14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
1 Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.
4 No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. " 6 And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
For the Glory of Christ
John 12:20-33 · Hebrews 5:5-10
Sermon
by Billy D. Strayhorn
Maybe you've had a similar experience. There was a mother who asked her two and 1/2 year old daughter: "Would you like an ice cream sundae?" The daughter got real upset and replied, "No...I want ice cream now." (1)
Then some time back, in the comic strip The Ryatts, the little boy, Winky is sitting on the couch, Mom comes in and says, "Winky, your socks don't match." Winky looks at his socks and then says, "I tried to find some...but none of the socks in the drawer belong to the same family." (2)
Sometimes family life is like the first story. No matter what we say, we're misunderstood. Sometimes family life is like the second story. Sometimes we don't feel like we match with the family God has given us. There are days when you wake up and wonder if everyone else in the family hasn't been taken over by some alien life form. You feel like you don't belong.
But most of the time family life is great. It's great to belong to a family. It's great to know there are people who care about you and people who love you. Oh, at times, family life is challenging. "Family life teaches you loyalty, patience, understanding, perseverance, ....and a lot of other things you wouldn't need if you'd stayed single." (3) Seriously, family and family life are very important to each of us.
A recent national survey asked the question: "What do you enjoy doing most in your spare time?" The answer, from seventy four percent of the people surveyed, was "spending time with family and friends." (4)
So what does all this talk about family have to do with today's scripture? None of the passages seem to directly mention family, yet they do talk about the relationship Jesus had with God and with the world. Hebrews 5:8 says, "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered." Jesus was the Son of God, yet he didn't come to lord it over the world. Jesus was the Son of God but he came to bring glory to God through being God's servant. And I believe that's a model for both the family and especially for the Church.
I. JESUS IS LORD OF ALL:
A. JESUS IS LORD OF ALL. We begin with that affirmation. Jesus, the Son of God, is Lord of all--Jews, Christians, rich and poor, righteous and unrighteous, sick or healthy. No one is excluded. All of us are equal in God's sight. And that makes a difference. Being Lord of all. Being the Son of God, Jesus could have used all the powers at his disposal to bring about the conversion of the world. He could have wowed us with miracle after miracle after miracle. Instead he did only enough to show us who He really was and the power at his disposal. And rather than use the powers of all creation, Jesus chose to show us just how much God loves us through submission and suffering and obedience. Jesus chose the least powerful thing of all, the cross, and turned it into the most powerful symbol of all. Jesus IS Lord of all. Because Jesus is the Son of God and equal to God and yet was obedient to God in bearing the cross for our salvation, that makes a difference and that difference became the model for the Church.
When describing the early Christians to the Emperor Hadrian, Aristides wrote: "They love one another. They never fail to help widows; they save orphans from those who hurt them. If they have something, they give freely to the person who has nothing; if they see a stranger, they take him home as a brother or sister in the spirit, the Spirit of God."
The work and ministry of Jesus became the model for the work and ministry of the Church. The reason some people in the Church refer to one another as brother so and so and sister so and so is because the family was seen as the model for the life of the Church. Paul refers to us as brothers and sisters in Christ. In Galatians Paul refers to us as "the family of faith." We're said to belong to the family of God. Peter in his first letter, chapter 2:17, writes: "Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God." In Matthew 12:50 Jesus says: "whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
B. I could go on and on with passages which refer to us as sons and daughters of God or the family of God. We in the Church are learning, growing in our faith and trying to do God's will. In my book, that makes us family. As family we can look to Christ for guidance and as a role model for our relationships within our families at home and for our relationships within the church.
Jesus wanted us to know that God is like a loving parent. It is within the family of God that we also get our values. It is within the family of God that we draw our support when we venture out into the world. It is God's family that should be the ultimate place we turn for love. "Once we were no people, but now we are God's people." That's who we are, we are God's people. We are the Church, the family of God and that makes a difference in how we treat each other.
II. STICK TOGETHER:
A. One of the characteristics of a strong family is that it sticks together, no matter what the situation, even in the tough times.
Picture the scene. A wife lovingly picks a daisy and begins playing that old game of "He loves me" "He loves me not" as she pulls off each petal. Unfortunately she ends on 'He loves me not" just as her husband walks in the door. The wife immediately turns on the dumbfounded husband and says, "Well, frankly, I'm not too wild about you, either."
We need to realize that there are going to be times in the life of this family known as the Church, when we're not going to be wild about each other. And that's OK. But we don't give up on each other. And we're called to act in love towards each other even though we disagree. We do this, not to glorify ourselves but as Christ did, to glorify God. That's our purpose in all that we do in the Church, to bring glory to God and to act out of the same love which was shown to us. Love is the acid test of our faith. If we do not care about others in our fellowship or family of faith, then our faith is meaningless.
B. Sometimes family life can get hectic. Some pretty rough times can come up over night. Our whole world can fall apart in a split second. There are so many problems facing our world and our children and families today that it's frightening. But that's the way it has been in every generation. The philosopher Thucydides wrote his observation of the five major problems during the time of Christ: "1) Fear that superpowers would draw the world into conflict; 2) Divorce and the breakdown of the family; 3) Children not showing respect for elders and the wisdom of the previous generation; 4) Political corruption; 5) Potholes in the streets."
That sounds just like now doesn't it. The only two things not on the list are gang violence and drugs. There are a lot of things that threaten family life today. The storms of life can swoop in unexpectedly and wreak havoc. But the mark of a healthy family is that healthy families ride the storms out together.
A fisherman was once in his boat off the coast of Alaska where the tides vary up to 25 feet. The tide was going out fast and he was too close to the shore. His boat got stuck on the rocky ocean bottom. It was rocking back and forth and would break a part shortly, destroying his whole livelihood.
A fellow fisherman further out to sea saw his plight. Without hesitation, he drove his boat alongside the mired boat and threw lines to the other boat, lashing them together catamaran fashion so that both boats could ride out the low tide together without rocking back and forth. When high tide returned, they could both back off to safer, deeper water and go their separate ways.
As the Church, as the family of God, following the ministry of our Savior, we're call to be willing to lash ourselves to others who are in distress and ride out the storm with them so that they might know that God is alive in the world and acting in their lives. So that they might know the love and help of God through us.
III. CALLED TO CARE:
A. The Church is a family. And that's a unique relationship. We're not a club. You don't have to pay a membership or initiation fee and monthly dues like at the country club. We're not a fraternity or sorority where you have to be voted in. The one who bought your membership gave the highest possible price, His life so that you could belong. All you have to do is accept what He did for you. We're not a social organization, though we do some social things together. Instead we're family. And as family, we're called to care about one another. We're called to care about each other's needs and welfare. We're called to care about each other's feelings.
Some of the Baseball fans might remember the name Larry Doby. Doby was one of baseball's finest hitters. Maybe you remember the story of Doby's entrance into major league baseball.
Larry Doby was the first African-American to play for an American League team. The year was 1947. Doby was a promising rookie for the Cleveland Indians. However, he didn't look very promising during his first time at bat. He was tense and nervous. He swung at three pitches and missed each of them badly. His first time at bat in the major leagues with hundreds of eyes watching and he didn't get within a foot of the ball. With his head down, he slowly walked back to the dugout. He picked out a seat on the end of the bench and there his rested his head in his hands.
A player by the name of Joe Gordon was on that same Cleveland team. Joe was an outstanding second baseman. He batted right after Doby. Gordon had a good record batting against the pitcher who was on the mound that day. But something quite extraordinary was about to happen--the stuff of baseball legend. Joe Gordon went up to the plate and missed three pitches in a row--each of them by at least two feet. Then he walked slowly to the end of the bench and sat down next to Larry Doby. Then Joe Gordon slowly put his head in his hands and became Doby's partner is despair.
Now the question is, "did Joe Gordon deliberately strike out that day?" There's been a lot of speculation but we will never know for sure. However, it is interesting to note that from that day on, every time Larry Doby went out onto the field he first picked up Joe Gordon's glove and tossed it to him.
You see, that's family. That's caring that some one else succeeds. That's caring for someone else's feelings. That's being a servant and being obedient to God's will. Did you know that there are some people in every church who feel threatened if other people do well? They're jealous if any one else receives a little bit of recognition and they don't. That's not the attitude of the church. That's not the attitude of family, except maybe a dysfunctional family. That's the attitude of the world and as the church, we're called to be, as Monty Python puts it, "something completely different." Fortunately for us, there are many more folks in the Church who are like Joe Gordon.
B. As family, we have responsibility for one another. As the Church, we're called to think like family and to encourage and support one another.
That's why we've started a new ministry. It's very simple. It's a way to be more caring and to show concern or love or celebration for others. The Council on Ministries has developed a way to do that. It's called a Barnabas Card. They will be in the pew pads starting next week. On the card it says, "Be A Barnabas." in Acts 4:36 we're introduced to a guy by the name of Joseph, a Levite and native of Cyprus. Joseph, the Levite from Cyprus was the kind of person you want all your friends and relatives to be like. He was a model of caring and compassion. His character was such that the apostles gave him the nickname, Barnabas. Barnabas means "son of encouragement."
Through the Barnabas Ministry, we're all called to be, "sons an daughters of encouragement." And it's simple. All you have to do is to take a Barnabas Card, write a little note to someone: a word of encouragement, a note that you're praying for them if you hear their name mentioned in the concerns or celebrations; a note that simply says, "We missed you in Church today." Any number of things. Then at the end of the Worship Service, you can turn them in and we will deliver them. We'll either mail them or if it happens to be someone in the hospital, I'll take them by personally. All of this is simply a way of reaching out to those within our family of faith and giving that word of encouragement. It's a way of showing that we care.
Whenever we reach out in sharing a word of encouragement; whenever we lash ourselves to others in the midst of the storms in their lives; whenever we act in love in the midst of a difficult situation; whenever we do whatever we can to bolster and strengthen the family of God, we are following the example of Christ. We are being the servants He has called us to be. And we bring glory to God. That's our whole purpose as the Church. Whenever we reach out to help someone who is struggling in the faith, struggling to make it or struggling in whatever situation, we are not only taking up OUR cross but helping to bear the cross of a fellow pilgrim. And in doing so, we are serving Christ. And Jesus said, "Whoever serves me, God will honor."
CONCLUSION:
In the cartoon Dennis the Menace, Dennis is in his mother's lap, enfolded in her arms and he's crying. Mom has this concerned look on her face as Dennis says: "I HAD to come home. I need somebody to be on MY side." (5)
There are times when we all need someone to be on our side. We all have that innate need to know that no matter what happens, no matter what is said or done, there are folks who are still on our side. The Christian family fulfills that need; Christ fulfills that need; and the Church fulfills that need. Christ is on our side, there's no doubt of that. And as his followers, we're called to let others know that Christ is on their side and that as the family of God in Christ, we're on their side too.
The world is hurting. Its in pain partly because its so lonely. The world has lost the sense of belonging to something greater than itself. Its lost that sense of being part of a family. One of the things that we can offer that brings glory to God is that sense of family. The caring and loving relationship of trust and belonging that so many lives are devoid of.
Through Christ we have found the love and forgiveness that others long for. We have found and are finding a safe haven. We're called to glorify God and serve Christ by sharing the treasure we have discovered with others. We're called to be family and to glorify God together.
If your life has lost that sense of belonging then this is where you need to be. If you feel disconnected then this is the place to be connected to the source of power and love, Our Savior. This is also the place to help others find that connection. And we do it all, not for ourselves but for the glory of Christ.
This is the Word of the Lord for this day.
1. "The Ryatts, by Jack Elrod, 4-26-91"
2. COUNTRY WOMAN, Nov/Dec 1990 (Milwaukee, WI).
3. Dick Underdahl-Peirce, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Cottage Grove, Minnesota.
4. From The Master's Plan for Making Disciples, by Win Arn, Charles Arn, page 77
5. Dennis the Menace by Hank Ketchum, 5-5-92
ChristianGlobe Network, Inc., by Billy D. Strayhorn
In contrast to the Levitical priests who are sinful and limited, Jesus, a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, has a permanent, eternal ministry of delivering people from sin. His priesthood and ministry are superior to the priests and ministry of the old covenant. Therefore, we should draw near to Jesus and persevere in faith.
Drawing near to Jesus, our great high priest (4:14–16): Here the entire sermon is summarized. Because Jesus, our great high priest, has been exalted, we should hold firmly to our faith in him (4:14). Also, because he became a human being, he can sympathize with our weaknesses, having…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
1 Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.
4 No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. " 6 And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
The author now discusses Jesus Christ’s qualifications as our great High Priest, picking up the thread of his earlier statement that Christ is the High Priest of his people (2:17–3:1) and reiterating points made previously regarding his exaltation (2:9) and his experience of the trials of human life (2:18). After the stern warnings and the threat of God’s searching judgment in the previous verses, consolation and encouragement are offered to those who have discovered that the life of faith is full of painful difficulties and severe temptations. Jesus, true God and true human being, is the High Priest who is both fully willing to help (as his suffering for sinners demonstrates) and fully able, for he combines perfect understanding of and sympathy with the struggling believer’s lot in this world of sin (“in every way” [4:15]) with his unlimited ability to help. He knows how to deliver the godly from temptation, having been victorious himself in every moment of his sorely tested life. That he is now seated on a heavenly throne signifies both that his sacrifice for sin has been accepted by God (Heb. 1:3; 10:12–14) and that his perfect sympathy as a fellow man and brother of the saints is joined with divine omnipotence. Therefore, the believer who addresses Jesus should not doubt that he or she will receive both forgiveness for past sins and strength to bear up under present trials. “Approach” (4:16) translates the Greek term proserchomai, which the Septuagint often employs for the priest’s approach to God in the sacrificial ritual (e.g., Lev. 21:17, 21). The author’s meaning is not that access to God (limited in the Old Testament to the priest) is now extended to all believers, for the saints of the former age also came near to God (Heb. 11:6), as the psalms and other portions of the Old Testament emphatically demonstrate (e.g., Ps. 73:28). Rather, he means that the sinner must rely on Jesus, not on sacrificial ritual, for mercy and grace (Heb. 10:1–3).
The author now takes care to establish in the minds of his readers, steeped as they are in Levitical regulations, that Jesus is in every way qualified to be the believer’s great High Priest (5:1–10). First, as a representative of humanity, a priest must be a man with fellow feeling for those he represents to God (5:1–3). As one who offers sacrifices for sin, he must know what it is to do battle with sin. In the Levitical ritual, this was emphatically expressed in the requirement that even the high priest must offer sacrifice for his own sins (Lev. 16:6). Second, the high priest must be appointed to his office (Heb. 5:4; cf. Num. 20:23–28).
Now the author demonstrates in reverse order that Jesus meets both requirements (5:5–6). The two citations from the Psalter, both in the form of an address by the Father to the Son, establish that Jesus has his priestly office by divine appointment. Psalm 110:4 introduces the theme to which the author will return in 6:20–7:28. Jesus also meets the requirement of sympathy with those he represents (5:7–10). It is true that he did not sin and needed no sacrifice for his own sins (5:3), but he was tempted more severely than any other person, and only the one who has resisted to the end knows the full weight of any temptation. The point made twice before (2:17–18; 4:15) is now elaborated. Christ as a man discovered what it is to cry out to God in fear and distress. The allusion to Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–46) is unmistakable. He learned to say, “Thy will be done” (Matt 26:42 KJV), when the will of God was the way of the cross. In answer to his prayer he was enabled to bear his trial just as he will enable believers to bear theirs (4:15–16). This statement serves to demonstrate how completely and unqualifiedly the Son of God became a man like other men, though without sin. Though he was the Son of God and a sinless man, he was not exempt from the principle that it is through suffering that a person discovers the true nature and cost of obedience (5:8–10; cf. 2:10). He was “a man of suffering, and familiar with pain” (Isa. 53:3), and it is precisely that suffering and perfect obedience in suffering that make him fit for his roles as Savior and High Priest. The necessity of obedience to Christ is not in contrast to the necessity of faith, for true faith and obedience are always found together, the latter the product and the sign of the former (Heb. 3:18–19; 4:2, 6). The reference to Melchizedek anticipates the exposition to come in 6:20–7:28.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
In the last verses of chapter 4 the author again exhorts his readers to faithfulness, but this time on the basis of his argument concerning the high priesthood of Jesus. The connection has already been made between Jesus’ high priesthood and his ability to help his people (see 2:17–18), but now it is elaborated and leads the author into the beginning of a discourse on why Jesus is qualified to be high priest. First the author reviews the role and calling of high priests (5:1–4), and then he turns to the qualifications of Jesus as high priest (5:5–10).
4:14 The fact that Jesus is a great high priest will enable the readers to remain true; the exhortation implies their tendency to waver. Great here suggests the uniqueness of this particular possessor of that exalted office. This indeed is no ordinary high priest. He is the man Jesus, but also the unique Son of God, the one who has gone through the heavens. This last clause may be an allusion to Christ’s presence in the spiritual or “heavenly temple” where his priestly work is accomplished (cf. 6:20; 9:11–12). At the same time, there may also be a deliberate allusion to Psalm 110:1, a strategic verse for our author that is also associated with Christ’s priestly work (see 8:1–2). Similar language is found in 7:26, where Jesus the high priest is said to be “exalted above the heavens,” with which may be compared Paul’s reference to Christ as the “one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe” (Eph. 4:10). Thus a number of themes concerning Jesus previously introduced are now brought together again and associated with the title of high priest: his humanity, his unique sonship, his exaltation, and as we are about to hear, his consequent ability to help Christians under testing. The faith we profess is literally “the confession” as in 3:1 (cf. 10:23).
4:15 The author makes the same point negatively and positively. Our high priest is not impassive, unable to share our feelings of weakness and vulnerability. He too lived as a human and thus as one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are. The ambiguity of the Greek may justify the translation of NEB: “one who, because of his likeness to us, has been tested every way.” The full humanity of Jesus means that he experienced the full range (rather than every specific manifestation) of human temptation, although to a much higher degree of intensity since, unlike all others, he never yielded to sin. Our author thus shares the NT view of the sinlessness of Jesus (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Whereas Jesus can sympathize with our weaknesses, he is not, like other high priests, himself subject to sin (see 5:2f.). Jesus became “like his brothers in every way,” yet was without sin. It is for this reason that he can help us. “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (2:17–18).
4:16 If the readers are to “hold firmly to the faith” (v. 14), they will need to avail themselves of the help that comes from the very presence of God. Using imagery drawn from the temple cultus (e.g., approach), the author encourages boldness: with confidence (cf. 10:19). It is no light matter to draw near to the throne of grace. But there the readers will find the mercy and grace they need, and just at the time of need. In keeping with the language of the cultus, this throne of grace is probably analogous in the author’s mind to the mercy-seat in the holy of holies (cf. 9:5). It is assumed rather than stated that the high priest who is able to help is there at the throne (cf. v. 14 and 1:3, etc.).
We have now reached that stage in the author’s argument where he must set forth the qualifications of Jesus as high priest. This he does by first reviewing the role and the nature of the office according to the OT Scriptures, and then by showing how Jesus fulfills the same criteria.
5:1 This verse is virtually a dictionary definition of “high priest.” A high priest is selected from among men … to represent them before God, offering gifts and sacrifices for sins. The language is deliberately general and comprehensive (for the same terminology, see 8:3). In view, as we shall see, is the special work of the high priest on the Day of Atonement, which will be the focus of attention in chapters 9 and 10.
5:2–3 Since the high priest is human, he is subject to weakness (lit., “clothed in weakness,” as Barclay translates). “The law appoints as high priests men who are weak” (7:28). The high priest can therefore deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray. Possibly in view are the unwitting sins for which the priest makes atonement according to Numbers 15:28 (cf. Lev. 5:17–19). Although Jesus satisfies the criterion of humanness and thus qualifies to be a priest, he is not “clothed with weakness” as is the high priest, nor does he therefore need to offer sacrifices for his own sins (9:7; Lev. 16:6) as the high priest must (cf. 7:27). For although he suffered testing, and can help those who suffer testing, he himself “was without sin” (4:15). Thus Jesus is both similar and dissimilar to ordinary high priests. The key similarity, the atonement for the sins of the people, is left for later exposition (chaps. 9–10).
5:4 The office of high priest is not entered into freely or by personal choice. God alone chooses a person for this honor. He must be called by God, as can be clearly seen in the case of Aaron (see Exod. 28:1) and his descendants (Num. 25:13).
5:5–6 If Christ qualifies to be a high priest by virtue of his humanity, he also qualifies by virtue of divine appointment. He did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. This has been shown to be an impossibility in the preceding verse, apparently even for the Christ. The author now cites two OT passages to make his argument, and it is in seeing the connection between the two that he has achieved one of his most brilliant insights, unique in all the NT. The first quotation, Psalm 2:7, has already been utilized at the beginning of the book (1:5). Although the point of the unique sonship of Jesus has already been made, at this juncture in the argument it must again be stressed from Psalm 2:7 that Jesus is the messianic king by divine decree. The second quotation, Psalm 110:4, refers to one who is a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. The person addressed is the same as the one addressed in Psalm 110:1 with the words “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” This verse, although not quoted here, is elsewhere cited as referring to Jesus (1:13; and several allusions) and here may be understood as the bridge between Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4. Jesus is the Son of God by divine decree and therefore the one who has been raised to the right hand of God. He is thus at the same time the one appointed by God to be a priest forever in the lineage of Melchizedek. As the author will explain later (chap. 7), Melchizedek was both a king and a priest (Gen. 14:18). Jesus is also king and priest, and thus corresponds to Melchizedek. There is for our author a vital connection between the unique sonship of Jesus and his role as high priest (cf. 1:2–3). He can be the ideal high priest in the last analysis only because of his identity as the Son (see 7:28). Only as the Son can he perform the definitive atoning work that the author will describe in later chapters.
5:7 This verse and the three verses that follow reveal briefly the essence of Christ’s priestly work through the testing and suffering experienced by the divine Son in his humanity. The struggle referred to during the days of Jesus’ life on earth (lit., “in the days of his flesh”) refers obviously to his experience as he approached his imminent death. Almost certainly the author has in mind the agony of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane (see Matt. 26:36ff.), where Jesus prayed that if possible the cup (i.e., his death) might pass from him. The fact that the prayers and petitions are said to have been directed to the one who could save him from death indicates almost certainly that the prayers were centered on the avoidance of death. But how then can the author continue by saying that he was heard? God always hears the prayers of those who suffer (see Ps. 22:24, a psalm that the early church understood as foreshadowing the passion of Jesus). Yet, it is clear that he does not always answer in the way that might be expected or desired. In this instance—although it is difficult to believe that this was Jesus’ request—the answer came not in the avoidance of death, but in deliverance from (lit., “out of”) death through the resurrection. Jesus was heard, according to our author, because of his reverent submission (lit., “because of his piety”). This is the counterpart of the submission of Jesus to the will of his Father in the Gethsemane prayer, even where he prays to escape death. Because of his submission to God’s will, the prayer of Jesus was heard in a much greater way than otherwise would have been possible.
5:8–9 As a son, i.e., even as God’s Son, Jesus was not exempt from suffering. His obedience was not accomplished in ideal circumstances, but was learned “in the school of suffering” (as NEB appropriately translates). In this sense Jesus serves as a model for the readers. This achievement of faithfulness to the will of God in adverse circumstances is a kind of learning insofar as it means arriving at a new stage of experience. The final stage of that experience is being made perfect, that is, when he accomplished the greatest obedience at the cost of the greatest suffering, his death (cf. 2:10). For, as our author will argue eloquently in later chapters, it is by his death that he became the source of eternal salvation (cf. 9:12) for all who obey him. And as his obedience entailed suffering, so may the readers assume that obedience to him will mean the same for them.
5:10 As “the source of eternal salvation” Jesus has been declared high priest by God. The divine Son and yet fully human Jesus possesses the qualifications needed to be high priest: divine appointment (especially through Ps. 110:4) and ability to empathize with those whom he represents to God. He is thus a member of a unique priesthood—of the order of Melchizedek. At this point, however, the argument is interrupted by a long parenthetical warning, and is not resumed until 7:1.
Additional Notes
4:14 For further discussion of high priest, see note on 2:17. The only other passage in Hebrews where high priest is qualified by adjectives is 2:17, “merciful and faithful high priest.” The literal words who has gone through the heavens should not be understood as either the three or seven heavens of popular Jewish cosmology (e.g. 2 Cor. 12:2), but probably simply as a general reference to Christ’s ascension and exaltation. For the significance of this idea for the author, see the comment on the author’s use of Ps. 110:1 in the note on 1:3. For the author’s Son of God Christology, see note on 1:5.
4:15 The Greek verb for sympathize with (sympatheō) occurs in only one other place in the entire NT, in 10:34, where the reference is to the readers’ participation in the sufferings of those taken prisoner, apparently through religious persecution (RSV translates it “had compassion”). Behind NIV’s just as we are lies the ambiguous kath’ homoiotēta, which can mean either “according to the likeness of our temptations” (as NIV takes it) or “because of his likeness to us” (as NEB takes it). Tempted (peirazō) in Hebrews ordinarily refers to the avoidance of suffering. See H. Seesemann, TDNT vol. 6, pp. 23–36. Without sin has been interpreted by some to mean that Jesus was tempted in every way that we are except by those temptations caused by previous sins. Others have insisted that the notion of the sinlessness of Jesus is incompatible with his full humanity as expressed in 2:17–18. Although humanness as we know it (i.e., since the Fall) is inherently sinful, it does not follow that sin is intrinsic or essential to humanness. See J. K. S. Reid, “Tempted, yet without sin,” EQ 21 (1949), pp. 161–67; R. A. Stewart, “The Sinless High Priest,” NTS 14 (1967), pp. 126–35. For an opposing viewpoint, R. Williamson, “Hebrews 4:15 and the Sinlessness of Jesus,” ExpT 86 (1974), pp. 4–8.
4:16 Approach (proserchomai) is used in the imagery of the sacrificial cult elsewhere in Hebrews in 7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6 (cf. 12:18, 22). This use of cultic language (that is, language having to do with the worship and ritual of the temple) is also found in Paul: “In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence” (Eph. 3:12). Throne of grace here is unique in the NT. Grace (charis), however, is an important word in Hebrews (see 2:9; 10:29; 12:15; 13:9, 25). See H.-H. Esser, NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 115–24. Mercy (eleos) occurs only here in Hebrews, as does the expression for “timely help.”
5:1 In providing this “dictionary definition” of the qualifications and functions of the high priest, the author depends upon his knowledge of the OT and pays no heed to the contemporary perspectives on the high priesthood or its pathetic state. (The members of Qumran, for example, had washed their hands of the high priesthood in Jerusalem.) The important verb offer (prospherō) is used far more in Hebrews (nineteen times) than in any other NT book. It is, of course, drawn from the language of the sacrificial ritual. See K. Weiss, TDNT, vol. 9, pp. 65–68. Since the Septuagint regularly uses the singular “sin” instead of sins when it refers to sacrifices, it may be that by using the plural the author hints at a communal setting such as on the Day of Atonement.
5:2 The rare word to deal gently (metriopatheō) occurs only here in the entire Greek Bible and has the connotation of moderation when circumstances otherwise might well provoke severity.
5:4 From the time of Antiochus IV and the cutting off of the Zadokite high priesthood, high priests had in fact been appointed by the whim of human rulers; legitimacy of descent and the call of God were no longer determinative. This is ignored by the author, who speaks idealistically of the high priesthood and continues to ascribe honor to it, although in the minds of the populace the office had long since been defiled.
5:5–6 For further information on Ps. 2:7, see note under 1:5. NIV rightly supplies God as the speaker of the verse (although the subject is not specified in the original), not simply because of the content of the words, but also because for the author, God is generally understood to be the speaker in the OT. The nuance of the somewhat unusual use of “glorify” (doxazō) behind NIV’s did not take upon himself the glory is captured well by BAGD (p. 204): “he did not raise himself to the glory of the high priesthood.”
At Qumran two messiahs were expected in connection with the end of the age, a priestly messiah of the line of Aaron and a royal messiah of the line of David. From our author’s perspective, Jesus as messiah is both king and high priest (although priest of an order other than the Aaronic). The two important offices had traditionally been kept separate in Israel until the unfortunate and unsatisfactory assumption of both offices by certain of the Hasmoneans in the second century B.C. For the very general introductory formula he says in another place, see note on 2:6.
5:7 In Offered up prayers is again the spiritualized use of technical language from the sacrificial cultus (the worship and ritual of the temple). Although there are no explicit references to loud cries and tears in any of the accounts of the Gethsemane experience according to the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew’s description is the most similar to our author’s words: “He began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, ‘My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death’” (Matt. 26:37f.). No distinction need be made between prayers and petitions. Although the latter (hiketēria) occurs only here in the NT, it is commonly linked with the former in contemporary literature.
The major difficulty of this verse, i.e., how the author can write that he was heard, despite the fact that Jesus died on the cross, has been handled in a variety of ways. Perhaps the simplest way is to argue that Jesus prayed not that he would avoid death, but that he would be resurrected after his death, taking the “out of death” (ek thanatou, not apo thanatou, “from death”) quite literally as a rescue from the clutches of death (cf. 13:20). Although we have argued above that this is a way in which we may understand God to have heard Jesus’ prayer, it is unlikely that this was actually the prayer of Jesus. (It is certainly not the content of Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane.)
Another solution to the problem, argued by some (e.g., Hewitt), is that in the garden Jesus prayed that he might not die then and there under the great burden of anguish he was experiencing, i.e., that he might not die prematurely and thus fail to accomplish his intended death on the cross. If this were his prayer, it was of course heard by God. This, however, involves a difficult and unsatisfactory interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer. Yet another solution is to argue that Jesus prayed to be delivered not from death, but from the fear of death (cf. Calvin, Héring, Montefiore). It is possible to interpret the Greek underlying because of his reverent submission (apo tēs eulabeias) as “from his fear,” thus giving the sense of “God heard him [and delivered him] from his fear of death.” This, however, is not only difficult syntactically, but also involves assigning a less common meaning to eulabeia, which normally means “godly fear” or “piety,” implying obedience (the word for “fear” of death in 2:15 is phobos). Finally, we note the expedient of Harnack who, with no manuscript evidence whatsoever, conjectures that an original negative before heard has been inadvertently lost. The author had actually written that God did not hear the prayer of Jesus. On this verse see N. R. Lightfoot, “The Saving of the Savior: Hebrews 5:7ff.,” RestQ 16 (1973), pp. 166–73.
5:8–9 This is the only occurrence of learned (manthanō) in the entire book and the only place in the NT where Jesus is the subject of the verb. In the Greek there is a play on words in the use of emathen (“learned”) and epathen (“suffered”). “To learn” here means to arrive at a new level of experience in obedience from what he suffered (cf. Phil. 2:8). For the verb made perfect (teleioō), see note on 2:10. The idea is that in being obedient to God’s will in his sufferings and death, Jesus brings God’s saving purposes to fulfillment or completion (cf. 7:27f.). Having accomplished God’s will, he himself has reached a state of completeness and fulfillment, thereby becoming the source of eternal salvation (cf. 2:10). Source (aitios) can also be translated as “cause” and is reminiscent of the word archēgos (“pioneer” or “leader”) in 2:10 (cf. 12:2). Eternal salvation refers to the finality and definitive character of the saving work accomplished by Christ. Analogous to this expression are “eternal redemption” in 9:12, “eternal inheritance” in 9:15, and “eternal covenant” in 13:20. For an OT parallel, see Isa. 45:17. For salvation (sōtēria), see note on 2:3.
5:10 Designated (prosagoreuō) occurs only here in the NT and corresponds in significance to “appointed” in 5:1. For further information on Melchizedek, see notes to 7:1–3.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Donald A. Hagner, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Aaron was Moses’ older brother and his close associate during the days when God used both of them to establish his people Israel as a nation. Aaron’s particular importance came when God selected him to be the first high priest of Israel.
Aaron plays a supportive role in the Exodus account of the plagues and the departure from Egypt. He was at Moses’ side. As previously arranged, Aaron was the spokesperson, acting as a prophet to Moses, who was “like God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1).
The event of greatest significance involving Aaron in the wilderness was his appointment as high priest. The divine mandate for his installation is recorded in Exod. 28. Aaron did not fare well on the one occasion when he acted independently from Moses. While Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the two tablets of the law from the hand of God, Aaron gave in to the people’s request to make a calf idol out of golden earrings that they gave him.
In spite of Aaron’s sin, God did not remove him from his priestly responsibilities (thanks to the prayers of Moses [Deut. 9:20]), the height of which was to preside over the annual Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). The incident of the golden calf was not the only occasion when Aaron tried God’s patience. According to Num. 12, Aaron and his sister, Miriam, contested Moses’ leadership. Using his marriage to a Cushite woman as a pretext, Moses’ siblings asserted their equality. God, however, put them in their place, affirming Moses’ primacy.
Other tribal leaders questioned Aaron’s priestly leadership, according to Num. 17. Moses told all the tribal leaders to place their walking staffs along with Aaron’s before God at the tent of testimony. God showed his favor toward Aaron by causing his staff to bud.
Both Moses and Aaron forfeited their right to enter the land of promise when they usurped the Lord’s authority as they brought water from the rock in the wilderness (Num. 20:1 13). Sick and tired of the people’s complaining, Moses wrongly ascribed the ability to make water come from the rock to himself and Aaron, and rather than speaking to the rock, he struck it twice. For this, God told them that they would die in the wilderness. Aaron’s death is reported soon after this occasion (Num. 20:22–27).
In the NT, the most significant use of Aaron is in comparison to Jesus Christ, the ultimate high priest. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews argues that Jesus far surpassed the priestly authority of Aaron by connecting his priesthood to Melchizedek, a mysterious non-Israelite priest who blesses God and Abram in Gen. 14 (see Heb. 7:1–14).
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).
Love for those who suffer. The OT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward those who, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. In Exod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they have rebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for their deliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them of his sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15).
The NT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowds who “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick and feeding them miraculously (14:1421; cf. 15:32). The same connection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscores this attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is “full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depicts God as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution and trial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with broken sinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps. 145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for his people. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise, and even unrighteous.
In the OT, “to confess” is used in reference to verbal acknowledgment of one’s sin or of God’s name in faith. An object of confession is one’s sins. Confession results in the cleansing of sin and the restoration of one’s relationship with God (Lev. 5:5; Ps. 32:5). Solomon prays that God may forgive people’s sin when they confess God’s name (1Kings 8:35). Moses, on the Day of Atonement, commands Aaron to lay “both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites” (Lev. 16:21).
Another object of confession is God’s name. To confess the name of God means “to give thanks/praise” to God (Josh. 7:19). It involves not only negative matters such as sins and wrongdoings (Lev. 26:40; Prov. 28:13), but also positive ones such as God’s name (1King 8:33, 35; 2Chron. 6:24, 26; Dan. 9:4). In this respect, confession conceptually involves a double function: to remove obstacles to fellowship with God, and to recover fellowship in covenantal faithfulness to God (1Kings 8:33).
The double function of confession continues in the NT. John the Baptist exhorted people to confess their sins (Matt. 3:6). Epistles also emphasize the importance of confession of sins as a basis of atonement and purification (1John 1:9; James 5:16). In the NT, the positive aspect of confession as confessing God’s name is recast in terms of Jesus, who fulfilled the OT prophecies. Therefore, to “confess” Jesus as Lord is reckoned as confessing God’s name so as to obtain salvation (Rom. 10:10 ESV, NRSV; NIV: “profess”). Verbal confession of Jesus in public is a means for spreading the gospel and witnessing to people about him. Thus, Paul regards his confession of God through Gentile evangelism as singing praises to God’s name (Rom. 15:9).
Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:1213).
Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).
For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1Sam. 26:19; 2Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:2829).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the Letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the Letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Fasting, often linked with prayer, was one avenue of appeal to God in the face of crises, both national and personal. Moses ascended to Mount Sinai and was with God forty days and nights without eating bread or drinking water, both before and after the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:818). David fasted when his son was dying (2Sam. 12:15–23). Esther called all the Jews of Susa to fast for three days before she ventured before the king (Esther 4:15–17). Joel called the people to repentance and fasting as the land was devastated by a locust plague (Joel 1:13–14; 2:12). Forty days of fasting, an echo of Moses’ experience, prepared Jesus to face the devil’s temptations (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.).
The OT prophets criticized Israelites who presumed that their religious obligations were met simply by fasting (Isa. 58:1–10; Zech. 7:1–5). When asked why his disciples did not fast and pray, Jesus indicated that sometimes fasting is inappropriate (Matt. 9:14–17 pars.). Luke recorded an addition to Jesus’ statement about new wine in old wineskins: “No one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better’” (Luke 5:39), perhaps suggesting that the accumulation of fasting practices was “new wine” and they ought simply to observe the Day of Atonement.
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 tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).
In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).
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.
A priest is a minister of sacred things who represents God to the people and the people to God. The OT identifies priests of Yahweh and priests of other gods and idols. The only pagan priest that the NT mentions is the priest of Zeus from Lystra who wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, whom the crowd mistook for deities (Acts 14:13). All other NT references build upon OT teaching about priests of Yahweh.
Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:78; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).
In NT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders of the Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, were portrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said to have come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assigned by Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priests underscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the role they played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continued after the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of the apostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar had been healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed, interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about charges of blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a follower of Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix (24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him before Festus (25:1–3).
Hebrews uniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OT priesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but their sacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, the faithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that never needed repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesus also surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore, since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, not just priests, could draw near to God.
The NT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking the concept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring it to the church (1Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflecting the general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritual sacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his works of salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In the NT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office in the church is never expressly mentioned.
A mysterious individual who is referenced twice in the OT and once in the NT. In Gen. 14:1820 Melchizedek is a priest of El Elyon (God Most High), possibly a reference to the Canaanite god El but here used as a title for Yahweh. He is said to be from “Salem,” which could be a shortened form of “Jerusalem.” Melchizedek brings out bread and wine to Abram, blesses him, and receives one-tenth of Abram’s spoils that Abram had acquired from his successful military campaign against the eastern kings. The royal oracle of Ps. 110 holds a declaration of the Davidic king as an eternal priest “in the order of Melchizedek” (v.4). This phrase is later applied to Jesus by the writer of the book of Hebrews to emphasize the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In Heb. 7:1–17 Melchizedek is described as the “king of righteousness” and the “king of peace” (v.2); he is said to have been birthed “without father or mother” and is described as one who has existed eternally, thus resembling the Son of God (v.3). This description draws not only on Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 but also on the description of Melchizedek as a heavenly figure that appears also in the DSS (11Q13). While Melchizedek’s identity and function remain a mystery, all three biblical passages refer to him in order to proclaim the work of God.
Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1Kings 8:2324; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.
Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects 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).
A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:68). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1Sam. 15:22).
In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1John 5:3; 2John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).
The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).
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).
“Salvation” is the broadest term used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.
In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:57; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).
Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).
But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins.
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 OT, heavenly beings or angels are sometimes referred to as “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss. 82:6; 89:6). The more important background for the NT, however, is the use of the term with reference to the nation Israel and the messianic king from David’s line. Israel was God’s son by virtue of God’s unique calling, deliverance, and protection. Hosea 11:1 reads, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Similar references to God as the father of his people appear throughout the OT (Exod. 4:22; Num. 11:12; Deut. 14:1; 32:5, 19; Isa. 43:6; 45:11; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, 20; Hos. 2:1). The king from the line of David is referred to as the son of God by virtue of his special relationship to God and his representative role among the people. In the Davidic covenant, God promises David concerning his descendant, “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (2Sam. 7:14; cf. Pss. 2:7; 89:26). Later Judaism appears to have taken up these passages and identified the coming Messiah as the “son of God.”
Direct Matches
An expression for a range of responses to a crisis ordifficulty, from courage (Acts 4:29, 31; 2 Cor. 3:12; Eph. 3:12;Phil. 1:20; 1 Thess. 2:2) to shameless persistence (Luke 11:8).After Paul and Silas had been jailed in Philippi, they were willingto endure more persecution to preach to the Thessalonians (Acts16:16–24; 1 Thess. 2:2). To the Philippians, the apostlereflects on his bold preaching (Phil. 1:20). The Christians’relationship with Christ also gives them boldness to enter into God’spresence (Eph. 3:12; Heb. 4:16). The agent of Christian boldness isthe Holy Spirit (Acts 4:31).
Fear, as it appears in Scripture, is a response ranging from respect and reverence to sheer panic and absolute terror.
Proper and Improper Fears
There are both proper, godly fears and improper, sinful fears. On the one hand, God has given us the ability to respond to rightly perceived fears. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he “was afraid” to go there with Mary and Jesus (Matt. 2:22), and God directed him to go to Nazareth instead. On the other hand, Scripture gives us many examples of people who were overcome by sinful fear. After Adam had sinned, he heard God coming to him in the garden, and he said, “I was afraid ... so I hid” (Gen. 3:10). Abraham was afraid for his life, so he pretended that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20:2). King Saul disobeyed God’s explicit commands because he “was afraid of the men” (1Sam. 15:24). Fear can be both sinful in and of itself and something that leads to other sinful responses.
God understands our struggle with sinful fear and knows that we need someone who is stronger than our fears: God himself. David says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in you” (Ps. 56:3). Ultimately, our hope is in Jesus Christ, who came to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). The author of Hebrews goes on to tell us how we are to experience this victory through Christ: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16).
Paul asks the question “Who [or, we could add, ‘what’] shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” (Rom. 8:35), and then gives his classic answer: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:38–39). The reality of a sovereign, loving God rules out any possibility that his people will ever find themselves in situations outside of his love and control. For the believer, “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (8:28).
Fear of God
There is a popular saying: “The fear of God is the one fear that removes all others.” God wants to free people from wrong fears so that they can fear the one person really worth fearing: God himself. Jesus warned, “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). Indeed, the one appropriate fear mentioned well over a hundred times in Scripture is a proper fear of God. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes concludes his wrestling to find meaning and purpose in life with these words: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (12:13).
God’s frame of reference. What can a proper fear of God do for us? The answer from the book of Proverbs is that a proper fear of God is foundational to everything else in life: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). Every area of life needs to be lived under the direction of God and for his glory, and without a proper fear of God, living a life pleasing to God becomes impossible. Having a proper fear of God involves seeing and responding to all the daily circumstances of life from God’s frame of reference. It is this proper fear of God that involves catching a glimpse of life as it truly is, and especially of God as he is in all his glory and splendor, that gives people the strength and encouragement they need to go through all the difficult experiences of life. Although there are many unanswered questions regarding the various tragedies and difficulties we experience, life does not begin to make sense until a person catches a glimpse of who God is and how he is at work behind the scenes in history and world events. No one can ever go far in a relationship with God apart from a proper fear of him. Instead, “the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27) that strengthens and sustainsus.
Knowing and seeking God. What does fear of God look like? Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” places “fear” and “knowledge” in poetical parallelism. Apparently, knowing God and fearing him are really one and the same, like two sides of a coin describing the same reality. Similarly, not fearing God is simply another way of saying that a person does not know him. It is no surprise to discover that to fear God or be a “God-fearer” is one of the standard biblical descriptions for being a follower of God (Acts 10:2). In one sense, having a proper fear of God is simply one way of describing how one is in a proper relationship with God. Scripture is clear that for the ungodly, or even for the disobedient believer, there is a fear in the sense of terror or panic as one contemplates the coming judgment of God (Heb. 10:27, 31). But the believer should have confidence in God’s love and in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, so that this kind of negative fear is out of place. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is a respectful, reverential awe of God’s glory and majesty, leading inevitably to a changed life. This positive kind of fear should involve a positive seeking out of God and a new desire to please him, combined with a new dread of displeasing him. Proverbs is also very explicit about this purifying aspect of the fear of the Lord: “Through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided” (16:6).
Having a proper fear of God has an ongoing, moment-by-moment quality in much the same way that a spouse or parent naturally thinks about others in the family and wonders how they are doing. Whereas the wicked person does not seek God, and “in all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Ps. 10:4), the opposite is true of those who fear God: they regularly and inevitably find themselves thinking about God, reflecting upon him, respecting him, looking to him for his help and sustenance, valuing his view of things, and actively seeking to please and obey him in everything they do. Fearing God means that we trust him more than we trust ourselves or anyone else. Fearing God is both deciding for (Prov. 1:29 speaks of those who “did not choose to fear the Lord”) and living out an ongoing commitment of giving God the place he deserves in our lives. As Paul tells us, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). A person who has come to fear the Lord is never the same afterward.
The high priest was the leader of the Levitical clan thatoversaw Israel’s sacrificial system, whether directlyperforming sacrifices or supervising others. As no fixed terminologywas set, he could also be referred to as the anointed priest, headpriest, chief priest, or simply the priest. He was considered theholiest person in Israel, his position corresponding to the most holyplace in the tabernacle or temple, so that he was the only oneallowed behind the veil to perform sacrifices on the Day of Atonement(see Lev. 16).
TheRole of the High Priest
Israel’sfirst high priest was Moses’ brother, Aaron, who was chosen byGod and instructed in his duty. Many of the directions that hereceived were binding on every high priest who followed him. Inaddition to taking part in offering various types of sacrifices, hewas required to enter the tabernacle twice daily to burn incense andtend the lamps (Exod. 30:7–8). An added responsibility may havebeen to place twelve loaves of bread on the table in the tabernacleeach Sabbath (Lev. 24:5–8; Ezek. 44:16). Once a year, on theDay of Atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place tosprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat on the mercy seat of the arkof the covenant, to atone for the sins of his people.
Thehigh priest needed to be particularly careful to maintain his holystatus (Lev. 21:10–15). Like other priests, he was not allowedto touch a corpse, but he alone was forbidden to enter a house wherethere was a dead body. He was not permitted to become unclean afterthe death of his mother or father or to tear his clothes as a sign ofmourning. To prevent his offspring from being defiled, he wasinstructed to marry only a virgin of his own people.
Likeall Israelite priests, the high priest was anointed for his position.This signified that he was set aside by God and empowered for histask. The high priest was distinguished from his brothers by hisspecial clothing (Exod. 28). In addition to the linen tunic, sash,and turban worn by all priests, the high priest normally wore abreastpiece, an ephod containing the Urim and Thummim, and a robe.The breastpiece was a pouch made of blue, purple, and scarlet yarnwith thin strips of gold woven into it. Attached to the ephod by fourbraided gold chains, the breastpiece was set with twelve stones, eachof which was engraved with the name of a tribe, so that the highpriest represented all of Israel before God. The Urim and Thummimwere placed in the pouch, to be used by the priest when seekingspecial direction from God.
Theephod, made of the same material as the breastpiece, was a sleevelessgarment fastened by a belt made of the same material. Two onyxstones, each engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel,were set in gold filigree and attached to the shoulders of the ephod.The robe, made of blue cloth and reinforced at the neck, probably wasworn under the ephod. Golden bells and pomegranates alternated aroundits hem, the bells ringing whenever the priest entered the holy placeso that he would not die. To distinguish this turban from those wornby other priests, a golden plate or rosette was attached, engraved toproclaim that the high priest was “Holy to the Lord.”
Eventhough the high priest usually wore distinctive clothing, on the Dayof Atonement, when he entered the most holy place, he wore only atunic, sash, undergarments, and turban, all made of linen. Evidently,the special clothes were not appropriate when atoning for thenation’s sins.
Thehigh priest held a hereditary office originally occupied by theeldest direct descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar. By the time ofEli, the priesthood had evidently passed to the descendants ofIthamar. During the reign of David, both Zadok, a descendant ofEleazar, and Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar through Eli, served aspriests. After David’s death, Solomon deposed Abiathar forsupporting Adonijah’s attempt to become king. From this timeonward, the high priesthood remained in the hands of Zadok’sdescendants, until the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, who sold the highpriesthood to the highest bidder, no matter what his genealogicalconnections.
Thedeath of a high priest was of national significance, as it marked thebeginning of the tenure of a new high priest, who received hisfather’s special clothing. It also gave anyone who had fled toone of the six cities of refuge for unintentionally killing someonethe opportunity to return home (Num. 35:25–28). Later rabbisconcluded that the high priest’s death in some way atoned forthose who committed manslaughter.
TheHigh Priest and Political Leaders
Fromthe period of the first temple a close link was established betweenthe high priest and the king. Both were anointed to serverespectively as Israel’s chief spiritual leader and politicalleader. Kings often exerted their authority over high priests. Thus,Solomon promoted Zadok and deposed Abiathar. Similarly, King Joashinstructed Jehoiada to repair the temple. It was also possible for ahigh priest to oppose or endorse a ruler. Thus, Jehoiada both deposedAthaliah and crowned Joash as king (2Kings 11). The chiefpriest Azariah drove Uzziah out of the temple when he attempted toburn incense on his own (2Chron. 26:16–20). At the end ofthe kingdom period, when King Zedekiah was taken captive to Babylon,the high priest Seraiah, along with his chief associates, also weretaken into exile, where they were executed (2Kings 25:18–21).
Afterthe exile, when Israel had no king, the high priests gainedadditional political significance. During the Hasmonean period, theoffices of high priest and king were sometimes united in one person.Herod the Great, in Roman times, elevated and deposed high priests atwill. After his death and his son’s removal from office, highpriests were appointed by the Roman governors and functioned as theJews’ main liaison with Roman officials.
ThePriesthood and the Early Church
Inthe first century AD, the high priest was the chief social andreligious leader among the Jews, presiding over the Sanhedrin, theJewish council that tried cases concerning Jewish laws. The Greekword used in the NT for “high priest,” archiereus, oftenappears in the plural, “chief priests,” to includecurrent or former high priests and members of the priestlyaristocracy. Luke refers to Sceva, whose seven sons attempted to castout demons in the way Paul did, as a high priest. Since no list ofhigh priests contains Sceva’s name, he may have been simply amember of a priestly family or personally used the term to boost hisreligious standing (Acts 19:13–14). After the destruction ofJerusalem in AD 70, the office of high priest disappeared entirely.
Thechief priests, in association with the Sanhedrin, scribes, and/orelders, often opposed Jesus’ ministry. The final officialrejection of Jesus came when the high priest Caiaphas proclaimed thatone man should die so that the nation might not perish. By thisproclamation, he unwittingly “prophesied that Jesus would diefor the Jewish nation” and for other children of God, thusuniting them (John 11:49–52). Caiaphas later personallyinterrogated Jesus about his status as the Messiah and proclaimed himguilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:60–64).
Afterthe resurrection, high priests joined the wider priestly oppositionto the apostles. Thus, the high priest was present when the decisionwas made to silence Peter and John for proclaiming that the crippledbeggar had been healed by the power of Jesus (Acts 4:1–20). Healso took part in their subsequent arrest and questioning (5:17–28).The high priest questioned Stephen over charges that he blasphemedand spoke against the temple and Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Paul,before his experience of the risen Christ, received letters ofauthority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2).Paul later stood trial before the high priest Ananias, who alsobrought charges against him to Felix (24:1), and then was chargedbefore Festus by a wider group of chief priests (25:1–3).
ThePriesthood of Jesus in Hebrews
Althoughother NT books imply that Jesus had a priestly ministry, the book ofHebrews alone develops the idea that Jesus not only has the right toserve as priest but also is the great high priest who replaces the OTpriesthood. It is therefore incumbent upon all to follow Christ, asthere is no other way to be forgiven of sin and come into fellowshipwith the Father. The book shows this in a number of ways, chiefly inchapters 5–10. As a descendant of Judah, Jesus did not qualifyto serve as a priest under the Aaronic order. Hebrews thereforedemonstrates that his service as a priest in the order of Melchizedekfar surpasses the Aaronic priesthood (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17). SinceMelchizedek is greater than Abraham, as seen by the patriarchbringing tithes to the priest, and since Levi, as a descendant ofAbraham, in effect paid tithes through his ancestor, Jesus—as amember of a greater priesthood—is greater than the Aaronicpriests (7:4–10). For Jesus to serve as high priest, he had tobe “like his brothers in every way” (2:17). This requiredthat he share in their humanity by taking on flesh and blood,learning to trust God completely in life, and dying (2:14). It alsomeant that he would be tempted in every way humans are so that hecould sympathize with them (2:18). However, since he never succumbedto temptation, he could rescue people from theirsin.
Althoughno one chooses to become a priest, Aaron’s descendantsinherited their role, whereas Jesus was designated as priest by Godwith an oath (Heb. 5:10; 7:21; cf. Ps. 110:4). That God did not swearthat Aaron’s line would always be priests implies that a changewas possible. Since Jesus received his priesthood by an oath, hispriesthood is greater than the Aaronic priesthood, becomes theguarantee of the better covenant spoken of in Jer. 31, and will neverbe forfeited.
TheOT priests presented repeated offerings, and so their work could notdefinitively deal with the problem of sin. The sacrifices of theAaronic priests needed to be repeated regularly, whereas thesacrifice of Jesus did not have to be repeated. Similarly, Aaronicpriests needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins before theycould aid others. Since Jesus never sinned, he had no suchlimitation. What the priests had to do for themselves daily (Heb.7:27), and for the nation once a year, Christ did once for all (7:27;9:26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14, 18).
TheLevitical priesthood could continue only as new priests replacedthose who retired or died, but Jesus’ priesthood is eternalbecause of his eternal life. Melchizedek is used to illustrate howthis can be. But while Melchizedek remains a priest forever simplybecause the Bible does not record his genealogy or his death, Jesushas a permanent priesthood because he lives forever and because ofthe oath quoted from Ps. 110:4: “The Lord has sworn:...‘You are a priest forever’ ” (Heb. 5:6; cf.6:20; 7:3, 17;21).
Notonly is Jesus a greater priest, but also he presented a greatersacrifice at a greater, heavenly sanctuary. The Aaronic priestsserved only at a copy of this true heavenly tabernacle, which waserected by God himself (Heb. 8:2). Jesus presented not the blood ofanimals, which needed to be offered over and over, but rather theperfect sacrifice of himself, ensuring that no other sacrifice isneeded. After becoming a sacrifice, he returned to the heavenlysanctuary, where he appears forever at the right hand of God as kingand mediator. Due to Christ’s work, the most holy place is nolonger barred to all but the high priest once a year. Rather, thecurtain has been opened so that all his people can boldly draw nearto the Father. Similarly, Christ’s priestly work ensures thatthose who follow him can be effectively forgiven, purified,sanctified, and perfected.
Referring to sickness or weakness, the word “infirmity”occurs most often in the KJV. The term appears far more frequently inthe NT than in the OT. In the Gospels, the sense of physical sicknessis arguably always in view (e.g., Matt. 8:17; Luke 5:15; 8:2;13:11–12; John 5:5), but in the Epistles, where “infirmity”occurs rarely outside the KJV, the idea of weakness is most common(e.g., Rom. 6:19; 8:26; 2Cor. 11:30; Heb. 4:15).
Referring to sickness or weakness, the word “infirmity”occurs most often in the KJV. The term appears far more frequently inthe NT than in the OT. In the Gospels, the sense of physical sicknessis arguably always in view (e.g., Matt. 8:17; Luke 5:15; 8:2;13:11–12; John 5:5), but in the Epistles, where “infirmity”occurs rarely outside the KJV, the idea of weakness is most common(e.g., Rom. 6:19; 8:26; 2Cor. 11:30; Heb. 4:15).
Thename “Jesus” comes from the Greek form of the name“Joshua.” The same Greek word (Iēsous) is thereforeused to refer to both Jesus and Joshua in the NT (see esp. Heb. 4).The name “Jesus” was common among Jews in the firstcentury. Josephus mentions nineteendifferent men called “Jesus.” Likewise, Luke tells of aJewish sorcerer named “Bar-Jesus” (Acts 13:6), and Paulrefers to a Jewish companion named “Jesus” (Col. 4:11).The best-known figure of this name is the predominant figure of theNT, Jesus Christ. See also Jesus, Son of Sirach; Jesus Christ;Justus.
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).
A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).
OldTestament
Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).
Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).
Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).
Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of theone praying.
Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.
Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.
NewTestament
Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.
Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).
Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.
Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.
Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).
TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).
Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).
A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).
OldTestament
Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).
Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).
Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).
Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of theone praying.
Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.
Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.
NewTestament
Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.
Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).
Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.
Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.
Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).
TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).
Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).
An occupation or profession is the usual work or business inwhich a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblicaltimes, family or social standing most often determined occupation.This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such asplanting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel waspassed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh.14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in thefamily inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihoodfrom their family’s land, and those who did not have land hiredthemselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normallylearned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2Kings 4:18;Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’sservice (1Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).
Cicero,writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as taxcollector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely,professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were morehonorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitableprofession (Off. 1.42).
Agricultureand Farming
Farmingis the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first manwas called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after theexile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, asdid Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The openingchapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After theflood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil”(’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). KingUzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) andso employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2Chron.26:10).
Goddemonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with anincredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’sfarms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit oftheir ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was foreveryone to live “under their own vine and under their own figtree” (1Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19,the diligent farmer would have abundant food.
Jesus’parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would havebeen readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where manypeople were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and someowned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at thistime engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising(Let. Aris. 107–112).
Herdingand Hunting
Herdinganimals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (afterfarming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of themost common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abelis the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herdinglifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), aswere Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1Sam. 17:34), and many others inthe OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was theemployment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages”(Ag.Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds andherdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel,whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present atJesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teachingsuggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf.Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).
Manypeople in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, orprotection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mightyhunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “anexpert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “askillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought backwild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim,included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57,reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf.1Kings 4:23).
Buildersand Craftsmen
Cainwas the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), andhis descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrodbuilt a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning ofNimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gatheredtogether to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamiaused baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usuallypreferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’sdeath, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, whichinvolved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).
Therole of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle wasparticularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilledworkers and designers” empowered by God for work on thetabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds ofcrafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry,and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).
Kingsin Israel often commissioned important building projects (1Kings12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2).Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2Sam.5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and alsoemployed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervisethe work (1Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile,many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wallof Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18).These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons,carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).
Jesusis referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn(Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter”by English versions. However,recent scholarshiphas demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter inthe modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōntypically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer tocraftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.
Musicians
Thefirst musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father ofall who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21).Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they dotoday. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebratefestive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen.31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1Sam.16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).
Musiciansplayed an important role in leading God’s people in worship.The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings offifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician inScripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms”(2Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1Sam. 16:18) andwrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomonwas also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1Kings 4:32).David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israelin worship (1Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres,harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2Chron. 5:12).
Government,Politics, and Military
Beforethe monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, agroup of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials,and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge thepeople on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). AfterJoshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel fromforeign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time ofSamuel, when Saul was made king (1Sam. 11:15).
Kingsin Israel employed various officials. In 2Sam. 8:16–18,Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggeststhat the military commander was second in authority after the king.Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander inchief” (1Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a numberof key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the“confidant” of the king (cf. 2Sam. 16:16). The OTdoes not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorderwas among the highest governmental positions and served as a royalcounselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognatenoun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests thatthis official may have managed and preserved public records (2Kings18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary orscribe (sop̱er)was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2Sam.8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight(2Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were welleducated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2Kings18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of thepalace and the forced labor, as well as governors who suppliedprovisions for the king’s household (1Kings 4:6–7).The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in otheradministrations (Gen. 40:1; 1Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). Thecupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king frombeing poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.
Inthe Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1Pet. 2:17),with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial andmilitary authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects(governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), withtetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).
Christiansin NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officerin Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemoratedin an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. Theproconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of HerodAntipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil.4:22) were also Christian public leaders.
Tradeand Economics
Fromearliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. WhenAbraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured“according to the weight current among the merchants”(Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of publictrading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders ofcommodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes betweensouthern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slavesalong the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buyand sell goods (1Kings 10:28).
Inthe first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life aslandowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves.Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Lukewas a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col.4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila,and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire,commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants oftenformed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religiousand moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen inrelated trades turned significant profit through their connectionswith the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).
Jesusfrequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called“Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were adespised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantageof the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commissionon taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of thetalents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected(Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact thatLaodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.
Servantsand Slaves
Inthe OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whoseoccupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Someservants held very important positions in their master’shousehold (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they couldtake slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poorcould serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along withtheir children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out fromEgyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev.25:39–46).
Slavesin the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed byanother (Dio Chrysostom, 2Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slaverypractices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery.Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1Tim. 1:10; Rev.18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The mostprominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes withhis master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obeytheir earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6),but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal.3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus”(Rom. 1:1).
ReligiousService
MostIsraelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites(Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’sline (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices toGod on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacleand its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1Chron. 23:32) and carrying theark of the covenant (1Chron. 15:2). They were set apart toserve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people inworship (2Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played animportant advisory role to Israel’s kings (2Sam. 8:17;1Kings 4:5; 2Kings 12:2).
InIsrael, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1Sam.9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2Sam.24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets,and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group(1Sam. 19:20; 1Kings 22:6).
TheNT references a number of ministerial offices (1Cor. 12:28;Eph. 4:11; 1Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid,though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive theirliving from the gospel” (1Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1Tim.5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives.The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles whowere with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses ofhis resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as anapostle (Gal. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus andothers “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2Cor.8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy andspeak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32;1Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or“pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, andexercise authority in the church (1Tim. 3:1; 1Pet. 5:2).Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to winconverts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2Tim. 4:5). Those ministers whoare faithful to the gospel deserve support (3John8).
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
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 Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OTsuffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev.26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25;cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by whichblessing comes to humanity.
TheBible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17;6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18;1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assumethat he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4,20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in thefinal chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friendsfor their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writermakes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness.Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume thatblindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesusrejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3,6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
Theprayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal andthirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within thelaments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, makerequests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Whyhave you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints againstGod (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“Youhave made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemiesmock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm andnot a man” [22:6]).
TheNT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in theOT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3;26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps.22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presentedas the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation,God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8;Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the pricefor sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set freefrom sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18).(3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom.8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet.2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13),and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to sufferas his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provideshope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil.3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev.21:4).
Thereare many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19;16:22–24; 18:17; 2Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb.10:32; 1Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’splan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1Thess. 3:2–4) and ispart of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22;Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1Pet. 2:21; 4:12).
TheNT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it hasbecome part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering ofbelievers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel(Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11;6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16;2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor.1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb.10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God(Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), andthe crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of thedevelopment toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor.4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Sufferingis associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal(2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness,sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10);comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8);blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor.4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christiansuffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character andhope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity andcompleteness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentarywhen compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom.8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7;4:12–13).
Throughoutthe Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OTlaw provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged,and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10,35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesusregularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3;19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom.12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom.12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visitprisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
The most focused narrative of Jesus’ temptation followshis baptism, but the Gospels have not isolated Jesus’temptations to this one event. Rather, as Mark 8:33; Luke 22:28, andother texts indicate, Jesus knew temptations throughout his ministry(cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:15). References in John’s Gospel, which hasno account of Jesus’ temptation in the desert, suggest the same(John 6:15; 7:1–4).
Allthree Synoptic Gospels place the temptation narrative immediatelyfollowing Jesus’ baptism. Discussions of whether this event wasactual or merely visual, one that Jesus described to his disciples orone that they created from miscellaneous sayings after Jesus’death to parallel Deut. 8:2, will undoubtedly continue. As theSynoptics recount the event, Mark reduces it to one verse (Mark1:13), whereas Matthew and Luke give full accounts, delineating inthree acts the struggle between Jesus and Satan. Matthew and Lukerecount these acts in a different sequence, possibly due to Luke’sinterest in Jerusalem and the temple or to his desire to use Ps. 106as his outline (manna, golden calf, testing God [cf. Luke 4:1–13]).Matthew portrays a progression climaxing in a display of Satan’strue character, after which Jesus ends Satan’s attack and sendshim away with a clarifying quote from Deut. 6:13: “Worship theLord your God, and serve him only” (Matt. 4:1–11).Opposite the first Adam, who gave in to the temptation to stoptrusting God, the second Adam, Jesus, conquered his temptation withan affirmation that worship of God should remain undivided.
Theplacement of Jesus’ temptation at the outset of his ministry,immediately following his baptism, speaks to the significance of theevent. All three Synoptics emphasize that God’s Spirit ledJesus to the desert to be tempted by the devil. There is no sharpdistinction between testing and temptation; God uses Satan’stemptation to test Jesus. The desert setting as the preparatoryproving ground for extraordinary usability in God’s kingdomfollows the general wilderness motif that runs through Scripture(e.g., Abraham, Moses, Israel) and places Jesus squarely in thecenter of God’s salvation history. Jesus fulfills God’smessianic promise.
Introducingtwo of the three temptations by an affirmation of Jesus’ divinesonship gives the event a strong messianic character (Satan’sstatements are better understood as affirmations [“Since youare the Son of God...”] than as questions[“If you are the Son of God...”]).Since Jesus knows that he is the Son of God, he is tempted to disobeyfor his own benefit (cf. Gen. 3:4–6).
Noreader familiar with the stories of the OT can miss the way Jesus’temptations parallel major OT events. Not only does the devil try tolure Jesus to satisfy his personal needs by a misuse of his power, asbecomes obvious from Jesus’ answer quoting Deut. 8:3, but alsohe entices Jesus to display a power that replicates God’s mannamiracle in the desert. Furthermore, the connection between this firsttemptation to eat what he is not supposed to eat and the originaltemptation to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3) seems too obvious tomiss.
Jesus’second temptation in Matthew (Luke’s third) portrays Satanbringing Jesus to the highest point of the temple to overlook KidronValley, where a fall meant certain death. From here, the devil quotesPs. 91:11–12, giving scriptural basis for his trap. Thesymbolic character of this setting proves powerful. Satan challengesJesus to test God’s faithfulness to his word in the context ofthe temple. If Jesus cannot trust God’s promise to protect hispeople even in the temple, then his very mission proves void. Again,the reference to the original temptation, Satan (mis)quoting God inGod’s own setting, sets the stage for the portrayal of Jesus’answer. Unlike the first Adam, Jesus unravels Satan’s scheme byexposing the mistake of confusing God’s promise to protectthose who stumble and fall with a deliberate act designed to forceGod’s hand. Such would be to test (tempt) God, which Scriptureexplicitly forbids (Deut. 6:16). Whether Jesus quoting Deut. 6:16speaks directly to his own self-understanding is uncertain butunlikely.
Matthewends his temptation account with Jesus on a high mountain,overlooking the kingdoms of the world, where Satan offers worldauthority in exchange for Jesus’ worship. There is noreflection on whether these kingdoms were Satan’s to give, andno explicit naming of Jesus as God’s Son (although a subtlereference to Ps. 2 is likely to echo in the reader’s mind [seeMatt. 3:17]). Matthew’s reference to a mountain (Matt. 4:8),which Luke does not mention (Luke 4:5), corresponds to his mountainmotif and functions here to parallel the location of Jesus’discipleship commission to bring God’s kingdom to all nations(Matt. 28:16–20), causing them to transfer their worship toGod. Rather than worshiping Satan, Jesus conquers Satan’stemptations and, as the second Adam, brings the nations back to theworship of God (Matt. 4:10).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Hebrews 4:14-5:10
is mentioned in the definition.
Access usually refers to the right of a person of lesserstatus to appear in the presence of one of higher status and beheard. The word is appropriate in the context of a kingly court (seeEsther 1:14; Zech. 3:7). Anyone not granted such access would riskexecution when approaching the king for any reason unless the kingapproved it (Esther 4:11). The word is also appropriate in thecontext of the Lord’s sanctuary, where it is closely related toapproaching the Lord. In the OT, the right to approach the Lord inhis sanctuary is limited. For instance, the high priest is the onlyperson granted access to approach the Lord in the inner sanctuary,the holy of holies, and only on the Day of Atonement. Those who failto approach the Lord properly risk death as a punishment (Lev.10:1–3). In reality, these two contexts overlap significantly.
Accessin the NT focuses on the right to approach God. Unlike the accessgranted in the OT, the death of Christ grants to all believers theright to approach the Father, making no distinction between Jew andGentile, since the same Spirit indwells both (Eph. 2:18).Furthermore, Christ’s work secures access to both the kinglythrone and the “true tabernacle” of God, where one findsgrace and mercy in time of need (Heb. 4:16; 8:1–2; 10:19–22).
The visible and bodily ascent of Jesus from earth to heavenconcluding his earthly ministry, which then continued through thepromised Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost.
Adetailed historical account of the ascension is given only by Luke(Luke 24:51; Acts 1:4–11 [cf. Mark 16:19, in the longer endingto Mark’s Gospel]). The event, however, was anticipated inJohn’s Gospel (John 6:62; 20:17).
Theascension is frequently implied throughout the NT by reference to thecomplex of events that began with the death of Jesus and ended withhis session at the right hand of God in glory. Paul writes of thedivine-human Christ’s ascent to the heavenly realms as thebeginning of his supreme cosmic reign in power (Eph. 1:20–23)and as the basis for holy living (Col. 3:1–4; 1 Tim.3:16). In Hebrews, the ascension is a crucial stage that marks offthe completed work of Jesus on earth, in which he offered himself asthe perfect and final sacrifice for sin (9:24–26), from hiscontinuing work in heaven as our great high priest, which isdescribed in terms of sympathy (4:14–16) and intercession(7:25). Peter makes the most direct reference to the ascension,explaining that Jesus, who suffered, is resurrected and “hasgone into heaven” (1 Pet. 3:22). Therefore, just as Jesus,the righteous sufferer, was vindicated by God, so too will his peoplewho suffer for doing good.
Paulunderstands the OT as predicting Christ’s ascension (Eph.4:7–10; cf. Ps. 68:18) and containing incidents that in someway prefigure it (2 Kings 2:11–12).
Theascension is significant for at least three reasons. First, Christ’sdeath could not have full effect until he entered the heavenlysanctuary. From heaven he acts as advocate and communicates tobelievers through the Holy Spirit all the gifts and blessings that hedied on the cross to gain (Heb. 4:14–16; 1 John 2:1).Second, glorified humanity is now in God’s presence,guaranteeing that we likewise will be raised up with body and soul toshare the glory yet to be revealed (John 14:2; 17:24; Eph. 2:4–6).Third, the ascension previews the manner of Christ’s secondcoming (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ ascension was followed by hisenthronement in heaven, where he reigns (1 Cor. 15:25) and fromwhich he will physically return in the same glorified body as judge(Luke 21:27). See also Advent, Second; Second Coming.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
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.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
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.
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.
The term “incarnation” refers to something being“enfleshed” (Lat., incarne). It should not beconfused with, or even related to, the similar term “reincarnation,”nor does it parallel polytheistic myths about redeemer gods createdby Hellenistic and gnostic cults. Rather, in the context of Christianteaching, “incarnation” expresses what happened whenJesus, who had been with God for all eternity, stepped onto thehistorical scene as a human being (John 1:14; Col. 1:19; Heb. 2:14; 1John 1:1–2). The Greek NT uses en sarki (“in flesh”)repeatedly as a reference to Jesus’ human nature. Hymns such as1Tim. 3:16 show the confessional character of Christ’sincarnation, giving it strong theological significance (cf. thesimilar confessional emphasis of Phil. 2:5–11). The definingpower of such confessions comes to the fore strongly in 1John4:3 (cf. 2John 7), where John deems those who reject genuineincarnation to be filled with the spirit of the antichrist. Paulunderstands Jesus’ work on the cross in light of theincarnation (Col. 1:22; cf. 1Pet. 4:1) and considersincarnation the reason Christ could accomplish what the law of Mosescould not (Rom. 8:3; Eph. 2:15).
Itfollows that incarnation is central to Christian theology, anindispensable tenet that cannot be reduced to a parenthetical asideto the doctrine of the virgin birth. If anything, it is the other wayaround. More significant than the timing and specific circumstancessurrounding Jesus’ birth, which are detailed only asintroductions to Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels, theincarnation speaks to the theological importance of what God did bysending his Son. Put differently, the significance of the incarnationcannot be overstated; not only is Jesus God’s perfectrevelation of himself, but also the fact that he stepped into thefield of matter, participating directly in the history of his owncreation, has forever changed human thinking and the pursuit ofknowledge.
Incarnationand Science
Athanasius,who safeguarded the incarnation of Christ by his claim that Jesus wasnot just born in the likeness of God but was also himself the verynature of God, saw that Christianity provided a new starting pointfor all human understanding of the world. This new starting pointmade the foundational dualism of classical rationalism impossible(sensible versus intelligible, material versus spiritual). TheChristian claim of God’s actual incarnation in Christ requireda complete reconsideration of the relationship between God and theworld. Ultimate reality was no longer unknowable; God had expressedhimself fully in the person of Jesus Christ.
Fromthis, the fourth-century Cappadocian fathers developed fourfoundational principles that enabled new approaches to scientificpursuits. (1)Since the cosmos is the creation of a rational Godwho has also made humans in his image, it follows that the cosmos inprinciple is comprehensible by the human mind. (2)Since Godcreated the cosmos as a free act of his will, and it is not simply anemanation of God, the cosmos has relative autonomy. That is, noteverything that happens is the direct will of God. (3)Since Godcreated the heavens and the earth, it follows that the “heavenlybodies” are not (as Aristotle claimed) made of a substancedifferent from the elements that comprise the earth (interestingly,Galileo was condemned by an Aristotelian church for claiming that themoon is made of the same substance as the earth). (4)Because ofthe incarnation, humans may use material means for the advancement ofhuman salvation. This allowed the church not to follow the Hebrewtradition of rejecting Greek medicine.
Incarnationand Christian Faith
Thebiblical emphasis on incarnation moves faith from the realm ofmythology to the realm of history. In contrast to mythologicalaffirmations, where gods play out scenarios in “the heavenlies”that have fatalistic consequences for life on earth, incarnationgrounds the Christian faith in factual, historical events. God is not“out there in the unknown,” but rather chose to step intohistory and reveal himself in a personal manner. In mythology, talkabout god turns into fatalistic assertions; in biblical faith, talkabout God turns into expressions of relationship. The fullness ofChrist’s incarnation protects Christian faith from turning intoaloof speculations on the eternal; rather, incarnation secures theconnection to the real-life issues of the human situation. More thanmerely sending a vision to a “prophet,” God came to showhumans how to live, prioritize, act, react, and so on.
Incarnationand History
Sincethe incarnation anchors the Christian faith in historical reality,history itself becomes revelatory and significant for a fullunderstanding of God. Christ came and walked among people “intime,” and Christian believers want to know what that meant andmeans. Different from gnostic writings, for example, where God merelysends lofty, indefinite, timeless propositions for inner meditation(cf. Gospel of Thomas), biblical faith recognizes God’s actionson the turf of human life and acts in response to these. Because Godrevealed himself on the field of human history, his actions can betested and investigated. Because he chose to come at a certain time,in a certain place, Christians are interested in that time and place.God does not hide; he wills to reveal. Incarnation shieldsChristianity against gradually disappearing into the mix of paganreligions, where everyone can construct a god in his or her ownimage.
Furthermore,a proper emphasis on incarnation prevents the Christian faith frombecoming indifferent to the present world. Incarnation teaches thatGod desires to engage his creation. He sent his Son into the world toreveal to all humans what life in God’s kingdom looks like.God’s eager participation in human life through the birth ofJesus, as announced to a group of humble shepherds near the town ofBethlehem, generates a charge for the faithful to be involved in thetransformation of this world. The incarnation calls followers ofJesus to live lives that actively proclaim that God’s love isparticipatory love (Heb. 2:18; 4:15).
Incarnationand God’s Being
Atthe heart of the biblical teaching about incarnation stands astatement about the very being of Christ. The story of theovershadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit, causing her to give birthto “the Son of the Most High,” negates any notion thatJesus was merely an extraordinarily godly person, or prophet, whomGod adopted. Rather, he was concurrently 100percent God and100percent human—not “just” human, not “just”God, nor 50percent of each.
Thetwo natures of Christ present a rational difficulty for finite minds.In terms of function, one way to think about this may be to considereverything that Jesus said, did, and thought as an expression of whoGod is. Or one may assert that everything Jesus said, did, andthought was exactly what God would have said, done, and thought. Thestruggle of both language and comprehension at this point is to findways of expressing how duality of form and function can concur withequality of being. Everything about Jesus is an exact expression ofGod, yet Jesus is not the Father.
Thestruggle to understand the meaning and significance of theincarnation has changed over time. Opposite the early Christians, whoknew Jesus as a human being and therefore struggled to comprehend hisdivinity, modern Christians struggle with the significance of Jesus’humanity. Since Jesus is the object of Christian worship and thecontent of hymns and praise choruses, his divinity receives most ofthe focus. This endangers the delicate balance, or tension, revealedin the biblical teaching on incarnation. Jesus must be 100percentGod to be the true Savior, not just someone who can point to a savingGod. Concurrently he must be 100percent human to be fullyacquainted with human experience and misery.
Incarnationand the Birth of Jesus: Preexistence and Historical Existence
TheNT describes the process, or method, of the incarnation as virginalconception. God’s Spirit overshadowed a young Jewish virgin,Mary, who then gave birth to Jesus. Although incarnation itself doesnot require such a method (God could have chosen a different methodto bring Jesus to earth, as with the first Adam), Matthew’s andLuke’s accounts powerfully portray how God connected eternityto history.
Christ’seternal nature is attested throughout the NT and belongs indisputablyto the very core of Christian theology and understanding. John’sGospel portrays this robustly through his delineation of Jesus’existence before his historical birth in Bethlehem (John 1:1–14).Given this, it proves difficult to imagine a more “natural”link between Christ’s preexistence and his historical existencethan we find in Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts. Thevirginal conception joins the preexistent (eternal) nature of Christto his historical (temporal) existence in a way that preserves bothnatures as coexistent. Without the virginal conception, there musthave been a point of adoption, a specific historical time, orsituation, where Jesus became “Son of God.” The problemwith any adoption theory is that it ultimately makes Jesus100percent human and 0percent God. Adoption does notchange being. The Gospel accounts of incarnation elucidate Jesus’being. He is not just like God in what he does; he is 100percentlike God in who he is.
There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.
Sinin the Bible
OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.
InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).
Inone sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holyGod satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationshipwith human beings without compromising his justice? The short answeris: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), whoeventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemedthem from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought themto Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated onobedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant wasthe sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided asa means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrificesmade for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year toatone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement thehigh priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies andsprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took asecond goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people ofIsrael, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them onthe head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness....The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barrenregion; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev.16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinfulpeople, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).
NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”(Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness,they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal.5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23).The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
Aseven this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesisto Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’splot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative;it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved inorder for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
Definitionand Terminology
Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.
Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.
1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).
2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.
3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).
4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).
Metaphors
Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.
Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).
Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).
Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).
Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).
Scopeand Consequences
Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.
Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).
Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.
Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.
Conclusion
Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Rabbinic commentary on the Hebrew Bible, either the text or abiblical event. “Midrash” (pl. “midrashim”)is a noun derived from the verb darash, meaning “to seek”or “to inquire.” “Midrash” can refer to thecommentary on a single passage, such as a midrash on Gen. 1, or to awhole collection of midrashim, such as Genesis Rabbah. It may alsorefer to the process by which ancient rabbis interpreted Scripture.Rabbinic midrash seeks theological and halakic answers tocontemporary concerns; thus, it is concerned with the application ofScripture to various aspects of life.
RabbinicMidrash
Midrashuses Scripture to interpret Scripture and uses the Bible as a whole,unified book. Although context is not ignored altogether, mid-rashjuxtaposes verses from throughout the Hebrew Bible in order toilluminate a given text or illustrate a point. Verses are strungtogether to elucidate a theme that the text suggests eitherimplicitly or explicitly. Within this system of Scriptureinterpreting Scripture, the Pentateuch holds pride of place as thecenter of the biblical witness. In rabbinic midrash, often theProphets and the Writings do not have independent voices separatefrom the Pentateuch but serve a supporting role.
Attimes, the juxtaposition of verses that occur in midrash seemsarbitrary, but this is not the case. A set of midrashic rules,middot, governs how the verses of Scripture are to be used and howargumentation is to be formed. Over time, the rules became moreelaborate, but their earliest statement is attributed to the pre–AD70 rabbi Hillel in the Babylonian Talmud. He lists seven rules:
1.Argument from the less significant to more significant, and viceversa.
2.Argument by analogy when Scripture uses identical expressions.
3.A statement in one verse applies to all topically related verses.
4.Same as the principle in three, but derived from two verses, not justone.
5.Argument from general to particular, and vice versa.
6.Argument from a similar expression found in another passage.
7.Argument from context.
Therabbinic rules of scriptural interpretation are similar to rules forHellenistic rhetoric and Roman legal argument and thus reflectHellenistic and Roman influence.
Rabbinicmidrash can be characterized broadly as halakic (developing rules forSabbath observance, ritual purity, sacrifice, etc.) and haggadic(theological, ethical, and whatever does not fall under halakic).Some bodies of rabbinic midrash explore a book of the Bible more orless verse by verse, and others are topical. Some midrashic works arehomiletical in nature; they preserve sermon material from synagogueservices.
Midrashin the Bible
Althoughthe large compilations of mid-rash are rabbinic and are later thanthe Bible, midrashic material is also found much earlier. Midrash hasits origins in the Bible. The clearest example is Chronicles, whichin many respects is a midrash on Samuel and Kings. At Qumran, we findliterature that can be classified as rewritten Scripture, such as theTemple Scroll, the book of Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon,which have midrashic features. The Qumran Pesharim are alsomidrashic, although of a less sophisticated nature than the laterrabbinic midrash, and seem to employ the middot.
TheNT contains examples of midrashic material. Jesus’ teaching inthe Gospels includes some midrashic material. In Luke 4:16–21,Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah and interprets the passage asapplying to himself. Jesus is delivering a petikhah, a shortexposition on a biblical text outside the main synagogue sermon. Whendebating with the Sadducees over the resurrection, Jesus givesmidrashic comment to Exod. 3:6 (Luke 20:27–40). The apostlePaul engages in midrash even more explicitly: for example, he appliesDeut. 25:4, concerning not muzzling an ox while it is threshinggrain, to the idea that a minister is worthy of being paid for work(1Cor. 9:9; 1Tim. 5:18). Paul is arguing from the lesserto the greater in his application of Torah to his contemporarysituation.
Themost extended midrash in the NT isthe book of Hebrews. Forexample, in Heb. 1–2 the writer applies numerous quotationsfrom the Psalter to Jesus in order to show how he is greater than theangels. In Heb. 4 the writer, through an interpretation of Ps. 95:11,does a midrash on entering into God’s rest, by which he appliesGod’s resting from his work (Gen. 2:2) to Christians’entering that rest because of the unbelief of Israel in thewilderness. It appears that the author is forming an argument byanalogy in relating Gen. 2:2 and Ps. 95:11.
Itcan be demonstrated that Jews employed midrashic techniques in theirinterpretation of Scriptures centuries before the earliest rabbinicmidrash compilations were created. We see these techniques in QumranPesharim, Philo’s writings, and in the NT. The rabbis made useof long-established interpretive techniques and made them moresophisticated. The difference between Qumranite, ancient Christian,and rabbinic interpretation of Scripture was one of emphasis. For theQumranites, all Scripture had to speak of their community, which wasthe true, believing community in the end of days. For the Christians,all Scripture had to speak of Jesus and the salvation that hebrought. For the rabbis, all Scripture upheld Torah and obedience tothat Torah as the center of Jewish life.
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycircumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcircumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
An occupation or profession is the usual work or business inwhich a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblicaltimes, family or social standing most often determined occupation.This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such asplanting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel waspassed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh.14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in thefamily inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihoodfrom their family’s land, and those who did not have land hiredthemselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normallylearned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2Kings 4:18;Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’sservice (1Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).
Cicero,writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as taxcollector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely,professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were morehonorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitableprofession (Off. 1.42).
Agricultureand Farming
Farmingis the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first manwas called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after theexile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, asdid Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The openingchapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After theflood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil”(’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). KingUzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) andso employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2Chron.26:10).
Goddemonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with anincredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’sfarms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit oftheir ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was foreveryone to live “under their own vine and under their own figtree” (1Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19,the diligent farmer would have abundant food.
Jesus’parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would havebeen readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where manypeople were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and someowned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at thistime engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising(Let. Aris. 107–112).
Herdingand Hunting
Herdinganimals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (afterfarming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of themost common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abelis the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herdinglifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), aswere Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1Sam. 17:34), and many others inthe OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was theemployment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages”(Ag.Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds andherdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel,whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present atJesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teachingsuggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf.Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).
Manypeople in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, orprotection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mightyhunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “anexpert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “askillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought backwild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim,included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57,reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf.1Kings 4:23).
Buildersand Craftsmen
Cainwas the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), andhis descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrodbuilt a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning ofNimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gatheredtogether to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamiaused baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usuallypreferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’sdeath, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, whichinvolved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).
Therole of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle wasparticularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilledworkers and designers” empowered by God for work on thetabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds ofcrafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry,and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).
Kingsin Israel often commissioned important building projects (1Kings12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2).Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2Sam.5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and alsoemployed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervisethe work (1Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile,many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wallof Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18).These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons,carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).
Jesusis referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn(Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter”by English versions. However,recent scholarshiphas demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter inthe modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōntypically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer tocraftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.
Musicians
Thefirst musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father ofall who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21).Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they dotoday. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebratefestive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen.31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1Sam.16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).
Musiciansplayed an important role in leading God’s people in worship.The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings offifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician inScripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms”(2Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1Sam. 16:18) andwrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomonwas also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1Kings 4:32).David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israelin worship (1Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres,harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2Chron. 5:12).
Government,Politics, and Military
Beforethe monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, agroup of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials,and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge thepeople on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). AfterJoshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel fromforeign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time ofSamuel, when Saul was made king (1Sam. 11:15).
Kingsin Israel employed various officials. In 2Sam. 8:16–18,Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggeststhat the military commander was second in authority after the king.Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander inchief” (1Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a numberof key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the“confidant” of the king (cf. 2Sam. 16:16). The OTdoes not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorderwas among the highest governmental positions and served as a royalcounselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognatenoun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests thatthis official may have managed and preserved public records (2Kings18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary orscribe (sop̱er)was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2Sam.8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight(2Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were welleducated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2Kings18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of thepalace and the forced labor, as well as governors who suppliedprovisions for the king’s household (1Kings 4:6–7).The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in otheradministrations (Gen. 40:1; 1Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). Thecupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king frombeing poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.
Inthe Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1Pet. 2:17),with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial andmilitary authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects(governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), withtetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).
Christiansin NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officerin Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemoratedin an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. Theproconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of HerodAntipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil.4:22) were also Christian public leaders.
Tradeand Economics
Fromearliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. WhenAbraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured“according to the weight current among the merchants”(Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of publictrading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders ofcommodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes betweensouthern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slavesalong the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buyand sell goods (1Kings 10:28).
Inthe first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life aslandowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves.Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Lukewas a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col.4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila,and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire,commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants oftenformed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religiousand moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen inrelated trades turned significant profit through their connectionswith the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).
Jesusfrequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called“Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were adespised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantageof the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commissionon taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of thetalents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected(Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact thatLaodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.
Servantsand Slaves
Inthe OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whoseoccupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Someservants held very important positions in their master’shousehold (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they couldtake slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poorcould serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along withtheir children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out fromEgyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev.25:39–46).
Slavesin the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed byanother (Dio Chrysostom, 2Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slaverypractices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery.Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1Tim. 1:10; Rev.18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The mostprominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes withhis master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obeytheir earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6),but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal.3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus”(Rom. 1:1).
ReligiousService
MostIsraelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites(Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’sline (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices toGod on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacleand its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1Chron. 23:32) and carrying theark of the covenant (1Chron. 15:2). They were set apart toserve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people inworship (2Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played animportant advisory role to Israel’s kings (2Sam. 8:17;1Kings 4:5; 2Kings 12:2).
InIsrael, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1Sam.9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2Sam.24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets,and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group(1Sam. 19:20; 1Kings 22:6).
TheNT references a number of ministerial offices (1Cor. 12:28;Eph. 4:11; 1Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid,though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive theirliving from the gospel” (1Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1Tim.5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives.The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles whowere with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses ofhis resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as anapostle (Gal. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus andothers “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2Cor.8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy andspeak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32;1Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or“pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, andexercise authority in the church (1Tim. 3:1; 1Pet. 5:2).Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to winconverts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2Tim. 4:5). Those ministers whoare faithful to the gospel deserve support (3John8).
An occupation or profession is the usual work or business inwhich a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblicaltimes, family or social standing most often determined occupation.This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such asplanting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel waspassed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh.14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in thefamily inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihoodfrom their family’s land, and those who did not have land hiredthemselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normallylearned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2Kings 4:18;Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’sservice (1Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).
Cicero,writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as taxcollector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely,professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were morehonorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitableprofession (Off. 1.42).
Agricultureand Farming
Farmingis the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first manwas called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after theexile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, asdid Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The openingchapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After theflood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil”(’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). KingUzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) andso employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2Chron.26:10).
Goddemonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with anincredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’sfarms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit oftheir ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was foreveryone to live “under their own vine and under their own figtree” (1Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19,the diligent farmer would have abundant food.
Jesus’parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would havebeen readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where manypeople were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and someowned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at thistime engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising(Let. Aris. 107–112).
Herdingand Hunting
Herdinganimals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (afterfarming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of themost common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abelis the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herdinglifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), aswere Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1Sam. 17:34), and many others inthe OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was theemployment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages”(Ag.Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds andherdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel,whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present atJesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teachingsuggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf.Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).
Manypeople in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, orprotection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mightyhunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “anexpert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “askillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought backwild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim,included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57,reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf.1Kings 4:23).
Buildersand Craftsmen
Cainwas the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), andhis descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrodbuilt a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning ofNimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gatheredtogether to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamiaused baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usuallypreferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’sdeath, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, whichinvolved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).
Therole of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle wasparticularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilledworkers and designers” empowered by God for work on thetabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds ofcrafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry,and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).
Kingsin Israel often commissioned important building projects (1Kings12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2).Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2Sam.5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and alsoemployed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervisethe work (1Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile,many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wallof Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18).These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons,carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).
Jesusis referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn(Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter”by English versions. However,recent scholarshiphas demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter inthe modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōntypically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer tocraftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.
Musicians
Thefirst musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father ofall who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21).Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they dotoday. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebratefestive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen.31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1Sam.16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).
Musiciansplayed an important role in leading God’s people in worship.The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings offifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician inScripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms”(2Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1Sam. 16:18) andwrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomonwas also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1Kings 4:32).David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israelin worship (1Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres,harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2Chron. 5:12).
Government,Politics, and Military
Beforethe monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, agroup of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials,and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge thepeople on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). AfterJoshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel fromforeign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time ofSamuel, when Saul was made king (1Sam. 11:15).
Kingsin Israel employed various officials. In 2Sam. 8:16–18,Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggeststhat the military commander was second in authority after the king.Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander inchief” (1Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a numberof key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the“confidant” of the king (cf. 2Sam. 16:16). The OTdoes not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorderwas among the highest governmental positions and served as a royalcounselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognatenoun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests thatthis official may have managed and preserved public records (2Kings18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary orscribe (sop̱er)was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2Sam.8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight(2Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were welleducated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2Kings18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of thepalace and the forced labor, as well as governors who suppliedprovisions for the king’s household (1Kings 4:6–7).The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in otheradministrations (Gen. 40:1; 1Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). Thecupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king frombeing poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.
Inthe Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1Pet. 2:17),with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial andmilitary authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects(governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), withtetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).
Christiansin NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officerin Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemoratedin an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. Theproconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of HerodAntipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil.4:22) were also Christian public leaders.
Tradeand Economics
Fromearliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. WhenAbraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured“according to the weight current among the merchants”(Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of publictrading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders ofcommodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes betweensouthern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slavesalong the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buyand sell goods (1Kings 10:28).
Inthe first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life aslandowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves.Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Lukewas a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col.4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila,and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire,commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants oftenformed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religiousand moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen inrelated trades turned significant profit through their connectionswith the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).
Jesusfrequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called“Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were adespised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantageof the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commissionon taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of thetalents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected(Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact thatLaodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.
Servantsand Slaves
Inthe OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whoseoccupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Someservants held very important positions in their master’shousehold (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they couldtake slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poorcould serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along withtheir children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out fromEgyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev.25:39–46).
Slavesin the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed byanother (Dio Chrysostom, 2Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slaverypractices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery.Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1Tim. 1:10; Rev.18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The mostprominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes withhis master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obeytheir earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6),but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal.3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus”(Rom. 1:1).
ReligiousService
MostIsraelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites(Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’sline (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices toGod on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacleand its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1Chron. 23:32) and carrying theark of the covenant (1Chron. 15:2). They were set apart toserve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people inworship (2Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played animportant advisory role to Israel’s kings (2Sam. 8:17;1Kings 4:5; 2Kings 12:2).
InIsrael, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1Sam.9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2Sam.24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets,and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group(1Sam. 19:20; 1Kings 22:6).
TheNT references a number of ministerial offices (1Cor. 12:28;Eph. 4:11; 1Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid,though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive theirliving from the gospel” (1Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1Tim.5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives.The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles whowere with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses ofhis resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as anapostle (Gal. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus andothers “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2Cor.8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy andspeak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32;1Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or“pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, andexercise authority in the church (1Tim. 3:1; 1Pet. 5:2).Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to winconverts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2Tim. 4:5). Those ministers whoare faithful to the gospel deserve support (3John8).
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycircumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcircumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).
OldTestament
Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).
Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).
Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).
Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of theone praying.
Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.
Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.
NewTestament
Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.
Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).
Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.
Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.
Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).
TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).
Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).
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).
Fear, as it appears in Scripture, is a response ranging from respect and reverence to sheer panic and absolute terror.
Proper and Improper Fears
There are both proper, godly fears and improper, sinful fears. On the one hand, God has given us the ability to respond to rightly perceived fears. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he “was afraid” to go there with Mary and Jesus (Matt. 2:22), and God directed him to go to Nazareth instead. On the other hand, Scripture gives us many examples of people who were overcome by sinful fear. After Adam had sinned, he heard God coming to him in the garden, and he said, “I was afraid ... so I hid” (Gen. 3:10). Abraham was afraid for his life, so he pretended that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20:2). King Saul disobeyed God’s explicit commands because he “was afraid of the men” (1Sam. 15:24). Fear can be both sinful in and of itself and something that leads to other sinful responses.
God understands our struggle with sinful fear and knows that we need someone who is stronger than our fears: God himself. David says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in you” (Ps. 56:3). Ultimately, our hope is in Jesus Christ, who came to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). The author of Hebrews goes on to tell us how we are to experience this victory through Christ: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16).
Paul asks the question “Who [or, we could add, ‘what’] shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” (Rom. 8:35), and then gives his classic answer: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:38–39). The reality of a sovereign, loving God rules out any possibility that his people will ever find themselves in situations outside of his love and control. For the believer, “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (8:28).
Fear of God
There is a popular saying: “The fear of God is the one fear that removes all others.” God wants to free people from wrong fears so that they can fear the one person really worth fearing: God himself. Jesus warned, “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). Indeed, the one appropriate fear mentioned well over a hundred times in Scripture is a proper fear of God. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes concludes his wrestling to find meaning and purpose in life with these words: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (12:13).
God’s frame of reference. What can a proper fear of God do for us? The answer from the book of Proverbs is that a proper fear of God is foundational to everything else in life: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). Every area of life needs to be lived under the direction of God and for his glory, and without a proper fear of God, living a life pleasing to God becomes impossible. Having a proper fear of God involves seeing and responding to all the daily circumstances of life from God’s frame of reference. It is this proper fear of God that involves catching a glimpse of life as it truly is, and especially of God as he is in all his glory and splendor, that gives people the strength and encouragement they need to go through all the difficult experiences of life. Although there are many unanswered questions regarding the various tragedies and difficulties we experience, life does not begin to make sense until a person catches a glimpse of who God is and how he is at work behind the scenes in history and world events. No one can ever go far in a relationship with God apart from a proper fear of him. Instead, “the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27) that strengthens and sustainsus.
Knowing and seeking God. What does fear of God look like? Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” places “fear” and “knowledge” in poetical parallelism. Apparently, knowing God and fearing him are really one and the same, like two sides of a coin describing the same reality. Similarly, not fearing God is simply another way of saying that a person does not know him. It is no surprise to discover that to fear God or be a “God-fearer” is one of the standard biblical descriptions for being a follower of God (Acts 10:2). In one sense, having a proper fear of God is simply one way of describing how one is in a proper relationship with God. Scripture is clear that for the ungodly, or even for the disobedient believer, there is a fear in the sense of terror or panic as one contemplates the coming judgment of God (Heb. 10:27, 31). But the believer should have confidence in God’s love and in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, so that this kind of negative fear is out of place. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is a respectful, reverential awe of God’s glory and majesty, leading inevitably to a changed life. This positive kind of fear should involve a positive seeking out of God and a new desire to please him, combined with a new dread of displeasing him. Proverbs is also very explicit about this purifying aspect of the fear of the Lord: “Through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided” (16:6).
Having a proper fear of God has an ongoing, moment-by-moment quality in much the same way that a spouse or parent naturally thinks about others in the family and wonders how they are doing. Whereas the wicked person does not seek God, and “in all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Ps. 10:4), the opposite is true of those who fear God: they regularly and inevitably find themselves thinking about God, reflecting upon him, respecting him, looking to him for his help and sustenance, valuing his view of things, and actively seeking to please and obey him in everything they do. Fearing God means that we trust him more than we trust ourselves or anyone else. Fearing God is both deciding for (Prov. 1:29 speaks of those who “did not choose to fear the Lord”) and living out an ongoing commitment of giving God the place he deserves in our lives. As Paul tells us, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). A person who has come to fear the Lord is never the same afterward.
The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yetthey also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father,the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these threepersons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesusprays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heavenconcerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send theSpirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will dowhat Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). Thechallenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate adoctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of whichsurfaces in both Testaments.
OldTestament
Inthe OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicitlevel. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8),Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “Butyou are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israelacknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of oldis your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as“Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son”(Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where Goddeclares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have becomeyour father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NTevidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father”certainly appears in the OT.
Messianictexts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “childis born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, MightyGod, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of“Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowedin Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipatesthe appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt.3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with theclouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory andsovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh saysto David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right handuntil I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
Similarly,the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh whileimplying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes thatcase, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spiritof God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1Sam. 16:14 acontrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” thatleaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” thattorments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God wouldnot take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spiritcan be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy(Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek.36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Sonand the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable fromone to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.
NewTestament
TheNT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” oftenbecause of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appearsseveral times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9,14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which heidentifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10;and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God theFather and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Graceand peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ”(also 1Cor. 1:3; 2Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1Tim.1:2; 2Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in1Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, fromwhom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live”(see also 1Cor. 15:24; 2Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil.2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1Pet. 1:2–3;in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have beenchosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through thesanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ andsprinkled with his blood.... Praise be to the Godand Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “Godthe Father” is clear.
Biblicaltexts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for thesecond claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say asmuch, but one can take this case further. In context, John’sprologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims thathe was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1).Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, ashe declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ inJohn 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages thatidentify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, asPeter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of theliving God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They callout, “What do you want with us, Son of God? ...Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”(Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider“equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance ofGod’s glory and the exact representation of his being”(1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “imageof the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and theone by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell inhim.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great Godand Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlightsthe deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sitson the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory andpower, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and theLamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).
TheNT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personalityof the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by theSpirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus isbaptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speakagainst the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’sGospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we alsosee in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18,38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the HolySpirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ(5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor andteacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’sinstructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance ofsonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). Thisperson even knows the very thoughts of God (1Cor. 2:11).Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of theFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three membersof the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, theSpirit no less than the Father and the Son.
Relationshipsbetween Father, Son, and Spirit
Theevidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons arecalled “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command intheir relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and theSpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of thecross to the church. This “functional subordination” ofthe Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from theanalogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son”would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though theyshare a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share acommon humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that theyrelate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22)Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by myFather” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authorityto the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season)knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About thatday or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifiesthe Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all hedoes” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please hisheavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares inJohn 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do onlywhat he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does theSon also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Sonupon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son issaid to have “offered up prayers and petitions with ferventcries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he washeard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, helearned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated bytheologians whether this functional subordination relates only to theperiod of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is aneternal subordination.
TheSpirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father andthe Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross andempower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “TheAdvocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, willteach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said toyou.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends theSpirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to youfrom the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from theFather—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveyswhat he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he willspeak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”(John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father ismine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he willmake known to you.”
TrinitarianHeresies
TheFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while beingdistinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these twopersons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement ourdeliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity willrespect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustratethem with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms ofpolytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came fromMarcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father ofJesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves uswith more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism andsubordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons ofthe Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God.One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the HolySpirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond thefunctionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that theSon and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentiallysubordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into thislatter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but notthe Creator God.
Theseearly heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of theTrinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coinedprecise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so thatGod’s “threeness” and “oneness” arepreserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the ChristianGod and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sharethe same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the HolySpirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk.homoiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial”(Gk. homoousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit.The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in sodoing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spiritwas created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea alsorejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promotedby endowing him with supernatural powers.
Eachof these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism ofIslam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claimsthat constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians willremember that tensions and paradoxes are not automaticcontradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expresslydemonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, andChristianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in thiscase. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, andquite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On thepositive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of thechurch because it affects all the others, especially the entire workof redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if heis not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as ourLord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in thatcase, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us ofwhat Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannotspeak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives usthe word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune,and sinners need him to be so.
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.
An occupation or profession is the usual work or business inwhich a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblicaltimes, family or social standing most often determined occupation.This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such asplanting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel waspassed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh.14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in thefamily inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihoodfrom their family’s land, and those who did not have land hiredthemselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normallylearned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2Kings 4:18;Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’sservice (1Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).
Cicero,writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as taxcollector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely,professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were morehonorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitableprofession (Off. 1.42).
Agricultureand Farming
Farmingis the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first manwas called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after theexile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, asdid Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The openingchapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man”(’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After theflood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil”(’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). KingUzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) andso employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2Chron.26:10).
Goddemonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with anincredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’sfarms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit oftheir ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was foreveryone to live “under their own vine and under their own figtree” (1Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19,the diligent farmer would have abundant food.
Jesus’parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would havebeen readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where manypeople were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and someowned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at thistime engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising(Let. Aris. 107–112).
Herdingand Hunting
Herdinganimals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (afterfarming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of themost common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abelis the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herdinglifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), aswere Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1Sam. 17:34), and many others inthe OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was theemployment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages”(Ag.Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds andherdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel,whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present atJesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teachingsuggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf.Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).
Manypeople in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, orprotection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mightyhunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “anexpert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “askillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought backwild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim,included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57,reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf.1Kings 4:23).
Buildersand Craftsmen
Cainwas the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), andhis descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrodbuilt a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning ofNimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gatheredtogether to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamiaused baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usuallypreferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’sdeath, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, whichinvolved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).
Therole of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle wasparticularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilledworkers and designers” empowered by God for work on thetabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds ofcrafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry,and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).
Kingsin Israel often commissioned important building projects (1Kings12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2).Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2Sam.5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and alsoemployed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervisethe work (1Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile,many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wallof Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18).These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons,carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).
Jesusis referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn(Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter”by English versions. However,recent scholarshiphas demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter inthe modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōntypically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer tocraftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.
Musicians
Thefirst musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father ofall who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21).Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they dotoday. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebratefestive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen.31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1Sam.16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).
Musiciansplayed an important role in leading God’s people in worship.The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings offifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician inScripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms”(2Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1Sam. 16:18) andwrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomonwas also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1Kings 4:32).David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israelin worship (1Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres,harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2Chron. 5:12).
Government,Politics, and Military
Beforethe monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, agroup of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials,and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge thepeople on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). AfterJoshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel fromforeign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time ofSamuel, when Saul was made king (1Sam. 11:15).
Kingsin Israel employed various officials. In 2Sam. 8:16–18,Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggeststhat the military commander was second in authority after the king.Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander inchief” (1Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a numberof key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the“confidant” of the king (cf. 2Sam. 16:16). The OTdoes not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorderwas among the highest governmental positions and served as a royalcounselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognatenoun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests thatthis official may have managed and preserved public records (2Kings18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary orscribe (sop̱er)was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2Sam.8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight(2Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were welleducated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2Kings18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of thepalace and the forced labor, as well as governors who suppliedprovisions for the king’s household (1Kings 4:6–7).The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in otheradministrations (Gen. 40:1; 1Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). Thecupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king frombeing poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.
Inthe Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1Pet. 2:17),with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial andmilitary authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects(governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), withtetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).
Christiansin NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officerin Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemoratedin an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. Theproconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of HerodAntipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil.4:22) were also Christian public leaders.
Tradeand Economics
Fromearliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. WhenAbraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured“according to the weight current among the merchants”(Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of publictrading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders ofcommodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes betweensouthern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slavesalong the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buyand sell goods (1Kings 10:28).
Inthe first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life aslandowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves.Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Lukewas a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col.4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila,and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire,commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants oftenformed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religiousand moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen inrelated trades turned significant profit through their connectionswith the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).
Jesusfrequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called“Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were adespised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantageof the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commissionon taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of thetalents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected(Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact thatLaodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.
Servantsand Slaves
Inthe OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whoseoccupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Someservants held very important positions in their master’shousehold (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they couldtake slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poorcould serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along withtheir children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out fromEgyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev.25:39–46).
Slavesin the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed byanother (Dio Chrysostom, 2Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slaverypractices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery.Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1Tim. 1:10; Rev.18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The mostprominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes withhis master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obeytheir earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6),but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal.3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus”(Rom. 1:1).
ReligiousService
MostIsraelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites(Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’sline (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices toGod on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacleand its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1Chron. 23:32) and carrying theark of the covenant (1Chron. 15:2). They were set apart toserve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people inworship (2Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played animportant advisory role to Israel’s kings (2Sam. 8:17;1Kings 4:5; 2Kings 12:2).
InIsrael, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1Sam.9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2Sam.24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets,and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group(1Sam. 19:20; 1Kings 22:6).
TheNT references a number of ministerial offices (1Cor. 12:28;Eph. 4:11; 1Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid,though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive theirliving from the gospel” (1Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1Tim.5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives.The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles whowere with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses ofhis resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as anapostle (Gal. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus andothers “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2Cor.8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy andspeak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32;1Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or“pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, andexercise authority in the church (1Tim. 3:1; 1Pet. 5:2).Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to winconverts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2Tim. 4:5). Those ministers whoare faithful to the gospel deserve support (3John8).
Showing
1
to
50
of471
results
1. No Need for Words
Illustration
Stanley Mooneyham
When you know who you are, you don't have to impress anyone. When Jesus was taken before the high priest, who asked, "What do you have to say for yourself?" Jesus was silent. Wrong question.
When the high priest then asked Him if He was the Son of God, Jesus said, "I am." Right question.
Before Pilate, who asked, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus replied, “Yes, it is as you say." Right question.
In the Luke account, Herod asked Jesus question after question, but there was no reply. Wrong questions.
When you have discovered your identity, you need to say little else. Toyohiko Kagawa, the Japanese Christian who spent his life working with and for the poor, was speaking at Princeton. When he finished his talk, one student said to another, "He didn't say much, did he?"
A woman sitting nearby leaned over and murmured, "When you’re hanging on a cross, you don't have to say anything."
2. Temptations of Daily People
Illustration
Douglas R. A. Hare
This passage (4:1—11) is often appointed by lectionaries for the first Sunday of Lent. The presumption is that the narrative is of direct relevance for Christians as they enter a period of penitence. Ordinary Christians are unlikely to perceive it so, and with good cause. The story does not correspond with our experience; we do not hold conversations with a visible devil, nor are we whisked from place to place as Jesus is in the story. Moreover, the temptations that Jesus faces are peculiar to him; they seem very remote from those we face day by day. This passage may in fact prompt some to doubt the validity of Hebrews 4:15: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." What did Jesus know of the temptations that are faced daily by the recovering alcoholic and substance abuser? the lonely divorcee? the struggling business owner? the teenager who covets peer acceptance above all?
There is, however, a common denominator that links all of these with the temptation as ascribed to Jesus. The basic, underlying temptation that Jesus shared with us is the temptation to treat God as less than God. We may not be tempted to turn stones into bread (we are more apt to turn butter into guns, but we are constantly tempted to mistrust God's readiness to empower us to face our trials. None of us is likely to put God to the test by leaping from a cliff, but we are frequently tempted to question God's helpfulness when things go awry; we forget the sure promise, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (II Corinthians 12:9). Pagan idolatry is no more a temptation for us than it was for Jesus, but compromise with the ways of the world is a continuing seduction. It is indeed difficult for us to worship and serve God only. We should be continually grateful that we have a great high priest who, tempted as we are, was able to resist all such temptations by laying hold of Scripture and firmly acknowledging that only God is God.
3. Taking Grace Seriously
Illustration
John R. Steward
There was a king who held court every day. He would sit on his throne wearing his robe and crown as the people of his country would come to him stating their needs and requests. Each day, in addition to all the people who would come to the throne, there was also a holy man dressed in a beggar's robe who would come to the king. The holy man would hand the king a piece of fruit which the king would receive and then hand over to one of his assistants. Then the holy man would leave without ever saying a word to the king. This went on for many months and even years. Then one day something happened that no one expected. No one knew that a monkey had gotten loose in the palace. When the holy man presented his gift of fruit to the king, the monkey jumped up on the stage and grabbed the fruit out of the hand of the king. Then the monkey took a bite out of the fruit and all were amazed at what they saw, because precious jewels fell out of the fruit. The king quickly turned and asked his assistant what he had been doing with the fruit. The assistant said that they had been throwing the fruit through the window of a locked room. When they opened the door of that room they found among the rotten and decaying fruit a fortune in jewels.
We fail to take the grace of God seriously. Perhaps because it is a free gift that comes to us in the form of a cross. It does not seem very valuable. Let us pray that God will give us a new understanding of his grace and mercy in Jesus Christ.
Adapted from William A. Miller, Make Friends with Your Shadow (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House), p. 128. Used by permission.
4. Give To God The Things That Are God's
Illustration
Phyllis Faaborg Wolk
"Tell us what you think, Teacher. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" When the Pharisees asked Jesus that question, he responded with a request, "Show me the coin used for the tax," and someone handed Jesus a coin embossed with the head of the current Roman emperor, Tiberius. Engraved around his head was the inscription, "Tiberius Caesar, majestic son of the majestic God, and High Priest." "Whose image is on this coin?" Jesus asked. "The emperor's," they responded. "Well then," Jesus said, "give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor." The image of the emperor was embossed on the coin, therefore the coin belonged to him.
But in answering the Pharisees' question, Jesus didn't stop with the issue of taxation. He continued, "and give to God what belongs to God." As Jesus spoke the words, "give to God what belongs to God," standing right before him were those on whom the image of God had been embossed. The Pharisees, teachers of the law of Israel, children of Abraham whom God had claimed as his own, had been created from the very beginning in the image of God. In the image of himself, God had created them. They belonged to God. Those in whose eyes Jesus looked as he spoke were the coins of God. "Give to God what belongs to God," Jesus said. But when he spoke those words, the Pharisees left him and went away.
Should we pay taxes to the government? Yes, Jesus would say. But again, Jesus wouldn't stop there. Today he looks you in the eye and says, "Give to God what belongs to God." And as he looks at you, Jesus sees the image of God. In the beginning God created you and embossed his image upon you. In the waters of baptism, God marked you with the cross of Christ forever. God has given himself to you and has promised to love you and be with you forever.
Mrs. Detweiler was created in the image of God. She worked at Murray Elementary as the special education teacher. It didn't take her students long to recognize the image of God within her which made them feel special and loved. Even though she was a special education teacher, the students of Murray Elementary considered it a privilege to be invited to Mrs. Detweiler's room. The walls of her small classroom were covered with stars made out of bright yellow construction paper. Neatly written in black permanent marker on the star at the top of each row was the name of one of her students. As soon as a student finished reading a book, the title of that book was placed on another star that soon appeared directly beneath the star bearing the student's name. The more books a person read, the more stars accumulated under the name. Whenever her students finished a book, Mrs. Detweiler made them feel like stars, themselves. Her ability to make her students feel special and important was a mark of the image of God shining through her.
Mrs. Detweiler bore the image of God. She loved her students -- that was the image of God. She gave of herself by teaching them to read -- that was the image of God. She believed in her students -- that was the image of God. But even as one created in the image of God, Mrs. Detweiler would be the first to say that she had her faults. There were times when she let her students down; times when she lost her patience; times when her mood affected her ability to respond to her students enthusiastically. Mrs. Detweiler wasn't perfect, but she had been created in the image of God, claimed as God's child through her baptism and renewed each day with the gift of forgiveness. As she gave God what belonged to God by giving of herself to her students, Jesus worked through her. Through Mrs. Detweiler, God's love, acceptance and encouragement was shown to many students as they grew and matured into the people God had created them to be. As she gave God what belonged to God, God continued to give himself to her, revealing his love again and again through the sparkle in her students' eyes.
You are God's. His image has been placed within you. When I look at you, I see the image of God. I see the image of God in your faces as you greet one another before worship. I see the image of God each time you pray for each other and share one another's concerns. I see the image of God when I go to the nursing home and watch you hug and hold and gently speak with those who reside there. I see the image of God when I watch the Sunday school staff relate with the children -- so often God's love is given and received in the simple interactions they share. I see the image of God in the church kitchen, as members of this congregation work side by side to prepare a meal after a funeral or before a fellowship event. I see the image of God every time one of you gives to the Lord's work in a generous and cheerful way, sharing with others the blessings God has given you. God's image shines when you invite and welcome your neighbors to church -- not only those who are like you, but those who bring different perspectives and talents and needs to this body of Christ. I see God's image as this congregation reaches beyond itself to support missionaries and relieve world hunger. Whenever you give of yourself to others, the image of God within you is being revealed.
You are the bearers of God's image. Jesus said, "Give to God the things that are God's." You are God's. Jesus says, "Give yourself to God." But before you can even respond to Jesus' call to give yourself to God, God gives himself to you. Even before you have a chance to respond to Jesus' command, Jesus goes to the cross. Jesus goes to the cross to give to God what belongs to God. Jesus goes to the cross to give you to his Father in Heaven, who then blesses you with salvation and eternal life. Jesus goes to the cross for you and gives you life.
Give to God the things that are God's. When you give yourself to God, God will nurture his image within you. Jesus who now lives in you will give himself to others whenever you give of yourself to those in need. Jesus will use you to reveal God's love and forgiveness, to show all God's children how special they are to God, and to proclaim salvation to all who have been created in the image of God. Give to God things that are God's, remembering that Jesus has already given himself for you. Amen.
5. PRIEST
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Deuteronomy 26:4 - "Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God."
Among the nomadic tribes there was no developed priesthood. Religion partook of the general simplicity of desert life; apart from the private worship of household gods, the ritual observances were mainly visits to the tribal sanctuary to salute the god. with a gift of the first-fruits. These acts required no priestly aid; each man slew his own victim and divided the sacrifice in his own family circle; the share of the god was the blood which was smeared upon or poured out beside the stone set up as an altar. In the beginning, therefore, we find no trace of a sacrifical priesthood.
With the beginning of nationality, however, starting with the Exodus and developing into the Conquest, there was developed a unity of worship. However, even then, this unity was still not expressed in fixed institutions; the first-fruits were still a free gift, and every household represented and consumed them with his own family circle in a sacrificial meal without preistly aid.
In fact, rather than being just an officiator at sacrifice, the priest was the organ of revelation and he gave guidance in the ordinary affairs of life, the word for priest as adopted by the Hebrews from a Canaanite word, means "soothsayer," or "revealer." So, then, the function of the early priests was to reveal the word of God, either by reference to a legal code which contained the revealed will of God and the accumulated experience of the past.
Even after the people settled and sancturies were built, the role of the priest continued to be more of a judge than the person we think of as offering sacrifice. However, as more and more sanctuaries appeared and the Hebrews absorbed more of the ways of their neighbors, and, ultimately, with the establishment of the monarchy, a more and more elaborate ritual developed that required a professional priesthood.
There were regular public offerings maintained by the king and offered by the priests; private sacrifices required priestly aid; their judicial functions also brought them profit, since fines were exacted for certain offenses and paid to them. The greater priestly offices were therefore in every respect very important places, and the priests of the royal sanctuaries were among the grandees of the realm, but there is no indication of a hierarchy existing by divine right.
It was in post-exilic Israel that the priesthood as we usually think of it came into existence, although the reform by Josiah in 621 B.C. gave the prerogative of sacrifice to the priests alone. Already in the time of Josiah, altar service and not the judicial or "teaching" function had become the essential thing, but by the time of Ezekiel it had mainly to do with ritual, with the distinction between holy and profane, clean and unclean, with the statutory observances at festivals and the like.
The holiness of Israel centered in the sanctuary, and round the sanctuary stood the priests, who alone could approach the most holy things without profanation, and who were the guardians of Israel’s sanctity, partly by protecting the one meeting place of God and man from profane contact, and partly as mediators of the continual atoning rites by which breaches of holiness are expiated. In the old kingdom the priests had shared the place of the prophets as the leaders of thought were the psalmists and the scribes, who spoke much more directly to the piety of the nation.
From the foundation of the Hasmonean state to the time of Herod the history of the high priesthood merges into the political history of the nation; from Herod onward the priestly aristocracy of the Sadducees lost its chief hold over the nation and expired in vain controversy with the Pharisees.
Today, aside from the Roman Catholic Church, and the High Episcopal Church, we prefer to use the term "pastor" rather than priest for our spiritual leaders. But we must recognize the influence of the Hebrew priesthood on the thought and organization of Christendom. Two main points were taken over - the doctrine of priestly mediation and the system of priestly hierarchy. We cannot here go into doctrinal matters, but it is enough to say that the concepts of sacrifice which are still retained in the Roman system are the stumbling-block on which Protestant apologists fall. Within the Roman Church the old priestly system still is evident in many ways.
6. Athanasian Creed
Illustration
Brett Blair
Athanasian Creed:Athanasius, known as Athanasius of Alexandria, was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. His intermittent episcopacy spanned 45 years, of which over 17 encompassed five exiles. He istraditionally thought to be the author of the thisCreed named after him.It was createdto guardNicene Christianity from the heresy of Arianism. It is widely accepted as orthodox and some abbreviated versions of it are still in usetoday. And yes, the intro and outro are actually part of the original text.
Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
This ecumenical creed(428 A.D.) is probably unknown to most Christians because it is seldom, if ever, used in worship services. It is probably not used because of its length. The Nicene Creed has eighteen printed lines, whereas the Athanasian has 69. It is difficult for congregations to use because of the creed's intricate and complex terms.
Though the creed carries the name of Athanasius, he did not write it. It was the product of the church of his time. The creed was named after him to honor him for his brave and forceful defense of the Trinity. Athanasius (289-373) was a bishop in Alexandria, Egypt.
The creed deals primarily with the Trinity and Jesus as the Son of God. At this time, the heresy of Arius was prominent. He taught that Jesus was not fully human or divine and that the Holy Spirit was not God but only a divine influence. The Athanasian Creed denounced these false teachings and upheld the doctrine of the Trinity. Luther's high regard for this creed was expressed: "I doubt, since the days of the Apostles, anything more important and more glorious has ever been written in the church of the New Testament."
7. Who Is Jesus?
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Now, more than ever, we need to face the question, "Who is the real Jesus?" Is the Christ of faith the Jesus of history? What is the truth about Jesus? What can we believe? We turn to the Apostles' Creed which has given the church's answer for 2,000 years.
Different Positions
It is not strange that the most popular question of our time is, "Who is Jesus?" Was this question not answered in Matthew 16:16 when Peter said to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"? In Jesus' day, too, there were different opinions about Jesus. When on a retreat with his disciples, he asked them what people were saying about him. The public was divided: Jesus was considered to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What more of an answer do we need than the answer of Peter? Jesus accepted his answer as the truth, for he said, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Yet, after twenty centuries, we do not believe what Peter said about the identity of Jesus. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Jesus is the Son of God." A recent report from Germany indicated that only one out of every four believe in Jesus Christ. Throughout Christian history down to the present, there are different views of Jesus. Now let us look at some of them.
1. The All-Human Jesus
Human
According to this position, Jesus is 100 percent human. It was held as early as the first centuries of Christianity by the Ebionites. They denied that Jesus was divine. He was only a teacher, prophet, miracle-man, and one with an outstanding character. But he was not divine, the Son of God. Today this view is held by many, including atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, and other non-Christian religions.
2. The All-Divine Jesus
Divine
Opposite the Ebionites, Docetists held that Jesus was entirely divine. He was not at all human. This view was originally taught by Eutychus, a monk in a monastery near Constantinople. In the fourth century, Appolonarius, bishop of Laodicea, popularized the teaching. It was known as Docetism, from the Latin word docere meaning "to seem." It just seemed that Jesus was human. It was based on the idea that the physical and material were inherently evil. The human body therefore was sinful. Jesus therefore was not human, for God could not be identified with sin. Docetists held that Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by the divine. This denied the Incarnation, the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh."
3. The Half And Half Jesus
Human/Divine
Nestorians took the view that Jesus was half human and half divine. It was taught by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in the fifth century. To this day it is a very popular understanding of Jesus. When we see Jesus hungry, thirsty, and tired, we say it was because he was human. When he struggles in prayer and on the cross cries out, "My God, why ...?" we see the human Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus is God when he walks on water, feeds 5,000, raises the dead, heals lepers, and rises from the grave. The problem with this view is that we have a divided Jesus -- two persons in one body.
4. The Adopted Jesus
Divine
Human
This is known as adoptionism. According to this position, Jesus came into the world as a human. Because of his moral excellence, his perfect obedience to God, his wisdom, his compassion for people, and his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross, the Father adopted him as his son at his baptism. This adoption was confirmed by the resurrection and the ascension. Jesus then became a deified man.
5. The Both And Jesus
Human & Divine
The above different positions concerning Jesus caused great concern, for the gospel was at stake. If Jesus were only human, then he was just a martyr on the cross and not the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. If he were only human, the resurrection was a fairy tale. His promises of forgiveness and eternal life were meaningless. His claims to know God and to be one with God would then be the words of a religious fanatic who was deluded into thinking he was the Son of God.
On the other hand, if Jesus were only divine and not human, humanity would be the loser. Because he was human, he became one of us. As a human, he fulfilled the law for us. Through his humanity we could see the nature of God. Above all, he became sin for us so that sin, through him, could go out of the world. As a human Jesus knows our human condition. Like all of us he was tempted and he showed that by the power of God we can overcome temptation to sin.
Consequently, the church had to take a stand on the question of Jesus. Is he only human, only divine, or half and half? In 451 A.D. the church held a council at Chalcedon to decide the issue. The church decided that it was not a matter of Jesus being fully God or fully human, or half and half, but it was a matter of both, both fully human and fully divine. To this day the church holds to this truth stated at Chalcedon:
We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, or a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father with respect to the Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect of the manhood, like us in everything but sin ...
This is to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man. These two natures are blended into one integrated personality. He is not a split personality, nor does he suffer from schizophrenia. It is like a blender in your kitchen. Suppose you put apples, peaches, and pears in it and pushed the "on" button for a minute. Now what do you have -- apples, peaches, and pears? Yes, you do, but can you tell which is which? They have become one fruit, one substance. Also, it is like homogenized milk. When the raw milk comes from the farm, a dairy runs it through a homogenizer. As the milk runs through the machine, pistons compact the milk so that the cream and skim milk are made one. As a result you cannot take cream off the milk. In the same way, the human and divine natures of Jesus are compacted into one integrated person.
This means that the Father and the Son are one. When Jesus prays, God also prays. When the human Jesus suffers and dies on a cross, God is in Jesus enduring the cross. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). When the human Jesus speaks, it is also God who speaks. When Jesus weeps, God weeps. This truth makes us realize the seriousness of the cross. It was not only a human on the cross, but God was there in Jesus. Good Friday is the day God died in Jesus. Indeed, the murderers did not know what they were doing; they did not know they were killing God! As the spiritual says, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble."
8. Beyond Ambiguity
Illustration
Larry Powell
In the 1500s, there lived a "prophet" named Nostradamus who upheld the Copernican theory that the world is round and circles the sun more than one hundred years before Galileo was prosecuted for the same belief. He was also widely known as a healer, a dabbler in the occult, and predictor of events far into the future. A present day book, The Prophecies of Nostradamus, purports to show that he predicted such specific events as the assassination of John F. Kennnedy, Hitler’s rise to power, the Blockade of Britain, the Common Market, and other far sweeping events. The writings of Nostradamus are, however, exceedingly ambiguous, requiring a great deal of imagination on the part of the reader to even remotely apply them to events claimed as "fulfillments." I personally place no stock in this ancient mystic’s poetic "prophecies." But there is no ambiguity in the prophecies of Isaiah: (1) "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations" (42:1). Let us now turn to Matthew 3:16: "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my son whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ "
The servant described in Isaiah 53 was to be (2) a suffering servant; "Surely, he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed" (vv. 4, 5). The entire New Testament is testimony to the "Song of the Servant," and in the remarkable economy of God, the wounds and bruises resulted in inclusive wholeness and healing. Unfortunately, there are those who have not embraced the vicarious suffering Christ as relevant for their own cases. Even on Christmas day, combat raged in eastern El Salvador between government troops and leftist rebels. A Roman Catholic priest claims that nearly 7,000 persons died in "blind violence" in the country during the past year. We will not dwell upon world violence and political unrest here, except to say that there are those who remain outside of the peace made possible by the redemptive work of Christ. But for those who have experienced the power of Christ in their lives personally, they have found it to be a strong potion, even in difficult times.
Slightly more than one hundred years ago, an especially gifted young man enrolled in Glasgow University. Anxious to begin academic studies and anticipating his forthcoming marriage, his spirits soared. But how rapidly the wheels of fortune turn. He was suddenly stricken by blindness, and his fiance, not wanting to be married to an invalid, rejected him. The tide had turned against him in a manner which would have devastated a lesser person. However, despite his adversities, he graduated from the university and went on to become one of the greatest preachers in the Church of Scotland. Not out of his despair, but out of his personal relationship with Christ, he wrote a hymn which we lift in praise until this day: "O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go ..." Consequently, not only the New Testament, but individuals like George Matheson the hymnwriter and scores of others who have named the name of Christ, affirm that Isaiah’s prophecy has indeed come to pass.
There is more. The vicarious suffering of Christ was (3) once done, for all, and for all time. Such a sacrifice need never be repeated. I have read where each year, beginning on Ash Wednesday, thousands of Filipino Christians begin Lenten observances by flagellating themselves with whips and heavy branches. The whips have sharp stones and broken pieces of glass affixed to leathered ends. Certain others submit themselves to be actually crucified. Their devotion is admirable, but the gestures in which they engage are both barbaric and unnecessary. We continue to sin, yes, but the redemptive work of Christ at Calvary endures, once done for all time.
9. Personal Understanding of Jesus' Identity
Illustration
Brett Blair
Who do you say that I am? I would suggest to you this morning that that is the most urgent, the most relevant, the most theological question that confronts us today. Wherever we turn in life we are faced with the implications of this question.
Throughout the ages various individuals have attempted to answer that question posed by Jesus. Ernest Renan, a French writer, answered it by saying that Jesus was a sentimental idealist. Bruce Barton, an American businessman, said that who Jesus was the greatest salesman who ever lived. William Hirsch, a Jewish writer, responded that Jesus conformed to the clinical picture of paranoia. A musical drama was performed some years ago that answered this question by saying that Jesus was a Superstar. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian, referred to Jesus as the "man for others."
The Gospel writers also attempted in their own fashion to answer this most fundamental question. They bestowed upon him numerous titles and claims: Son of God, Son of man, Divine physician, king, prophet, bridegroom, light of the world, the door, the vine, high priest, the firstborn of creation, the bright and morning star, and Alpha and Omega.
All of these were attempts to answer this question posed by Jesus. But these are attempts made by others. Jesus is more concerned with what your answer is than what there answer is. Martin Luther, another German theologian, wrote: "I care not whether he be Christ, but that he be Christ for you." Peter responded: Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Is he Christ for you?
10. THE MOST WONDERFUL GIFT
Illustration
John H. Krahn
One of the things that most young children fear are monsters. Unlike the imagined monsters of children, the early church had a real monster of its own. It was a most deadly enemy that roamed about. The monster was the notion that Christ alone was not adequate for a person’s salvation. And this monster gave birth to another monster, the monster of uncertainty over our own salvation. Both monsters were real - both were inspired by the devil. Unfortunately, they are still very much with us today. Many of us are puzzled and uncertain as to whether we will be saved. To solve the salvation puzzle we must kill the monster of uncertainty that suggests we trust in something other than Christ alone for our salvation.
Recently, I surveyed a large sample of our congregation. I was amazed to discover that so many were puzzled over the crucial question of their eternal life. Perhaps some of you reading this meditation do not feel certain that if you died tonight that you will be with God in heaven. Many who feel certain that they will go to heaven do not base such certainty on faith in Jesus Christ alone. The devil that roamed freely in the early church is still with us.
Brothers and sisters, our salvation is unreasonable, and this is what causes much of our puzzlement. We have been trained from childhood that we must work out our own problems and map out our own destiny. To think that God’s salvation is a pure gift, won for us by God’s actions and effected without any help or aid from us, militates against our, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy.
Second, it smacks us where we hurt the most, right in our pride. Adults are hesitant about accepting gifts which they know they have not earned or merited. We do not want to feel obligated to anyone. It is not an easy matter for us to come before Almighty God and accept what he wants to give us - the most wonderful gift of eternal life. It takes a humble person to make such a confession from his heart and to stand totally dependent on God.
Third, for most of us, everything that we have has a price tag on it. Then we are confronted with the strange news of a gospel which declares that God’s salvation is a free gift. Our experience with every other valuable gift causes us to stop and think, "Is that reasonable? There must be a hidden cost, a string attached, we must have to do something. How can God really give us something so wonderful for nothing?"
In the survey of our congregation we also asked our people, "If you were to die tonight and stand before God and he were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ what would you answer him?" What would you answer him? Take a second, think about it. Let me share with you some answers others gave: "I’ve lived a Christian life, loving and caring for my fellowman." "I am a good person and love to help others." "I’ve tried my best to do what you have expected of me." What is the common element in all these answers? It is "I." Everyone emphasizes what I have done.
The Bible says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is a gift of God, not because of works, lest any man should boast." Heaven is a most wonderful gift, it is not something earned or deserved, it is only received by faith. Our faith in Jesus Christ is the key that opens heaven to us.
11. God's Glory
Illustration
Michael P. Green
God’s “glory” is how we describe the sum effect of all of his attributes:Grace, truth, goodness, mercy, justice, knowledge, power, eternality—all that he is. Therefore, the glory of God is intrinsic, that is, it is as essential to God as light is to the sun, as blue is to the sky, as wet is to water. You don’t make the sun light; it is light. You don’t make water wet; it is wet. In all of these cases, the attribute is intrinsic to the object.
In contrast, man’s glory is granted to him. If you take a king and take off all his robes and crowns and give him only a rag to wear and leave him on the streets for a few weeks, when put next to a beggar you’ll never know which is which. Because there is no intrinsic glory. The only glory a king has is when you give him a crown and a robe and sit him on his throne. He has no intrinsic glory.
That’s the point. The only glory that men have is granted to them. The glory that is God’s is his in his essence. You can’t de-glory God because glory is his nature. You can’t touch his glory. It cannot be taken away. It cannot be added to. It’s his being.
12. The Martyr's Prayer
Illustration
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and an early church leader whose life ended when he refused to betray his Lord. Asked one last time to disavow his Christ, the old man replied, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How can I speak evil of my King who saved me?"
Here is his martyr's prayer, as recorded by the historian Eusebius:
"Father of Your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of You, I bless You that You have counted me worthy of this day and hour, that I might be in the number of the martyrs. Among these may I be received before You today in a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as You have beforehand prepared and revealed. Wherefore I also praise You also for everything; I bless You; I glorify You, through the eternal High Priest Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, through whom, with Him, in the Holy Spirit, be glory unto You both now and for the ages to come. Amen."
Eusebius adds: "When he had offered up his amen and had finished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire."
13. A House of Prayer
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Leslie Weatherhead in his book, A Private House Of Prayer, suggests that the structure of the content of prayer be likened to a house of seven rooms. Each room is a division of prayer. There may be some duplication with ACTSS which we just discussed.
The first room is for the affirmation of God's presence. If prayer is a conversation with God, obviously it is necessary for him to be present. When we pray, are we aware of his presence or like Moses do we see only a burning bush? In a hymn Tersteegen sings, "God himself is present; let us now adore him and with awe appear before him." What applies to worship, applies also to prayer. When we pray, we are talking to a real person, not to an idea, or ideal, or ideology, or a theological concept. In prayer we are not talking to ourselves or to the ceiling. In spirit God is there to hear our prayer. We need to realize this and pray accordingly.
The next room is for the thanksgiving and praise. We have been blessed beyond measure and therefore to thank and praise God is in order. Before we begin our prayer, we need to review how good God has been to us. If we are bereft of blessings, our greatest gift is Jesus who loved us enough to die for us.
Go to the next room for the confession of sins. Sin separates us from God. Sin erects an impenetrable curtain which prevents us from seeing God. The separation prevents our hearing the voice of God. We come out of a dirty world with the dirt of sin clinging to us. Before we can be presentable to a holy God we need spiritual cleansing. Thus, in prayer we confess our sins and plead for his mercy.
The fourth room is labelled "Reception of God's grace." We have confessed our sins and begged for mercy. What is God's response? It is grace in terms of pardon and acceptance. At this time in our prayers we remember his promises to be with us always, to forgive us, and to bless us with the Holy Spirit.
Now it is time to go to the room of petition. We have the opportunity to tell God about our personal needs in our own lives, or in our family, or in our work. But, we have petitions not only for ourselves, but others want and need our prayers in their behalf. This takes us to the sixth room of prayer. When we pray for others, it is called intercessory prayer. When his co-worker, Melanchthon, was sick, Luther prayed for him: "I besought the Almighty with great vigor ... quoting from Scripture all the promises I could remember, that prayers should be granted and said that he must grant my prayer, if I was henceforth to put faith in his promises."
The effectiveness of a friend's prayer on our behalf depends on the relationship of the pray-er to God. James wrote, "The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective" (James 5:16). That is why we want a godly mother or a pious pastor to pray for us. Roman Catholics ask the saints and the Virgin Mary to pray for them. On the eve of a historic boxing match, a friend was visiting the champ in his hotel suite. During the conversation a murmuring feminine voice was heard. "That's my wife," the champ explained. "She's praying for me to win." "Oh, and I suppose you pray, too?" The champ replied, "My wife is more devout than I am. If God won't do it for her, He certainly won't do it for me."
The seventh room in the house of prayer is meditation. Some do not understand what meditation is and consequently do not know how to meditate. It is the act of reflecting, of silence, and listening to God. It calls for thinking about God and our relationship to him. It is a time to review past dealings with God. Then we reflect on how good God has been in those past dealings. After that, we remember God's promises to us: promises of peace, protection, and provision. Meditation can be summed up in three R's: review, reflect, and remember.
14. God's Instant Recipe
Illustration
Instant cake mix at first was a big flop. The instructions said all you had to do was add water and bake. The company couldn't understand why it didn't sell until their research discovered that the buying public felt uneasy about a mix that required only water. Apparently people thought it was too easy. So the company altered the formula and changed the directions to call for adding an egg to the mix in addition to the water. The idea worked and sales jumped dramatically.
That's how some people react to the plan of salvation. To them it sounds too easy and simple to be true, even though the Bible says, "By grace you have been saved through faith...; it is the gift of God, not of works" (Eph. 2:8-9). They feel that there is something more they must do, something they must add to God's "recipe" for salvation. They think they must perform good works to gain God's favor and earn eternal life. But the Bible is clear we are saved, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). Unlike the cake-mix manufacturer, God has not changed His "formula" to make salvation more marketable. The gospel we proclaim must be free of works, even though it may sound too easy.
15. The Mirror of Judas
Illustration
Larry Powell
So muchhas been written, discussed, and speculated about Judas that we feel we know enough about him already. And really, what more is there to say of him other than he is for all times the supreme symbol of betrayal? Nothing, unless we are willing to admit that there was such about his life which causes us to be introspective about our own.
1. Jesus had confidence in him. To begin with, Jesus observed qualities about Judas which were suitable for discipleship. Had there been no goodness, no promise, no ability, Judas certainly would not have been included among the Twelve. Moreover, he was capable and trustworthy enough to be selected as treasurer for the group. So for whatever reason, future potential or ability already acquired, Jesus had confidence in him.
Has not Christ placed tremendous confidence in us? The care of his church, the propagation of his message, the extension of his ministry, faithfulness to our vows. Shall we too betray his confidence?
2. Judas knew how to be discerning. He was not without practical judgment. The care of the treasury would hardly be entrusted to a reckless, emotion-driven individual. Judas was present in the house of Mary and Martha when Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with an expensive ointment. His protest of the anointing is not without merit, inasmuch as his concern was not for himself, but that the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor. From time to time a similar protest is raised today by those who question the wisdom of erecting church facilities costing hundreds of thousands of dollars while so many hungry remain to be fed.
Each of us has been entrusted with the freedom of choice and the ability to discern. Do we betray Christ by our choices?
3. Judas had opportunity. His position among Christ’s chosen naturally enabled him to produce a positive witness. And even near the end, he had the opportunity to abort his scheme, the motive of which is still unclear to us. Jesus announced at the table that the one who would betray him would dip in the same dish as the others. Judas played dumb, but inwardly he knew that Jesus saw through his pretense. Judas had opportunity.
As members of Christ’s family, we have numerous opportunities to make positive witnesses. As a people who have followed our own schemes and well-devised plans, we have the opportunity to repent. Shall we betray Christ by bungling our opportunity?
4. Judas had access to Jesus. The fact that Judas was able to walk up to Christ in the garden and greet him with a kiss, the traditional greeting of a disciple for a teacher, clearly establishes that he had easy access to Jesus.
The Scriptures tell us that Christ serves as our "high priest," interceding on our behalf, having access to God, even as we have access to the Son through prayer. To neglect prayer and the spiritual life is to abuse the access. Shall we betray Christ by abusing our access?
What more is there to say of Judas, unless we are willing to admit that there was such about his life which causes us to be introspective about our own?
16. The Political Controversies of Jesus - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Someone has figured that if we put all of the materials in the Gospels that tell us about the life of Jesus together that it would equal about 80 pages. Yet, most of that would represent duplication, for we know that some of the Gospel writers copied from others. If, therefore you eliminate the duplication, you would have only 20 pages that tell us about Jesus life and teachings. Of those 20 pages, 13 of them deal specifically with the last week of his life. And if you separate it still further, you will discover that one-third of those 13 pages took place on Tuesday of Holy Week. Thus, in terms of sheer volume, we know far more on this day in his life than any other day. The events of that day represent a significant percentage of what we know about the man Jesus.
We know that Jesus spent Monday evening in Bethany, probably in the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, since that is where he spent Sunday evening. He arose early on Tuesday morning and he and his disciples returned to Jerusalem. If you will then let your mind drift back through the pages of history, let us assume for a moment that you are living in First Century Palestine. It is the Season of the Passover and you and your family are among the thousands of religious pilgrims who have migrated to the ancient walled city of Jerusalem to participate in the religious celebration. You were there on Monday when Jesus took whip in hand and radically ran the moneychangers from the temple. It had been an eventful day.
But now it is Monday and it has come time to retire with your family. As you walk down the Villa de la Rosa you pass by the palace of the high priest, the residence of Caiaphas. You notice that a light is burning in the upper floor of this exquisite mansion. You comment to your family that Caiaphas must be working long hours to see that all of the religious festivities go on as scheduled. Yet, if you only knew what was really going on in that palace that evening. If you only knew what was taking place in that smoke filled room.
Gathered around the table that evening in the palace was one of the strangest combinations of political and religious factions that anyone could possibly imagine. Yet, politics makes strange bedfellows. It is interesting to me to see how fundamentalist Protestant denominations find a partner in the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of abortion. It is interesting to me to see how fundamentalist Protestants and Jews are brought together because they have similar views on the protection of Israel. Groups that would normally not have communication are sometimes strangely brought together for a temporary goal. That is what happened that night in Jerusalem. Here is the background.
The three groups conspired together that evening: the Herodians, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. Their common goal was to discredit Jesus of Nazareth in front of his constituency, the common people. It was probably not their intent to assassinate Jesus, which is what eventually happened, but rather to discredit him. They did not want a martyr on their hands. They would much prefer to make him a fool. Let's give him enough rope and he may just hang himself. Thus, each group would in turn ask him a question, not because they thought that they could learn from him, but because they wished to trick him. They were hoping for that one slip of the tongue. Each group would ask him a question that would be dear to their cause:
- The first question asked was from the Herodians.
- The next question was asked by Sadducees.
- The third question came from a Pharisee.
- Having routed the opposition, Jesus now, in essence, says, "It is my turn! Now I want to ask you a question.
17. The Debt We Owe
Illustration
David Livingstone
People talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. Can that be called a sacrifice which is simply acknowledging a great debt we owe to our God, which we can never repay? Is that a sacrifice which brings its own reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny? It is emphatically no sacrifice. Rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, danger, foregoing the common conveniences of this life these may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing compared with the glory which shall later be revealed in and through us. I never made a sacrifice. Of this we ought not to talk, when we remember the great sacrifice which He made who left His Father's throne on high to give Himself for us.
18. We Can't Contain God In Our Cups!
Illustration
Zan W. Holmes
One morning a little girl sat at a kitchen table to eat breakfast with her mother and father. As she listened to the prayer her father prayed before the meal, she was especially intrigued that he thanked God for God's presence everywhere.
After the father finished his prayer the little girl asked him, "Father, is it really true that God is everywhere?"
"Yes," said her father.
"Is God in this house?" she asked.
"Yes," her father said.
"Is God in this kitchen?"
"Yes," her father said.
"Is God on this table?" she asked.
"Yes," her father said.
The little girl hesitated and then asked, "Is God in this cup?"
Her father said, "Yes."
Upon hearing this the little girl quickly covered the cup with her hand and exclaimed, "I've got Him!"
In Job's attempt to make some sense out of his suffering, he tried desperately to figure God out by confining God to his own narrow conception of God. In other words, Job was trying to get God to respond within the limited confines of Job's own theological cup. In fact, Job was so certain of his theology that he believed he would prevail if his case were presented before God. To be sure, this is why he wanted to find God. He said, "Would he contend with me in the greatness of his power? No; but he would give heed to me. There an upright person could reason with him, and I should be acquitted forever by my judge" (Job 23:6-7).
Finally in chapter 38 God appears before Job as a voice out of the whirlwind: Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? -- Job 38:2-7
As soon as God speaks, Job realizes that he can never have the luxury of saying: "I've got God!" Indeed Job now knows that God has exceeded Job's expectations and refuses to be contained and fit neatly into any theological box that Job has constructed. So God answers Job, but not according to Job's definition of the problem of suffering. Instead God transposes the issue to another level which emphasizes God's power and divine knowledge in contrast to the human weakness and ignorance of Job.[1] In response, Job now realizes how foolish he has been to propose that he understood everything that happens. In fact, Job answers God and says, "See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but will proceed no further" (Job 40:4-5).
No longer does Job seek to arrange a debate where he can instruct God. He finally realizes that it is he and not God who is unaware of life's complete picture. When we too are tempted to believe that God is bound by our theologies, rituals, denominations, and traditions, like Job, we are called to remember that God is boundless and cannot be contained in any of our cups. We cannot put God in the cup of any ritual and say, "I've got God covered." We cannot put God in the cup of any theology and say, "I've got God covered." We cannot put God in the cup of any church tradition and say, "I've got God covered." We cannot put God in any ethnic or gender cup and say, "I've got God covered."
Job learned that God stands above all human systems and wisdom. The purpose behind it all is not to answer directly the problem of suffering, but to give Job a vision of God's glory and presence with Job in the midst of Job's suffering. Thus Job discovers that he can trust God's purposes even though he cannot clearly understand them. Indeed, he comes to see that his new relationship with God will sustain him in the midst of his suffering.
Our African American forefathers and foremothers in the midst of the suffering of slavery could identify with Job's predicament. Even in the face of sorrow and suffering in the absurdity of slavery they were able to sing praises to God through the spirituals. Even though their relationship with God did not bring an immediate end to their oppressive condition, they were sustained by the faith that the cup of slavery could not contain the God of their hope and liberation. By the grace of God, it was a faith that enabled them to sing: Nobody knows the trouble I see, Nobody knows but Jesus. Nobody knows the trouble I see, Glory, Hallelujah.
1. Beverly B. Gaventa, editor, Texts for Preaching, (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), p. 551. "
19. Neighbors Who Never Met - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
What parable would make a man with three doctoral degrees (one in medicine, one in theology, one in philosophy) leave civilization with all of its culture and amenities and depart for the jungles of darkest Africa? What parable could induce a man, who was recognized as one of the best concert organists in all of Europe, go to a place where there were no organs to play. What parable would so intensely motivate a man that he would give up a teaching position in Vienna, Austria to go and deal with people who were so deprived that they were still living in the superstitions of the dark ages for all practical purposes. The man who I am talking about, of course, is Dr. Albert Schweitzer. And the single parable that so radically altered his life, according to him, was our text for this morning. It was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
The Rich Man and Lazarus were neighbors, you know. They saw each other every day. Oh, not socially you understand, but there was contact. Every day the Rich Man saw this beggar at his front gate. Who were these men?
We shall call the Rich Man Dives [pronounced ‘Dive-ees': it's Latin for "Rich Man" as he has been called for centuries] Dives would have felt very comfortable living in our present time. He was a progressive kind of a guy. He was self-indulgent and this is the age of self-indulgency. The contrasting life-styles of these two men is so obvious that you can't miss it. Dives was a connoisseur, a lover of the arts, one who knows and appreciates fine living, four star restaurants.
We are told in vs. 19 that he habitually dressed in purple. Purple was known as the color of royalty because it was the most expensive dye in the ancient world. Only the upper echelon and the high priest could afford it. We are also told that his undergarments were made of fine linen. Linen, the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
The other man in the story is Lazarus. How can we describe Lazarus? Lararus is homeless. We are told in vs. 20 that he was a cripple. Lazarus barely made it from day to day, living off the leftovers thrown to him by Dives as he daily passed him. He is just a survivor, that's all you can say of him.
One day, said Jesus, both men died. Death after all is the great equalizer. Death does not care about your social standing, your color, or your standing in the community. Lazarus, said Jesus, was carried away by the angel of death unto heaven, where he occupied the seat of honor next to Abraham. About Dives, the rich man, all that Jesus says is that he was buried. Isn't that strange that that is all that he says? After all, Dives funeral must having been something that the community would remember for years to come. Apparently, however, that fact failed to impress Jesus. Oh, Jesus did add one additional fact about Dives' death that may be of interest to you. His soul was sent to hell.
This is an unnerving story. I can well see why this was the irritating grain of sand in Albert Schweitzer's oyster. Why is this story so bothersome? For a few moments this morning I would like to share exactly why. It is bothersome because….
- First, it shows how God reverses the standards of the world.
- Second, it is a terrible fate for a man who was not mean.
- Third, the rich man begs to warn his living brothers.
20. Mary Had the Little Lamb
Illustration
Marv & Marbeth Rosenthal
Mary Had The Little Lamb
Mary had the little Lamb, who lived before His birth;
Self-existent Son of God, from Heaven He came to Earth.
Micah 5:2
Mary had the little Lamb; see Him in yonder stall
Virgin-born Son of God, to save man from the Fall.
Isaiah 7:14
Mary had the little Lamb, obedient Son of God;
Everywhere the Father led, His feet were sure to trod.
John 6:38
Mary had the little Lamb, crucified on the tree
The rejected Son of God, He died to set men free.
1 Peter 1:18
Mary had the little Lamb men placed Him in the grave,
Thinking they were done with Him; to death He was no slave!
Matthew 28:6
Mary had the little Lamb, ascended now is He;
All work on Earth is ended, our Advocate to be.
Hebrews 4:14-16
Mary had the little Lame mystery to behold!
From the Lamb of Calvary, a Lion will unfold.
Revelation 5: 5,6
When the Day Star comes again, of this be very sure:
It won't be Lamb-like silence, but with the Lion's roar.
Psalm 2:12
Revelation 19:11-16
21. The Sacrifice Play
Illustration
William J. Carl, III
Sacrifice is not a word we use much these days, is it? When was the last time you used it or thought about it in terms of your own life? When was the last time you sacrificed anything for anybody? Come to think about it, there's only one sport as far as I know where the term is actually used. Do you know which sport that is? You can almost hear Harry Cary announcing it over the radio, "And there it goes, a long fly ball to left; easy out, but the man on third tags up and trots home. Sacrifice fly."
What a great idea: you're out, but you helped someone else score a run. Baseball is one of the few sports where you lose but the team still gains. Do you remember the way comedian George Carlin spells it out in his routine about the contrast between the hardness of football and the softness of baseball? He says: In football you Tackle! In baseball, you "catch flies…" In football you Punt! In baseball you "bunt…" Football is played on a Gridiron! Baseball is played on a "field…" In football you Score! In baseball you "go home…" In football you Kill! In baseball you "sacrifice…"
Baseball may be the only sport where you actually can hear this word. It's one of the few places anywhere that you hear it in a self-centered, take-care-of-yourself, don't-worry-about-anybody-else society. In contrast to football, sacrifice may sound like a sign of weakness but I hardly think of any of the Atlanta Braves or Minnesota Twins as weak. Baseball's one thing; life is quite another. Who sacrifices anything any more in a time like ours? Who really denies themselves and takes up crosses anymore? Actual sacrifice can lead to bitterness, especially when you thought you were trusting God's plan for your life and suddenly you realize that you have to sacrifice all your greatest hopes and dreams as burnt offerings on the high altar of the providence of God.
22. Moving Fences
Illustration
During World War I a Protestant chaplain with the American troops in Italy became a friend of a local Roman Catholic priest. In time, the chaplain who moved on with his unit was killed. The priest heard of his death and asked military authorities if the chaplain could be buried in the cemetery behind his church. Permission was granted. But the priest ran into a problem with his own Catholic Church authorities. They were sympathetic, but they said they could not approve the burial of a non-Catholic in a Catholic cemetery. So the priest buried his friend just outside the cemetery fence.
Years later, a war veteran who knew what had happened returned to Italy and visited the old priest. The first thing he did was ask to see the chaplain's grave. To his surprise, he found the grave inside the fence. "Ah," he said, "I see you got permission to move the body." "No," said the priest. "They told me where I couldn't bury the body. But nobody ever told me I couldn't move the fence."
23. Only One
Illustration
Author Unknown
While two visitors were visiting Annapolis, they noticed several students on their hands and knees assessing the courtyard with pencils and clipboards in hand. “What are they doing?” one of them asked their tour guide.
“Each year,” he replied with a grin, “The upperclassmen ask the freshmen how many bricks it took to finish paving this courtyard.”
“So what’s the answer?” one of the visitors asked the tour guide when they were out of earshot of the freshmen.
The guide replied, “One.”
That brings up an interesting theological question. How many sacrifices did it take to finish paying for our sins? The Jews would have needed lots of pencils and clipboards to make the calculation. “Let’s see, let’s take all the sin offerings, all the guilt offerings, the bulls, the goats, the lambs, the turtledoves . . .”
So what’s the answer? How many sacrifices did it take to finish paying for our sins? Only one.
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered the sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.” (Heb. 10:11-12).
After thousands and thousands of sacrificial animals had been sacrificed, Jesus Christ gave his own life on the cross. Only then could it be said, “It is finished.” (John 19:30).
24. Doing the Lord's Work a Dollar at a Time
Illustration
Paul Larsen
What does it mean for me, a happy person with a good life, to deny myself and take up a cross?
I have no final answer, but I did gain some insight from Fred Craddock, a well-known preacher. In a sermon on this text he spoke about commitment and sacrifice and grand gestures. He told this story: "A wealthy man went to his priest with a check for fifty thousand dollars made out to the church. He handed the check to the priest and the priest looked at it. It was a lot of money! Then the priest handed it back and said, "Go cash it in. Cash it in for quarters or dollar bills and spend fifty cents or a dollar at a time doing the Lord's work." The man exclaimed, "But that will take the rest of my life!" "That's right!" answered the priest. That is the point!"
25. Suffering and Repentance
Illustration
John Bergland
Trevor Beeson stood at the high altar of Westminster Abbey to celebrate the marriage of his daughter, Catharine, to Anthony, aged twenty-three. Nine months later he stood before the same altar for Anthony's funeral, who was killed when his car ran into a wall in East London. Four months later, Trevor returned to the altar beside the coffin of his friend and hero Earl Mountbatten, who died when his fishing boat was blown to pieces by Irish terrorist. Reflecting on the experience, he said he could not blame God for these senseless tragedies. He wrote:
I should find it impossible to believe in, and worship, a God who arranged for the great servants of the community to be blown up on their holidays and who deliberately turned a young man's car into a brick wall. . .. This is not the God of love whose ways are revealed in the Bible and supremely in the life of Jesus Christ.
Beeson found two insights that helped him to cope with his tragedy and to look beyond it: "The first is that, although God is not responsible for causing tragedy, he is not a detached observer of our suffering. On the contrary, he is immersed in it with us, sharing to the full our particular grief and pain. This is the fundamental significance of the cross."
Second, although we naturally ask, "Why did it happen?" Beeson discovered that the more important question is "What are we going to make of it?"; "Every tragedy contains within it the seeds of resurrection." This is, after all, the whole point of our pilgrimage through Lent, to Good Friday, and Easter morning.
Are those who experience innocent suffering worse than anyone else? Of course not. It can happen to any of us. But is there a connection between innocent suffering and human action? Of course there is, and unless we change our way of living, we may all experience the same suffering. What does Jesus offer us when we experience this kind of suffering? The power of God to hold us firm, to give us strength, and to see us through.
26. Are You Swapping Heaven?
Illustration
King Duncan
Let me tell you a legend about a beautiful swan that alighted one day by the banks of the water in which a crane was wading about seeking snails. For a few moments the crane viewed the swan in stupid wonder and then inquired:
"Where do you come from?"
"I come from heaven!" replied the swan.
"And where is heaven?" asked the crane.
"Heaven!" said the swan, "Heaven! have you never heard of heaven?" And the beautiful bird went on to describe the grandeur of the Eternal City. She told of streets of gold, and the gates and walls made of precious stones; of the river of life, pure as crystal, upon whose banks is the tree whose leaves shall be for the healing of the nations. In eloquent terms the swan sought to describe the hosts who live in the other world, but without arousing the slightest interest on the part of the crane.
Finally the crane asked: "Are there any snails there?"
"Snails!" repeated the swan, "No! Of course there are not."
"Then," said the crane, as it continued its search along the slimy banks of the pool, "you can have your heaven. I want snails!"
This fable has a deep truth underlying it. How many a young person to whom God has granted the advantages of a Christian home, has turned his back upon it and searched for snails! How many a man will sacrifice his wife, his family, his all, for the snails of sin! How many a girl has deliberately turned from the love of parents and home to learn too late that heaven has been forfeited for snails!
People are still swapping heaven for snails. How about you? John the Baptist's words are for each of us: Are there some changes that need to be made in your life?
27. Sadness in the Heart of God
Illustration
John Claypool
There is a Jewish parable that both parallels and illumines Jesus' story, and it has helped to clarify my understanding greatly. This one is about a "farmer who lived in Poland. For generations before him, his family had been very poor. One night he was awakened by an angel of the Lord, who said: "You have found favor in the eyes of your Maker. He wants to do for you what he did for your ancestor Abraham. He wants to bless you. Therefore, make any three requests that you will of God, and he will be pleased to give them to you. There is only one condition: your neighbor will get a double portion of everything that is bequeathed to you."
The farmer was startled by this revelation and woke up his wife to tell her all about it. She suggested that they put the whole thing to a test. So they prayed. "Oh, blessed God, if we could just have a herd of a thousand cattle, that would enable us to break out of the poverty in which we have lived for generations. That would be wonderful." No sooner had they said these words than they heard the sound of animal noises outside. Lo and behold, all around the house were a thousand magnificent animals!
During the next two days, the farmer's feet hardly touched the ground. He divided his time between praising God for such great generosity and beginning to make practical provisions for his newly acquired affluence. On the third afternoon, he was up on a hill behind his house trying to decide where to build a new barn when he looked across at his neighbor's field, and there standing on the green hillside were two thousand magnificent cattle. For the first time since the angel of the Lord had appeared, the joy within him evaporated and a scowl of envy took its place. He went home that evening in a foul mood, refused to eat supper, and went to bed in an absolute rage. He could not fall asleep because every time he closed his eyes, all he could see were his neighbor's two thousand cattle.
Deep in the night, however, he remembered that the angel had said he could make three wishes. With that, he shifted his focus away from his neighbor and back to his own situation, and the old joy quickly returned. Digging deep into his own heart to find out what else he really wanted, he began to realize that in addition to some kind of material security, he always wanted descendants to carry his name into the future. So he prayed a second time: "Gracious God, if it please thee, give me a child that I may have descendants." With that, he and his wife made love, and because of his experience with the cattle, he was not too surprised shortly thereafter to learn that she was expecting.
The next months were passed in unbroken joy. The farmer was busy assimilating his newly acquired affluence and looking forward to the great grace of becoming a parent. On the night his first child was born, he was absolutely overjoyed. The next day was the Sabbath. He went to the synagogue, and at the time of the prayers of the people, he stood up and shared with the gathered community his great good fortune: now at last a child had been born into their home. He had hardly sat down, however, when his neighbor got up and said, "God has indeed been gracious to our little community. I had twin sons born last night. Thanks be to God." On hearing that, the farmer went home in an utterly different mood than the one in which he came. Instead of being joyful once again he was filled with the canker of jealousy.
This time, however, his envy did not abate. Late that evening, he made his third request of God: "Please, gouge out my right eye."
No sooner had he said these words than the angel who had initiated the whole process appeared again and asked, "Why, son of Abraham, have you turned to such vengeful desirings?" With pent-up rage, the farmer replied, "I cannot stand to see my neighbor prosper. I'll gladly sacrifice half of my vision for the satisfaction of knowing that he will never be able to look on what he has."
Those words were followed by a long silence, and as the farmer looked, he saw tears forming in the eyes of the angel. "Why, O son of Abraham, have you turned an occasion for blessing into a time of hurting? Your third request will not be granted, not because the Lord lacks integrity, but because God is full of mercy. However, know this, O foolish one, you have brought sadness not only to yourself, but to the very heart of God."
28. Relay for Life
Illustration
Brett Blair
In January1926, six-year-old Richard Stanley showed symptoms of diphtheria, signaling the possibility of an outbreak in the small town of Nome. When the boy passed away a day later, Dr. Curtis Welch began immunizing children and adults with an experimental but effective anti-diphtheria serum. But it wasn't long before Dr. Welch's supply ran out, and the nearest serum was in Nenana, Alaska 1000 miles of frozen wilderness away. Amazingly, a group of trappers and prospectors volunteered to cover the distance with their dog teams! Operating in relays from trading post to trapping station and beyond, one sled started out from Nome while another, carrying the serum, started from Nenana. The plan was to meet in the middle and cut the delivery time in half.Oblivious to frostbite, fatigue, and exhaustion, the teamsters mushed relentlessly until, after 144 hours in minus 50-degree winds, the serum was delivered to Nome. As a result, only one other life was lost to the potential epidemic. Their sacrifice had given an entire town the gift of life.
Every year in Alaska, a 1000-mile dogsled race, the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, is run for prize money and prestige, It's running commemorates that original"race" to save lives.
In Communion we commemorate another mission. The journey of Jesus from Pilate's prisonto the hill on which he died to save our lives form the tyranny of death, sin, disease, hatred, loneliness, the list is endless and the race isn't over. That cross, our Lord's finish line, has become our mission. His cross has become our cross. Take up the cross and let us, his church, finish the race.
29. Your Father Loves You
Illustration
James Packer
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). Commenting on this verse Martin Luther wrote: "All the prophets did foresee in Spirit that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc., that ever was or could be in all the world. For he, being made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world is not now an innocent person and without sins...but a sinner." He was, of course, talking about the imputing of our wrongdoing to Christ as our substitute.
Luther continues: "Our most merciful Father...sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him...the sins of all men saying: Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blasphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged upon the cross; and briefly be thou the person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now comes the law and saith: I find him a sinner...therefore let him die upon the cross. And so he setteth upon him and killeth him. By this means the whole world is purged and cleansed from all sins."
The presentation of the death of Christ as the substitute exhibits the love of the cross more richly, fully, gloriously, and glowingly than any other account of it. Luther saw this and gloried in it. He once wrote to a friend: "Learn to know Christ and him crucified. Learn to sing to him, and say, 'Lord Jesus, you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You have taken upon yourself what is mine and given me what is yours. You became what you were not, so that I might become what I was not.'" What a great and wonderful exchange! Was there ever such love?
30. All This You Did for Me
Illustration
Burton F. Blair
The Archbishop of Paris assumed thepulpit of Notre Dame Cathedral. He was there visiting to preach a sermon, and his sermon was built around a single story. Thirty years earlier, he told, there were three young tourists who had come into this very cathedral. All of the young men were rough, rude, and cynical persons, who thought that all religion was a racket. Two of these men dared a third to go into the confessional box and make a made-up confession to the priest. The two bet that the third young man did not have the nerve to do as they dared.
The third young man went into the confessional box and tried to fool the priest. But the priest knew that what the young man was saying was a lie. There was a tone of arrogance in the young man's voice - which could not go without notice. After hearing the confession, the priest told the young man his penance. The priest said, "Very well, my son. Every confession requires a penance, and this is yours. I ask you to go into the chapel, stand before the crucifix, look into the face of the crucified Christ and say, ‘All this you did for me, and I don't give a damn!' "
The young man staggered out of the confessional to his friends, bragging that he had done as they dared. The other two young men insisted that he finish the performance by doing the penance. This young man made his way into the chapel, stood before the crucifix, looked up into the face of Christ and began, "All this you did for me and I ... I ... I don't ... I don't give a ...." At this point in the story, the archbishop leaned over the pulpit and said, "That young man was this man who stands before you to preach."
That's the miracle of the cross. When we begin to understand the love on the cross, we want to change our relationship with God. We cannot remain the same, anymore. We want God at the center of our lives, again.
31. Turning Jesus Down
Illustration
John N. Brittain
Many churches have been designed in response to consumer surveys. In several Midwestern suburban areas the surveys have had similar results. People want the church to provide a good community center with an excellent gym and Nautilus-caliber training equipment; they want quality affordable day care and after school care for children; they want a variety of self-help and support groups; and they want sermons dealing with timely issues like money management and enhancing self-esteem. What they do not want are worship services where they are asked to participate or sing hymns; and they do not want sermons dealing with topics like sin, personal ethics, world hunger, or self-sacrifice. In response to such trends, a few years ago one of the larger churches in Evansville discontinued serving communion or baptizing people during regular worship services. They discovered that people didn't want religious rituals that talk about the new birth or the body and blood of Christ; they wanted a fellowship that will basically affirm who they are as good and worthwhile individuals and encourage them to maximize their potential. Maybe it's good for the planners to ask what people want out of a church, but it might not hurt also to ask what God wants out of the church.
There is the control issue again. Does God have any control over the church, or is the church simply an institution designed to meet the articulated desires of its members? The woman at the well felt comfortable turning Jesus down. Sometimes we do too.
32. What Law is Operating Here?
Illustration
John Killinger
Note: We do not advise using this illustration in a sermon. In fact, we strongly advise against it, but we thought it a great meditation for us clergy, considering subjects of Law and Grace. Here it it:
In Mary Gordon's novel, Final Payments, a book addressing the repression of many young Catholics of the 50s and 60s, a young woman named Isabel Moore has just buried her father after several years of illness, during which she was confined to his bedside. For several months, she flounders, trying to discover what she has the aptitude to do with the remainder of her life. She finallyaccepts employment as a social worker, going into homes to check on the welfare of ill and elderly people kept by individuals or families under contract to the social services department. One day she is visiting a Mr. Spenser, an 83-year-old man who lives his life in a bed. As she enters his room histeeth are out, and he's reading the Memoirs of Casanova. He is very polite, and offers to put his teeth in, but she says he need not. They talk with great ease and candor, for Isabel has been accustomed to conversing for hours with her father.
Mr. Spenser says that most people are kind to the elderly only out of guilt. Isabel asks if he doesn't believe in acts of pure generosity. He responds that he finds the very concept of purity rather "jejune." Isabel says he reminds her of a friend she loves but whom she cannot have because he is married and has a daughter. Mr. Spenser talks with her about love and tells her she is a beautiful woman. She doesn't think she is, but his insistence encourages her, and she thanks him.
As she prepares to leave, he asks a favor.
"Name it," she says.
"Let me see your breasts."
At first, Isabel says she can't. He wants to know why. She says merely because they are hers. But then she thinks: What could it hurt? She remembers the woman in The Brothers Karamazov who tells a priest she cannot give up an adulterous affair because "it gives him so much pleasure and me so little pain." She locks the door, unbuttons her blouse, loosens and removes her brassiere, and stands there.
Mr. Spenser says nothing. He looks, then closes his eyes.
"You have done me a great kindness," he says. "You have given me what I wanted, not what you thought I wanted, or what you wanted me to want."
Isabel dresses. They shake hands very formally. She unlocks the door and leaves.
Some may find prurience in this passage, but I sense instead a great depth of love and mercy, a recognition of our common humanity, an act of genuine and redemptive compassion. What law is operating here? The law forbidding sexual looseness, voyeurism, and lust? Or is that transcended, in Isabel's case, by the law of kindness and generosity? The latter, I would contend. There is more of the authentic spirit of Jesus in Isabel's act than in all the railing against sensuality and pornography by the Jesse Helmses and James Wildmons, and certainly more than in the stern judgmentalism of the Puritan community that condemned Hester Prynne in Hawthorne's novel.
And it is this higher law, the law of love and understanding, that must be identified and taught from our pulpits in the coming century. The media often understand this better than our churches, and their dramas frequently turn on the contrast between the hypocrisy of "good" Christians and the genuine kindness of instinctively well-dispositioned persons in the secular culture outside the church. This isnot to say that Hollywood is a better gauge of morals than the church; however,thepreacher can help to dispel the confusion parishioners feel by more consistently identifying Christ's position over against that of the legalists and by saying no to the Phariseeism that continues to plague the church from generation to generation.
33. Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day
Illustration
William H. Seward
Washington, D.C. March 30, 1863
Senator James Harlan of Iowa, whose daughter later married President Lincoln's son Robert, introduced this Resolution in the Senate on March 2, 1863. The Resolution asked President Lincoln to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting. The Resolution was adopted on March 3, and signed by Lincoln on March 30, one month before the fast day was observed.
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.
And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.
And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.
All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.
34. 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.
35. Inclusive Love
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
During the war a man died, and his two friends desperately wanted to give him a decent burial. They found a cemetery in a nearby village. It happened to be a Roman Catholic cemetery and the dead man had been a Protestant. When the two friends found the priest in charge of the burial grounds, they requested permission to bury their friend, but the priest refused because the man had not been a Catholic. When the priest saw their disappointment, he explained that they could bury their friend outside the fence. This was done. Later, they returned to visit the grave but couldn't find it. Their search led them back to the priest and, of course, they asked him what had happened to the grave. The priest told them that during the night he was unable to sleep because he had made them bury their friend outside the fence. So, he got up and moved the fence to include the dead soldier. In Christ, God has "moved the fence" to include the undeserving.
36. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
A few years ago someone came up with an ingenious acrostic for the bible. B.I.B.L.E. means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. I really like that. The Bible is our basic instruction book for life and relationships. Oh, I know, you can't turn to an index and get direct advice about how to deal with your straight A student who suddenly decides they want to pierce their eyebrows or dye their hair clown orange. Or a child who has decided that the only thing they can eat is a diet of quail eggs, coconut water, kiwi and tabouli. It doesn't give direct answers about what movies we should let our children see or what curfew we should set for what age.
But it DOES speak to us of a loving caring God. It isfilled with stories of loving caring parents. It doesshow by example what loving relationships should be like. It doestell us the ramifications of disobedience and disrespect. And it doestalk about grace, love, mercy, forgiveness, and about giving and sacrifice.
37. Strong Enough to Be Gentle
Illustration
According to Bill Farmer's newspaper column, J. Upton Dickson was a fun-loving fellow who said he was writing a book entitled Cower Power. He also founded a group of submissive people. It was called DOORMATS. That stands for "Dependent Organization of Really Meek And Timid Souls if there are no objections." Their motto was: "The meek shall inherit the earth if that's okay with everybody." They symbol was the yellow traffic light.
Mr. Dickson sounds like he'd be a lot of fun, doesn't he? What is disturbing about all of this, though, is that many people assume that the ridiculous ideas behind DOORMATS and Cower Power represent the quality of meekness set forth in Matthew 5:5. Many, even in the church, think that to be meek is to be weak. But the opposite is true. What the Bible is talking about is a powerful virtue. The slogan "strong enough to be gentle" comes close to defining it. True meekness is best seen in Christ. He was submissive, never resisting or disputing the will of God. His absolute trust in the Father enabled Him to show compassion, courage, and self-sacrifice even in the most hostile situation.
Now let's apply this to ourselves. When we are meek, we will bear insults without lashing out in proud resentment or retaliation. We'll thank God in every circumstance, while using every circumstance, good or bad, as an occasion to submit to Him. Meekness would be weakness if it meant yielding to sin. But because it stems from goodness and godliness, it is a great strength.
38. The Coming of Christ Was to Simple Folk!
Illustration
James Cox
I have an embarrassing confession to make. I realized only a few days ago what Luke is trying to do in this text. For years I had read it and made the unwarranted assumption that old Simeon was a priest. Anna is described as a prophetess so I assumed Simeon a priest -- good balance and symmetry. But something about the text kept nagging me. And then I realized what it was. Simeon was not a priest at all. He was a simple old man -- a layman -- an ordinary person. And Anna was not an official prophetess. She was merely a devout old woman who came to the temple a lot. Luke was only underlining a point he had begun to make by telling about the shepherds who were called from their fields and flocks to worship Christ: The coming of Christ was to simple folk! Luke, did you notice, doesn't even tell the story of the wise men; that's Matthew. Luke's whole concern, in the stories surrounding the birth of Jesus, is to emphasize one thing: Christianity is based on the faith of simple folk.
Come to think of it, that's what Luke’s whole Gospel is about. It's what the book of Acts is about. Luke wrote the book of Acts. It wasn't the priest and Pharisees who received the Kingdom of God, it was the laypeople, the untutored, the untrained, the unsophisticated. It was simple fishermen like James and John and Peter. It was unimportant public officials like Matthew. It was women like Mary and Martha and Mary Magdalene.
Christianity my friends, has never been a religion of Priest and theologians, minister's and teachers; from the very beginning it has been a religion of devout men and women with no claim whatsoever to professional expertise about their faith. This is important to remember.
God never intended the church to be an organization of ministers. What he did intend it to be is an organization of laypersons, all "righteous and devout" like old Simeon, all devoted to fasting and prayer like old Anna, and all ready, in simple faith, to receive his Kingdom and rejoice in it. Ministers, in Christianity, are expendable; good, simple folk are not!
39. I Must Go Myself
Illustration
Brett Blair
The story is told of John Henry Newman, who, in the 1800's, was an Anglican minister in England. His religious pilgrimage ultimately took him to Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. He ultimately would become a cardinal in the Catholic Church and the most preeminent leader of that church in Europe. If you go into almost any Catholic church today you will find a Sunday school class called the Newman class. That was named after John Henry Newman.
While serving as Cardinal, he received a message from an English priest from the tiny village of Brennan, a dirty little mill town north of Birmingham. It seems that an epidemic of cholera had decimated the village and the priest was asking for the help, for another priest to assist him in the giving of the sacrament, administering the Last Rites, and to do funerals, so many people were dying.
Newman read the letter in his office, an office that is still there today. It has not been changed since the day he left it. Newman read the letter and he spent the next hour in prayer. Finally a secretary came in and said: Cardinal Newman. We must give an immediate reply to Brennan. Your eminence, what shall we do? Newman answered: The people are suffering and dying. How can I send a priest to do this work? I must go myself.
At Advent God looked down upon his dying people dying from sin and distraction, pride and preoccupation. How, under the circumstance could he send a substitute? He came himself—in the person of Jesus Christ.
40. A Whole New Set of Values
Illustration
Scott Hoezee
Barbara Brown Taylor once said that if a man in the church loses his job, the pastor may well call this person to offer sympathy and prayer. But suppose that a pastor one day got wind of the fact that a certain member of his congregation had gotten a big promotion at work along with significantly more pay. And suppose the pastor then called this person and said, "Charlie, I've heard your news and so was wondering if it would be OK if I came by sometime to pray with you about this. I'm concerned about the temptations this new venture may throw your way as well as what it may do to your ability to serve here at church. So I'd like to pray for God's strength for you in the face of this new success."
Probably we'd be taken aback. But as Brown Taylor notes, that is only because we do cordon off parts of our lives from the total claims Jesus makes on us. We act as though we are our own after all and so why would the church have anything to say to us so long as life is chugging along smoothly? If we ask that, however, we reveal that we, too, quietly resist the same self-denying sacrifice that seems so offensive to some outside the church. It looks as though the only way you will ever see this self-denial as a source of comfort is if you die and are reborn. You need to kill off ordinary ways of defining value and bring to life a whole new set of values. The place to start is by admitting that without God, you are lost in sin's wilderness and unable to find your own way out. Once you know that, you are wide open to the call of the one who hopefully says, "Follow me."
41. Why Must We Carry a Cross? - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Canpeople change instantly at salvation?Some traditions call it repentance and renewal. Some call it Sanctification of the believer. Whatever you call it most traditions expect some quick fix to sin. According to this belief, when someone gives his or her life to Christ, there is an immediate, substantive, in-depth, miraculous change in habits, attitudes, and character. We go to church as if we are going to the grocery store: Powdered Christians. Just add water and disciples are born not made.
Unfortunately, there is no such powder and disciples of Jesus Christ are not instantly born. They are slowly raised through many trials, suffering, and temptations. A study has found that only 11 percent of churchgoing teenagers have a well-developed faith, rising to only 32 percent for churchgoing adults. Why? Because true life change only begins at salvation, takes more than just time, is about training, trying, suffering, and even dying (adapted from James Emery White, Rethinking the Church, Baker, 1997, p. 55-57).
Peter took Jesus aside and rebuked him. Why? Peter believes the kingdom of God can be obtained instantly by force. Peter has a worldly view of the Kingdom and Jesus is speaking about a heavenly kingdom. For a moment I would like you to listen to this story with new ears and see Jesus through the eyes of Peter and the rest of the disciples. Get rid of all your notions about who Jesus is. Take away from your mind Jesus as the Son of God. Strip from your memory that he died on the Cross and that he did that for your sins. Forget that Jesus ever said love your enemies or love your neighbor.
Now I want you to think of Jesus only as a military leader like Norman Swartscoff. Imagine that your country has been invaded and is being ruled by godless men. Sense, now, that the tension is mounting and you about to go into battle. That you are about to conduct a coup d'etat. That you and this band of ruffians are going to attempt to overthrow this government by a sudden violent strike. That the odds are stacked against you but you have a very strong belief that God is on your side despite the overwhelming odds.
Now you are thinking like Peter. Jesus comes before his disciples and lays out his military strategy. Look at verse 31. Jesus says, "We are going to march into Jerusalem and your General will suffer many things. We are not going to get any help from our Jewish brothers the Elders. Even the Chief Priest and the Saducees will not join us. Our government the Sanhedrin is corrupt and can be of no help to us. We are going it alone and I will die in this battle.
On this day Jesus spoke plainly to his disciples about the events soon to transpire and even though it was plain language it was not plain enough. Peter was not able to shake his understanding of Jesus as his General so he pulls Jesus aside and rebukes him. He says, "Sir, this is not a very good military strategy. You are not going to die, don't say that. It's not good for morale. We are going to be there with you and we will fight to the end and we will throw these godless Romans out of Israel, you will ascend to the throne in place of Herod, and we will be at your right and left hand as the new leaders of Palestine.
It is fascinating to note that just before Jesus rebukes Peter he turns and looks at his disciples. It is as if Jesus is putting two and two together and realizes the disciples have put Peter up to this. It is a perilous moment in the life of Christ. He must dispel this error from their minds and teach them the meaning of his mission. So, he rejects Peter outright calling him a tool of Satan and says, you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.
Jesus is up against a formidable foe. And in the end this foe may posses more power then he. But the foe is not Peter and it's not the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate, or Rome. This formidable foe is not even Satan himself. The powerful enemy of Jesus is our quest for positions of rank and status.
To address the confusion Jesus pulls his disciples together and brings them before a crowd. And in front of the crowd he corrects the disciples aspirations for privilege, rank, and power and he gives them this simple little directive: You must take up your cross and follow me. This morning I would like to ask the question "Why must we carry a cross?" and give three reasons we must do so. We must carry a cross to remind us that…
- We are not the center of the Universe.
- There are others who suffer and we must fight for justice in the lives of others.
- We are responsible in part for the cross that Jesus carried.
42. God Remembers and Reminds
Illustration
Thomas Long
In his book, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, Oliver Sacks tells the story of Jimmie, a former sailor, now a patient in a nursing home, whose severe neurological disorder had left him with a profound and permanent amnesia. He simply had no memory of anything from 1945 on. Having no ability to retrieve the past and no ability to construct a meaningful present, Jimmie lacked the continuity that makes for a sense of the self. He was, wrote Sacks, a person who "wore a look of infinite sadness and resignation."
However, when Sacks asked the Sisters who ran the nursing home whether Jimmie had lost his soul, the Sisters were outraged by the question. "Watch Jimmie in chapel," they said, "and judge for yourself."
So Sacks did watch Jimmie in chapel, and there he observed an astounding transformation. He saw an intensity and steadiness in Jimmie that he had not observed before. As he received the sacrament, there was "perfect alignment of his spirit with the spirit of the Mass." There in worship, Jimmie was no longer at the mercy of a faulty and fallible memory. "He was wholly held, absorbed ...." He whose mind was broken was given in worship, "a continuity and unity so seamless it could not permit any break."
Jimmie in his own way is like all of us. In the final analysis, none of us is able to construct a self. We must all be given a story and a continuity not of our own making. Where we have no faithful memory, God remembers, and by the grace of God, the Spirit whispers the lyrics of the saving gospel in our ears.
43. Rejoicing for the Found
Illustration
Brian Stoffregen
In Dr. R. AlanCulpepper'scommentary on Luke, he ends the first two parables in Luke 15 with the following observation:
In both parables, rejoicing calls for celebration, and the note of celebration may be exaggerated to emphasize the point. Neither sheep nor coins can repent, but the parable aims not at calling the "sinners" to repentance but at calling the "righteous" to join the celebration. Whether one will join the celebration is all-important because it reveals whether one's relationships are based on merit or mercy. Those who find God's mercy offensive cannot celebrate with the angels when a sinner repents. Thus they exclude themselves from God's grace.
I think that this is a very important question for churches today. More than one congregational member has not rejoiced over the influx of new members in the congregation. The non-rejoicing criticism seems especially prevalent when the "found" are somehow different from the mainstream members.
44. God Taking on Our Weakness
Illustration
Martin Luther
It is the nature of God that he makes something out of nothing. Consequently, if someone is not nothing, God can make nothing out of him. Men make something into something else. But this is vain and useless work. Thus God accepts no one except the abandoned, makes no one healthy except the sick, gives no one sight except the blind, brings no one to life except the dead, makes no one pious except sinners, makes no one wise except the foolish, and in short, has mercy upon no one except the wretched, and gives no one grace except those who have not grace. Consequently, no proud person can become holy, wise or righteous, become the material with which God works, or have God's work in him, but he remains in his own works and makes a fabricated, false and simulated saint out of himself, that is a hypocrite.
45. Persons of the Robe
Illustration
Stan Cosby
E. Stanley Jones once told a story about a custom of the people on the Island of Formosa hundreds of years ago to offer human sacrifices. A kindly emperor, however, by the name of Goho, changed all that. According to his law, only animals, not humans, were to be sacrificed. But there was a terrible drought and the crops failed altogether. Once again the people clamored for a human sacrifice. “Very well,” said Goho, “tomorrow morning at dawn go into the forest and find your victim for sacrifice. He will be tied to a tree and wearing a red robe. Strike him for he is your sacrifice.”
Early in the morning the men rose with their clubs and found things to be just as Goho said. There was the sacrifice tied to a tree and wearing a red robe. They rushed forward and slew him. When they pulled the robe and uncovered the face, they were horrified to see it was Goho, their own beloved emperor. By his death, Goho was able to do what his law could never do; change the hearts and minds of his people forever. Never again were human sacrifices offered. And on Formosa, the red robe became a symbol of a changed life. Men discarded their dingy robes and put on red ones as if to say, “I am Goho’s person.” They became known as persons of the robe.
That’s who we are friends. Persons of the robe.
46. Screwtape and Wormwood
Illustration
Carla Thompson Powell
C.S. Lewis, great author and interpreter of the Christian faith, wrote a fictional series of correspondence between two devils entitled The Screwtape Letters. Screwtape is an older, more experienced devil who writes to the younger, naive Wormwood. Wormwood's job is to thwart the faith of a new Christian, to turn a particular Christian believer away from his faith in God. To accomplish his mission, Wormwood tries to make the young Christian realize the absurdity of his new faith. The devil's apprentice works hard to woo his "patient" away from the Christian camp, pointing out illogical teachings and hypocrisy in the church.
Screwtape and Wormwood speak of some of the absurdities of the Christian faith, as a way to draw the believer away from his belief. Screwtape points out that the followers of Jesus "have all been plainly told by Him that suffering is an essential part of what he calls redemption". Screwtape and Wormwood see Jesus' experience and call to suffering as an Achilles' heel in even the most solid faith of a believer. In the Screwtape Letters, Jesus' suffering is one of those absurdities of faith that the devils try to exploit in their attempts to draw people away from Christ. And these two fictional devils aren't the only ones who see a suffering God as confusing and scandalous.
47. Still A Threat
Illustration
Lest we be too critical of Jerusalem, ask yourself this question: What city even today would not be shaken by Jesus' entry into it? Imagine Jesus entering New York, Belgrade, Washington, or even (add your city here). Oh, I'm sure we'd welcome him with our hosannas - at first, anyway. We'd line the streets and strike up the band and have a grand parade right down Main Street. But I'm equally sure that, by the end of the week, we'd have him nailed to a cross, too. Why? Because the Kingdom Jesus came to establish still threatens the kingdoms of this world -- your kingdom and mine -- the kingdoms where greed, power, and lust rule instead of grace, mercy, and peace. And who among us really wants to surrender our lives to that Kingdom and that King?
48. Nothing Can Separate Us from God’s Great Love
Illustration
John McCard
There dwells within all of us the capacity to do great harm to other people when we insist on getting our own way, when we place our own fulfillment first, and we desire the adoration and worship of other people.
I realize that many of us at different times in our lives fail to meet the expectations that Jesus has expressed as part of the Father's will in today's gospel. And because we fail at times to live out the vows that our lips might profess, this does not mean that God does not love us or that we are separated from the love that Christ gives us through the cross. This point must be made again and again for Christians because of our tendency to place God's law above God's grace and God's mercy. Let me say it one more time: There is nothing, nothing we can do in our lives or have done in our lives that can ever separate us from God's great love.
No, if anything, Jesus' words remind us that God wants our lives to be fulfilling and that our relationship as husbands and wives is part of the plan God has for us to share in a life of holiness and joy as part of God's creation.
49. Drawn Not by Wrath but by Love
Illustration
The author Ron Lee Dunn tells the story of two altar boys. One was born in 1892 in Eastern Europe. The other was born just three years later in a small town in Illinois. Though they lived very separate lives in very different parts of the world, these two altar boys had almost identical experiences. Each boy was given the opportunity to assist his parish priest in the service of communion. While handling the communion cup, they both accidentally spilled some of the wine on the carpet by the altar. There the similarity in their story ends. The priest in the Eastern European church, seeing the purple stain, slapped the altar boy across the face and shouted, "Clumsy oaf! Leave the altar." The little boy grew up to become an atheist and a communist. His name was Marshal Josip Tito - dictator of Yugoslavia for 37 years. The priest in the church in Illinois upon seeing the stain near the altar, knelt down beside the boy and looked him tenderly in the eyes and said, "It's alright son. You'll do better next time. You'll be a fine priest for God someday." That little boy grew up to become the much-loved Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.
There is the gospel! We are drawn, not by wrath and condemnation, but by love. God is love. God draws us by love. That's what Jesus meant when he said, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me."
50. Feeling the Suffering of Others
Illustration
David G. Rogne
Flannery O'Connor, the insightful Roman Catholic writer, lifted up the Christian dimension when she wrote: "You will have found Christ when you are concerned with other people's sufferings and not your own." The beginning of compassion involves becoming aware of the suffering of others.
But it is not enough simply to see the suffering of others, we need to feel it. It is possible to see suffering, but not to feel it. Dewitt Jones tells about a photographer who walked down the street one day and came upon a man who was choking. "What a picture," he thought. "This says it all: A man, alone, in need. What a message!" He fumbled for his camera and light meter until the poor fellow who was choking realized that help was not forthcoming. He grabbed the photographer's arm and gasped, "I'm turning blue!"
"That's all right," said the photographer, patting the fellow's hand, "I'm shooting color film." Just noticing suffering isn't enough.
Showing
1
to
50
of
471
results
- Vance-Walz spar over abortion, censorship, ‘historic immigration crisis' in VP debate
- Thousands of North Carolina residents look to local church for supplies, prayer: 'People are broken'
- Christian woman imprisoned in Iran without charges; family fears she'll be psychologically scarred for life
- Pastor’s widower curses killer to life without peace after he pleads guilty to her murder
- Trump declares 'God is strongly with us' as he visits hurricane-ravaged Georgia
- Bible study leader arrested on charges of sexually assaulting 7-year-old girl
- America won't be saved by a 'quick fix,' says fmr. presidential hopeful, Pastor Ryan Binkley
- 6 Israelis killed, at least 17 others wounded in terror shooting at Jaffa train station in Tel Aviv
- Study shows group most likely to identify as 'low-attending Evangelicals'
- Former megachurch Pastor Mike Baker moves growing congregation into new building
- Gen Z Evangelicals Want to Be Famous for Their Hobbies and Talents
- The Gettys’ Modern Hymn Movement Has Theological Pull
- The Bible Contains Discrepancies. That Doesn’t Make It Untrustworthy.
- ‘It’s Okay to Say We’re Born Again’
- The Evangelicalism of Jimmy Carter
- Who Is My Neighbor?
- Widespread Helene Misery Stretches Christian Relief Groups
- 25 Precepts for This (and Every) Election
- Fasting Is A Good Thing. But For Some of Us, It’s Complicated.
- Faith Lived Close to the Land
- Inside Kris Kristofferson's health struggles and emotional final performance
- Georgia Congregation Locked Out Of Building After Church Split
- Yemen: Statement by the Yemeni Armed Forces regarding the destruction of vital targets deep inside the Zionist entity in
- Tehran is drawing the sword, but trying not to draw blood
- Not The End Of Faith: Why The New Atheists Have Failed
- The Missiles Being Fired at Israel Got a Boost from the Obama-Biden Iran Nuclear Deal, Which Congressional Republicans Failed to Block
- The Three Judges of the Ancient Greek Underworld
- London broil with date syrup and pomegranate
- Archeologists discover 1,500 year-old ivory box linked to Moses and the Ten Commandments
- The Vance-Walz VP debate in 50 seconds
- This Rosh Hashanah is About Negating Evil So Life Can Triumph
- New Words of Prayer for a Year of No Words
- The Mirror Images of Birth and Death
- The Faith Backgrounds of VP Candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz
- Church Must Recognize, Ask Pardon for its Sins, Pope Says Before Synod
- From Management to Ministry?
- Christmas Starts in Venezuela, But Festive Mood Nowhere to be Found
- Pope Expels 10 Members of Peru Catholic Movement
- How Two Billionaire Preachers Remade Texas Politics
- Why the New Atheists Have Failed