws. You can gunny-sack it (like when we used to go frog-hunting, but watch it when the gunny sack gets full!). You can postpone it -- but you pay an exorbitant rate of interest and tax and still have to deal with it. You can sublimate it (try to act like a saint who does not feel anger) and buy a lot of tranquilizers.
These wrong ways to handle anger will leave the real issue unsettled. The New Testament is right in admonishing us, “Don’t let the sun go down on your wrath.” To express anger in the context of caring and acceptance can be redemptive in a relationship. So remember, there is nothing wrong with anger. It’s what you do with anger that gets you in trouble.
30. Say Yes by Saying No
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
Have you ever realized that the best way to say yes to something is to say no to its counterpart?
There is an interesting expression of it in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul said, “Do not get drunk with wine, which will only ruin you; instead be filled with the Spirit. (Ephesians 5:18, TEV)
It works! You can eliminate the negative by accentuating the positive. The best way to get rid of a bad habit is to replace it with a good one.
William Glasser wrote a book on this dynamic which he called “positive addiction.”
What are some things to which you might become positively addicted?
- physical exercise
- good eating habits
- deliberate unselfishness
- refusing to repay evil with evil
- holding back rather than jumping to conclusions
- refusing to believe the worst by holding to the best
It’s a good discipline -- learning to say yes by saying no.
31. Looking at the World through the Eyes of God - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
I can't think of a greater condemnation to be levied against a people than this: They loved darkness instead of light. I would never want that to be said of me. But that is the way God sees the world. You and I see the world as it is right now. Most of the people around us try and do the right thing and when we are wrong hopefully we apologize. So we tend to think well of most people. But look out on the passage of time….
The Ancient World of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Hellenism, Rome, Persia, India, and East Asia was filled with the ignorance of hundreds of thousands of gods, magic, rituals, superstitions, human sacrifice, conquests, sewage(refuse was mostly thrown into the streets for the rats and dogs), disease (priests attempted to foretell the course of a disease by examining the livers of sacrificed animals). And the list doesn't end there: ethnic bigotry, civil wars, persecutions, despots, tyrants, class rule, and the systematic murders of tens of thousands.
The Middle Ages of Persia, Constantinople, Islam, Britain, China, India, Genghis Khan and the Mongols, Timur and the Turks, Europe, African Empires and the Americas. All of them covered in the darkness of man's inhumanity to man: Revolutions, expansionism, Mohammad's Conquest and Christianity's Crusades, warlords, heretics, witchcraft, increased trade bringing death and plagues to millions, and the crowding in the cities spreading the misery all the more. And on top of this misery wars fought for every ridiculous reason known to man.
The Enlightenment and the Modern world also have faired no better. We too have loved the darkness instead of the light. Europe, Africa, Mid-East, India, and the Americas have all dipped their finger into the cesspool of sin: Guns, germs, slavery, the need for women's suffrage, massacres, socialism, resistance to democracy, religious fundamentalism's resistance to progress, Fascism, Communism, The Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan, greed, the market crash, The Depression, world wars, The Bomb, and lest we forget 9/11.
I can't tell you what a short list this is. And this says nothing of the millions of women and children who have suffered throughout the ages at the hands of ruthless men. There is no way to write that history because it is hidden from the pages of history.
Yes! Men have loved darkness rather than light. There is a morbid destructive tendency in all of us. We dabble in the diabolical. We revel in revenge. And we hate in our hearts. My, how we love to live in the shadows! What must God think of us?
Here is his verdict, as true today as it was when it was pronounced 2000 years ago: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light, because their deeds were evil. This is Jesus' description of mankind. And can any of us argue with him?
For a few moments let's look at the world through the eyes of God. What does he see? He sees that....
1. There are those whose deeds are evil.
2. There are those who live by the truth.
3. There are those who acknowledge their need for forgiveness.
32. The Light Has Come
Illustration
John E. Sumwalt
Have you ever sat in a lighted room at night, reading or talking, and suddenly the lights go out? What's the first thing you say? Usually everyone says, "Who turned out the light?"
In this age of electricity, light is something we take for granted. Few of us ever experience total darkness. In the city, we have street lights which come on automatically as soon as it begins to get dark. In the country, most farms have a mercury vapor light that stays on all night for security reasons. Consequently, most of us never get a good look at the stars as we used to when all the lights went out at night.
If you ever get the chance to go out in the desert at night do it. The darkness on nights with no moon or star light isso total someone could be standing right next to you and you wouldn't know it.
This text from John's gospel is about darkness and light: "And this is the judgment," John says, "that the light has come into the world and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil."
33. Why Have You Forsaken Me?
Illustration
Richard A. Wing
I read about a depressed songwriter who battled the successes of the past and a fear of the future. He was bankrupt. He had a cerebral hemorrhage that left him partially paralyzed. He worried that the creative spark that had made him rich was gone. He was depressed. The scriptural texts that were his friends and that his soul could hear were texts such as "Why have you forsaken me?"
In the midst of his depression, a man came by who had compiled scriptures together in a semi-orderly fashion. He suggested that the songwriter put some music to the text. The writer looked at the text that read, "He was despised and rejected of humanity," and he felt that way, too. He read texts of the one for whom "no one had pity." He read about the one who trusted God still. He read the words, "I know that my redeemer liveth." He read the words "rejoice" and "hallelujah." That night George Frederic Handel, now regarded as one of the greatest composers of his era, was blessed by a "gentle cosmic light." He was led slowly out of darkness by a desire to write music at a feverish pitch. He worked tirelessly for days until, with manuscript complete, he dropped into a seventeen-hour, death-like sleep. A doctor was summoned to see if he was alive. Out of depression came the light of the Messiah. Out of that depression was left for us a light that would light the corridors of the lives of countless millions for all ages. Out of that darkness, a man in a deep depression began, as Stevenson said of the lamplighter, "punching holes in the darkness."
God punched holes in the darkness through Jesus. Jesus at the end of his life left us words that we can use as we anticipate the coming of the Christ. "Take heed. Listen. Be awake." "Your extremity is God's opportunity."
34. 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
35. Where the Scary Things Live
Illustration
Johnny Dean
For most of us, becoming adults hasn't necessarily cured us of our fear of the dark. Oh, we may have switched to waterbeds that nothing could possibly get underneath. And our closets may be a little bigger (although still not big enough) and they're filled with business suits or work clothes instead of building blocks and athletic gear. But at night, when the lights are out and the children are safely tucked into bed to wrestle with THEIR fears, our own monsters come to life and torment us yet again.
Am I a caring husband? Am I a loving wife? Do I really try to understand my spouse's point of view? Are we raising our children the right way? What about my parents? Am I doing all I can to make their later years as pleasant as they made my early years? Can I be sure my children aren't experimenting with drugs? When will I ever be able to slow down? Why doesn't someone invent a magic pill that will make all these excess pounds I'm carrying around disappear overnight, never to return again? Why do I never seem to be satisfied any more? Where is God in the middle of all this chaos in my life?
Yes, in the light of day we function pretty well through this messy maze of life - paying bills, getting family schedules coordinated, even managing once in a while to eat those high-fiber, low-fat meals our doctors tell us we're supposed to eat. And the fear of our unknowns, the scary stuff, is kept safely at arm's length, barricaded securely behind our busy work schedules and microwave dinners.
But when our world slows down a little, when darkness falls, the fears creep in. No they don't - they RUSH into our lives, our hearts, our minds, our very souls, and the torture begins once again. Does it always have to be that way?
Quoting the prophet Isaiah, Jesus said, "The people who lived in darkness have seen a great light, and to those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned." And there's something inside us that wants to believe that if anything in this life is true, THIS is! Something inside us wants to believe that this is the only hope worth hanging on to, that here is a way out of the fearful mess we've made of our lives. Somewhere, sometime, we believe that WE have seen that light. We remember seeing it, once upon a time, a long time ago. If only we could find it again - or if IT could find US - then maybe the darkness wouldn't be quite so threatening and ominous.
36. One Side Light, One Side Dark
Illustration
King Duncan
One of the most important symbolic events of the 20th century was the dismantlingof the wall that separated East and West Berlin. The division of post-war Germany and the erection of the Berlin Wall wasa constant reminder of the division between East and West. It also had been a symbol of repression and brutality. Visitors to the Berlin Wall over its last two decades noted that one of the most striking features of this division was the dim lighting on the East side. Whether this was due to a lack of streetlights, billboards, advertising displays, fewer automobiles or whatever, visitors took this striking contrast as significant - for West Berlin is one of the most brilliantly lighted cities in the world. On one side darkness; on the other, light.
The entire world is like that. Wouldn't you like to take the light of Christmas and light up the world? That is the dream of every man, woman, young person who bears the name of Jesus. The light has shined into the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.
37. The Warning and Promise of Advent
Illustration
Susan R. Andrews
William Willimon tells the story of a funeral he attended when he was serving a small congregation in rural Georgia. One of his members' relatives died, so Willimon and his wife attended the funeral held in an off-brand, country Baptist church. He writes: "I had never seen anything like it. The preacher began to preach. He shouted; he flailed his arms. 'It's too late for Joe. He's dead. But it ain't too late for you. People drop dead every day. Why wait? Now is the day for decision. Give your life to Jesus.' "
Willimon goes on to suggest that this was the worst thing he had ever seen. He fumed and fussed at his wife Patsy, complaining that the preacher had done the worst thing possible for a grieving family - manipulating them with guilt and shame. Patsy agreed. But then she said: "Of course the worst part of it all is that what he said is true."
My friends, each one of us lives in the shadow of the apocalypse - the dark reality of the end of our time and the end of the world's time. That is the warning of Advent. But there is also good news. There is also the promise of Advent - the promise that in the darkness, in the shadows, in the unpredictable anxiety of our unfinished lives, God is present. God is in control, and God will come again. With each candle we light, the shadows recede a bit, and the promise comes closer. With each candle we light, we are proclaiming that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness will never overcome it. The promise is that wherever there is darkness and dread in our lives, wherever there is darkness and dread in the world around us, God is present to help us endure. God is in charge, and hope is alive. And as long and as interminable as the night seems, morning will come - in God's good time and God's good way.
38. The Temptation We Face Everyday
Illustration
Warren Hudson
"One night at the end of a special Saturday night worship service," writes Warren Hudson of Ontario, Canada," a thunderstorm unleashed a bolt of lightning that plunged the church into darkness." With the congregation seated in total darkness, the pastor felt his way to the kitchen to find some candles. The pastor handed out the candles to everyone present. Persons lit their candles in much the same way as many churches do on Christmas Eve, each person lighting the candle of the person next to them. The worshipers then made their way through the church's winding hallways to the front door.
"Peering out, we could see the rain coming down in sheets," Warren remembers. With traffic snarled, people were running for the nearest shelter. Looking around they realized that the entire city was in darkness. "There in the darkness we stood," Warren writes, "a little band of Christians, each clutching a light, not sure whether to venture out into the storm or stay inside the church in hopes that the storm would soon blow over."
There in the darkness the light of truth struck him. In this most dramatic way he realized what it means to be the "light of the world." He writes, "It occurred to me then that this is the temptation I face every day. It is easy to play it safe and be a good Christian in church. It is a lot harder to venture out in faith into the storms of the world."
39. The Beauty Of Holiness
Illustration
Clement E. Lewis
The 96th Psalm is closely comparable with 1 Chronicles 16:23-26. Psalm 29:2 also contains the words, "Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness." The New Revised Standard Version translated Psalm 96:9 to read, "Worship the Lord in holy splendor; tremble before him all the earth." Older people have long been accustomed to using the words from the King James Version.
Worship ought to be made beautiful in sight, sound, and thought. The physical settings of worship experiences serve to enhance and reinforce the yearning for understanding and completeness. This may be illustrated by a question: "Would you rather have a picnic on a graveled area in the heat of the sun, or where there is verdure of grass, and the shade of trees?" Worship is best when the scene is not barren, but blessed with good architecture, beauty of color, protection from the elements, and in the presence of an altar, giving it sacred significance.
We need to remember that truth is not only conveyed by words. It is also shared in feelings, situational inclusion, comfortable meditation and contemplation, which nurtures us. But worship can also take place in foxholes of distress, danger, and despair. God's messages and our responses do not always come in pretty packages with liturgical decorations. Sometimes they come in moments of destitution, hunger, inner distress, pain, and loneliness. What we make of what we learn at such times turns the place of discovery into a temple, and we worship in the beauty of holiness because we have found a relationship that truly enriches life.
Worship may take place in prison, a hospital or a nursing home; in a cemetery, a forest, or in a barren desert. It was in a desert setting that Jesus dealt with his temptations and life determinations, as he recalled Deuteronomy 6:13, and declared, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve." To the woman at the well in Samaria, Jesus said, "Believe me the hour is coming when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ... But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." (See John 4:19-24)
All of us yearn for the experience of "worship in the beauty of holiness." The psychiatrist, Von Frankl, held that the urge to worship is instinctive in children in much the same way as the urge to nurse. He suggested that the ages of four and five are the times when children are most desirous and accepting for the experiences of worship. Esthetics and quality appreciation are important to the development and life of the child. The elderly demonstrate much of the same needs in their lives.
"The beauty of holiness" is a most suggestive and satisfying phrase. It conveys the idea of "Holy Presence," and of being involved in spiritual goodness. My how human hearts long for that! In the midst of crassness, competitiveness, controversies, hostility, and uncertainty of conditions, we need that respite desperately.
Symbolism, the historic sign of faith, serves to renew our sense of oneness with what has been generative before us, and proclaims that we too can be involved in the experience of personal inclusion.
The building we refer to as the church or the chapel ought to be as adequate, as comfortable, and as attractive as we want our homes to be. Shouldn't God's house be the most attractive and architecturally satisfying of all? Nostalgia is important to many of us, and plays a tremendous role in our religious and personal life. It is the incentive that leads us to memorialize -- to provide new and beautiful things that relate to worship. Yet, we know that nostalgic sentiment can become a barrier to doing what is most important for the future. We can become so attached to what we have, and give our loyalty to what is familiar, that we may neglect to see what we ought to develop.
"The beauty of holiness" should inspire us for the transformation of life. It should also challenge us to greater things, with God's encouragement and guidance. Contemplating "the beauty of holiness" is not enough! We must also ask, "And what else ought we to do, God?" The answer we receive may not be the one we might prefer, but we had better not pray, "Thy will be done," unless we are willing to be a part of that will. God calls us to the faithful application of our Christian belief and commitment to discipleship, in which is included "the beauty of holiness." Therein lies the great truth of the words with which we began this worship time:
"O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness;
Serve him with gladness all the earth." Amen.
The Benediction: Send us forth, O God, causing us to remember that the beauty of holiness needs to show in our lives, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
40. Our Reflected Light
Illustration
Michael P. Green
The moon shines in the night sky because of reflected light from the sun. Without that reflected light, the moon would become lost in the darkness of space.
The believer in Christ shines only because of the reflection of Christ’s light. Without that reflected light, the believer becomes lost in the darkness of the world and sin.
41. BE A DARKNESS DISPELLER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
As you got out of bed this morning, did you feel like you belonged to a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God? And tomorrow morning, as the daily grind begins again, will you be thinking as you brush the old ivories, "What ways am I going to declare God’s wonderful deeds today?" Will any of us plot how we might upset the devil, the prince of terrorists? How many of us will let the light of Christ shine through us and be among the darkness dispellers? Will any of us seek to be the light of Christ in a darkening world?
Reading the Bible, it becomes evident that Christianity is not a solo proposition. Christianity comes to us through Christian community. Without a relation to the community or church, our individual Christianity is weakened and incomplete. The church is Christ’s body on earth today. The light of Christ shines in the world through each of us as we take seriously that we are a chosen people belonging to God.
There is no disembodied Christianity. The Lord calls us to relate to him in the community of the church with all of its warts and imperfections. Christianity is a social faith, a community of fellow believers. Jesus continues to build his church upon our confession of faith that he was the one promised by the Father to die and pay the penalty of our sinfulness and to defeat death and the grave by rising again. No individual makes the church. Saint Paul speaks of members of the body of Christ; members mean absolutely nothing when they are severed from the body. Every functioning, contributing, participating member is important to the good of our witness.
Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church. We are each to be a living stone cemented to the cornerstone and to one another. Each of us has a divine destiny and a place in the drama of divine redemption. We have been baptized into a high vocation. We were once nobody’s people, destined to hell. We are now God’s people, called to serve the Lord, on our way to heaven. We have gone from rags to riches, from a pig sty to a royal palace.
We are God’s own people. We belong to God, saved from hell by the sacrifice of Christ. We are, therefore, called to produce - produce the light of Christ in our words and deeds. We are called by Christ to servanthood, to sacrifice, into ministry. Such ministry is fed and coordinated in the local parish. If each Christian took seriously the Lord’s Word, our ministry and effectiveness as darkness dispellers would double, perhaps even triple. With the help of God, let’s turn on our lights ... full strength.
42. You Are Accepted
Illustration
King Duncan
As Paul Tillich put it so eloquently: "Grace strikes us when we are in great pain and restlessness . . . It strikes us when our disgust for our own being, our weakness, our hostility, and our lack of direction and composure have become intolerable to us. It strikes us when, year after year, the longed for perfection of life does not appear, when the old compulsions reign with us as they have for decades . . . Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying: " ‘You are accepted. . . .'"
We are accepted. Now we must accept others. The greatest need some people have is to be accepted. Acceptance changes lives. Let's you and I work together to make this house of worship known as a place where people can discover the acceptance of God and of the Christian community.
The full Tillich quote:Grace Strikes us when we are in great pain and restlessness. It strikes us when we walk through the dark valley of a meaningless and empty life. It strikes us when we feel that our separation is deeper than usual, because we have violated another life, a life which we loved, or from which we were estranged. It strikes us when our disgust for our own being, our indifference, our weakness, our hostility, and our lack of direction and composure have become intolerable to us. It strikes when, year after year, the longed-for perfection of life does not appear, when the old compulsions reign within us as they have for decades, when despair destroys all joy and courage. Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness and it is as though a voice were saying: “You are accepted. You are accepted. Accepted by that which is greater than you and the name of which you do not know. Do not ask for the name now; perhaps you will find it later. Do not try to do anything now; perhaps later you will do much. Do not seekanything, do not perform anything, do not intend anything. Simply accept the fact that you are accepted. If that happens to us, we experience grace.
43. The Word Became Flesh
Illustration
Paul E. Flesner
If John's Gospel were the only one we had, there would be no little town of Bethlehem. There'd be no shepherds out in their fields. There would be no manger and no virgin birth.No north star and no creche. If John is all we hadhereis all that we would know about Jesus' birth: before his name was Jesus, his name was the Word, and he was with God from the very beginning of creation, bringing things into being, making things happen, shining light into the darkness.
He was God's self, God's soul, God's life force in the world. He was the breath inside all living things. He was the electric spark that charged peoples' hearts. He was the fire inside the sun. He was the space between the stars. He was the axis around which the galaxies spin.
John goes on to say that not everyone got that message. Many were blinded by this light and preferred the darkness they knew to the light which they did not know. The Word sidled up to them and hummed life into their ears, but they cleared their throats and walked away. So God decided to speak in a new way. God decided to speak body language. "And the Word became flesh and lived among us full of grace and truth."
This is John's Christmas story in a nutshell. Like Luke, John is telling us about an encounter with the Holy One. God's Word was translated into a human being. God's self, soul, and life force were concentrated into one mortal life on earth, and as a result, nothing would ever be the same again. Not because everyone listened, because everyone does not, but because the eternal Word of God took human form.
44. Waiting for More
Illustration
Joel D. Kline
Some Christians make their faith sound so simple. Find Jesus, they assert, be saved, and that will take care of everything. All will be finished, done, complete, settled. But to embrace the light and love of Christ is just the beginning. It is a significant step, but only a beginning. We must then struggle with the presence of darkness, even as we affirm God's gift of light. We must then grapple with the challenge to be co-creators with God as we anticipate that new creation.
William Willimon, dean of the chapel at DukeUniversity, asserts:
Show me a person who is not waiting [for something more to come], not yearning, not leaning forward, standing on tiptoe for something better, and I will show you a person who has given up hope for anything better, someone who has settled down too comfortably in present arrangements. And that's sad. The future belongs to those who wait, for those who know we are meant for something better. The present darkness is not our final destination.
45. The Word Became Flesh
Illustration
Joel D. Kline
In The Message, Eugene Peterson paraphrases the familiar words of the Word becoming flesh this way: "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into our neighborhood." This is the remarkable truth we celebrate during the Christmas season, a truth we would do well to carry into the new year—that ours is a creating God who continues to act in human life, bringing light into our darkness, hope into our despair, life into our brokenness, love into our fear and suspicion and dread. And perhaps it is only when life is at its toughest, when that light seems most elusive, that faith begins to make sense at all. For it is faith that empowers us, when immersed in darkness, to trust in the presence of the light.
46. ARE CHRISTIANS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Are Christians an endangered species? This is really not the most pleasant question to consider. But at some time or another I would imagine we have all thought about it.
Faced with an uncomfortable question, we find comfort and assurance in God’s Word. Speaking of Jesus, in John 1:5 (GNB) it says, "His life is the light that shines through the darkness - and the darkness can never extinguish it." Never, it says. The power of God’s light can never be extinguished. The good news about Jesus will always be good news. Sin will have its triumphs, but it never will completely prevail.
Most of the danger to Christianity does not come from the outside but from within. I would like to consider with you three of the dangers from within referring to them as Christianity’s sin from within.
There is the endangering problem of self-centeredness or the S of sin from within. Often we get so caught up with our own church or our own denomination that our world view of Christianity doesn’t go much beyond our congregation’s front door. In our quest to preserve our peculiar understanding of Scripture, we often fail to bask in the good news of a Christ who stands at the center of Scripture. The New Testament abounds with encouragement for us to be one with each other - to rejoice in that which unites us in the Body of Christ rather than to dwell upon our theological idiosyncrasies. It is incompatible with Christianity for us to separate ourselves from other Christians in order to do just our own thing. We are going to spend our eternity with all these people. The time to get acquainted and work together is now.
Another aspect of the problem is inhibited love. Inhibited love is the I of the sin from within. There is no virtue in loving someone who is lovable. Anyone can do that - even non-believers. There is no virtue in loving someone with whom we agree, that is almost like loving ourself. Jesus said, "If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much." But there is virtue in uninhibited, unconditional love. We are called by Jesus to embrace with forgiving love a brother or sister who has disappointed or even offended us. Forgiveness flows in a church when the Spirit of God resides in its members. Love that flows freely is the love that Jesus spoke about when he said, "Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you. In that way you will be acting as true sons of your Father in heaven."
The final sin from within, represented by the N in sin, is nonchalance. Too many of us take our Christianity too casually - with nonchalance. Saint Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, encourages us to put on God’s armour so that we will be able to stand safe against all the strategies and tricks of Satan. We are encouraged to use every piece of God’s armor available to us.
Self-centeredness, inhibited love, and nonchalance - three sins from within that endanger Christianity. And so we return to our question, "Are Christians an endangered species?" Some are and some are not. Although we have the promise of God that the light will never go completely out, our task together with the total church is to make sure we shine brightly. We continue to do battle with the forces of evil from both without and from within. To plan to do less is to risk joining the list of endangered species.
47. Parable of Choosing a Gift
Illustration
"May I help you, lady?" said the sales clerk.
"Well, I want to buy something for my sweetheart and I don't know what I want."
"Did you have anything in mind at all?" asked the clerk.
"I know this -- I want something that will last and something that he can take with him. It should be something useful."
"How about a watch?" said the clerk.
"No, he has a good watch and that is more than I can afford at this time anyway."
"Perhaps a key chain or key case would be good," suggested the clerk.
"Let me see what you have. At least that is the right idea. It would be useful and frequently in his hands."
The lady said to herself, "I want my love to be in his hands and my presence to be felt wherever he goes and I want it to be a useful love. That is what I want my gift to represent."
Christmas indeed, is a time when we seek to express our love even as God seeks through the gift of Jesus to express his useful love, which endures to all generations. Love cannot give a gift, which is destructive or detrimental to health or happiness. Love came down at Christmas and echoes through the loving kindness which man gives to man in his awareness of God.
The lady was choosing her gift wisely. It was not the price that mattered but the presence of love that determined the preciousness of the gift.
48. In a Dark Cave
Illustration
John R. Steward
A man was once put in a dark cave. He was sentenced to die in the cave unless he could find his way out. The cave was 100 yards by 100 yards and he was told that there really was a way out.
The cave was sealed by a very large rock. After the cave was sealed the prisoner was allowed to take off his blindfold. In the midst of the darkness he walked around the cave. He had food, but it was bread and water which would only last for thirty days. The food was lowered to him from a hole in the ceiling of the cave which was about eighteen feet high. The opening was only one foot in diameter.
The man investigated the cave and soon discovered that there was a pile of rocks. He quickly determined that if he could build up the pile of rocks even higher, perhaps he could escape. By calculating both his height and his reach he believed that he needed to build the mound ten feet high.
Every moment was devoted to finding rocks and placing them in the pile. After two weeks he had built the mound to about six feet. He figured that over the next two weeks he could complete the task before the food would run out. He had not taken into account that he had already used up most of the rocks in the cave. Now he would have to use the rocks that were left and certainly more dirt. He had nothing with which to dig but his bare hands. After the next two weeks had passed he had only built the mound to nine-and-a-half feet; he thought that he could perhaps reach the opening if he were to jump. At this point he was near exhaustion. As he tried to jump and reach the opening he fell. Now he was too weak to get up and try again and in two days he was dead.
When they came to remove his body from the cave, they removed the large stone that covered the entrance, and the light that poured in revealed everything. In the light it was evident that there was an opening in the wall of the cave at ground level. The hole in the wall was the beginning of a tunnel that traveled for 200 feet and led to freedom. The captured man had so focused on the opening above that he never thought that there could be another way out of the cave. The opening was right next to the mound that he had been building. The trouble was that the opening on the ground level was in the darkness and did not seem possible to him.
Too often people reject Jesus as a way to freedom because it seems too easy or impractical. Sometimes he is rejected because it seems too dark and difficult. We think that we can do it by our own efforts and that we do notneed his help. Today he asks us to let go of all of our attempts to find freedom and follow him.
Adapted fromJohn Bradshaw, Healing the Shame that Binds (Deerfield Beach, Florida: Health Communications, Inc.), p. 117.
49. Warmth, Warmth, More Warmth
Illustration
John Claypool
Johann Wolfgang Goethe was the last of the so-called universal human beings. I mean by that, he was one of the last of our western civilization to have gained the mastery of every academic discipline. In his long life, he became renowned as a poet, as an artist, as a musician, as a playwright and historian. There was hardly a single facet of human knowledge of which he did not have a tremendous grasp. As he lay dying in 1832, the story is that he suddenly sat up, bolted upright in bed, and cried out with great poignancy, "Light, light, more light." One of his biographers said that this was a fitting climax to this particular individual's life because his whole existence had been dedicated to learning more, to pushing back the parameters of darkness. He died as he lived, wanting to learn more.
Many decades later Miguel Unamuno, the great Spanish philosopher, was reading a biography of Goethe and when he came to the death-bed scene, he allegedly read out loud to his wife what I have just described. Then he closed the book and said very thoughtfully, "You know for all his brilliance, Goethe was mistaken. Instead of crying for light, light, more light, what he should have asked for was warmth, warmth, more warmth, for human beings do not die of the darkness; they die of the cold."
50. An Insatiable Appetite
Illustration
Richard Exley
Lust is not the result of an overactive sex drive; it is not a biological phenomenon or the by-product of our glands. If it were, then it could be satisfied with a sexual experience, like a glass of water quenches thirst or a good meal satisfies appetite. But the more we attempt to appease our lust, the more demanding it becomes. There is simply not enough erotica in the world to satisfy lust's insatiable appetite. When we deny our lustful obsessions, we are not repressing a legitimate drive. We are putting to death an aberration. Lust is to the gift of sex what cancer is to a normal cell. Therefore, we deny it, not in order to become sexless saints, but in order to be fully alive to God, which includes the full and uninhibited expression of our sexual being within the God-given context of marriage.
Showing
1
to
50
of
365
results
- Greg Locke plans to move church amid longstanding community noise complaints
- This week in Christian history: John Sung dies, Evangelical Alliance formed, Diet of Odense
- Bishop IV Hilliard's Texas megachurch lists $15M mansion for sale
- Executive pastor resigns from Cross Timbers Church weeks after Josiah Anthony stepped down
- Wycliffe Bible Translators missionary died by suicide at Chicago airport, police say
- Actors Cameron & BJ Arnett on discipleship, spiritual accountability and ‘The Forge’
- Tim Tebow on battling spiritual warfare in fight against human trafficking: 'Overcome the world'
- Spanish judge halts assisted suicide of 23 year old after father's request
- Supreme Court stops Biden's Title IX rules allowing boys in girls' sports
- Montana Supreme Court rules parental notification for abortion law unconstitutional
- Bangladesh’s Religious Minorities Want Peace Amid Country’s Turmoil
- New Zealand Uncovers Historic Abuse in Church-Run Institutions
- Died: Timothy Dudley-Smith, Who Turned Metrical Poetry into Hundreds of Hymns
- After Pastor Led 400 to Starve, Some Kenyan Christians Open to Church Restrictions
- In Zimbabwe, Secular Education Is Overtaking Historic Mission Schools
- Philly Pastor: Church Parking Can Be a ‘Stumbling Block’ in the Bike Lane
- Died: Patricia Gundry, Evangelical Feminist Who Wanted Women to Be Free
- Some Churches Lose Coverage as Insurers Hit by a Wave of Storm Claims
- The Olympics’ Most Iconic Photo Has a Christian Message
- Died: Doris Brougham, Missionary Who Taught English to Taiwan
- Donald Trump's Easter Prayer Was a Mishap Without Teleprompter, "Something Something Heaven"
- Indian American Muslim group cancels parade participation amid float controversy
- J.D. Vance's Hat Trick of Election Recklessness: Insulting German-, Irish- & Italian-Americans
- 27 Atheist Musicians Who are Vocal About Not Believing
- Kim Kardashian's lookalike daughter Chicago steals the show in new family photo
- People Without Meaningful Lives Seek Power Over Others
- People Shared 50 Shocking Facts About Their Friends They Only Found Out Years Into The Friendship
- Australian News Corp exec apologises for doing Nazi salute
- MAGA has a Catholic gender gap problem — and it could spell trouble for Trump
- New York's India Day Parade will not remove controversial Hindu tribute
- Church of England Dropping Word 'Church' to be More 'Modern'
- Map Shows the Most Religious US States
- American Young Women Stop Attending Church
- A Quick Bible Study Vol. 230: Psalm Summer - Part 4
- The Atrocity Known as 'Catholics for Kamala'
- How a Persecuted Religious Group Grew Into a Global Movement
- Hagar and Ishmael as Main Characters
- Infant Loss Is Tragic and Complex. Abortion Bans Made it Worse
- On Inner Detachment
- It's Tu B'Av – Spread the Love, Yes Even this Year
