8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. 11 He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."
13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." 15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
The Width and Depth of God’s Grace
Romans 6:3-5, 1 Peter 3:18-22
Sermon
by Nancy Kraft
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the number one wilderness boxing event of all time. In this corner, the self-avowed ruler of the world, known for his cunning and deception, the embodiment of all evil, Satan! And in this corner, the recently baptized carpenter turned preacher, God's own beloved Son, Jesus!
Every year we begin the season of Lent by hearing the story of how Jesus dukes it out with the devil. For each punch that the devil throws, Jesus returns with a counterpunch and it becomes clear that the devil has finally met his match. Of course, this isn't the whole fight. It's just round one. There's a lot more to come until finally Jesus confronts the power of evil on the cross. And if you think that was the end of it, there is at least one source in the scriptures that says the battle went on even after Jesus died.
For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you — not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him. — 1 Peter 3:18-22
Now, if you couldn't follow all that, you're not alone. This passage has been the center of controversy among Christians for hundreds of years. Over a dozen different theories have tried to explain what Peter means here, particularly when he refers to the dead Jesus making a proclamation to "spirits in prison." Many biblical scholars call this the most difficult passage to interpret in the entire New Testament. So I won't be so bold as to explain what it means today. But let me share some of the more popular possibilities and you can decide what makes the most sense to you.
Most biblical scholars will make a connection between the "proclamation to the spirits in prison" and the next chapter in Peter's letter where he talks about how "the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead" (4:6). For those who have ever wondered what Jesus was doing from the time when he died on the cross to the time when he rose from the tomb, here's an answer. He was spending time with all the other dead people, not just to visit, but to share the good news with them. This doctrine is one that the church has taught for a long time. The wording of the Apostles' Creed says, "He descended to the dead." If you've ever wondered where that idea originated, it came from 1 Peter.
Peter's letter was written in a time when Christians were convinced the end was rapidly approaching. Soon Jesus would be returning and it would all be over. That meant that time was running out; there wasn't going to be time to fulfill the Great Commission. There's no way every person in every corner of the earth was going to be reached with the gospel. So, what does that mean for those who never had the chance to hear? Peter's letter seems to say that, even after death, God is going to give them the opportunity that they might have missed.
It may also be that the spirits in prison Peter refers to in verse 19 have some connection to the people mentioned in the next verse, "those who in former times did not obey when God waited patiently in the days of Noah" (4:20). We all know that in the story of Noah and the ark there were some who were saved and some who weren't. The ark is a symbol of salvation; it rescued eight people. For Christians, Peter says the counterpart to the ark is baptism. It's through baptism that we're rescued.
We can see this in the baptismal liturgy where there is a re-enactment of the story of salvation. Baptismal imagery tells us that in the water we are joined with Christ in his death and resurrection, just as we hear it described in the book of Romans:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. — Romans 6:3-5
When we're baptized, we're being joined to Christ in his death and resurrection. There is even a very ancient part of the liturgy where we get in the ring beside Jesus and vow to duke it out with the devil when the person to be baptized is asked, "Do you renounce all the forces of evil, the devil, and all his empty promises?" Baptism is central to the life of a Christian, not because it is some magic ritual that changes us into different people, but because it joins us to Christ and his victory over sin, death, and the power of the devil. Christ's victory becomes our victory, too.
If we go back to the story about the ark, we know that there were a lot of people who didn't make it onto the ark. In fact, most of them didn't make it. Just as there are many people in the world who haven't been baptized or heard the saving proclamation of the gospel. Does God's grace only come to those who are in the ark? Does God's grace only come to the baptized, to those who are a part of the church?
Despite all the confusion about what this passage from 1 Peter might mean, there is one thing that it is clearly saying: We don't have the last word when it comes to God's grace. The last word belongs to Christ. There is no person who is beyond the scope of God's grace. Even death can't separate us from the love of God. There is no place you can go where God won't come after you, even if it means hunting you down after you die. I love how Psalm 139 says it:
Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast. — Psalm 139:7-10
We sing about the wideness of God's mercy, but we can't even begin to know how wide it is. We recall the words of Jesus when we bless the bread and wine of holy communion, which was shed for you and for all people for the forgiveness of sin, but we can't even begin to understand who the all are that Jesus includes in that promise.
The best we can do is to allow God's grace to transform our lives. And to trust that the God whose grace knows no limits in this life or even in the next life can be found even in us. Amen.
CSS Publishing Company, Inc., Sermons for Sundays in Lent and Easter: Genuine Hope, by Nancy Kraft
Overview: One final way to maintain a positive witness to outsiders is to live in harmony with other believers (3:8). Instead of seeking revenge, believers should respond with a blessing (3:9). In both speech and actions, we should refrain from evil and seek out opportunities to make peace and do good (3:10–11). God blesses this kind of godly response, but sets himself against those who promote evil (3:12).
Peter now encourages his readers to embrace suffering in the name of the Lord (3:13–4:19) by being prepared to respond properly, following the example of Jesus, living urgently in light of Christ’s return, and counting it a privilege to suffer. But, Peter doesn’t think it likely that these believers will suffer persecution as long as they continue to do good (3:13). Nevertheless, it coul…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. 11 He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."
13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." 15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
3:8–12 ·“Everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35): this is the principle underlying these verses, with which Peter summarizes the whole section. Christians treasure their fellowship with one another. When they are faced with persecution, their common joy in their Lord becomes all the more precious. But Peter wants to impress on them that their relationship with each other is not entirely inward-looking. People will notice what they say to each other about the injustices they suffer (3:9). Consequently, the Lord must be their model. The quotation from Psalm 34:12–16 in verses 10–12 contains the key word of this entire section: “Do good.” It also highlights the use of the tongue, just as the end of the last section did (2:9; see also 2:1): the way we speak will reveal the shape of our whole life.
3:13–22 · In this section Peter focuses more precisely on the subject of suffering. The last section laid down the basic principle of submission to the structures of this world. Peter now shows how suffering fits into that submission. Once again, this section begins and ends on the same note: doing good (a favorite theme of Peter’s) and suffering for God’s sake or for what is right. These verses are among the most difficult in the whole New Testament, because Peter refers to traditions and stories obviously familiar to his readers, but unfortunately not to us. Yet the overall message is clear. Peter tells us that if we are called to suffer for what is right, we must look to Jesus, who suffered for our sins and through that suffering has come to a place of supreme authority, raised over all the powers of evil that seem so overwhelming to the persecuted Asian Christians. Jesus suffered, though he was righteous, and if we will now set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts and follow in his footsteps, we can be delivered from the fear of our persecutors, confident that through suffering we will share his victory. In the meantime we must bear witness to our hope by both word and deed, remembering that our baptism was our pledge to God, to live with good consciences before him.Peter shares with Paul, and early Christians generally, the belief that authority and power in this world are earthly expressions of unseen fallen spiritual entities. Therefore, submission to secular authority as well as submission to all the constraints of earthly existence is a form of bondage to the powers of evil. Having told us to submit, Peter must touch on the spiritual implications of his teaching.
The “imprisoned spirits” (3:19) are not the souls of dead human beings but fallen angels (2Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). According to Jewish tradition (1Enoch 6–20), they deceived and corrupted the generation who lived before the flood, teaching them the arts of sin (see Gen. 6:1–4). As a result they were locked up in prison at the time of the flood, “to be held for judgment” (2Pet. 2:4). They were the counterparts of the angels, authorities, and powers (3:22) still active today. Jesus’s preaching to these spirits was not an offer of salvation but a proclamation of his victory—in fact, the announcement of the judgment hanging over them. The spiritual forces behind the greatest corruption the world has ever seen have received their final condemnation at Jesus’s hands! Having dealt with them, he finished his journey to heaven and took his place at God’s right hand, in full authority over the powers behind the suffering experienced by Peter’s readers. However much they may feel themselves to be victims, Christ is the victor!
The refusal of the angels to submit to their Creator was matched by the mockery of Noah’s contemporaries, who did not respond to God’s warning of impending judgment given by Noah’s preaching (cf. 2Pet. 2:5) and by the slow construction of the ark miles from the sea (3:20). The water in which they died was, paradoxically, the very medium of Noah’s salvation. In this respect the flood foreshadows Christian baptism, for that too pictures death but leads to life. When they were baptized, Peter’s readers pledged themselves to live for God and embraced the hope of resurrection through Jesus Christ. But in so doing they actually brought suffering upon themselves, just as Noah did by his obedience to God’s command to build an ark and to warn his generation. Yet in their suffering, symbolized by their baptismal “death,” they follow the path already trodden by their Savior on the way to glory. Peter thus seeks to minister to his suffering brethren in the deepest possible way: not by simply pointing them to compensation in the world to come, nor by painting vividly the judgment in store for their enemies, but by showing them that, precisely in their suffering, already pictured in the baptism that united them with Christ, they are sharing with their Lord in his victory over all the powers of evil in the universe.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
To All of You
3:8 Finally (not to end the letter but to complete this passage) there comes a general exhortation to the whole Christian community, married and unmarried alike. Peter commends a set of attitudes which together depict what relationships within the Christian fellowship should be.
Christian believers must live in harmony with one another, literally, “being of one mind” (a single word in the Greek). The term is intended to convey a unity of aim and purpose, a oneness in attitude. Idealistic? But this was the actuality at the very beginning of the Christian church, rejoicing in the glow of the early days of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost when “believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 4:32). On a purely practical level, unity among Christians was in any case highly necessary in the hostile environment in which they were living.
They must be sympathetic, sharing one another’s feeling. Believers’ hearts should go out to one another in love, during times of joy as well as sorrow (Rom. 12:15). The truly sympathetic attitude is the antithesis of selfishness.
They must love each other as brothers and sisters (1:22), for in truth they all belong to the one family of God in Christ. They are to treat one another (and both male and female are included under brothers) as having an equal standing in the sight of God—a notion that challenges the competitive nature of so much in the modern Western world. Such a sensitiveness to the feelings of other Christians will follow from a growing appreciation of belonging to the one body of believers (1 Cor. 12:26). Peter is simply relaying the teaching of Jesus that he heard in the Upper Room: “By this all … will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). The vertical relationship, God’s love for men and women in Christ, creates a horizontal relationship, the love between those who know themselves to be the objects of divine love (Cranfield, p. 76).
They must be compassionate, tenderhearted, caring deeply for one another—a powerful and rich term in the Greek for which there is no adequate English translation. All the emotions are involved.
They must be humble toward one another. The idea of humility as a desirable characteristic is promoted in the NT as a virtue of Christlike living (Gal. 5:23; Eph. 4:2; Phil. 2:3) and follows the teaching of Jesus himself (Matt. 11:29). To the Hellenistic world such a notion came as a startling novelty, for Greeks had always considered humility as a sign of weakness. Yet in truth, as the believer grows in the Christian life, there come constant reminders that an attitude of humility is entirely appropriate. Human abilities and wisdom all too often prove to be insufficient to cope with life’s ordinary experiences and relationships, let alone when the Christian is faced with the standard of perfection set by Jesus in both his teaching and example (Matt. 5:48; John 8:46). Peter will repeat the admonition to be humble later when he addresses young men in particular (5:5).
3:9 To treat others in such a charitable manner is not likely to prove impossibly difficult when a similar response is forthcoming, as it certainly should be within the Christian fellowship. But if it is not? Peter is no doubt thinking now of outsiders. Then the demand of Christ’s ethic for his followers is still to maintain a positive attitude, despite any adverse reaction. It would be a betrayal of the high moral standard expected by Jesus of those claiming to be his disciples if they repay evil with evil or insult with insult. Certainly evil and insults will come the believers’ way, for such will be part and parcel of the lot Christians are called upon to bear. It was not a new or unexpected turn of events for those seeking to live a godly life to attract undeserved suffering. The people of God have always been liable to face persecution; such is the malignant character of the spiritual world of evil opposed to God. But at the same time, those attuned to God’s mind on the subject have long admonished believers not to pursue the settlement of accounts: vengeance, when and where necessary, is the divine prerogative (Deut. 32:35). The believers’ sole task is to keep facing the light and to seek to reflect that light to others by their lives. They are to “get even” by blessing those who are antagonistic. In this they will be following both the example of their Master (2:23) and his teaching (Matt. 5:43–48), for by blessing we are to understand “seeking the highest good” of others, that is, by what we are and what we say advancing, not setting back, what God intends in his perfect plan for them.
Peter explains why believers are not to retaliate, but to bless. No doubt there are occasions when silence is the appropriate response, as in the example of Christ himself (2:23). But to bless involves speech, and there will be other circ*mstances in which the disciple should speak. Only a sensitiveness to the prompting of the Spirit as to the right reaction in any given situation will indicate which attitude to take.
To bless is one aspect of the Christian vocation: to this you were called. Jesus Christ looks to his followers to display his character in their lives, for this is the only opportunity non-believers have of glimpsing what he is like. But more than this, Peter tells his Christian readers to bless so that they themselves may inherit a blessing. The choice of term is significant: strictly speaking an inheritance is a gift, not something that can be earned or deserved.
3:10 Following his practice of supporting teaching with Scripture, Peter backs up his warning not to retaliate by citing a favorite psalm of his, and one which lends itself to the theme of the whole letter (see Additional Note on 2:3). The quotation, from Psalm 34:12–16 LXX, slightly modified for the purpose, is introduced simply by the conjunction For, without further indication of its source. Peter is not bothered about footnotes for scholars. The words he quotes carry their own authority.
When the psalmist addresses whoever would love life and see good days, he is in effect asking, “Who would like to live a long and happy life?” The apostle is more realistically not holding out the possibility of a trouble-free existence in this world. Peter uses the psalmist’s phrase to mean “Do you want to love life?” He is extending the OT words to include a spiritual sense, and he applies them not to quantity of life but to quality—to eternal life, the life worth having (v. 7), and to the ultimate full salvation in Christ which is to be revealed at the climax of history (1:5). All the same, the blessing which believers will inherit in the next life (v. 9) is not to exclude a foretaste for Christians in the here and now.
The psalmist’s words spell out the practical conditions involved. The heirs of blessing must keep the tongue from evil, avoid malicious and bitter words that disparage another person and are calculated to hurt. They are to keep their lips from deceitful speech: not to tell lies or be economical with the truth, for lies are calculated to deceive (2:1, 22). The tongue, for all its smallness in physical size (James 3:5), has always been recognized as a power for good, or more usually for ill, and needing to be kept under tight control (James 1:26). Words can achieve a temporary victory, but inflict lasting hurt, wrecking a relationship and spoiling a believer’s witness to Jesus Christ.
3:11 From referring to speech, Peter’s thought turns to actions, but the two aspects of words and deeds are not to be separated. Believers must turn from evil, and the Greek implies “not to lean toward” evil, not even to give it a passing thought as to whether some advantageous end might result from unworthy means. On the contrary, and positively, far from sitting back, content with supposedly nurturing their own souls quietly in a corner, Christians are to be actively engaged in God’s work: they are to do good. But the admonition equally covers both the Martha deeds of busy hands and the Mary devotion of hands together that, for example, leads to prayer for others: “To pray is to work.”
Again, there must be intense and persistent efforts to seek peace and pursue it. Personal relationships, of course, not politics, are primarily in view here. The phraseology is echoed by other NT writers (Rom. 14:19; 2 Tim. 2:22; Heb. 12:14), for the theme is plainly one close to the spirit of Jesus himself (Matt. 5:9), and indeed is the heart of his work of salvation in securing reconciliation between men and women and God. Peace in any sphere of life can never be taken for granted, but Christians must actively and persistently strive for it until it is achieved.
3:12 The psalm quotation goes on to reassure the loyal people of God who walk in his ways that the divine watchful care is unceasing. The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous is a colorful biblical way of describing God’s personal concern for his own, as is the companion phrase his ears are attentive to their prayer. The vivid metaphors may appear to couch divinity in physical terms, but such picture-language is used simply to bring home the intimacy of God’s relationship with his people, not to apply any human traits—and limitations—to the Lord.
In contrast to the righteous, those who follow the right ways of God, the psalmist speaks of those who do evil as having the might of a holy God ranged against them. The face of the Lord is an OT phrase to express a relationship of God to people, either his gracious turning toward them or his disappointed turning away from them, the latter implying his withdrawal of grace and a refusal to hear any prayer they may offer.
Peter stops short of completing the quotation by omitting the closing clause of Psalm 34:16, “to cut off the memory of them [those who do evil] from the earth.” The ultimate fate of those who continue to do evil is not Peter’s concern in this letter, and as a Christian he would not want to suggest that the grace of God cannot reach evildoers beyond a certain point. While earthly life remains, so does an opportunity for repentance and salvation, as the penitent thief bears witness (Luke 23:43).
Additional Notes
3:8 Live in harmony with one another is a single word in the Greek: hom*ophrones; the word occurs in the NT only here, although Paul touches on a similar notion in Rom. 15:5 and Phil. 2:2. Unity is, of course, one of the major themes of our Lord’s high priestly prayer (John 17:21). The wide application of Peter’s term is brought out in the various translations: “of one mind” (KJV); “have unity of spirit” (RSV); “agree among yourselves” (JB); “united” (REB); “one in your attitude to life” (Barclay); “like one big happy family” (LB). The theme of unity among Christians is stressed again and again in the NT, not as an optional luxury but as an essential characteristic of Christianity.
Be sympathetic (sympatheis; the only occurrence in the NT): lit. “suffer with,” i.e., share feelings; happier experiences are not excluded, for we are to rejoice with the joyful as well as to weep with the mournful (Rom. 12:15; 1 Cor. 12:26; Heb. 10:34).
Live as brothers (philadelphoi): Only here in the NT, although the similar term philadelphia occurs in 1:22.
Compassionate: The Greek eusplanchnoi (only elsewhere in the NT at Eph. 4:32) is derived from eu, well, and splanchna, the internal organs that were viewed as the seat of the emotions. As attempts at translation, “a tender heart” (RSV) and “kindly” (NEB) are passive, and “pitiful” (KJV) is condescending. The NIV’s compassionate is probably as near as English can get to a word so replete with feeling. The corresponding verb refers in the NT to the actions of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:33) and the Prodigal’s father (Luke 15:20). Usually it describes Jesus himself being moved with compassion (as in Mark 1:41, when he touches and heals the leper).
Be … humble (tapeinophrones): This is yet again a word that Peter alone uses in the NT.
Self-assertion is not always as profitable as it might promise. “A man that will walk abroad in a crowded street cannot choose but be often jostled; but he that contracts himself passes through more easily” (Leighton, vol. 1, p. 370).
3:9 The whole verse echoes the words of Jesus (Matt. 5:43–44; Luke 6:27–28; cf. Rom. 12:17; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Thess. 5:15).
Evil with evil: An adversary aware of the Jewish Scriptures would do well to recollect that “if a man pays back evil for good, evil will never leave his house” (Prov. 17:13; cf. Matt. 7:2).
Insult (loidoria; in the NT only here and in 1 Tim. 5:14: The corresponding verb loidorein in 2:23 referred to Jesus’ refusal to retaliate in kind.
Repay … with blessing: Christ’s admonition to pray for one’s enemies (Matt. 5:44) is echoed in Judaism, so it would not have sounded novel to Jewish converts at any rate. “If any man seeks to do evil to you, do well to him and pray for him, and you will be redeemed by the Lord from all evil” (T. Joseph 18:2). “The holy man is merciful to his reviler and holds his peace” (T. Benjamin 5.4). When Rabbi Meir (about A.D. 150) was accosted by highwaymen he at first prayed for their destruction. But his wife taught him better ways, to pray for their repentance, and the rabbi records that he did, for he saw that was always the right course to take (b. Ber. 10a).
Blessing (eulogountes) adversaries means seeking their highest spiritual good, defined by Jesus in terms of intercession, lifting them up to God to bring to pass in their lives what he sees is required (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28), a marked advance on the usual classical Greek sense of eulogein as merely “speaking well of.” In the present world order, temporal blessings, such as sun, rain, and crops, are bestowed upon all, irrespective of their attitude toward God (Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:17). Peter here has in mind spiritual blessings.
Called: The Christian’s call is a frequent theme in this letter (1:15; 2:9, 21; 3:9; 5:10).
Inherit: The Christian’s inheritance is preserved inviolate in heaven (1:4). See Turner, pp. 133–34.
3:10The extended quotation from Ps. 34:12–16 LXX is but the most obvious example of Peter’s appreciation of the aptness of this psalm for his message. Echoes of Ps. 34 abound in 1 Peter (see Introduction, p. 00) and in the liturgy of the early church, for it was recognized from the first as being particularly appropriate for a community of God’s people facing undeserved suffering. See Kelly, p. 87; Gene L. Green, “The Use of the Old Testament for Christian Ethics in 1 Peter,” TynB 41 (2, 1990), pp. 278–82.
Whoever would love life: The Greek verb agapan, besides its usual meaning of “to love,” can also be translated “to choose, strive after, prefer” (Kelly, p. 138).
Tongue: The influence of words for good or ill is frequently mentioned in this letter: 1:10, 12, 25; 2:1, 9, 12, 15, 22, 23; 3:1, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19; 4:4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16; 5:1.
Evil (kakon): What is morally base or mean.
Deceitful speech (dolon, guile): No deceit was found in Christ’s mouth (2:22), and he is the believers’ example.
3:11 The admonition do good, or its equivalent, comes surprisingly often in this letter, apparently as an echo of Ps. 34 (1:15; 2:12–15, 20, 24; 3:6, 9, 11, 13, 17; 4:2, 17, 19). The Greek implies “carry out what is good in action.”
Seek peace and pursue it: a thought repeated in Rom. 12:18; 14:19; Heb. 12:14. The command is adapted in 2 Clement 10:2 to run: “If we are zealous to do good, peace will pursue us.”
Commenting on Ps. 34:14, the rabbis declared: “The Torah did not insist that we should actually go in pursuit of the commandment but said, ‘If you meet … (Exod. 23:4); if you see … (Exod. 23:5); when you beat … (Deut. 24:20); when you gather … (Deut. 24:21); when you come … (Deut. 23:25).’ In all these cases, if they come your way, you are commanded to perform the duties connected with them. But you need not go in pursuit of them. In the case of peace, however, seek peace (wherever you happen to be) and pursue it (if it is elsewhere)” (Midrash Rabbah 19.2 on Num. 21:21).
3:12 The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, not simply to see what they are up to! The implication is “for their good.” Cf. Ps. 1:1–6.
The face of the Lord: In biblical terms, to seek the face of God is to draw near to him in prayer. See NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 585–87.
Do Good, Even If You Suffer for It
3:13 Who among the perpetrators of evil are able to harm believers, provided they for their part are eager to do good, concentrating on doing God’s righteous will? The rhetorical question expects the answer “Nobody!” This is not to deny the possibility that persecution, difficulty, and suffering will be encountered by the people of God, and Peter has already recognized this (1:6). The apostle does not view the situation solely in terms of the immediate present, but he considers the position of faithful believers in relation to eternity. No temporal suffering can do them permanent harm or alter their standing with God (2:20–21), for spiritual life is on a different plane from the physical. Neither can it affect the believers’ inheritance, safely out of harm’s way in heaven (1:4).
The believers’ eagerness to do good is a matter of obedience to God’s will. Their benevolent activities should by rights have the support of the civil authorities (2:14). But there is certainly no guarantee that the world will view what they do in the same favorable light. In fact, their very moral goodness will provoke antagonism. The scene on Calvary illustrates the point. The world seeks to eliminate both those who fall below average behavior (criminals) and any who exhibit an uncomfortably higher standard (saviors). The fact of their “doing good,” plain for all to see, may rob opponents of any real reason for their attacks, but it will not prevent their trumping up some other excuse, as was the case with Jesus himself (Acts 10:38).
3:14–15a But even if believers, like their Master, should suffer in spite of their right conduct, then there is still a spiritual plus which adversaries cannot filch from them: they are blessed. The term is that used at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:3–11). The Beatitudes listed there spell out an ethical standard far beyond the unaided capabilities of any human being. In every case divine grace is essential for any believer even to approach such moral demands. Similarly, in times of persecution and suffering, Christians are to keep in mind that they are not left to their own devices—so often inadequate in a testing situation. At all times and in all circ*mstances they have available the powers of an understanding God, always at their side sharing his people’s lot. As believers draw on those divine reserves, they find as an unexpected bonus that they are being spiritually blessed: they are learning to grow in grace and in the knowledge of their Lord (2 Pet. 3:18). For this reason, there is no need for them to be afraid.
Once again, Peter supports his words with a quotation from the OT. Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX reads: “Do not fear what they fear, neither be frightened. Set apart [as holy; the Greek word means to sanctify] the Lord himself and he shall be your fear.” Isaiah’s words, spoken in the context of a threatened Assyrian invasion, were to encourage Judah. A parallel situation in the spiritual realm was being faced by Peter’s readers in the form of persecution. Initially it was probably local in character, but it may have started to become Roman government policy. Caesar brooked no rival king. By adding the words in your hearts, Peter could well be pointing out that individual personal devotion to Christ is the believer’s source of strength whenever it proves impossible to meet with others in worship—and not only, of course, in times of persecution.
In quoting the passage from Isaiah, Peter is doing more than simply claiming the OT promise on behalf of the early Christian community as it faced antagonism in its own day, like Judah of old. He is also, though quite incidentally, claiming divine honor for Jesus Christ with his use of the term Lord.
Do not fear what they fear. While Christians are not exempt from troubles, neither are they the only ones who face them. But there is a great difference: believers are aware that there are divine resources available to faith. So, unlike nonbelievers, they have no need to be afraid. Nor are they to be frightened—the word means to be greatly disturbed in spirit (“stormtossed”). Their spirit is the very place where they are to maintain the divine peace, for it is that which will carry them through. And how is that peace achieved? The way to counter fear is to displace it with a greater power. The believer is to submit wholeheartedly to the lordship of Christ and let him be the garrison of the heart (Phil. 4:7).
3:15b The calm poise of a Christian in the midst of an onslaught may well be baffling to nonbelievers, whose own natural reaction in a similar situation would be very different. What is the secret of an unruffled heart? That question will come sooner or later, and fear of opening the mouth is not to keep the Christian silent. Always be prepared to give an answer. But Peter probably has in mind being ready to respond to accusations of alleged wrongdoing, for the Greek word translated answer is apologia, meaning a defense. It would be the term familiar in a court of law (Acts 22:1), but Peter’s use here of the general expression “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone” suggests he means accusations from any quarter, official or otherwise. In either case, whether being challenged about the secret of peace of mind or being accused of evil practices, Christians must be ready to give the reason for their hope in the living God (1:21). Believers are not called upon to respond by preaching to their interrogators. They are expected to be able to say what Christ means to them. They are to answer with gentleness and respect. A quiet dignity is far more effective than any amount of argument or belligerence. The subject itself, faith in God, also demands respect, i.e., reverence. The Greek word is phobos, often translated “fear.” Fear of God is meant here, for Peter still has in mind the quotation from Isaiah 8:13, “He [God] shall be your fear.”
3:16 Christian lips must be corroborated by Christian lives. When believers are challenged, what they answer in words has to be supported by character. Hypocrisy is soon exposed for what it is. Their day-to-day conduct as professing followers of Christ must be such that they can face any false accusation with a clear conscience. Provided they are right with God and obedient to his promptings, then those who engage in scurrilous charges must sooner or later come to realize that such indictments are groundless. Truth will prevail. It may be that as a consequence the slanderers will become ashamed in the here and now, even if they are reluctant to own up to it. But certainly such people will be put to shame when they face the day of God’s perfect judgment.
3:17 For the present, the reaction of persecutors may not be so much a feeling of shame as of being incensed. If believers still have to suffer undeservedly for their Christian stand, it is better, if God should allow events to take their course just now, to put up with the injustice (2:20).
Such patient endurance is better because, being so unexpected to unbelievers and so unnatural in their view, it constitutes a convincing witness to the power of the gospel to transform and empower human lives. That indeed may be one reason why God trusts his believing servants to bear undeserved suffering: it has the value in God’s sight of issuing in good for his wider purposes (2 Cor. 1:4; 4:17).
But better has a more profound significance. All through his letter, and not least at this point, Peter is keeping in mind what is important beyond the present age. The Christian should be cherishing the longer prospect and remembering that God’s verdict on the day of final judgment is what matters.
The supreme exemplar of creative suffering is, of course, Jesus Christ himself, and Peter now turns to this aspect of the theme, for here is the sure foundation of the believer’s confidence in the ultimate triumph of good over evil.
Additional Notes
3:13 Undeserved suffering by believers, touched on earlier (1:6; 2:19), is addressed more fully both now and later (4:12–19).
Harm is the verbal form of “evil” in v. 12. The word is used in Acts 12:1 of Herod’s intention to persecute the church.
Eager (lit. zealous) to do good: cf. Titus 2:14.
3:14 Blessed (makarioi): This same word occurs in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:10); the term describes a benefit bestowed by a superior on another, but in the Bible always with the spiritual dimension prominent: a gift of the divine favor to human beings. The blessing may not necessarily extend to pleasant feelings at the time!
Do not fear what they fear is lit. “do not fear the fear of them,” i.e., the fear that they [people in general] have when faced with similar troubles, for unbelievers lack an appreciation of divine resources available to a trusting soul. Peter’s quotation, based on Isa. 8:12–13, extends to the next verse (3:15).
Isaiah 8 was a favorite passage among the early Christians, since they found so many allusions there to Jesus the Messiah. Verses from it are quoted in Matt. 1:23 (Isa. 8:8, 10); Luke 2:34; Rom. 9:32; 1 Pet. 2:8 (Isa. 8:14); Rom. 2:9 (Isa. 8:22); Heb. 2:13 (Isa. 8:17; 8:18); 1 Pet. 3:14–15 (Isa. 8:12–13); Rev. 16:10 (Isa. 8:22). See Dodd, According to the Scriptures, pp. 78–79.
Do not be frightened recalls John 14:1 and 14:27, where the same Greek verb (“stormtossed”) is used.
3:15 Be prepared: The notion of readiness occurs twice more in 1 Peter, of “salvation ready to be revealed” (1:5) and of Christ standing “ready to judge the living and the dead” (4:5).
Always be prepared to give an answer: “Rabbi Eleazar said, ‘Be eager to study the Torah, and know what answer you should give to the Epicurean [heretic]. And know before whom you toil and who is your employer [God] who will pay you the reward of your labor’” (m. Aboth 2.14). Eleazar’s enthusiasm for studying the Mosaic law may have been prompted by an experience he had. After the death of the great spiritual teacher Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai (late 1st cent. A.D.), he left the company of his fellow students and went to live in Emmaus because it was a pleasant resort. In a short time he realized he was forgetting much of his learning.
A sure and certain hope (1:3) is what distinguishes Christians, for unbelievers have none (Eph. 2:12).
Gentleness is a fundamental Christian virtue, frequently mentioned in the NT (1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 10:1; Gal. 5:23; 6:1; Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:2; James 1:21; 3:13).
With gentleness and respect: A similar notion is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls: “teaching understanding to them that murmur that they may answer meekly before the haughty in spirit and humbly before men of injustice” (1QS 11.1).
The two qualities go closely together. Grammatically Peter’s expression may be a hendiadys for “respectful gentleness.” See Additional Note on 2:25.
3:16 To maintain a clear conscience, vital to Christian living, is frequently stressed in the NT (Acts 23:1; 24:16; 1 Cor. 4:4; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 13:18). The subject occurs again in 2:19 and 3:21.
Speak maliciously against your good behavior echoes 2:12. The Greek is literally “in the matter in which you are spoken against,” i.e., the insults, threats, and abuse are specifically on account of their Christian life and witness.
The Christian’s behavior (anastrophē) is a main theme of this letter (1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16; the corresponding verb occurs in 1:17).
In Christ, frequent in Paul’s writings, occurs in 1 Peter here and in 5:10, 14.
Christ’s Saving Work
3:18a No person was less deserving of suffering than Jesus Christ, who went about doing so much good (Acts 2:22; 10:38). Even the belief popular in that day, and not unknown in modern times, that suffering must be due to sin (John 9:2), did not apply to him, for his sharpest adversaries could pin nothing on him on that score (John 8:46). In the end, it was a trumped-up charge by frustrated foes that secured his illegal execution (Acts 2:23). Yet God allowed him to die, the righteous one for the unrighteous many, for the divine purpose embraced the whole world (John 3:16).
Christ died for sins, that is, as a perfect sin-offering for the sins of others; he himself was sinless (1:19; 2:22). In the OT, sin-offerings were made repeatedly. But Christ’s sacrifice of himself was of a different order. His death was once for all. He died only the once (Rom. 6:10), and that death is effective for all time, so that no further sacrifices for sins will ever again be needed (Heb. 9:26).
Winning people for God has been Peter’s theme in this chapter. He has shown wives how to bring their husbands to faith in Christ (3:1). Malicious opponents are to be disarmed and reached for Christ by a spirit of gentleness and respect (3:15). It was with the same motive that Christ himself died: to bring you to God, for apart from his sacrifice Peter’s readers would be without hope and without God (1:3, 21). On behalf of all believers, Christ opened up direct access to God (Eph. 2:18), and by taking away their sins he established their right relationship with God.
3:18b Verses 3:18b–4:6 form one of the most obscure and difficult passages in the NT. This is not least because much of the background and many of the allusions, to say nothing of what are to us strange notions in the popular religious literature of the intertestamental period, all no doubt clear enough to the first readers, are largely lost to later minds.
Every portion of Scripture must be viewed in its context. What has led up to 3:18–4:6 concerns the encouragement of Christians facing potential or actual persecution, and possibly even martyrdom. The preceding verses (3:13–17) have exhorted the readers to maintain their loyalty to Christ, both in keeping to his standards of behavior toward others and in holding firm to their faith toward God. (This stress on loyalty will be resumed in 4:1–6.) Verse 3:18b sounds the triumphant note of Christ’s victory over suffering and death. This sets the scene for verses 19–22, which describe the extent of that triumph.
While it is true that Christ was put to death in the body, that is, physically killed at the instigation of sinful men, it is also gloriously true that he was made alive by the Spirit (Rom. 8:11), raised from the dead by the power of God. Christ was no longer constrained by his human frame (Luke 12:50 RSV), or by the realization that he must experience death to complete his saving work on earth. Now death in the body has been conquered and Jesus is liberated to work freely in the spiritual realm.
3:19 The shortness of this verse belies the number of problems it contains. Martin Luther, no less, cheerfully commented that this was “a more obscure passage perhaps than any other in the New Testament, so I do not know for a certainty just what Peter means.”
The statement that through whom also he (Jesus) went and preached to the spirits in prison prompts a series of questions.
1. What does through whom mean?
2. What does also signify?
3. When did Jesus go and preach?
4. What did he preach, salvation or judgment?
5. Who are the spirits in prison?
6. Where was their prison?
First, what does through whom (en hō) mean? The Greek phrase can be translated through whom (i.e., through the Holy Spirit, as NIV), “in which [spiritual state],” or even “when” (i.e., on which occasion, as in 1:6; 2:12; 3:16; 4:4). The preceding words, literally “made alive by (or in) spirit,” suggest that what Peter is saying is that after going through the experience of death, Jesus was liberated to act in the spiritual realm, free from the restriction of his earthly body. The encouragement this interpretation would give to Peter’s readers is that the risen exalted Christ, who is with them and in them, sharing their day-to-day experiences, is mighty to save, fully able to deal with any situation they may have to face, spiritually or morally as individuals, or politically or economically as members of the society in which they live.
Second, what is the significance of the also (through whom also he went and preached)? The meaning seems to be that, in addition to knowing liberation from physical restrictions after his death, Jesus also, in this new spiritual liberty, went off and did something—which Peter goes on to define as preaching to certain beings who were themselves in a spiritual, not a physical, form.
Third, when did Jesus go and preach? There are at least three possibilities. It could have been at some time before his human birth at Bethlehem; i.e., it was the preexistent Christ who did the preaching (1:11). But this answer seems to be ruled out by the context, which is the suffering of Christ during his earthly ministry. Or it could have been in the hours between his death (mentioned in v. 18) and his resurrection (mentioned in v. 21). This assumes that “made alive by the Spirit” refers not to resurrection but to an earlier state. Yet another suggestion is that this preaching took place during or after his ascension.
Fourth, what did Jesus preach on this occasion? Was it an offer of salvation or the announcement of condemnation? If the meaning is that he proclaimed judgment, Jesus was declaring that the power of evil had been finally broken, and that those who had exercised its power faced certain and total ruin. Such an interpretation would greatly increase the confidence of Peter’s readers to believe in their ultimate triumph by sharing in Christ’s victory, however testing their present or anticipated situation.
The alternative view that Jesus preached salvation is supported by the fact that, although the Greek verb kēryssein used here is a neutral term for any public pronouncement, in the NT it is almost always used in the sense of proclaiming the saving good news of the gospel. Again, if this is Peter’s meaning, his readers would find encouragement to believe that despite the apparent intransigence of adversaries, it was still possible to win them to Christ. The best way to overcome an enemy is, after all, to make that person an ally.
Fifth, who are the imprisoned spirits? There are three main possibilities. The long ago may indicate that Peter is referring to the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1–4, linking up with the disobedience to God mentioned in verse 20. This would be in line with highly popular traditions in Jewish literature prolific in the period between the OT and the NT. These disobedient angels were also considered to be representative of heathen rulers. Christ’s preaching to them would encourage Christians to follow his example by proclaiming the gospel to the pagan rulers of their own day, when they were summoned before them to answer charges.
Alternatively, the imprisoned spirits may be the godless people who perished in the Flood, the long ago in this case meaning “in Noah’s day.” That generation was branded in Judaism as the worst of sinners, who could never be saved. “The generation of the Flood have no share in the world to come, now shall they stand in the judgment” (m. Sanh. 10.3). That Christ preached even to them indicates that the gospel is capable of saving the worst of sinners—assuming that preached here refers to salvation rather than to the proclamation of condemnation.
Some have suggested that the imprisoned spirits are OT believers, that is, those who, although men and women of faith, under the old dispensation were confined to what was called “Sheol” in Hebrew and “Hades” in Greek, the abode of the dead. The reference to “disobedience” in verse 20 appears to rule out this possibility, and to restrict the preaching to the wicked. Yet 4:6 makes it clear that the gospel brought not only judgment to the dead but new life in God. The whole passage 3:18–4:6 is a unity, as its chiastic literary form indicates (see Additional Notes), and 4:6 implies that the total mission of Christ included the OT dead. The reference to “the spirits in prison” therefore is not restricted to the wicked dead but includes all who under the OT dispensation were confined to Sheol/Hades, the place of the dead, until Christ’s own triumph over death. This was the line taken, for example, by Tertullian (On the Soul 55).
Sixth, where was the spirits’ prison? In the ancient world this was considered to be in the lower regions of the earth, “Sheol”/“Hades.” This place of the dead, often described as a prison house (Rev. 18:2; 20:1–7), applied both to human beings and to fallen angels, the latter in particular being confined to an intense darkness (2 Pet. 2:17; Jude 6; 1 Enoch 10:4–5; cf. Rev. 20:3) somewhere in the depths of the earth (Jub. 5:6).
3:20 The spirits singled out for Christ’s preaching, specified as those who disobeyed long ago in the days of Noah, are the angels whose fall is narrated in Genesis 6:1–4. The patient endurance of God (Gen. 6:3) is frequently mentioned in biblical and other Jewish writings, but it is a divine restraint that offers a limited opportunity for repentance before eventual and certain punishment falls.
The Flood in the days of Noah is frequently mentioned as an example of divine judgment, even if God will not use that particular method again (Isa. 54:9). But the incident serves to indicate the relative paucity of godly people compared with the vast majority of unbelievers, a point which Peter’s readers would readily appreciate. The reference to the building of the ark against the Flood will also introduce the subject of water, and thus of Christian baptism (v. 21).
3:21 Just as Noah was saved from the hostility of the godless, and water was involved in his deliverance, so Christian believers should appreciate that they too are saved from evil through water—the water of baptism. Their new status as forgiven servants of the living God should make them confident to stand before godless opponents without fear. That confidence is based not on some outward ritual washing, which could at best only remove dirt from the skin, but on a good conscience toward God. The significance of baptism is that it is the public acknowledgment of an inward spiritual purity brought about in the individual by the work of God in Christ. The pledge made by believers in their baptism to serve God and so maintain that good conscience is their expression of faith that through accepting the work of Jesus on the cross they have been forgiven and made right with God; they have a clear conscience before him. But to avoid any possible misunderstanding, Peter makes it clear that the effective power of Christian baptism is due not to any ceremony but to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That event set the seal on his triumph over death and evil. It is the foundation of all Christian life.
3:22 The resurrection was followed by Christ’s triumphant return to heaven. There he was accorded the supreme place of honor at God’s right hand. The metaphor, a quotation from Psalm 110:1, expresses the Father’s bestowal of the highest dignity and power upon his Son. In this position Christ now rules with God over angels, authorities and powers, an omnibus expression to include all spiritual agencies. Peter is thus further emphasizing the supreme and all-sufficient lordship of Jesus Christ that will aid his followers in whatever testing situation they may find themselves as they live for God.
Additional Notes
3:18 For sins is a phrase commonly used in the OT for the sin-offering (Lev. 5:7; 6:30; Ezek. 43:21).
The righteous: The Righteous (or Just) One was a well-known messianic title (e.g., Wisd. of Sol. 2:18; 1 Enoch 38:2). In the NT it was applied to Jesus: Acts 3:14 (by Peter); 7:52 (by Stephen); 22:14 (by Paul).
The unrighteous: The Greek term (adikos) basically concerns law rather than ethics; here it has the sense of “those who break God’s law.”
Bring you (prosagein) to God: The verb, found in the NT only here, is used of having the right of access to a tribunal or a royal court. In the Greek OT (LXX) it describes the act of offering sacrifices to God (Exod. 29:10) or of consecrating people to God’s service (Exod. 40:12). The Greek verb corresponds to the Hebrew hiqrîḇ, the technical term for “to proselytize,” i.e., to make a member of the chosen people one who was not so by natural birth. In rabbinic terminology such converts were also styled “newborn children” (cf. 2:2).
The balanced phrases put to death … made alive may echo a piece of an early Christian hymn, for something similar occurs in Rom. 1:3–4 and 1 Tim. 3:16.
The phrases in the body … by the Spirit translate two Greek datives of identical form, which one would expect to be reflected in an identical English translation. The Greek can be rendered “as far as the physical body was concerned” … “as far as the spirit [of Jesus] was concerned.”
3:19 For much more detailed discussion of this problematic verse, see Selwyn, pp. 314–62; R. T. France, “Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples,” in Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation, pp. 264–78; on the whole passage, see Grudem, pp. 203–39; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation; Reicke, Disobedient Spirits.
Went: The preexistence of Christ is referred to in 1:11, and elsewhere in the NT it is mentioned in John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5, 24; Phil. 2:6–7. That Christ was active in some way between his death and resurrection is hinted at in Matt. 12:40; Acts 2:25–27 (one of Peter’s addresses); 13:35; Rom. 10:7; Eph. 4:9; Rev. 1:18.
Christ’s descent into Sheol/Hades, inferred from Ps. 16:8–11, also appears in Acts 2:27, 31; 13:35; Rom. 10:6–8; Eph. 4:8–10. The misleading statement about Christ’s descending into “Hell” (the place of punishment; Sheol/Hades is meant, the “neutral” place of departed spirits) was not included in the Apostles’ Creed until the sixth century. It was inserted to stress the real humanity of Jesus Christ, against those who taught that he only appeared to suffer and to die.
Preached: The fact of the dead hearing the gospel is alluded to in John 5:25; Phil. 2:10; cf. Eph. 4:9.
Some scholars speculate that the original MS of 1 Peter mentioned Enoch as the preacher. The suggestion was first put forward in Bowyer’s Greek Testament in the 1772 edition and supported the next year by the apparently providential discovery of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. In 1 Enoch 12–14 we read of Enoch’s mission to preach to the fallen angels of Gen. 6:1–4, who were disobedient in Noah’s day. (Enoch is specified in this connection in Jude 14.) The basis of the proposal was that the original MS could have read “in which also Enoch …” The Greek for “in which also” (en hō kai) is almost the same as for the name Enoch, and the latter could easily have been accidentally omitted by a later copyist. The Greek text of the time had no spaces between words, so a slip of the eye was entirely feasible. But there is no surviving MS evidence of the proposed emendation. However attractive the suggestion, it seems unlikely to be correct, since it would make the passage more unintelligible, not less (as an emendation should). The sudden and unexplained intrusion of Enoch would in any case interrupt Peter’s argument, for Christ is the subject both of v. 18 and v. 22.
Spirits in prison: According to the book of Enoch, popular in Peter’s day, these spirits were patrons of powerful kings of the earth and as such promoted heathenism. Their punishment in the Flood was considered the prototype of the coming judgment of all heathen rulers who oppressed the people of God. “This judgment wherewith the [imprisoned] angels are judged is a testimony for the kings and mighty ones who possess the earth” (1 Enoch 67:12). The tradition, based on Gen. 6:1–4, of angelic disobedience was firmly established in Jewish thought (1 Enoch 6:1–8; 12:1–16:4; 19:1; 2 Baruch 56:12) and was placed just before the Flood (1 Enoch 10:2). The tradition is clearly alluded to in 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6.
The place of the dead (Sheol/Hades) is referred to in Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13).
The whole passage 3:18–4:6 is a literary unity (chiasmus), with 3:18–20 inversely paralleled by 3:21–4:6. Note, for example, the following:
3:18 dead in body … alive in spirit
3:19 went … spirits
3:20 saved … water
3:21 saved … water
3:22 went … spirits
4:6 dead in body … alive in spirit
See S. E. Johnson, “The Preaching to the Dead,” JBL 79 (1960), pp. 48–51.
3:20 God waited patiently: The divine longsuffering prior to eventual judgment is a common theme (Isa. 48:9; 1 Enoch 60:5; Pirqe Aboth 5.2; Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).
The events of the days of Noah are often quoted as offering spiritual lessons (Isa. 54:9; Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:26; Heb. 11:7; 2 Pet. 2:5).
While eight undoubtedly stresses how few were saved in the deluge, the numeral itself was already significant in Judaism and was taken up by the early church. Circumcision was to be on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12; Luke 2:21); Noah himself was the eighth person saved (2 Pet. 2:5, KJV and Greek); David was the eighth son of Jesse (1 Sam. 16:10–11); a healed leper was declared “clean” on the eighth day (Lev. 14:10); the Feast of Tabernacles climaxed on the eighth day (Lev. 23:36; John 7:37); the Lord’s Day early became known as the Eighth Day (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 138.1). In every example there is an association with the notion of a new beginning.
Through water (di’ hydatos): The Greek preposition dia can be taken as local or instrumental, meaning that he was saved from the peril of water, or by means of [floating on] the water in the ark. The distinction is unimportant. Either way, Noah was saved from godless opponents and water was involved.
3:21 Symbolizes translates a Greek noun, antitypon, a type or figure fulfilled in the life and work of Christ. See Turner, pp. 168–73, 363.
Pledge: The Greek eperōtēma occurs in the NT only here. Strictly speaking the word means “question,” but this is hardly appropriate in a baptismal context. The candidate for baptism would be expected to answer, not ask. The response to a question is probably what is meant, hence many modern translators agree with the NIV rendering. See Turner, pp. 342–44.
3:22 Gone into heaven: The ascension of Christ is also mentioned in the longer ending of Mark [16:19]; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; Eph. 4:8; Heb. 4:14; 9:24.
At God’s right hand alludes to Ps. 110:1, the most quoted OT passage in the NT (Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; [16:19]; Luke 20:42; 22:69; Acts 2:34; 5:31; 7:55; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). See Dodd, According to the Scriptures, pp. 34–35; 120–21.
Jews, in common with most Eastern peoples, were careful to distinguish between the right and left hands. The right hand is used exclusively for blessing, salutation, giving (Ps. 16:11; Prov. 3:16), eating, and for receiving and showing honor. See Derrett, Law in the New Testament, pp. xlv–xlvi.
Angels, authorities and powers may be taken as the literary figure of hendiadys and mean “angels, authoritative and powerful as they are,” which would avoid our having to puzzle over the identity of “authorities” and “powers” in heavenly places. For hendiadys, see Additional Note on 2:25.
In submission to him probably alludes to Ps. 8:4–6. Christians understood this to indicate that Christ in his incarnation as Son of Man was temporarily reduced to a status inferior to that of angels, only to be raised to sovereign authority over all beings, including angels, following his death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 2:6–8).
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Norman Hillyer, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all the inhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark” (Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14 16). Apart from the Genesis flood narrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Bible where this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coating of pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people from drowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht), but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder, sail, or any navigational aid. The NT refers to Noah’s construction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1Pet. 3:20) and his entering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).
The initiatory ritual of Christianity. This rite is of great significance in connecting the individual both to Christ and to the greater community of believers. Baptism carries an equal measure of symbolism and tradition, evoking a connection between OT covenantal circumcision and ritual cleansing and NT regeneration and redemption.
The immediate precursor of Christian baptism was the baptism of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4 pars.), a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, preparing the hearts of the people for the coming Messiah. But when Jesus himself was baptized by John to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to allow Jesus to identify with sinful humanity, he became the firstfruits of the new covenant. John emphasized that his baptism with water was inferior to the baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire” that Jesus would bring (Matt. 3:11). Jesus’ disciples continued John’s baptism during his earthly ministry (John 4:12).
Baptism was immediately important in the early church. Jesus commanded the disciples to “make disciples..., baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). The disciples replaced Judas from among those “who have been with us the whole time ... from John’s baptism” (Acts 1:21–22). Peter’s first sermon proclaims, “Repent and be baptized” (2:38). The apostles baptized new believers in Christ immediately (8:12–13, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).
For the apostle Paul, baptism represents a participation in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3–4); “In him you were ... buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).
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.
An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:12; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).
Deceitful cunning, usually employed in taking advantage of others through scheming and underhanded methods (e.g., Exod. 21:14; Pss. 32:2; 34:13; 55:21; 2Cor. 12:16 KJV; 2Macc. 12:24; 1Pet. 2:1 NRSV). Although Nathaniel is not initially impressed with Jesus’ messianic credentials, Jesus nevertheless praises him for his straightforwardness: “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile” (John 1:47 KJV [NIV, NRSV: “no deceit”]). The reference to an Israelite may be a pun on the meaning of Jacob’s name, which means “deceiver” (see Gen. 25:26; 27:3536; cf. Gen. 28:12 with John 1:51). Judas Iscariot is an unfortunate contrast (John 12:6). God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and therefore his word is without guile or “pure” (cf. 1Pet. 2:1–2; 3:10).
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.
Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.
Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.
The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).
It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.
Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.
The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2Cor. 12:24, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.
Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1Thess. 4:14).
At times simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:58; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).
In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1Cor. 13:13).
In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:2223; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).
Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).
In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).
The word “likeness” is used in various contexts. The foundational concept of likeness, however, is found in Gen. 1:26: “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.” This announces the high status of humans as the pinnacle of God’s creation (also Gen. 5:12). Genesis 5:3 says that Adam fathered Seth “in his own likeness, in his own image,” employing both words found in 1:26. The precise meaning of this has been much debated. Three things are to be noted. First, the expression “let us,” versus “let there be,” implies a personal aspect. It refers to the human capacity to relate to God in worship and obedience of his word (2Cor. 4:4; Eph. 4:24). Second, the word “likeness” describes human beings as not simply representative of God but representational. Humankind is the visible, corporeal representative of the invisible, bodiless God. Third, being in God’s likeness/image sets human beings apart from everything else that God has made. Humankind’s supremacy and uniqueness are emphasized.
The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:3738; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.
In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of the one praying.
The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.
Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:1920; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).
Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).
The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor. 14:15).
Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesus becomes 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 offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), 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 even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).
In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.
The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:1920), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).
In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).
Christ’s resurrection is the foundational event for the Christian faith. Paul goes so far as to say that if Christ did not rise, then the Christian faith is futile and Christians are to be pitied more than all others (1Cor. 15:1719). Resurrection’s climaxing position in all four Gospel narratives yields the same understanding. Christ came not merely to die, as some claim, but to conquer death. Resurrection gives everything that Christ did before his death an “of God” significance, and it establishes everything that follows as a guarantee of God’s eschatological promises. Without the resurrection, Jesus would have been just another “prophet hopeful” who died a tragic peasant death in Jerusalem. However, as it is, evidenced by the resurrection, he is the Son of God. According to the NT, the resurrection is the triumphant cry that God indeed did come to visit his creation and conquer the power of sin and death.
Although the Gospels’ presentations of Jesus’ resurrection vary in some detail (probably due to purpose and audience), all of them treat the event as the theological centerpiece of the Gospel narrative. The resurrection story launches God’s eschatological work and opens the door, as the postresurrection appearances show, for a connection between the Jesus story and the church story. It is the foundation both for the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) and for Pentecost (Luke 24:49). All people of all nations can now meet the living Christ.
Closely related to honor and respect and often translating the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence is directed primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’s sanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name (Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers, the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverence for God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance (Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2Cor. 7:1), and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship (Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may win over unbelievers (1Pet. 3:2).
Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation.
Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this.
Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).
Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).
The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 57), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).
The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).
“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.
In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.
The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.
The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).
The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).
According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).
Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:2833; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).
The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.
While in the OT suffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev. 26:1636; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25; cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by which blessing comes to humanity.
The Bible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17; 6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18; 1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assume that he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4, 20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in the final chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friends for their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writer makes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness. Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume that blindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesus rejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3, 6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
The NT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in the OT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps. 22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presented as the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation, God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the price for sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set free from sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18). (3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom. 8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet. 2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13), and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to suffer as his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provides hope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil. 3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev. 21:4).
The NT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it has become part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering of believers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel (Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11; 6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16; 2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb. 10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), and the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of the development toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor. 4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Suffering is associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal (2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness, sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10); comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8); blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor. 4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James 1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christian suffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character and hope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity and completeness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentary when compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7; 4:12–13).
Throughout the Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OT law provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10, 35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesus regularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3; 19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’ responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom. 12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom. 12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visit prisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to its prevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. The cosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:67; cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in his cosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).
Water is also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associated with the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple are described as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel 3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowing from beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, where it brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8). The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is also illustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples. Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably the location of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple at Arad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, are located close to freshwater springs. The Gihon spring in the City of David may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf. Gen. 2:13).
This OT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regarding eternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to be the source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone who thirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17). This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 7:38–39).
Water is also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It is extensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT, the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of the believer (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1Pet. 3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).
Finally, the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water (Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9; 4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Most important, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).
The accomplishment of God’s purposes. This was most clearly expressed by Jesus’ prayer, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). Jesus stipulated in the Gospel of John that he was pursuing not his own will but that of God (5:19, 30; 6:38). God’s will is revealed in creation (Rev. 4:11), Scripture (2Pet. 1:2021), his standards (Ezra 10:11; Rom. 12:1–2; 1Thess. 4:3), his calling (1Cor. 1:1), and his purpose (Isa. 46:10).
Direct Matches
God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all theinhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark”(Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14–16). Apart from the Genesis floodnarrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Biblewhere this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which theinfant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coatingof pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people fromdrowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht),but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder,sail, or any navigational aid.
Noahwas told to make it of “gopher wood” (Heb. goper), whichthe early Jewish Aramaic translations (Targumim) identified as cedar(NIV, NRSV, NET: “cypress wood”). The Hebrew word goperoccurs only here in the Bible, but the Akkadian equivalent (kupru) isfound at a similar point in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was, then, theright kind of wood for a boat. The ark was to have “rooms”—thatis, cubicles (lit., “nests”)—for the differentanimals to be housed in and kept apart from other animals.
Afterthe general description of the ark (Gen. 6:14), details were providedby God on how to build it (6:15). Its length (300 cubits), width (50cubits), and height (30 cubits) were specified. “Cubit”literally means “forearm” (the distance from elbow to tipof middle finger), so the ark was approximately 450 feet (140 meters)long, 75 feet (23 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.5 meters) high (seeNIV mg.). We cannot be exactly sure if “roof” (6:16) isthe correct translation of the Hebrew word tsohar, which may refer toa hatchway or skylight (Vulg.: fenestra [“window”]; notethe NIV 1984 mg.: “Make an opening for light”). Anotherpossibility is “pitched roof.” The usual Hebrew word,gag, is not used because that refers to a flat roof (see Josh. 2:6,8; 2 Sam. 11:2). The instruction to “finish it to a cubitabove” (RSV) refers to the pitch of the roof or its overhang.The “window” (Heb. khallon) that Noah opens in Gen. 8:6is probably to be equated with this skylight in the roof, not awindow in the side (since Noah cannot see out). In Gen. 8:13 Noahremoves the “covering” (Heb. mikseh) from the ark, so asto see the surface of the earth. (Gen. 5:1-32; Gen. 6:1-22; Gen7:1-24; Gen. 8:1-22).
Theark was to have a door in its side, which was closed by God (Gen.6:16; 7:16). The structure was also to have three decks, whichsuggests that the ark was viewed as a microcosmos, with its threelevels matching sky, earth, and sea. Genesis 6:17 explains why an arkis needed. The destruction will be by means of water, and the arkwill carry Noah and his family (eight persons), as well as at leastone pair of every living creature. The NT refers to Noah’sconstruction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20) and hisentering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).
The initiatory ritual of Christianity. This rite is of greatsignificance in connecting the individual both to Christ and to thegreater community of believers. Baptism carries an equal measure ofsymbolism and tradition, evoking a connection between OT covenantalcircumcision and ritual cleansing and NT regeneration and redemption.It is the visible response to the gospel, reflecting the internalresponse to the gospel: the climactic moment in the journey ofreconciliation of the believer with God.
Theword “baptism” (Gk. baptisma) carries with it the senseof washing by dipping (Gk. baptizō); the word can also carry thesense of being overtaken or subsumed, or of joining or entering intoa new way of life. In either sense, a distinct change in therecipient is envisioned. Through baptism, Christians both demonstratetheir desire for and symbolize their understanding of being washedclean of sin; they also proclaim their surrender to and subjugationby Christ. All this intellectual underpinning occurs in what can be adeeply emotional ceremony.
Baptismin the Bible
Theimmediate precursor of Christian baptism was the baptism of Johnthe Baptist (Mark 1:4 pars.), a baptism of repentance for theforgiveness of sins, preparing the hearts of the people for thecoming Messiah. But when Jesus himself was baptized by John to“fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to allowJesus to identify with sinful humanity, he became the firstfruits ofthe new covenant. John emphasized that his baptism with water wasinferior to the baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire”that Jesus would bring (Matt. 3:11). Jesus’ disciples continuedJohn’s baptism during his earthly ministry (John 4:1–2).
Baptismwas immediately important in the early church. Jesus commanded thedisciples to “make disciples . . . , baptizing them”(Matt. 28:19). The disciples replaced Judas from among those “whohave been with us the whole time . . . from John’sbaptism” (Acts 1:21–22). Peter’s first sermonproclaims, “Repent and be baptized” (2:38). The apostlesbaptized new believers in Christ immediately (8:12–13; 8:38;9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).
Forthe apostle Paul, baptism represents a participation in thecrucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Don’tyou know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus werebaptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him throughbaptism into death” (Rom. 6:3–4); “In him you were. . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were alsoraised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raisedhim from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).
Thoughthe NT does not explicitly command baptism (the command in Acts 2:38is understood to be directed toward a specific group), it assumesthat all believers will be baptized (Acts 19:2–3). Theexpectation of baptism is as good as a command, and Christians shouldunderstand baptism as a matter of obedience. Accounts of baptism inActs are always preceded by reports of belief, and new believers areimmediately baptized. Baptism also carries the idea of conveyance: noone self-baptizes; rather, believers baptize others as an initiationinto the family of believers.
BaptismalPractices
Historicallyin the church, the manner of baptism involves the application ofwater to the recipient by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. Thesepractices vary among Christians, but no one practice has a clearbiblical warrant above the others. Paul, however, appeals tosymbolism in his discussions of baptism. He describes those baptized“into Christ Jesus” as being “baptized into hisdeath,” “buried with him through baptism into death”that they might be raised to a new life “just as Christ wasraised from the dead” (Rom. 6:3–4; see also Col. 2:12).Immersion may be the best vehicle to retain this striking symbolismof Paul.
Thetiming of baptism has caused controversy within the church. Somechurches (especially Baptist) believe that baptism is for those whohave made a conscious decision for Christ—believer’sbaptism. Baptism is an expression of both the change in one’slife and one’s devotion. With this act, the person unites withthe church as well as with Jesus himself. This is a deeply movingexperience for the celebrant, one to be remembered forever. Thecelebrant metaphorically is buried with Christ in order to be raisedup with him. Baptism does not of itself convey salvation but ratheris an act of obedience, and obedience indicates active affirmation ofthe gospel.
Somechurches (e.g., Reformed, Presbyterian) practice infant baptism(paedobaptism). Baptism is at least partly a covenant act similar tocircumcision; by this act the child’s parents announce theirown membership in the body of Christ and their desire that the childbe considered a member as well. Baptism does not convey salvation,but it does convey a type of grace. Entering early adulthood, thechild will be given a chance to affirm his or her faith throughconfirmation. Obviously, the child will have no conscious memory ofthe original baptism, but the child will grow from infancy with theknowledge of having been entered conditionally into the church by hisor her parents. Infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents thatthe child must claim later, at which time some church traditions havea ritual of confirmation. The warrant for infant baptism is thepassages where a “household” or other unspecified groupis baptized (see Acts 2:38; 16:15, 31, 34). Also, Paul seems torelate Christian baptism to OT circumcision (Col. 2:11–12), anevent for the child performed at the parents’ request (Lev.12:3). (See also Infant Baptism)
Advocatesof believer’s baptism also see value in the ceremonialincorporation of infants into the church. These churches offer childdedication, a similar ceremony but without the water component.
Anothersource of debate is the concept of rebaptism. Some churches requirethat prospective members who were baptized as infants be baptizedanew as believing adults. It is claimed that the previous baptism isinvalid, since an infant cannot possess the proper faith. For otherchurches, rebaptism is strictly forbidden as unscriptural.
Notably,while most Christian groups see baptism as fundamental to theirfellowship, many groups also make allowances for baptism received inextraordinary ways. For instance, the Catholic Church allows for“baptism by blood” and “baptism by desire,”where in extreme cases baptism is credited though having never beenperformed. Catholic doctrine also allows for “extraordinaryministers” who may not even be Christians to perform baptism,as long as the intended goal is a valid Christian baptism.
TheFunction of Baptism
Baptismshould not be seen as a saving act; Paul tells a jailer, “Believein the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and yourhousehold” (Acts 16:31). It is later, after the jailer haswashed Paul’s and Silas’s wounds, that the family isbaptized. Paul does write to Titus about salvation, saying, “Hesaved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the HolySpirit” (Titus 3:5). But here Paul is invoking OT imageryrather than NT baptism, as he nowhere uses these terms to refer tobaptism. Peter writes, “And this water symbolizes baptism thatnow saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body butthe pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet.3:21). It is not the baptism that saves, nor the washing, but ratherthe working of faith in relationship with God.
Itis a shame that baptism has become a source of division in today’schurches. Paul emphasizes that “we were all baptized by oneSpirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slaveor free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink”(1 Cor. 12:13). Having been baptized into Jesus Christ should bea unifying element among Christians, not a source of contention.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denyingourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and liveabundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are inpain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement justwhen others might keep their distance. The compassionate person alsoturns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed intheir character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love ingeneral, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’spain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.
CompassionShown by God
TheOT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward thosewho, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. InExod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they haverebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for theirdeliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them ofhis sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I willhave mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will havecompassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy,yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deservedharm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sinand wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’spatience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to theirjudges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshipedthem!” but God later “was moved to compassion when heheard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them”(2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies onYahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Havemercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according toyour great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1).In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, whocomplains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I wasstill at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious andcompassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God whor*lents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g.,49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).
TheNT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in theGospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowdswho “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”(Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick andfeeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The sameconnection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscoresthis attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father ofour Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the Godof all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is“full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depictsGod as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution andtrial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with brokensinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps.145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for hispeople. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise,and even unrighteous.
CompassionRequired by God
BecauseGod loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflictedwounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parentsought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’sgarment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the onlycovering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When theycry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod.22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, Godrequires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, andacknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt.12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalismand genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “Hehas shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord requireof you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with yourGod.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we mighthave expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it issometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13;Ps. 109:12).
TheNT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is afamiliar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will beshown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion towardthose who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the“Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “sothat we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort weourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is adirect command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners:“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving eachother, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given tous by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there isany “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), wemust follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves]with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience”(Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility andcompassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, besympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble”(1 Pet. 3:8).
TheBible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandablereasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. Wewant always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected byour own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering peopleare burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a readyexcuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior hasshown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.
Deceitful cunning, usually employed in taking advantage ofothers through scheming and underhanded methods (e.g., Exod. 21:14;Pss. 32:2; 34:13; 55:21; 2Cor. 12:16 KJV; 2Macc. 12:24;1Pet. 2:1 NRSV). Although Nathaniel is not initially impressedwith Jesus’ messianic credentials, Jesus nevertheless praiseshim for his straightforwardness: “Behold an Israelite indeed,in whom is no guile” (John 1:47 KJV [NIV, NRSV: “nodeceit”]). The reference to an Israelite may be a pun on themeaning of Jacob’s name, which means “deceiver”(see Gen. 25:26; 27:35–36; cf. Gen. 28:12 with John 1:51).Judas Iscariot is an unfortunate contrast (John 12:6). God cannot lie(Titus 1:2), and therefore his word is without guile or “pure”(cf. 1Pet. 2:1–2; 3:10).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
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.
Scopeand Uses of the Word “Hope”
Attimes simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible theword “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul,the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes.
Thosewhom God has helped and delivered expect to see God’s poweragain when future needs arise, knowing that in God there are reasonsfor hope. Mere optimism assumes that bad circ*mstances will improvewith the passing of time. In contrast, hope assumes that God isfaithful and is convinced that he is able to bring about his goodpurpose (Isa. 44:1–8). So at its core, biblical hope is hope inGod, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:5–8;Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in thepresent and lives even now on the strength of God’s futureaccomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).
Bothof the main OT words for “hope” (Heb. roots qwh and ykhl)are at times translated “wait.” By definition, hope meansthat God’s promised outcome has not arrived, and that some timewill pass before it does. But that time is filled with a sense ofwaiting on God, often with a deep ache of longing for God to act (seePss. 25:16–21; 39:4–7; Isa. 40:28–31; Lam.3:19–24).
Theinner disposition of hope may be seriously threatened by injusticeand other devastating life experiences, as reflected in Job 6:8–13;14:19; 19:10. The refrain of Pss. 42:5–6, 11; 43:5 is apsalmist’s self-exhortation to hope amid oppressive anddepressing circ*mstances: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Whyso disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praisehim, my Savior and my God.” Words for “hope”function similarly in other psalms of lament (Pss. 9:18; 31:24; 71:5,14; cf. Mic. 7:7).
TheOT usually locates individual hope within the horizon and limits ofthis world. One hopes for outcomes that may be realized in one’sown lifetime; indeed, when life ends, hope ends (Prov. 11:7; 24:20;Eccles. 9:4; Isa. 38:18). Proverbs that mention hope regardingsomeone’s character development show an underlying concern thatGod’s purposes be vindicated in one’s life (e.g., Prov.19:18; 26:12). When used in conjunction with Israel as a whole, hopelooks to a more distant future and coming generations.
Inthe NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work.Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3;3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim.1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope”(Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor.3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection”(Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation intoChrist’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectationstimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized inone’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil.2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is namedrepeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13;1Cor. 13:13).
Hopeas a Biblical Theme
Withthe God of hope as its covenant Lord, hope is a defining reality forIsrael and a persistent theme in the historical books (e.g., 2Sam.23:1–7; 2Kings 25:27–30). Psalmists find hopeeither in continuity with present structures (Ps. 37) or in drasticchange (Pss. 33; 82), such as personal or corporate restoration.
Judgmentdominates the message of the preexilic prophets, although expressionsof hope are also found. But Judah’s downfall in 587/586 BCmarks a turning point in prophetic hope. While preexilic prophecybases its indictment, appeal, and warning in the exodus and thecovenant, Jeremiah and Ezekiel tend to redirect hope and expectationto a new work of salvation that God will accomplish through and afterthe judgment of exile (e.g., Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 11:16–21;cf. Isa. 43:18–19). In the wake of Judah’s destruction,these prophets grasp a remarkable new vision of grace and promise.Restoration will be personal as well as national; forgiveness of sinwill enable obedience to God’s law, now to be found written ontheir hearts.
Duringthe exile, collection of Israel’s sacred texts enabled theshattered community to sustain identity and hope. Postexilic prophecyis often “text prophecy” that arises from reflection uponand reapplication of written prophecies, psalms, and other scripturaltexts. For example, the book of Zechariah (especially chaps. 9–14)alludes to many earlier writings and also moves toward apocalypticl*terature, contributing dramatic new imagery of God’s conquestof evil to establish his cosmic reign and fulfill his covenant.Messianic hopes rose throughout this period, fueled by earlierprophecies (e.g., Isa. 9; 11; 65:17; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2).
Ifthe OT gives occasional hints of an afterlife, this hope becomesmanifest in the NT (2Tim. 1:10). Jesus promises the thief onthe cross fellowship after death (Luke 23:43). For Paul, “todepart and be with Christ” is such a vivid hope that “todie is gain” (Phil. 1:21–24). Such texts imply that deathushers the believer into Christ’s presence. Yet thisintermediate state is not the whole picture. We are saved in hope ofthe redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23–25)—ourresurrection from the dead and entry into a new glorified, bodilyexistence (1Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20–21).
Christis judge as well as savior (Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Acts 17:31;Rom. 2:16), and the NT anticipates final judgment of all persons andpowers arrayed against God, including sin and death (1Cor.15:24–26; 2Thess. 1:5–10). Christian hope involvesnothing less than the return and full revelation of Jesus Christ, theresurrection of the dead, and the renewal of all creation (1Thess.4:13–18; Rev. 21–22)—the complete vindication ofGod’s rule, secured already in Christ. Then God’sredeemed people will see his face and live in his presence forever(Matt. 5:8; Jude 24; Rev. 22:4). A vision of this future enables usto press on with hope, stretching toward what is to come (Phil.3:13–14).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Speech (2Kings 19:16; Isa. 37:17) or gesture (2Sam.10:4) that shames, demeans, disrespects, abuses, offends, or slightssomeone. Insults in the biblical world were also part of propagandaand warfare; for example, Nabal hurled insults at David (1Sam.25:14; cf. Lam. 3:61–63). Divine wrath is implored forvengeance against those who insult God (2Kings 19:22–23;Neh. 4:4; Ezek. 21:28; Zeph. 2:8), while responding in kind seems tobe acceptable (Isa. 37:23), since, as the psalmist bemoans, insultsdirected at God include the psalmist too (Ps. 69:9). Romans 15:3 putsthese sentiments in the mouth of Christ (cf. Ps. 22:7).
Jeremiahbewails insults directed at him for simply being a prophet (Jer.20:8) and laments the desecration of the temple as an insult to Godand his people (51:51). While prudence ignores insults and showsself-control (Prov. 12:16), correcting mockers invites insult (9:7;22:10).
Jesus’followers are to anticipate insults (Heb. 10:33) and even count themas blessings (Matt. 5:11; Luke 6:22) because they are partaking ofwhat Jesus himself went through (Matt. 27:39; 27:44; Mark 15:29;15:32; Luke 18:32; 23:39; 1Pet. 4:14). But 1Pet. 2:23;3:9 discourage responding in kind when insulted. Paul, as part of hissuffering (1Thess. 2:2), even delighted in insults for Christ’ssake (2Cor. 12:10). Discriminating against the poor is aninsult to them (James 2:6), while insulting the Spirit of graceresults in divine judgment (Heb. 10:29).
Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and thathumans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass whilemaintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering(Hab. 3:16; 2Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJVtranslation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speakof patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with othervirtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11),persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness(Rom. 2:4; 1Cor. 13:4).
Numerouspassages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and showcontempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusingto be patient with others even though they themselves have receivedmercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays hispatience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ(1Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying theworld because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance(2Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward thosewho are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1Pet. 3:20).
Justas God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through hisHoly Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer,Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both insideand outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1Thess. 5:14–15) asthey wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15;James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must modelpatience and encourage others with patience (2Tim. 3:10; 4:2).
(1)Theeighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson ofMethuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race throughthe flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because hisfather, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring restfrom the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch washis great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who“walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). Hewas the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Hisstory is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its greatwickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah foundgrace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a largeboat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as wellas selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed,and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe.From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was therecipient of various directives for the governance of thepostdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen.9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curiousepisode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Hamfor some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is describedonly as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.
Noahis mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise thatthe “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earthto affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and inanother text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those whocould deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedientIsrael (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions inNoah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time ofhis coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Petermentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those whoperished in the flood (1Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as anexample of God’s ability to deliver his people (2Pet.2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.
(2)Oneof the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion oftheir deceased father’s property helped set a precedent forinheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh.17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad tomarry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not passfrom tribe to tribe (Num. 36).
God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all theinhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark”(Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14–16). Apart from the Genesis floodnarrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Biblewhere this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which theinfant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coatingof pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people fromdrowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht),but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder,sail, or any navigational aid.
Noahwas told to make it of “gopher wood” (Heb. goper), whichthe early Jewish Aramaic translations (Targumim) identified as cedar(NIV, NRSV, NET: “cypress wood”). The Hebrew word goperoccurs only here in the Bible, but the Akkadian equivalent (kupru) isfound at a similar point in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was, then, theright kind of wood for a boat. The ark was to have “rooms”—thatis, cubicles (lit., “nests”)—for the differentanimals to be housed in and kept apart from other animals.
Afterthe general description of the ark (Gen. 6:14), details were providedby God on how to build it (6:15). Its length (300 cubits), width (50cubits), and height (30 cubits) were specified. “Cubit”literally means “forearm” (the distance from elbow to tipof middle finger), so the ark was approximately 450 feet (140 meters)long, 75 feet (23 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.5 meters) high (seeNIV mg.). We cannot be exactly sure if “roof” (6:16) isthe correct translation of the Hebrew word tsohar, which may refer toa hatchway or skylight (Vulg.: fenestra [“window”]; notethe NIV 1984 mg.: “Make an opening for light”). Anotherpossibility is “pitched roof.” The usual Hebrew word,gag, is not used because that refers to a flat roof (see Josh. 2:6,8; 2 Sam. 11:2). The instruction to “finish it to a cubitabove” (RSV) refers to the pitch of the roof or its overhang.The “window” (Heb. khallon) that Noah opens in Gen. 8:6is probably to be equated with this skylight in the roof, not awindow in the side (since Noah cannot see out). In Gen. 8:13 Noahremoves the “covering” (Heb. mikseh) from the ark, so asto see the surface of the earth.
Theark was to have a door in its side, which was closed by God (Gen.6:16; 7:16). The structure was also to have three decks, whichsuggests that the ark was viewed as a microcosmos, with its threelevels matching sky, earth, and sea. Genesis 6:17 explains why an arkis needed. The destruction will be by means of water, and the arkwill carry Noah and his family (eight persons), as well as at leastone pair of every living creature. The NT refers to Noah’sconstruction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20) and hisentering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).
Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and thathumans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass whilemaintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering(Hab. 3:16; 2Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJVtranslation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speakof patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with othervirtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11),persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness(Rom. 2:4; 1Cor. 13:4).
Numerouspassages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and showcontempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusingto be patient with others even though they themselves have receivedmercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays hispatience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ(1Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying theworld because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance(2Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward thosewho are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1Pet. 3:20).
Justas God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through hisHoly Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer,Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both insideand outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1Thess. 5:14–15) asthey wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15;James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must modelpatience and encourage others with patience (2Tim. 3:10; 4:2).
Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and thathumans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass whilemaintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering(Hab. 3:16; 2Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJVtranslation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speakof patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with othervirtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11),persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness(Rom. 2:4; 1Cor. 13:4).
Numerouspassages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and showcontempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusingto be patient with others even though they themselves have receivedmercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays hispatience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ(1Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying theworld because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance(2Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward thosewho are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1Pet. 3:20).
Justas God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through hisHoly Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer,Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both insideand outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1Thess. 5:14–15) asthey wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15;James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must modelpatience and encourage others with patience (2Tim. 3:10; 4:2).
Imprisonmentof Criminals
Incomparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is importantto acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modernsocieties. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposingincarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregatingdangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime byimposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so thatthey can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern lawimposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblicallaw imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment(beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of thebiblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modernsociety would be considered political rather than criminalincarceration.
Thestory of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph wasfalsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’swife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned forthe otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king(40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of apredetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of theking (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himselfhundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Josephimprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for thecrime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certainprisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly(Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed forfailure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison asa guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen.42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could alsobe confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).
PoliticalImprisonment
Ina number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what wewould today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson wasimprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that hehad wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents(Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. SeveralIsraelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamianoverlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt,including Hoshea (2Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2Kings25:27–29), Manasseh (2Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer.52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal andinvolved torture (2Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachinwas later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivityin some comfort (2Kings 25:27–29).
Inthe NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbaswas imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating inan insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number ofChristians, apparently without what we would today recognize as anycriminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod forpolitical gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned fordisturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).
Imprisonmentof Prophets
Aspecial case of political incarceration is the imprisonment ofprophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophetswere imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who didnot want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power,imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinionsthat could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment ofdissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John theBaptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediateexecution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers towardcontroversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move aboutfreely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet thatprevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed toconfront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was acertain level of tolerance for them even when they were notsupportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed tothe use of imprisonment instead of execution.
Ahabimprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorableoracle (1Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani theseer (2Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that suchtreatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer.37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned fordelivering unwelcome messages to those in power.
TheologicalSignificance
Inboth Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’ssalvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7:“The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6;107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinelysent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison andidentified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological termsto a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1Pet. 3:19; Rev.20:7).
Imprisonmentof Criminals
Incomparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is importantto acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modernsocieties. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposingincarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregatingdangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime byimposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so thatthey can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern lawimposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblicallaw imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment(beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of thebiblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modernsociety would be considered political rather than criminalincarceration.
Thestory of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph wasfalsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’swife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned forthe otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king(40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of apredetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of theking (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himselfhundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Josephimprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for thecrime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certainprisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly(Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed forfailure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison asa guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen.42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could alsobe confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).
PoliticalImprisonment
Ina number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what wewould today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson wasimprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that hehad wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents(Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. SeveralIsraelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamianoverlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt,including Hoshea (2Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2Kings25:27–29), Manasseh (2Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer.52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal andinvolved torture (2Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachinwas later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivityin some comfort (2Kings 25:27–29).
Inthe NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbaswas imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating inan insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number ofChristians, apparently without what we would today recognize as anycriminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod forpolitical gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned fordisturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).
Imprisonmentof Prophets
Aspecial case of political incarceration is the imprisonment ofprophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophetswere imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who didnot want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power,imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinionsthat could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment ofdissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John theBaptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediateexecution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers towardcontroversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move aboutfreely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet thatprevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed toconfront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was acertain level of tolerance for them even when they were notsupportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed tothe use of imprisonment instead of execution.
Ahabimprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorableoracle (1Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani theseer (2Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that suchtreatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer.37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned fordelivering unwelcome messages to those in power.
TheologicalSignificance
Inboth Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’ssalvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7:“The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6;107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinelysent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison andidentified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological termsto a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1Pet. 3:19; Rev.20:7).
In the KJV, this term is used to describe a kind of verbalabuse, scolding, accusation, or derision (1Sam. 25:14; 2Chron.32:17; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:39; 1Cor. 5:11; 1Tim. 6:4;1Pet. 3:9; 2Pet. 2:11; Jude 9).
Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of theBible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness,correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, andinnocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it hasimportant implications for the doctrine of salvation (see alsoJustification).
OldTestament
Divinerighteousness.Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories ontoOT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness isconformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness,justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many andvaried uses of righteousness language in the OT stands thepresupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense(e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is theexpression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), andall other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derivedfrom this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightnessin his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut.4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts arerighteous (Judg. 5:11; 1Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgmentsare righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness(Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked toGod’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71)and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader thandeliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding therighteous), though it does include it.
Humanrighteousness. Relatedto humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite ofwickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, whereit relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of theworld as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). Godreigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humansshould align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousnesscan be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “myrighteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “theirrighteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found inpoetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust areparallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).
Itseems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was moreconcrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of mostcontemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understandingrighteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous personis sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness inthe OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7),there are many more references to a righteousness grounded inparticular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10).Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpfuldistinction between “ordinary” and “absolute”righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind ofrighteousness that we intend when making comments such as “mywife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broadperspective, that her life is characterized predominantly byrighteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness,absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparativerighteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1Sam. 24:17;Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is theextraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work ofGod; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.
NoncanonicalJewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varyinggreatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of humanand divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often isassociated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poorand is contrasted with wickedness.
InGreco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtuesand thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Romanrighteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind ofexternal norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact thatrighteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Romanliterature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often wereembedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not onlyviolated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, butalso impacted humans.
NewTestament
Ordinaryhuman righteousness. Righteousnesslanguage is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in lightof OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit withthe Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people,and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conductwith respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness(Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own(e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While thespecific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in theGospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will iswidely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness,mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continuethese general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related topersonal conduct (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim.2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor.6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An exampleof righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostituteRahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).
TheNT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In theSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirementsof righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, ashocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners ratherthan the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitlyquestions the righteousness of the “righteous.” Insimilar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness ofone’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke18:9).
Divinerighteousness. TheNT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to Godhimself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf.Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commandsand laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge(2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does notcompromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26).The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness andwickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation inrighteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g.,Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52;22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilledrighteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating completeconformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). Healso fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his savingactivity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).
“Therighteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness.Thereis a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness andhis faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66).Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’ssaving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g.,Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness ofGod,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22[2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousnessof God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God”could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness fromGod (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to hisrighteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms),or some combination of these.
Therighteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “therighteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from theMosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom.1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarifiedin that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews andGentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguishedfrom righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26).In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a characterquality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness ofGod” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).
InRom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “therighteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their ownrighteousness because they are not submitting to “therighteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’srighteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectationsof his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness ofGod” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus(e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key tounderstanding “the righteousness of God” in the othertexts also.
InRom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, whichis the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5,16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust inJesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25)enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). InJesus we become the righteousness of God (2Cor. 5:21). Therighteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealedand manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ,whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous inChrist.
According to 1Pet. 3:18–20 (NIV 1984), Christ“made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those whowere disobedient long ago ... in the days of Noah whilethe ark was being built.” The identity of the “imprisonedspirits,” or “spirits in prison,” has long puzzledinterpreters and is bound up with the larger issue of the nature ofChrist’s preaching. Historically, several explanationspresuppose that the “spirits in prison” are the souls ofdead humans. Theologians have disagreed regarding several issues. DidChrist preach to them while they were still living (in the days ofNoah) or after they had died and were in “prison”? If thelatter, was this preaching between Christ’s death andresurrection, during the crucifixion, or after the ascension? DidChrist preach to the spirits of all who died prior to the incarnationof Christ, only to the righteous, only to the unrighteous, or evenonly to the generation that was alive at the time of Noah? Each ofthese possibilities has its proponents.
Anotherapproach to the problem proceeds from the insight that the word“spirits” (Gk. pneumata) doesnot usually describe dead humans in the NT, nor does “prison”(Gk. phylakē) describe the abode of the dead. Based on theseobservations, it has been proposed that the “spirits in prison”are malevolent supernatural beings (nonhuman). This theory findssupport,not explicitly in the NT, but in well-attested contemporary Jewishtraditions, according to which the flood itself was caused by themalfeasance of such beings (see Gen. 6:1–6; cf. Luke 10:17–20).See also Descent into Hades.
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.
Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to itsprevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. Thecosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:6–7;cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in hiscosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa.66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen.7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).
Wateris also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associatedwith the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple aredescribed as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowingfrom beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, whereit brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8).The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “theriver of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from thethrone of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is alsoillustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples.Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably thelocation of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple atArad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, arelocated close to freshwater springs. The Gihon Spring in the City ofDavid may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf.Gen. 2:13).
ThisOT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regardingeternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to bethe source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone whothirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17).This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up toeternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit inthe believer (John 7:38–39).
Wateris also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It isextensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT,the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of thebeliever (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26,31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1Pet.3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).
Finally,the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water(Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9;4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Mostimportant, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and theyobey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
1 Peter 3:8-22
is mentioned in the definition.
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.
The English word “atonement” comes from anAnglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”;thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In someways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliationthan our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness”as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity isachieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongsdone. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achievedthis “onement” between God and sinful humanity.
Theneed for atonement comes from the separation that has come aboutbetween God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there isthe understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatureson account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah,“Your iniquities have separated you from your God”(59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies”(Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effectreconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’sholiness and justice.
OldTestament
Inthe OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins wereatoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, andan amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrificewas reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given themthe blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement foryourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement forone’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basicoperating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of theblood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer.However, there have been significant scholarly debates regardingwhether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understandingof atonement.
Themeaning of “to atone.”First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrewword kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popularsuggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease,to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert.Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little ornothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purifythe tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impuritiesthat attach to them on account of the community’s sin. Thistheory, though most probably correct in what it affirms,unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacleand furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mentionatonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev.8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts inLeviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer(e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sinfor the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning ofkapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meaningsoverlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in somepassages, and another one in others.
Therehas also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying ahand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2).This has traditionally been understood as an identification of theofferer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’ssins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and theargument made instead that it only signifies that the animal doesindeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offerit. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seenas complementary to what has traditionally been understood by thisgesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when thepriest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sinand wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on thegoat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm thecorrectness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thusbest seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; itdies in his stead.
Therelationship between God and the offerer. Second,granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins,the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on therelationship between God and the offerer. The question here iswhether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offeringexpiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does itpropitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does itappease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath isremoved? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seemslogical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On theother hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possiblybe a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there arecertainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passageswhere something like “appease” or “pacify”appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30;Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect ofatonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.
Inconjunction with this last point, it is also important to note thatthere are a number of places where it is said that God does thekapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept thisatonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 Godwill “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3(ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions”(ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord,who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV),God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity.Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for yourname’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as“ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egyptfor your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will“make atonement” for all the sins that Israel hascommitted. It may be that in most of these passages “atone”is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However,as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages,the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or istaking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins ofthe people. It is important to remember God’s declaration inLev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of thesacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, nomatter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that Godgraciously grants to his covenant people.
Thatleads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa.52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my[the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who“took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was“pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed forour iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him theiniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet itwas the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,”and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB:“guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issueswith regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song”(as it is often called), one of them being whether the termtranslated “guilt offering” should really be thought ofalong the lines of the guilt offering described in the book ofLeviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditionalChristian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here apicture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning forthe sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on hisservant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to beGod’s very own son, Christ Jesus.
NewTestament
Therelationship between the Testaments.When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should bemade.
First,God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NTconsideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinfuland unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess JesusChrist as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is themeans of averting this wrath.
Second,salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in ChristJesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the sametime, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who“justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom.3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless hisown justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God isboth just and justifier.
Third,as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, soalso in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement.It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. IfJesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it isGod himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement”(Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that hegave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “senthis Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for usall” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not anunwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing ofatonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).
Fourth,the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately,the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessaryatonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goatsto take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).
Portrayalsof Christ’s work of atonement.It has become common of late to refer to the different “images”or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. Thisis understandable on one level, but on another level there issomething misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authorsspeak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear thatthey intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christreally is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins,and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placedon the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection tothe OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.”The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery.In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective,Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice inthe OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the differentportrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some ofthese may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while othersperhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a“window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted thatthe individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in somecases they overlap.
• Ransom.Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransompaid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb.9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in thesepassages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption”in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same wordare also translated “redeem” or “redemption”in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet.1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used inRev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased”people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that ofslaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slavemarket. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic”view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for thepurchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense ofChrist’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom theransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those whoare ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to thelaw.
• Cursebearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the pictureof Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. Thelanguage is especially striking because rather than saying thatChrist bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.”This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully tookinto his own person the curse that was meant for us.
• Penaltybearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayaldepicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of oursins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, becauseChrist has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous andno longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much ofthe argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it alsointersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of thispicture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34;Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understoodby Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “thejust for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as wellas in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sinfor us” so that we might become the “righteousness ofGod.”
• Propitiation.There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or“atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greekverb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. Thisis the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrewverb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about theprecise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, asto whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”)or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avertwrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of“propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is impliedin expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account ofour sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although thespecific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in thosepassages where it is said either that Christ died “for oursins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins”(Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or thathis blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins”(Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).
• Passover.In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb,has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has nottraditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though manyscholars would argue that it was), at the very least we shouldrecognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use ofthe Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. TheGospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in theGospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account ofJesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion wasprecisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John19:14).
• Sacrifice.This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above,but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept inthe NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ isportrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers thesacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). Hecame, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of thesacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, finalsacrifice” within that system, “that he might makeatonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).
Ofcourse, it is not just the death of Christ that secures ourredemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection andheavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regardto the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life,his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him tobe the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration ofGod’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “wasraised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it wasparticularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.
Terminology
TheNT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means“gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greekthe term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Inparticular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of thecitizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city.Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not tothe citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, theywere not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records threeinstances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Themost important background for the Christian use of the term is theLXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundredtimes, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. Whileqahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah,the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering,translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’ssacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, whereqahal is linked with the covenant.
Inthe NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’speople 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although theword occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it isof special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instancesin James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn fromthis usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and theplural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those whoprofess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsiadesignates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28;15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23;Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation(1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
TheNature of the Church
Thenature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning ofone word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a richarray of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are thosemetaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church,five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom ofGod, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and thebody of Christ.
Thepeople of God.Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in thecovenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be mypeople” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer.7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28;Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus,the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras whor*sponded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin restsexclusively in God’s grace.
Tospeak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT andthe NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship betweenthe church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize thematter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the churchand Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuitybetween them.
Continuitybetween the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that thechurch and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuousrelationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel insome sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding toDeut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in thewilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from theintimate association noted earlier existing between the wordsekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified bythe phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewedin some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein theprototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal.4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).
Second,Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OTnames for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact.Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph.2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people”(1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29;Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16;Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “theelect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood”(1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Discontinuitybetween the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totallyidentical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes therelationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological(end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is aprogression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor.5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced bythe fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel,without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter asGentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Althoughthe church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be thepermanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).
Thekingdom of God.Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping ofthe two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete.The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and thesecond aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the ageto come has broken into this age, and now the two existsimultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining therelationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because thechurch also exists in the tension that results from the overlappingof the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as theforeshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition:first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, thechurch is not equal to the kingdom of God.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after theresurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about thechurch. However, there are early signs of the church in the teachingand ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general,Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in thathe gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted thebeginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant.More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in twopassages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesuspromised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition,thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of thechurch overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that thekingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks theintimate association between the church and the kingdom. The secondpassage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlikethe Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimatelyrelated as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does notequate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christianspreached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g.,Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is theinstrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt.16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church becomethe keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
Theeschatological temple of God.Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple inthe future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9;1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he wasgoing to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of thefulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited thechurch, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36).Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit inthe Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor.3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; seealso Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However,that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in thepreceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for thechurch to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fullyaccomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In themeantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform theirsacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb.13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
Thebride of Christ.The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (seeIsa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied toChrist and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, hassacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph.5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is tobe faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia theofficial wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternalunion of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9;21:1–2).
Thebody of Christ.The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to thePauline literature and constitutes one of the most significantconcepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph.4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is todemonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within thechurch, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body ofChrist is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of theend time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage ofthe image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that thechurch, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to gospiritually. It is not yet complete.
Sacraments
Atthe heart of the expression of the church’s faith are thesacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The formersymbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter providesspiritual sustenance for the church.
Baptism.Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Threeobservations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament.First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association ofrepentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek.36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipatedChristian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance inexpectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiahwould exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesusas Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may bean allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes thatlead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practicedbaptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 //Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34;cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor.1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thesepassages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism isintimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the personwith the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates theperson into the community of believers.
Lord’sSupper.The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This ritesymbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as itcelebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblicaldata concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted byChrist (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20;1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of thePassover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introducedtwo changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened breadwith a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; hereplaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood onthe cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early churchpracticed the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunctionwith the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). Atwofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NTauthors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways:participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death ofJesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’sSupper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination pointof the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supperinvolves identification with the body of Christ, the community offaith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).
Worship
Theultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ andin the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). Theearly church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met inhomes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15;Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many JewishChristians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, theestablished time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday,the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Theearly church most probably patterned its order of worship after thesynagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess.1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col.1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col.4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to theneedy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9;James 2:15–17).
Serviceand Organization
Fiveobservations emerge from the NT regarding the service andorganization of the early church. First, the ministry of the churchcenters on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believersby God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good ofothers (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believerpossesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third,it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christmatures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph.4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership inthe NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called“pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28;1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13),there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy”and the “laity” in the church of the first century;rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all thesaints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth,spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
The Apostles’ Creed announces that following his deathand burial, Jesus “descended into hell.” Is there abiblical basis for such a statement?
Thisdoctrine is drawn from various NT passages, but especially 1Pet.3:18–20, which says that Jesus “was put to death in thebody but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he wentand made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits--—to those whowere disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days ofNoah while the ark was being built.” And 1Pet. 4:6 says,“For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to thosewho are now dead” (cf. Acts 2:25–31; Eph. 4:8–10).
Thereare various interpretations of these passages. First, some claim thatChrist preached to the people of Noah’s day, either throughNoah or in a preincarnate state. Second, some assert that Christdescended to Hades after his death and preached to Noah’scontemporaries who had died in the flood. The “spirits”would be the spirits of dead people. A third view is that Christdescended to Hades (or hell) after his death and there proclaimed hisvictory to the fallen angels (“spirits”). These may havebeen the “sons of God” of Gen. 6:1–4 (see 2Pet.2:4; Jude 6). The intertestamental Jewish book 1Enoch (secondcentury BC) develops an interpretation of this puzzling Genesis text,telling of angels who had brought evil to the world by marrying womenand fathering demons. Before the flood they had been put in prisonunder the earth. A fourth view is similar to the third but claimsthat Jesus’ proclamation to these fallen angels took place notduring a descent into hell, but at his resurrection and ascension.
Thislast interpretation is the most likely one. Jesus’ descent to“Hades” (meaning the place of the dead) refers generallyto his death, not to an entrance into hell. Jesus’ proclamationwas his announcement of victory over sin, Satan, and death at hisresurrection and ascension. Peter here is reassuring his readers thatJesus rules, and that his death and resurrection have sealed the fateof all powers, real or not, that evoke fear. Paul says simply thatJesus triumphed over all such powers by the cross (Col. 2:15). Jesusdid not go to hell; rather, like every believer, when he died, hisspirit went to be with the Father in heaven (Luke 23:43), to remainthere until reunited with his body at his resurrection.
In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the bodyor items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body.For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures inrelation to the different body parts that are identified with thegestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line onclassifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described inProv. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signalswith his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclearwhether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether allsignify different things or the same thing.
Head
Gesturesthat relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolentacts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting ofone’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head inmourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery andderision (2Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult(Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).
Acommon action is the shaving of the head, which can be forpurification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all bodyhair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer.16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer.41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden fromshaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), whilethe high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificialduties (Exod. 29:6).
Anointingof the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7;Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing ona person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand onthe head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod.29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals isa symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24,29, 33; 8:18, 22).
Inthe OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut.21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be acause for disgrace (1Cor. 11:5–6).
Face.Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching orcovering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6)or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh.7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2Chron. 20:18; Ps.138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1Sam. 20:41;25:41; 28:14; 2Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1Kings 1:23;1Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod.3:6]).
Theface can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev.13:45), in grief/mourning (2Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), inresignation (1Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery(Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12).It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).
Godcan be described as hiding or turning away his face againstwickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer.33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholdingblessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8;59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment(Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of thePhilistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant,apparently overpowered by Yahweh.
Actsof humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num.12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face(1Kings 22:24; 2Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic.5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shamingjudgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone bythe nose (2Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek ishumiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the othercheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke6:29).
Onecan lift one’s face in worship (2Kings 20:2; Job 22:26;Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it inshame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards inmourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37),the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting(2Sam. 10:4; 1Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).
Eyes.Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act(Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship andexpectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).
Mouth.Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while ahand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5;40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the deserttribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” indefeat.
Ears.An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his orher earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut.15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear forpurification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), whilesupplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear(2Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifiespaying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20;5:13).
Neck.The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor(Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched inarrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns againstheaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put ayoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonianconquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in ayoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on theneck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation(Josh. 10:24).
Body
Nakednessin public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev.3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment(Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign ofpromiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a signof mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2Sam. 19:24). A certainkind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection(Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is anact of humiliation (2Sam. 4:12).
Chest.In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning(Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts ofsacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering”before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).
Hand,arm.Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship,clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth inawe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut.4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1Kings 8:42; 2Kings17:36; 2Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21;Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is oftenused of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies andenemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act forthe sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).
Sincethe right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the righthand indicates being favored (1Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt.22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2;1Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under thethigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen.48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).
Clappingthe hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse(25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job clapshis hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission andrepentance (Job 40:4–5).
Handscan be lifted in worship (1Kings 8:22; 1Tim. 2:8), tobeseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath(Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1Sam. 24:6, 10;2Sam.1:14; 18:12).
Pilatewashes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus(Matt. 27:24), while 1Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humblethemselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that indue time they will be lifted up.
Buttocks.Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult andprovocation, as happens to David’s men (2Sam. 10:4;1Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cush*te captives (Isa. 20:4).
Leg.The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductiveorgans, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen.24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animalthighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21;10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery causea guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).
Themost common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship orreverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), indefeat (2Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps.57:6), or in respect (1Kings 1:31). In what seems to be asomewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees inprayer (1Kings 18:42).
Feet.Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures inthe Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;43:24; 1Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), orin supplication (1Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as ablessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8;cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandalscan be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace(Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplicationbefore the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans cansignal deception (Prov. 6:13).
Enemiescan be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1Kings5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), havetheir feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15;105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation anddefeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the bloodof their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).
Thoseoverwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2Kings4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), whilethose emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2;3:24; Dan. 8:18).
Inthe NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication ofdivine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying ata person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt.15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37;5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipesthem with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an actof love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared hisbody for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washeshis disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood anddiscipleship (John 13:5–14).
Fingers,Toes.Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. Afinger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15;9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of theright thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20;Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).
Onewears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture ofrestoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motionin deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writeswith his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture ofindifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).
Clothesand Shoes
Garments.Garments attain significance as they are related to specificemotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen.37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments inmourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6;21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1Kings 21:27;2Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).
Rippingsomeone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2Sam.10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer.13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’sclothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons withdefiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing tornclothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).
Bylaying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may beacknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).
Sandals.A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10),while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicategiving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). Asandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast overa piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).
PropheticGestures
Propheticgestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentanceand approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiahputs a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekielcooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 daysand then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah stripsoff his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries anunfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).
Inthe NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment(Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinkswine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46;20:11; 27:35; 1Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christianpractices.
Imprisonmentof Criminals
Incomparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is importantto acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modernsocieties. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposingincarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregatingdangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime byimposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so thatthey can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern lawimposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblicallaw imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment(beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of thebiblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modernsociety would be considered political rather than criminalincarceration.
Thestory of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph wasfalsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’swife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned forthe otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king(40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of apredetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of theking (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himselfhundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Josephimprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for thecrime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certainprisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly(Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed forfailure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison asa guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen.42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could alsobe confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).
PoliticalImprisonment
Ina number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what wewould today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson wasimprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that hehad wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents(Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. SeveralIsraelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamianoverlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt,including Hoshea (2Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2Kings25:27–29), Manasseh (2Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer.52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal andinvolved torture (2Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachinwas later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivityin some comfort (2Kings 25:27–29).
Inthe NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbaswas imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating inan insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number ofChristians, apparently without what we would today recognize as anycriminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod forpolitical gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned fordisturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).
Imprisonmentof Prophets
Aspecial case of political incarceration is the imprisonment ofprophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophetswere imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who didnot want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power,imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinionsthat could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment ofdissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John theBaptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediateexecution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers towardcontroversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move aboutfreely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet thatprevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed toconfront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was acertain level of tolerance for them even when they were notsupportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed tothe use of imprisonment instead of execution.
Ahabimprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorableoracle (1Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani theseer (2Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that suchtreatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer.37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned fordelivering unwelcome messages to those in power.
TheologicalSignificance
Inboth Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’ssalvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7:“The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6;107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinelysent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison andidentified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological termsto a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1Pet. 3:19; Rev.20:7).
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.
Imprisonmentof Criminals
Incomparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is importantto acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modernsocieties. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposingincarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregatingdangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime byimposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so thatthey can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern lawimposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblicallaw imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment(beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of thebiblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modernsociety would be considered political rather than criminalincarceration.
Thestory of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph wasfalsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’swife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned forthe otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king(40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of apredetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of theking (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himselfhundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Josephimprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for thecrime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certainprisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly(Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed forfailure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison asa guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen.42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could alsobe confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).
PoliticalImprisonment
Ina number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what wewould today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson wasimprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that hehad wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents(Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. SeveralIsraelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamianoverlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt,including Hoshea (2Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2Kings25:27–29), Manasseh (2Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer.52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal andinvolved torture (2Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachinwas later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivityin some comfort (2Kings 25:27–29).
Inthe NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbaswas imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating inan insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number ofChristians, apparently without what we would today recognize as anycriminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod forpolitical gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned fordisturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).
Imprisonmentof Prophets
Aspecial case of political incarceration is the imprisonment ofprophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophetswere imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who didnot want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power,imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinionsthat could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment ofdissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John theBaptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediateexecution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers towardcontroversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move aboutfreely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet thatprevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed toconfront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was acertain level of tolerance for them even when they were notsupportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed tothe use of imprisonment instead of execution.
Ahabimprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorableoracle (1Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani theseer (2Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that suchtreatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer.37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned fordelivering unwelcome messages to those in power.
TheologicalSignificance
Inboth Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’ssalvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7:“The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6;107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinelysent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison andidentified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological termsto a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1Pet. 3:19; Rev.20:7).
Imprisonmentof Criminals
Incomparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is importantto acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modernsocieties. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposingincarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregatingdangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime byimposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so thatthey can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern lawimposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblicallaw imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment(beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of thebiblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modernsociety would be considered political rather than criminalincarceration.
Thestory of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph wasfalsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’swife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned forthe otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king(40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of apredetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of theking (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himselfhundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Josephimprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for thecrime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certainprisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly(Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed forfailure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison asa guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen.42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could alsobe confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).
PoliticalImprisonment
Ina number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what wewould today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson wasimprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that hehad wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents(Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. SeveralIsraelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamianoverlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt,including Hoshea (2Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2Kings25:27–29), Manasseh (2Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer.52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal andinvolved torture (2Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachinwas later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivityin some comfort (2Kings 25:27–29).
Inthe NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbaswas imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating inan insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number ofChristians, apparently without what we would today recognize as anycriminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod forpolitical gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned fordisturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).
Imprisonmentof Prophets
Aspecial case of political incarceration is the imprisonment ofprophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophetswere imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who didnot want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power,imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinionsthat could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment ofdissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John theBaptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediateexecution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers towardcontroversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move aboutfreely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet thatprevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed toconfront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was acertain level of tolerance for them even when they were notsupportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed tothe use of imprisonment instead of execution.
Ahabimprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorableoracle (1Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani theseer (2Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that suchtreatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer.37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned fordelivering unwelcome messages to those in power.
TheologicalSignificance
Inboth Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’ssalvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7:“The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6;107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinelysent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison andidentified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological termsto a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1Pet. 3:19; Rev.20:7).
One of the sons of Noah, listed last in most lists (Gen.9:18; 10:1) but also listed as the older brother of Shem (Gen. 10:21;or younger [see NIV mg.]). The third son, Ham, is said to be theyoungest (Gen. 9:24). Along with his wife, Japheth was one of eightpersons saved on Noah’s ark (1Pet. 3:20). After Japhethacted nobly with his brother Shem by covering up his sleeping andnaked father, Noah gave a blessing to Japheth, asking God to extendhis territory and bless his offspring. His name means “widespread”or “God will enlarge.” Japheth had seven sons, and it issuggested that his descendants settled in eastern Europe and northernAsia (Gen. 10:2–5).
The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While thetheme is most fully developed in the NT, its originis the OT,where the emphasis falls on God’s king-ship. God is king ofIsrael (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of allthe earth (2Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1–4; Isa. 6:5;Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reignas king are references to a day when God will become king over hispeople (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). Thisemphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism andtakes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and itsanticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, whichabandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the agewill the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom isfurther developed throughout the NT.
TheSynoptic Gospels
Inthe Synoptic Gospels the phrase “the kingdom of God”occurs over one hundred times in Mark, Luke, and Matthew (where“kingdom of heaven” is a synonym for “kingdom ofGod”). Three views have been defended regarding whether and towhat extent the kingdom of God was present in Jesus’ ministry.In other words, how are we to interpret the phrase “kingdom ofGod” in the Synoptics? The three views are consistenteschatology, realized eschatology, and inaugurated eschatology.
Consistenteschatology.Albert Schweitzer, a biblical scholar from the late nineteenthcentury, first popularized consistent eschatology. Here, “consistent”means consistent with the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day,which interpreted the kingdom of God as something coming in thefuture. Judaism at the time of Christ divided history into twoperiods: this age of sin, when sin rules, and the age to come, whenthe Messiah is expected to bring the kingdom of God to earth.Schweitzer concluded that an apocalyptic understanding of the kingdomwas foundational not only for Christ’s teaching, but also tounderstanding his life. Thus, Schweitzer maintained that Jesusbelieved that it was his vocation to become the coming Son of Man.Initially, Jesus revealed this messianic secret only to Peter, James,and John. Later, Peter told it to the rest of the Twelve. Judas toldthe secret to the high priest, who used it as the grounds for Jesus’execution (Mark 14:61–64; cf. Dan. 7:13).
Accordingto Schweitzer, when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a mission toproclaim the coming kingdom of God, he did not expect them to return.The Twelve were the “men of violence” (cf. Matt. 11:12)who would provoke the messianic tribulation that would herald thekingdom. Whereas some earlier scholars believed that one could onlywait passively for the kingdom, Schweitzer believed that the missionof Jesus was designed to provoke its coming. When this did nothappen, Jesus determined to give his own life as a ransom for many(Mark 10:45) and so cause the kingdom to come.
Accordingto Schweitzer, Jesus took matters into his own hands by precipitatinghis death, hoping that this would be the catalyst for God to make thewheel of history turn to its climax—the arrival of the kingdomof God. But, said Schweitzer, Jesus was wrong again, and he died indespair. So for Schweitzer, Jesus never witnessed the dawning of theage to come; it lay in the distant future, separated from thispresent age.
Onthe positive side, Schweitzer called attention to the fact that themessage of Jesus is rooted in first-century apocalyptic Judaism andits concept of the kingdom of God. This connection is stillfoundational to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy and theGospels today. On the negative side, Schweitzer’s selective useof evidence and rejection of the historicity of much of the Gospeltradition resulted in a skewed perspective on the present dimensionsof Jesus’ eschatology.
Realizedeschatology.In contrast to futurist eschatology, where the kingdom of God awaitsa final consummation at the end of history, realized eschatologyviews the kingdom of God as already realized in the person andmission of Jesus. The futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching arereduced to a minimum, and his apocalyptic language is viewed assymbolic of theological truths.
Theperson most responsible for advocating this position is Britishscholar C.H. Dodd. In his 1935 book Parables of the Kingdom, hefocused on Jesus’ teachings that announced the arrival of thekingdom with his coming. For instance, in Luke 11:20 Jesus says, “Butif I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of Godhas come upon you” (cf. Luke 17:21; Matt. 13). Eschatologybecomes a matter of the present experience rather than any kind offuture event. The kingdom has fully come in the messianic ministry ofJesus.
Mostinterpreters have criticized Dodd’s realized eschatology forignoring Jesus’ teachings that point to a future consummationof the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 24–25; Mark 13). When all of Jesus’teachings are considered, futurist eschatology balances realizedeschatology. To be sure, the kingdom arrived with Jesus, but Jesushimself taught that history still awaits a final completion. Thekingdom of God is both “already” and “not yet,”which leads us to the third view of the relationship of the kingdomof God to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Inauguratedeschatology. Thethird view, inaugurated eschatology, is commonly connected with thetwentieth-century Swiss theologian Oscar Cullmann. Like others beforehim, Cullmann understood that the Jewish notion of the two agesformed an important background for understanding the message ofJesus. According to Judaism, history is divided into two periods:this age of sin and the age to come (i.e., the kingdom of God). ForJews the advent of the Messiah would effect the shift from the formerto the latter. In other words, Judaism viewed the two ages asconsecutive. According to Cullmann, Jesus Christ announced that theend of time, the kingdom of God, had arrived within history (see Mark1:15 pars.; esp. Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62;10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17,24–25, 29; Acts 28:31). Yet other passages suggest thatalthough the age to come had already dawned, it was not yet complete.It awaited the second coming for its full realization (Luke 13:28–29;14:15; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; Acts 1:6). Hence the adjective“inaugurated” characterizes this eschatology. Such a viewis pervasive in the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:17–21; 3:18, 24;1Cor. 15:24; 1Tim. 4:1; 2Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1John2:18). So for inaugurated eschatology, the two ages are simultaneous:the age to come exists in the midst of this present age. Christianstherefore live in between the two ages until the parousia (secondcoming of Christ).
Wemay break down the data in the Synoptic Gospels regarding the“already/notyet” aspects concerning the kingdom ofGod in this manner: Mark, probably the first Gospel written, recordsJesus’ programmatic statement in 1:15: “The time hascome.... The kingdom of God has come near.”Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, then goes on to demonstrate thatJesus’ miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection inauguratedthe kingdom of God. Yet it is also clear from Matthew, Mark, and Lukethat the final manifestation of the kingdom has not yet happened. Wemay draw on Luke as representative of all three Synoptics. Luke’sGospel indicates that the kingdom was present for Jesus (Luke 7:28;8:10; 10:9–11; 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21), but it alsoawaited the second coming for its completion (6:20–26; 11:2;12:49–50, 51–53; 13:24–30; 21:25–29;22:15–18, 30). The same dual aspect of the kingdom pertains toLuke’s second volume, Acts. The kingdom was present in Jesus’ministry and now through his disciples (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25;28:23–31), but it will not be completed until Christ comesagain (1:6; 14:22).
TheGospel of John
John’sGospel has only three references to the kingdom of God. Nicodemus wastold by Jesus that he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom ofGod (3:3–5). Yet Jesus’ kingdom is not worldly in nature,but spiritual (18:36). Although the Gospel of John contains both thepresent (“already”) aspect and the future (“notyet”) aspect, the focus is clearly on the present. This is whymany scholars label the Fourth Gospel the “Gospel of RealizedEschatology.” This emphasis on the “already” can beseen in John in the following ways: (1)Eternal life, orentrance into the kingdom of God, can be a present possession (3:5–6,36; 6:47, 51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:24–26). (2)Theeschatological promise of sonship is granted to the believer in Jesusnow (1:12–13; 3:3–8; 4:14). (3)The generalresurrection has already begun (5:25). (4)The Spirit, the giftof the end time, currently indwells believers (7:37–39;14:15–31; 15:26–27; 16:5–16; 20:22–23).(5)Final judgment is determined by one’s present responseto Jesus (3:19; 5:22–24, 27, 30–38; 9:38; 12:31–33).(6)The spirit of antichrist has already entered the world sceneto oppose Christ (6:70; 13:2, 27). (7)Jesus’ death on thecross seems to absorb some elements of the messianic woes or aspectsof tribulation. In other words, Jesus’ passion was where theend-time holy war was waged, and his death and resurrection began theend of the forces of evil (15:18–16:11).
Onthe other hand, the Gospel of John also includes some typical future(“not yet”) aspects of eschatology. For example, thefuture resurrection is still expected (5:26–30). Likewise, thefuture second coming of Christ is alluded to (14:1–4; 21:22).Admittedly, however, the “already” aspect of the kingdomof God seems to overshadow the “not yet” perspective inthe Fourth Gospel.
PaulineLiterature
Thephrase “kingdom of God” and/or “kingdom of Christ”occurs twelve times in Paul’s writings.
Rom.14:17 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 4:20 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Cor. 6:9-10 – kingdom of God (2x) (future tense)
1Cor. 15:24 – kingdom of Christ/God (present/future tense)
1Cor. 15:50 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Gal.5:21 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Eph.5:5 – kingdom of Christ/God (future tense)
Col.1:13 – kingdom of the Son (present tense)
Col.4:11 – kingdom of God (present tense)
1Thess. 2:12 – his [God’s] kingdom (future tense)
2Thess. 1:5 – kingdom of God (future tense)
Threeobservations emerge from the chart: (1)The kingdom ofChrist/God is both present and future, already here and not yetcomplete. This is consistent with the Gospels and Acts. (2)Christand God are, in at least two instances, interchanged, suggestingequality of status between them (cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10).(3)In 1Cor. 15:24 we find the most precise description ofthe exact relationship between the kingdoms of Christ and God: theinterim messianic kingdom begun at the resurrection of Christ willone day give way to the eternal kingdom of God. Such a temporarykingdom is attested to in apocalyptic Judaism and may underlie Rev.20:1–6.
Christianstherefore live in between the two ages, in the messianic kingdom.
Hebrewsand the General Epistles
Hebrewsand the General Epistles continue the theme of the “already/notyet”aspects of the kingdom.
Hebrews.The following ideas associated in Second Temple Judaism with thearrival of God’s kingdom are seen by the author of Hebrews tohave been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ: (1)theappearance of the Messiah of the last days indicates the dawning ofthe kingdom of God (1:2; 9:9–10); (2)the greattribulation/messianic woes that were expected to occur in connectionwith the advent of the Messiah are now here (2:5–18; cf. 5:8–9;7:27–28; 10:12; 12:2); (3)the outpouring of the HolySpirit has happened (6:4–5); (4)the manifestation of theeschatological high priest at the end of history has taken place inJesus (7:26–28), who has also established the new covenant ofthe last days (8:6–13). Compare the preceding statements inHebrews with that author’s explicit mention of the presence ofthe kingdom of God in 12:18–28. And yet the kingdom of God isnot yet fully here. The church continues to suffer the messianicwoes, as is evidenced in the intermingling of Jesus’ sufferingof the great tribulation with the present afflictions of theChristian (2:5–18; 3:7–4:6; 5:7–6:12; 10:19–39;12:1–2; 13:11–16). Furthermore, the exhortations topersevere in the faith that punctuate the book of Hebrews (2:1–4;3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) area familiar theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.
TheGeneral Epistles.The main message of James is that the last days are here (1:2; 5:3)and with it the messianic woes (1:2–12; 5:1–12).Therefore, believers will need to faithfully endure the greattribulation until the second coming of Christ. But there are twoindications that James also teaches that the kingdom of God hasdawned in the midst of the great tribulation. First, Christiansexperience even now the eschatological quality of joy (James 1:2–3;cf. Joel 2:21–27). Second, Christians also share in theend-time gift of wisdom (James 1:5–8).
FirstPeteris similar to James with regard to its inaugurated eschatology. Thus,the church suffers the messianic woes/great tribulation (1Pet.1:6, 11; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 5:1–9). Nevertheless,the age to come/kingdom of God has broken into the midst of this age,as evidenced by the eschatological joy and God’s protectivepower that it brings (1:5–6).
SecondPeterdoes seem to stress the “not yet” aspect of the kingdomof God. Thus, the kingdom of God still waits to be entered (1:11), ishindered by end-time apostasy (2Pet. 2), and has been postponed(3:1–10). Yet the “already” aspect of the kingdomis not entirely absent. This is evidenced by the fact that thetransfiguration of Christ on the mountain was a display of the comingpower and glory of the age to come, a glory revealed to the discipleson the mountain and now communicated to all believers (1:16–19).
Judeis devoted to alerting Christians to the reality that they are in themidst of the end-time holy war (vv. 3, 20–23), as can be seenby their struggle with the false teaching of end-time apostasy (vv.5–19). Nevertheless, because believers possess theeschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, they will prevail to fullyenter the kingdom of God (v.20).
TheLetters of John attest to the overlapping of the two ages—thatis, inaugurated eschatology. Thus, on the one hand, the spirit ofantichrist is here (1John 2:18; 2John 7), along with thefalse teaching that it breeds (1John 2:20–29; cf. 2–3John); but on the other hand, the Johannine community has theend-time anointing of the Holy Spirit, which preserves believers fromevil and deception (1John 2:20–21; 3:1–10).Moreover, Christians presently have eternal life through Christ, oneof the blessings of the kingdom of God (1John 5:11–13).
Revelation
The“already/notyet” aspects of the kingdom of God aremanifested in Revelation in the following way: the kingdom of God hasalready dawned in heaven, but it has not yet appeared on earth.Regarding the former, it is clear from 1:9; 5:1–14; 12:1–6that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated the advent ofthe kingdom of God in heaven. Thus, Jesus obediently underwent themessianic woes on the cross and was then raised to heavenly glory,triumphant over the great tribulation. There in heaven, Christ reignsas the invisible Lord over all (including Caesar). But that thekingdom of God has not yet descended to earth is clear in Revelationfrom two present realities. First, even though Jesus has endured thegreat tribulation/messianic woes, his followers continue to face manytrials (chaps. 6–18). There is no deliverance for them fromsuch affliction until the return of Christ in glory (chap. 19). Theonly possible exception to this is the divine protection of the144,000 (chaps. 7; 14). Second, the kingdom of God has not appearedon earth; that event awaits the parousia (chap. 20 [assuming that thepremillennial interpretation of that chapter is the most viablereading]). In all of this, it seems that the messianic woes/greattribulation are the divine means for purging the earth in preparationfor the future arrival of the temporal, messianic kingdom (chap. 20).After Christ’s one-thousand-year reign on earth, this temporalmessianic kingdom will give way to the eternal kingdom of God and itsnew earth and new heaven (chaps. 21–22). It must beacknowledged, however, that interpretations of chapters 20–22greatly vary, depending on whether one takes a premillennial,amillennial, or postmillennial perspective.
Conclusion
Thepreceding data thus seem to confirm that the most apt description ofthe relationship between the two ages and the kingdom of God thatinforms the NT is inaugurated eschatology: with the first coming ofChrist, the kingdom of God/the age to come dawned, but it will not beuntil the second coming of Christ that the age to come/kingdom of Godwill be complete. The church therefore lives in between the times.That is to say, the age to come has broken into this present age, andit is only through the eye of faith that one can now perceive thepresence of the kingdom of God.
(1)Theeighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson ofMethuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race throughthe flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because hisfather, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring restfrom the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch washis great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who“walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). Hewas the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Hisstory is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its greatwickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah foundgrace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a largeboat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as wellas selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed,and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe.From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was therecipient of various directives for the governance of thepostdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen.9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curiousepisode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Hamfor some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is describedonly as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.
Noahis mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise thatthe “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earthto affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and inanother text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those whocould deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedientIsrael (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions inNoah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time ofhis coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Petermentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those whoperished in the flood (1Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as anexample of God’s ability to deliver his people (2Pet.2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.
(2)Oneof the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion oftheir deceased father’s property helped set a precedent forinheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh.17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad tomarry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not passfrom tribe to tribe (Num. 36).
A God-established observance, often given as a remembrancefor generations, a memorial, always a commandment or an edict to becarried out, noted because God’s people are a covenant people,a perpetual statement of how God wants his people to relate to him.
OldTestament
Inthe OT the use of the word “ordinance” to translatecertain Hebrew words varies among English translations. Since“ordinance” relates to the law, it is often mentionedwith commandments and statutes, without a clear distinction ofmeaning (Deut. 7:11).
Inthe OT of the NIV, the word “ordinance” is thetranslation of these Hebrew words: (1)khuqqah (“statute,decree”), at least twenty-three times in Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers, and Ezekiel; (2)khoq (“action, statute,decree”), twice in Exodus; and (3)mishpat (“judgment,justice”), at least five times in the historical books, Psalms,and Ezekiel.
TheHebrew term khuqqah is used in all but one instance with ’olamto note a “lasting ordinance” in the NIV. This termrefers to the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod.12–13). The oil for the perpetual lampstand is referred to as alasting ordinance (Exod. 27:21), as are also the directions for theDay of Atonement (Lev. 23:31) and the ceremonial cleanliness for theman working with the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19:10). Other,more-specific laws are noted as lasting ordinances. These include,for example, the restriction from wine for the priests (Lev. 10:9),restriction of the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31), andthe grain offering (Ezek. 46:14).
TheHebrew term khoq is also used in conjunction with ’olam inExod. 12:24; 30:21, translated as “lasting ordinance” bythe NIV. It notes the Passover as a lasting ordinance and the ritualcleansing of the priests as a lasting ordinance.
TheHebrew term mishpat, often translated “judgment,” is alsotranslated in the NIV as “ordinance.” In these instancesit notes edicts such as that of the equal division of spoils (1Sam.30:25) and the edicts of David (2Chron. 8:14). The Levitesstate that Israel has sinned against God’s mishpatim (Neh.9:29), and the priests will judge according to God’s ordinances(Ezek. 44:24).
NewTestament
Inthe NT, the KJV (3x) and NASB (1x) translate dikaiōma(“regulation, requirement”) as “ordinance,”and both also once translate diatagē (“that which iscommanded”) as “ordinance”; additionally, the KJVtranslates paradosis(“tradition”) and ktisis (“human authority”)as “ordinance” once each. The ESV, NRSV, KJV, and NASBtranslate dogma (“ordinance, command”) in Eph. 2:15 as“ordinance.” These terms seem to refer to the edict ofGod for his people, his commandments that are to be obeyed. The NIVdoes not translate any noun as “ordinance” in the NT.
ChristianTheology
InChristian theology the use of the word “ordinance” is notdissimilar. It denotes a God-ordained observance given as a commandfor his people to fulfill as a covenant people.
Protestantsgenerally recognize two ordinances in the NT: baptism and the Lord’sSupper (Communion, Eucharist). The common characteristics identifyingthese relate to their ordination by Christ to picture his work in thelife of believers and the church and their participation in him. (Seealso Sacrament.)
Baptism.The concept of baptism is found in five different Greek words, thenouns baptisma (“plunging, dipping”), baptismos(“washing, cleansing, plunging”), and baptistēs(“baptizer”), and the verbs baptizō (“toplunge, dip, wash”) and baptō (“to dip”). Themeanings of these words have been discussedthroughout church history, but all of them seem to denote an actionof dipping or plunging.
Christianbaptism certainly is rooted in the baptisms of John, Jesus, and theapostles. In the book of Acts the disciples simply continue tobaptize those who repent, as they had done at the inception of Jesus’ministry (John 4:2). There is no surprise expressed by the recipientsof baptism; the expression seems a natural follow-up to theirrepentance. The connection to Judaism, however, is unclear. Judaismwas saturated with rituals of purification with water and washings.These washings were similar to baptisms. While Jewish washings wereperpetual, only the Jewish proselyte baptism was a onetime rite. Itis unclear when proselyte baptism started or how it developed. It mayalready have been in place in the time of Jesus. The Talmud laterspeaks of it, but it is not mentioned in the OT and seems to bemissing from Second Temple literature altogether. Just as there werecleansings in the OT rituals, so too the proselyte baptism was apreparatory cleansing of the proselyte candidate. Yet proselytebaptism before the time of Jesus has little extant evidence.Additionally, John would not seem to look to a ritual for Gentiles.
Othershave proposed that John was in continuity with a practice of Qumran.The two were very similar (though the Qumran rite was perpetual). AtQumran, baptismal cleansing and repentance looks to the Messiah(Qumran was an eschatological community). Yet it may be that this, aswell as the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the apostles, was derivedfrom (common?) sources not now known.
ForJohn, too, baptism is a sign of repentance and cleansing inpreparation. John is the forerunner of the Messiah, and as such hisfocus is also eschatological. John brings an immediate focus on theMessiah, and he draws the Israelite community together to recognize,receive, listen to, and follow the Messiah. With this as thesignificance of John’s baptism, it is surprising to find Jesuscoming to him for baptism. Although Jesus has no need for cleansingand preparation, he is baptized in solidarity with John’smessage and his people. When Jesus is baptized, it apparently marksthe inception of the kingdom as the Spirit comes upon him and theFather affirms him. Thereafter, Jesus notes the kingdom as being “athand” in his presence.
Jesusbaptizes at least some of the disciples (John 3:22), though thedisciples are noted as those who regularly do the baptizing (John4:2). No doubt this baptism referenced cleansing and preparation, asthe Messiah was present. Apparently, the baptism of Jesus’disciples subsided, since there is no further reference to it by thefour evangelists.
Onthe day of Pentecost, repentance and baptism with regard to theMessiah are begun by the apostles postresurrection. This is accordingto the command of Jesus before the ascension to make disciples by wayof baptism and instruction (Matt. 28:19–20). This baptismcommanded by Jesus is to be done “in the name” of thethree persons of the Trinity. The early baptismal creed was “Jesusis Lord,” and it may have included a threefold query of beliefin the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Postresurrection baptismsymbolizes cleansing; the inundation in the water symbolizes thiscleansing as effected in the death and resurrection of Christ,“buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4).
Baptismis always assumed of a believer (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3–4;1Pet. 3:21). It would have never occurred to the early churchto dichotomize salvation and baptism as is often done today. Theexception can be seen in Paul’s writings, where he emphasizesthe kerygma over the act of baptism (1Cor. 1:17). For Paul, thewatershed is the preaching of the gospel to be received by faith, buthe perpetually appeals to the baptism of his readers.
Somehave overemphasized baptism by seeing it as the salvific entity. Acts10:47 applies for Cornelius and his family the permanent reception ofthe Spirit before baptism. This reception of the Spirit is laterlikened by Peter to the original gift of the Spirit at Pentecost(Acts 11:15). Although it would be unwise to infer doctrine from themere sequence of narrative events, the passage in Acts 10 at leastshows the nonnecessity of the sequence of baptism to come into unionwith Christ. This is enacted by the operation of the Spirit alone.
Inevery case in the NT, the candidates for baptism are those who havecome to repentance, and they are always adults. There is no directreference to infant baptism. Some in the church have assumed infantbaptism in family contexts, thought to be especially effectual indealing with original sin. But overall, the biblical testimony seemsto indicate that baptism is for believers who have repented. Becauseit is usually NT authority figures who administer baptism, a generalconsensus arose that only the bishop of the church should administerbaptism. Ignatius calls for the bishop only to minister bothordinances. The tradition that baptism be administered by an ordainedofficer of the church is largely maintained today, though there is noedict in the Scripture.
Withregard to mode, the Didache calls for immersion in running water asthe preferred method, with still water being the second choice. Ifwater is not available for immersion, then a threefold pouring isallowed. In church history, those who prioritize the symbol ofcleansing use sprinkling as the mode. In any event, when anythingwith regard to mode can be discerned from Scripture, it involvesdipping into water (“he went up out of the water” [Matt.3:16]; “they came up out of the water” [Acts 8:39]). (Seealso Baptism; Infant Baptism.)
TheLord’s Supper.The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is also referred to as theLord’s Table, Communion, and the Eucharist. The Lord’sSupper is a memorial of the death of Christ. In the partaking of thebread and the cup there is remembrance of the ground of salvationeffected in the sacrifice of the cross. Most evangelical Christiansconsider the bread and the cup to symbolically represent the body andblood of Christ. Other Christian traditions claim that the bread andthe cup are transformed into the real body and blood of Christ(transubstantiation) or that the real body and blood of Christ arepresent alongside the bread and the cup (consubstantiation).
Thenarrative of Jesus’ Last Supper is found in Matt. 26:26–29;Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1Cor. 11:23–26.This meal as recorded in the Gospels is the covenant meal celebratedin view of the ratification of the new covenant that would soon beaccomplished (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood”[Luke 22:20]). Jesus instituted the supper on the night before thecrucifixion. The Last Supper of Jesus with the apostles in the upperroom also looks tothe past redemption effected in the Passoveron that fateful night in Egypt. It looks to the present work ofChrist as the covenant meal. It anticipates the messianic meal in theeschaton. Just as the bread and the cup with Jesus in his Last Supperwere connected with the Passover meal, so in the early church it wasobserved with the love feast. The fellowship of the church containedthe love feast, with the bread given before or after the meal and thecup following the bread. But by the second century, the bread and thecup took on a more liturgical air, being separated from the lovefeast.
Muchof what we know about the Lord’s Supper comes throughdiscussion of problems in the Corinthian church. The very thing thatthe Lord’s Supper was to foster—unity around the cross ofJesus Christ—was denied. The exact abuse in Corinth is unknown,but it probably involved the rich oppressing the poor by exclusion ordenial of food. The response of the apostle is that if they cannoteat in equal moderation with all socioeconomic strata in the body,they are to eat at home (“Don’t you have homes to eat anddrink in?” [1Cor. 11:22]). (See also Last Supper; Lord’sSupper.)
The words “persecute” and “persecution”refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. Theterms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer topersecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takesvarying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, orexecution.
Persecutionthroughout the Bible.Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and“persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations ofthe Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos.However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue,followafter,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness orpeace (Rom. 9:30; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet.3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15;Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2Sam. 22:38). The Greek words weretranslated into English as “persecute” or “persecution”when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongfulaffliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.
Inthis sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout theBible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea(Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stonethe prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saulhunts David (1Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays theGibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1Sam. 21:1–2).Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1Kings 18:13). The prophetUriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated(Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are stronglyopposed, suggesting persecution (2Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6;Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to thelions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jewsfor holding the laws of God above the king’s commands,indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility isshown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecutiondescribed in 1Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings inEgypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.
Persecutionin the New Testament.In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading ofJohn the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19).Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is triedand executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen issoon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning(7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men andwomen from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from thechief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he castsvotes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herodexecutes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts,and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2Cor. 11:23–25).Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speakingdisciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and somedisciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess.1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution ofChristians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far moreseverely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl.2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4,41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic,often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred inmany regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records ofpersecution survived haphazardly.
Jesussays that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for ourpersecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesusaccordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34;cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples topray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). BothJesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9;1Thess. 3:4; 2Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength inpersecution (Acts 14:22; 2Cor.12:10).
The words “persecute” and “persecution”refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. Theterms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer topersecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takesvarying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, orexecution.
Persecutionthroughout the Bible.Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and“persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations ofthe Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos.However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue,followafter,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness orpeace (Rom. 9:30; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet.3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15;Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2Sam. 22:38). The Greek words weretranslated into English as “persecute” or “persecution”when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongfulaffliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.
Inthis sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout theBible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea(Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stonethe prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saulhunts David (1Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays theGibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1Sam. 21:1–2).Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1Kings 18:13). The prophetUriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated(Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are stronglyopposed, suggesting persecution (2Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6;Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to thelions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jewsfor holding the laws of God above the king’s commands,indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility isshown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecutiondescribed in 1Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings inEgypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.
Persecutionin the New Testament.In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading ofJohn the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19).Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is triedand executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen issoon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning(7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men andwomen from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from thechief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he castsvotes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herodexecutes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts,and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2Cor. 11:23–25).Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speakingdisciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and somedisciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess.1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution ofChristians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far moreseverely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl.2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4,41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic,often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred inmany regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records ofpersecution survived haphazardly.
Jesussays that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for ourpersecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesusaccordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34;cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples topray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). BothJesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9;1Thess. 3:4; 2Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength inpersecution (Acts 14:22; 2Cor.12:10).
Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses inseveral ways.
Family.In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing ofwealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancientIsrael special provisions were made for inheriting land upon thedeath of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; therest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lackedsons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers,father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OTprovides guidance for additional circ*mstances (Gen. 38:8–9;Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10;Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concernfor the stability of the family and the retention of the land withina tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legalstanding even while the father was still alive; his status was basedon birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.
OldTestament.Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that Godgave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as aninheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29;Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, notsomething that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7).Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”)and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God willdwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14;Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance movesbeyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 theanointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I willmake the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth yourpossession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land ofCanaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similarexpansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).
God’srelationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance.On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance(Deut. 32:9; 1Sam. 10:1; 1Kings 8:51–53); on theother hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer.10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’srelationship with Israel.
NewTestament. Inheritancelanguage is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways.First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,”the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and onearth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their unionwith Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom.8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in thatinheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described invarious ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), thekingdom (1Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14),blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enactedby the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28).Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through theSpirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heavenand awaits the consummation (1Pet. 1:4–6).
Theconnection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit isespecially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses acombination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. BeforeChrist came, God’s people were heirs under the care ofguardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them fromunder the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sonsand daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit,who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of theSpirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters ratherthan slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritancein fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa.44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedomin Christ (Gal. 5:1).
The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More thana simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the graceof the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classicaltexts use the Greek word apolytrōsis(“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given torelease a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. Thegroup of words based on the Greek term lytron(“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. Thecorresponding Hebrew word padahis a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.
OldTestament
Theexperience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religioussignificance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included thededication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13).Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), wasredeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up todescribe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continuedto broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance fromall Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included thewhole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or thenew age to come).
AnotherHebrew term, ga’al,generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a personwho had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to paya debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property(Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery(25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing therelationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, thekinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply thisunderstanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps.19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone(Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power(45:13).
Theawaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’sultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’scontinued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant,God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon.Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was ifGod would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. Thislonging for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As thepersecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamentalperiod (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT andthe NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianichope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people fromGreek and Roman oppression.
NewTestament
TheNT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). WhenJesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slaveryof sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many(Matt. 20:28// Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the crossaccentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17;7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christianidea of ransom followedthe accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death(Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with aransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis inthe NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period,underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.
Withoutreflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made anissue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlightJesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12;cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need oftheredeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of theredemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from onesphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another.Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted ofmonetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1Pet.3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of thosehe redeemed (antilytron hyper [1Tim. 2:6]). God still did notpay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.
TheOT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in thepresent, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills theNT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’stheological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from theslavery of sin (1Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matterof ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already butnot yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption isevidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).
Althoughredemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future(Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1Cor.15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions ofredemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expectsredemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption isuniversal; it restores the relationship between creation and theCreator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).
The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More thana simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the graceof the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classicaltexts use the Greek word apolytrōsis(“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given torelease a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. Thegroup of words based on the Greek term lytron(“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. Thecorresponding Hebrew word padahis a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.
OldTestament
Theexperience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religioussignificance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included thededication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13).Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), wasredeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up todescribe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continuedto broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance fromall Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included thewhole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or thenew age to come).
AnotherHebrew term, ga’al,generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a personwho had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to paya debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property(Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery(25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing therelationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, thekinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply thisunderstanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps.19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone(Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power(45:13).
Theawaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’sultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’scontinued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant,God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon.Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was ifGod would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. Thislonging for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As thepersecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamentalperiod (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT andthe NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianichope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people fromGreek and Roman oppression.
NewTestament
TheNT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). WhenJesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slaveryof sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many(Matt. 20:28// Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the crossaccentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17;7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christianidea of ransom followedthe accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death(Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with aransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis inthe NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period,underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.
Withoutreflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made anissue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlightJesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12;cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need oftheredeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of theredemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from onesphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another.Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted ofmonetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1Pet.3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of thosehe redeemed (antilytron hyper [1Tim. 2:6]). God still did notpay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.
TheOT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in thepresent, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills theNT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’stheological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from theslavery of sin (1Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matterof ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already butnot yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption isevidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).
Althoughredemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future(Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1Cor.15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions ofredemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expectsredemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption isuniversal; it restores the relationship between creation and theCreator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).
The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More thana simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the graceof the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classicaltexts use the Greek word apolytrōsis(“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given torelease a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. Thegroup of words based on the Greek term lytron(“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. Thecorresponding Hebrew word padahis a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.
OldTestament
Theexperience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religioussignificance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included thededication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13).Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), wasredeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up todescribe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continuedto broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance fromall Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included thewhole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or thenew age to come).
AnotherHebrew term, ga’al,generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a personwho had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to paya debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property(Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery(25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing therelationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, thekinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply thisunderstanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps.19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone(Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power(45:13).
Theawaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’sultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’scontinued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant,God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon.Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was ifGod would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. Thislonging for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As thepersecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamentalperiod (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT andthe NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianichope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people fromGreek and Roman oppression.
NewTestament
TheNT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). WhenJesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slaveryof sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many(Matt. 20:28// Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the crossaccentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17;7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christianidea of ransom followedthe accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death(Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with aransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis inthe NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period,underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.
Withoutreflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made anissue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlightJesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12;cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need oftheredeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of theredemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from onesphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another.Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted ofmonetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1Pet.3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of thosehe redeemed (antilytron hyper [1Tim. 2:6]). God still did notpay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.
TheOT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in thepresent, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills theNT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’stheological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from theslavery of sin (1Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matterof ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already butnot yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption isevidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).
Althoughredemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future(Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1Cor.15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions ofredemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expectsredemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption isuniversal; it restores the relationship between creation and theCreator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).
The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More thana simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the graceof the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classicaltexts use the Greek word apolytrōsis(“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given torelease a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. Thegroup of words based on the Greek term lytron(“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. Thecorresponding Hebrew word padahis a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.
OldTestament
Theexperience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religioussignificance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included thededication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13).Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), wasredeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up todescribe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continuedto broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance fromall Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included thewhole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or thenew age to come).
AnotherHebrew term, ga’al,generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a personwho had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to paya debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property(Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery(25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing therelationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, thekinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply thisunderstanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps.19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone(Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power(45:13).
Theawaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’sultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’scontinued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant,God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon.Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was ifGod would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. Thislonging for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As thepersecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamentalperiod (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT andthe NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianichope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people fromGreek and Roman oppression.
NewTestament
TheNT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). WhenJesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slaveryof sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many(Matt. 20:28// Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the crossaccentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17;7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christianidea of ransom followedthe accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death(Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with aransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis inthe NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period,underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.
Withoutreflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made anissue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlightJesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12;cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need oftheredeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of theredemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from onesphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another.Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted ofmonetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1Pet.3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of thosehe redeemed (antilytron hyper [1Tim. 2:6]). God still did notpay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.
TheOT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in thepresent, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills theNT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’stheological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from theslavery of sin (1Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matterof ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already butnot yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption isevidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).
Althoughredemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future(Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1Cor.15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions ofredemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expectsredemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption isuniversal; it restores the relationship between creation and theCreator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).
The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.
Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.
Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).
Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.
1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.
2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.
3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.
4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).
Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).
Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.
OldTestament
SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).
Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.
Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.
Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.
Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).
Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).
Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.
Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.
Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).
Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.
First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.
Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.
Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.
Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).
NewTestament
Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.
Today, vengeance normally is understood as retaliation for asuffered wrong, an action arising from vindictiveness and antipathytoward its object. Such an understanding runs counter to the biblicalconcept of vengeance. Indeed, the negative individual vengefulnessassociated with the term is either unequivocally forbidden or shownto be wrongheaded (Exod. 23:4–5; Lev. 19:18; Ezek. 25:12–16;Jer. 20:10–11; 1Pet. 3:9). Thus, the term is betterunderstood by considering the Hebrew term naqam(or its synonyms baqash and gemul [Josh. 22:23; 1Sam. 20:16;2Sam. 4:11; Ps. 94:2; Isa. 59:18; Obad. 15]) and the Greek termekdikēsis.A close study of the biblical terms suggests that vengeance has to dowith the administration of justice: the rendition of appropriatesanctions against a violator of established norms, and the provisionof justice or vindication to the victimized or oppressed. Onerecurrent motif in the incidences of God’s vengeance is itsfunction in stopping or recompensing injustice (Isa. 59:14–18).The prerogative of such a solemn task rests with someone withlegitimate authority. Such authority is ultimately God’s (Deut.32:35, 39; cf. Ps. 94:1–3; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:19). Indeed,the subject of four out of every five occurrences of “vengeance”in the Bible is God.
Inthat capacity, God combines, almost indistinguishably, the roles of asovereign, supreme judge, and warrior in his execution of vengeanceon the errant (Exod. 15:1–7; Ps. 89:6–18; Isa. 51:4–5;52:10; Jer. 20:12). He sometimes delegates this function to angels(Gen. 18–19; Exod. 12:23; 2Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23);nations, or national armies (Deut. 28:45–50; Isa. 10:5; Jer.50:9–15); Israel (Deut. 9:1–5; 7:1; 20:16–17; Josh.6:17–25; 8:24); kings, political leaders, and judicial officers(Deut. 25:1; Jer. 27:6; Rom. 13:1–4; 1Pet. 2:13–14);and nonintelligent beings or elements of nature (Exod. 23:28–30;Amos 4:6–11).
God’svengeance has its moorings in his holiness (Jer. 50:28–29; cf.Deut. 32:4). The violation of his holiness arouses his justice, whichdemands just retribution for the offense (2Sam. 12:1–12;Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 31:3–11). Put differently, God’srighteousness is the obverse of his vengeance. One’s experienceof either is contingent upon one’s relationship with God. Inother words, his vengeance flows from his justice (Ps. 89:31–32;Nah. 1:3). God’s justice is counterbalanced by his love (cf.James 2:13). For that reason, his vengeance on his covenant people isoften more corrective than punitive and anticipates their repentance,redemption, and restoration (Isa. 1:24–26; Jer. 3:1–17;46:28). Ultimately, he forgives his people, whom he disciplines (Pss.89:19–33; 99:8; Zeph. 3:7; Rom. 5:6–11).
Therefore,there always is a close link between God’s vengeance on thewicked and the salvation of his people (Isa. 34:8; 49:26; 61:1–3;Jer. 51:36). This is why the nations that he uses to punish Israelend up being punished themselves because of their hubris andoverreaching attempts to annihilate his covenant people (Isa.47:1–11; Jer. 46:10; 50–51), their failure to recognizethe God who has prospered them, and their opposition to him (Deut.32:26; Mic. 5:14). Thus, God’s people come to expect or evencall for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Ps. 94:1–7;Jer. 11:20; 15:15; Lam. 3:60–66; Hab. 1:2–4). Suchexpectation is usually futuristic and parallels Israelite hope forthe impending “day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:9–11; Jer.46:10; Luke 21:20–24; 2Thess. 1:6–8). Thus, thecries of God’s people for his vengeance on their enemiesrepresent the abandonment of personal revenge in favor of God’sacts of justice and vindication—petitions for the rule of God’slaw over mere human justice (Pss. 58:11; 79:10; Rev. 6:10).
Showing
1
to
50
of226
results
1. Are You Really Listening?
Illustration
Eric Ritz
In his book Directions, author James Hamilton shares this insight about listening to God: "Before refrigerators, people used icehouses to preserve their food. Icehouses had thick walls, no windows, and a tightly fitted door. In winter, when streams and lakes were frozen, large blocks of ice were cut, hauled to the icehouses, and covered with sawdust. Often the ice would last well into the summer.
One man lost a valuable watch while working in an icehouse. He searched diligently for it, carefully raking through the sawdust, but didn't find it. His fellow workers also looked, but their efforts, too, proved futile. A small boy who heard about the fruitless search slipped into the icehouse during the noon hour and soon emerged with the watch.
Amazed, the men asked him how he found it.
I closed the door,'' the boy replied, "lay down in the sawdust, and kept very still. Soon I heard the watch ticking.''
Often the question is not whether God is speaking, but whether we are being still enough, and quiet enough, to hear. Yes, Jesus assures us that our heavenly Father always listens to us, but do we really listen to God? Do we follow the instructions of Psalm 46, "Be still, and know that I am God"?
2. DEFUSE YOUR FUSE
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Not all murderers are behind bars. Even churches are full of them. We all know that those who kill bodies are subject to punishment by law. Jesus tells us that it is just as much an act of murder to lash out at someone with our tongue as with our hands. A tongue can destroy lives and reputations as effectively as a tornado can wreck a town. While destruction is accomplished in minutes, restoration often takes years.
Without mincing words, Jesus says that a lashing tongue can lead us to everlasting hell. Control your anger! You have no right to dump it on anyone ... whether subtly or blatantly. Every human being that casts a shadow upon this earth is a child of God ... included in the category of the human race are also parents, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children, and neighbors. The blood of Jesus Christ ran freely for each of these people. We have no right to destroy someone whom God has declared precious by his Son’s sacrifice.
Throughout the Bible we are warned to control our temper. Only in instances of injustice are we permitted to show anger. We can be angry over one person’s unjustness to another. The Greek word behind the term for anger in the New Testament is the word orgay. Taken from the realm of nature it suggests a superabundant swelling of sap and vigor, thrusting and upsurging in nature. It connotes an impulsiveness found in all of us.
As impulsive as anger might be, it can be controlled. Saint Paul says to the church at Ephesus, "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice." God does not command us to achieve that which is impossible to achieve. To control our anger, we must first believe that it can be controlled and then seek God’s help in controlling it. We can control anger through the powerful presence of Jesus Christ in our lives. Christ can help us defuse our fuse before we blow. He can even change us from a beast into a teddy bear. We must first want the change to take place, then seek it, and before long, with God’s help, we’ll have it.
3. Our Relationship with God
Illustration
John P. Jewell
One of the reasons people tend to see faith as a religionaboutGod instead of a relationshipwithGod is the sense that they are not worthy of the attention of an Almighty God."My problems are too small for God to care about."or"With all the pain and suffering in this world, why would God care about me?"are a couple of ways people give expression to this sense of insignificance. The sense is the one expressed by our theme title today,"How can one so great care for one so small."
Have you ever felt that sense of insignificance? There have been times when I've gazed into the incredible expanse of a starlit sky and felt ever so small and insignificant. Even our planet is hardly a speck of dust in the vast cosmos.
And yet, the heart of the lesson for today says that God is attentive to the heartache and suffering of all persons, no matter how insignificant they may seem to the world around them.
Religion can get in the way of a relationship with God. Faith is not about rules, regulations and religion. It is about we human beings reaching out to a God who reaches out to us through Jesus Christ who reaches into the pain and anguish of our living. The good news for the people in our scripture lesson is that the barriers all fall away. For the woman, for Jairus and for the little girl - the greatness of God and the good news of Jesus Christ eliminate all obstacles to health and life.
And aren't you glad that Christ cares more about our wholeness and our living than he does about the niggling details of religious convention? When I am in anguish and wish for the presence of Christ, I do not need to worry that I am too great a sinner or that some folks would consider me to be unacceptable I know that Jesus cared for a woman who was a social reject and for a little girl that was not among the children of his followers.
4. Meet in the Middle
Illustration
Tim Kimmel
Shortly after the turn of the century, Japan invaded, conquered, and occupied Korea. Of all of their oppressors, Japan was the most ruthless. They overwhelmed the Koreans with a brutality that would sicken the strongest of stomachs. Their crimes against women and children were inhuman. Many Koreans live today with the physical and emotional scars from the Japanese occupation.
One group singled out for concentrated oppression was the Christians. When the Japanese army overpowered Korea one of the first things they did was board up the evangelical churches and eject most foreign missionaries. It has always fascinated me how people fail to learn from history. Conquering nations have consistently felt that shutting up churches would shut down Christianity. It didn't work in Rome when the church was established, and it hasn't worked since. Yet somehow the Japanese thought they would have a different success record.
The conquerors started by refusing to allow churches to meet and jailing many of the key Christian spokesmen. The oppression intensified as the Japanese military increased its profile in the South Pacific. The "Land of the Rising Sum" spread its influence through a reign of savage brutality. Anguish filled the hearts of the oppressed and kindled hatred deep in their souls.
One pastor persistently entreated his local Japanese police chief for permission to meet for services. His nagging was finally accommodated, and the police chief offered to unlock his church ... for one meeting. It didn't take long for word to travel. Committed Christians starving for an opportunity for unhindered worship quickly made their plans. Long before dawn on that promised Sunday, Korean families throughout a wide area made their way to the church. They passed the staring eyes of their Japanese captors, but nothing was going to steal their joy. As they closed the doors behind them they shut out the cares of oppression and shut in a burning spirit anxious to glorify their Lord.
The Korean church has always had a reputation as a singing church. Their voices of praise could not be concealed inside the little wooden frame sanctuary. Song after song rang through the open windows into the bright Sunday morning. For a handful of peasants listening nearby, the last two songs this congregation sang seemed suspended in time. It was during a stanza of "Nearer My God to Thee" that the Japanese police chief waiting outside gave the orders. The people toward the back of the church could hear them when they barricaded the doors, but no one realized that they had doused the church with kerosene until they smelled the smoke. The dried wooden skin of the small church quickly ignited. Fumes filled the structure as tongues of flame began to lick the baseboard on the interior walls. There was an immediate rush for the windows. But momentary hope recoiled in horror as the men climbing out the windows came crashing back in their bodies ripped by a hail of bullets.
The good pastor knew it was the end. With a calm that comes from confidence, he led his congregation in a hymn whose words served as a fitting farewell to earth and a loving salutation to heaven. The first few words were all the prompting the terrified worshipers needed. With smoke burning their eyes, they instantly joined as one to sing their hope and leave their legacy. Their song became a serenade to the horrified and helpless witnesses outside. Their words also tugged at the hearts of the cruel men who oversaw this flaming execution of the innocent.
Alas! and did my Savior bleed?
and did my Sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
for such a worm as I?
Just before the roof collapsed they sang the last verse,
their words an eternal testimony to their faith.
But drops of grief can ne'er repay
the debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give myself away
'Tis all that I can do!
At the cross, at the cross
Where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day.
The strains of music and wails of children were lost in a roar of flames. The elements that once formed bone and flesh mixed with the smoke and dissipated into the air. The bodies that once housed life fused with the charred rubble of a building that once housed a church. But the souls who left singing finished their chorus in the throne room of God. Clearing the incinerated remains was the easy part. Erasing the hate would take decades. For some of the relatives of the victims, this carnage was too much. Evil had stooped to a new low, and there seemed to be no way to curb their bitter loathing of the Japanese.
In the decades that followed, that bitterness was passed on to a new generation. The Japanese, although conquered, remained a hated enemy. The monument the Koreans built at the location of the fire not only memorialized the people who died, but stood as a mute reminder of their pain.
Inner rest? How could rest coexist with a bitterness deep as marrow in the bones? Suffering, of course, is a part of life. People hurt people. Almost all of us have experienced it at some time. Maybe you felt it when you came home to find that your spouse had abandoned you, or when your integrity was destroyed by a series of well-timed lies, or when your company was bled dry by a partner. It kills you inside. Bitterness clamps down on your soul like iron shackles.
The Korean people who found it too hard to forgive could not enjoy the "peace that passes all understanding." Hatred choked their joy.
It wasn't until 1972 that any hope came. A group of Japanese pastors traveling through Korea came upon the memorial. When they read the details of the tragedy and the names of the spiritual brothers and sisters who had perished, they were overcome with shame. Their country had sinned, and even though none of them were personally involved (some were not even born at the time of the tragedy), they still felt a national guilt that could not be excused. They returned to Japan committed to right a wrong. There was an immediate outpouring of love from their fellow believers. They raised ten million yen ($25,000). The money was transferred through proper channels and a beautiful white church building was erected on the sight of the tragedy. When the dedication service for the new building was held, a delegation from Japan joined the relatives and special guests.
Although their generosity was acknowledged and their attempts at making peace appreciated, the memories were still there. Hatred preserves pain. It keeps the wounds open and the hurts fresh. The Koreans' bitterness had festered for decades. Christian brothers or not, these Japanese were descendants of a ruthless enemy. The speeches were made, the details of the tragedy recalled, and the names of the dead honored. It was time to bring the service to a close. Someone in charge of the agenda thought it would be appropriate to conclude with the same two songs that were sung the day the church was burned. The song leader began the words to "Nearer My God to Thee."
But something remarkable happened as the voices mingled on the familiar melody. As the memories of the past mixed with the truth of the song, resistance started to melt. The inspiration that gave hope to a doomed collection of churchgoers in a past generation gave hope once more. The song leader closed the service with the hymn "At the Cross." The normally stoic Japanese could not contain themselves. The tears that began to fill their eyes during the song suddenly gushed from deep inside. They turned to their Korean spiritual relatives and begged them to forgive. The guarded, calloused hearts of the Koreans were not quick to surrender. But the love of the Japanese believers not intimidated by decades of hatred tore at the Koreans' emotions.
At the cross, at the cross
Where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away ...
One Korean turned toward a Japanese brother. Then another. And then the floodgates holding back a wave of emotion let go. The Koreans met their new Japanese friends in the middle. They clung to each other and wept. Japanese tears of repentance and Korean tears of forgiveness intermingled to bathe the site of an old nightmare. Heaven had sent the gift of reconciliation to a little white church in Korea.
5. 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.
6. The Universality of the Golden Rule
Illustration
Carl Jech
Despairing of the possibility of ever bringing about religious unity through doctrinal, philosophical or theological dialogue, a great many people have latched onto the Golden Rule as the ultimate expression of their faith. It is provocative and inspiring to discover the remarkable universality of this ethical principle. In Hinduism it is stated like this: "Those gifted with intelligence should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated." The Shinto version is: "The suffering of others is my suffering; the good of others is my good." In Buddhism it is: "A person can minister to friends and familiars by ... treating them as he treats himself." Taoists say: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and regard your neighbor's loss as your own loss." In Islam: "None of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." For Sikhs it is: "As thou deemest thyself so deem others. Then shalt thou become a partner in heaven." In Confucianism and Zoroastrianism the rule is stated in the same way as in the New Testament except that it is couched in negative terms: "Do not unto others what you would not they should do unto you." The Jewish equivalent in Leviticus 19:18 is "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
7. The Benediction
Illustration
Susan R. Andrews
A well-to-do woman who is a member of Bryn Mawr Presbyterian church in Pennsylvania was asked why she came to church. She said, "I come to worship to pray and to sing and to listen. But most of all, I come for the benediction. Because that is the moment that I am reminded who I am. That is the moment when, one more time, I am pushed by God out into the world to be the very presence of Christ." This is the benediction which is used every week at the Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church:
Go out into the world in peace;
have courage;
hold onto what is good;
return no one evil for evil;
strengthen the fainthearted;
support the weak, and help the suffering;
honor all people;
love and serve the Lord,
rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit.
This, of course, is just an elegant way of echoing John's very tough, very good news: "Repent! for the kingdom of God is at hand."
8. Seven Resolutions
Illustration
Walter Schoedel
Rev. Walter Schoedel prepared a list of resolutions. He calls them ‘7-UPS for the New Year.' No, this has nothing to do with the soft drink. These 7-UPS fall under the heading of attitudes and actions.
The first is WAKE UP. Begin the day with the Lord. It is His day. Rejoice in it.
The second is DRESS-UP. Put on a smile. It improves your looks. It says something about your attitude.
The third is SHUT-UP. Watch your tongue. Don't gossip. Say nice things. Learn to listen.
The fourth is STAND-UP. Take a stand for what you believe. Resist evil. Do good.
Five, LOOK-UP. Open your eyes to the Lord. After all, He is your only Savior.
Six, REACH-UP. Spend time in prayer with your adorations, confessions, thanksgivings and supplications to the Lord.
And finally, LIFT-UP. Be available to help those in need serving, supporting, and sharing.
If you're going to make New Year's resolutions this year, let me suggest Rev. Schoedel's list.
Why do we bother to make New Year's resolutions in the first place? Why do we feel this need each January 1 to set new goals? Maybe it is because resolutions help us to identify our priorities. They answer the Question: how do I want to invest my time, energy, money, and talents in this New Year? The New Year reminds us that time is passing. It is up to each of us to maximize the potential of every moment.
9. Sermon Opener - Deal with It, Get over It, Get Help
Illustration
Leonard Sweet
In 1973 a gang of bank robbers held up the Kreditbanken (Credit Bank) in Stockholm, Sweden. The police interrupted their heist, but the bank robbers proceeded to hold a number of bank employees hostage for six long days. When at last they were rescued these kidnap victims, who had been terrorized and abused by their captors, stunned the authorities by demonstrating considerable emotional attachment to their victimizers. Some of the victims even publically defended the very ones who had held them at gun point and threatened their lives.
You know what we call this phenomenon. You may not know that it was a Swedish psychiatrist/criminologist by the name of Nils Bejerot who dubbed this bizarre behavior with its sticky name. But you know the name of the syndrome: it's called . . . the "Stockholm Syndrome." . . . . That's right. You're good. . . .
Since 1973 this strange sympathetic behavior — a hostage showing loyalty and concern for the hostage-taker — has been repeated numerous times since Berejot's observation, and by tens of thousands of unnamed/unknown domestic, spousal, and child abuse victims. The captives get their own identity so wrapped up in that of their captors that no matter how bad their reality, it seems better than facing the fear of an unknown, undefined future.
I want to make the case this morning that one of the dominant sicknesses facing our world today is the "Stockholm Syndrome." There are many of us who are suffering from a kind of cultural "Stockholm Syndrome," blindly defending and claiming as good for ourselves the very things that keep us captive…
Who shall set these people free?
10. Renouncing Disgraceful Ways
Illustration
John R. Steward
We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's Word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (v. 2)
A young man was visiting with his pastor one afternoon. He had been in the pastor's confirmation class many years before. In fact, after his confirmation experience he rarely came to church except for Christmas and Easter. Now he was an adult and very much involved in the world. During this visit, he was bragging to his pastor about some of his business practices. He said, "In my business, I have lied many times in order to close certain deals. But it doesn't bother me. I don't care about that. If I have to cheat and steal, I will do it because I don't really care about that."
The pastor listened very intently to the young man's testimony. Then the pastor shared with him how Jesus had come to earth to die and be raised again so that his sins could be forgiven and so that he could have eternal life. At this point, the pastor asked the young man if he would do him a favor. Would he go home and look in the mirror and say ten times, "Jesus Christ died for me, but I don't care about that." The young man thought that it was a little silly but agreed that when he got home he would do that. When he got home, he began to do what the pastor had suggested. He looked in the mirror and said, "Jesus Christ died for me, but I don't care about that." He could only say it two times and then decided to return to the pastor's office at the church. With tears in his eyes he said, "If God sent his Son to die for me, I do care about that and I want to know more."
Reprinted from With Him All the Way by Oscar Anderson, copyright 1948, Augsburg Publishing House.
11. A Way to God
Illustration
King Duncan
Legend has it that before the Reformation, before he transformed the church, Martin Luther was in his room in the monastery weeping because of his sins. His confessor, a young man, simply didn't know what to do, so he began repeating the Apostles' Creed
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
"I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins; the . . . ."
Wait!" Luther interrupted his confessor. "What did you say?"
What do you mean, what did I say?"
That last part. What was it again?"
Oh, that. I said, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.'"
"The forgiveness of sins," Luther said as if savoring each word. "The forgiveness of sins.Then there is hope for me somewhere. Then maybe there is a way to God."
There is a way to God. Jesus Christ died to provide that way. We may not be a woman of the city but there are sins that break our hearts as well. And there is One who sees those broken hearts and cares, and forgives, and heals, and makes whole.
12. Grounded in Faith
Illustration
John E. Harnish
St. Paul's letters to the Corinthian church are written to a church torn by political and theological battles, a church unsure of its foundations and faith, a church struggling with issues of sexual morality and social pressure. So he reminds them:
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, in what terms I preached the Gospel, which you received and in which you stand. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day, in accordance to the scriptures. (I Corinthians 15:1)
It's the reminder of the central message of the Gospel, a reminder of the word we have to proclaim. And today, just as in the Corinthian church, there is a desperate need for disciples of Christ to be grounded in the faith, to grow together in our spiritual journey, to nurture one another in the life and spirit of Jesus Christ.
13. Doing Right Anyway
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
People are unreasonable, illogical and self-centered. Love them anyway .
If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Do good anyway.
If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway.
Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway.
The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
The biggest people with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest people with the smallest minds. Think big anyway.
People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs. Fight for some underdogs anyway.
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway.
14. Sometimes You Have To Stay Under the Fig Tree
Illustration
Brett Blair
There are all kinds of Nathaniels in this world sitting under fig trees waiting to be called. Martin Luther King had been called and was prepared to lead but it was not he who began the civil rights movement. It was a woman. Like Nathaniel she was found sitting when she heard the call not under a fig tree but on a city bus. Rosa Parks, a seamstress by trade. She heard the call when she was told," You have to move to the back of the bus."
When Andrew found Nathaniel under that fig tree he was there because he was tired and it was hot. He was escaping the heat of the day. But, he got up and he went to see this Jesus. But sometimes you have to stay under the fig tree to answer the call. You have to stand your ground and keep your seat. "No, my feet are tired, and I'm not going to move," she said. And with that Rosa Parks set off the Civil Rights movement.
How about you? What is your calling?
15. Individual Success over All
Illustration
John Killinger
Robert Bellah and his associates, the sociologists who wrote Habits of the Heart and The Good Society, twodistinguished books about American life, say that the desire to get the most out of one's life, to be the best or achieve the highest, is a hallmark of our time. We are so intent on fulfilling ourselves and our destiny, say these scholars, that we put our own lives and careers above everything else. Our individualism matters more to us than the success of any larger entity or institution. Organizations are suffering today because we no longer value sacrifice and service above personal success and enjoyment.
16. Did Your God Will This?
Illustration
Michael P. Green
In the midst of the movie The Hiding Place, there is a scene set in the Ravensbruck concentration camp in Germany. Corrie ten Boom and her sister, Betsy, are there, along with ten thousand other women, in horrible, degrading, hideous conditions. They are gathered with some of the women in the barracks in the midst of the beds, cold and hungry and lice-ridden, and Betsy is leading a Bible class. One of the other women calls out derisively from her bunk and mocks their worship of God. They fall into conversation, and this woman says what so frequently is flung at Christians: “If your God is such a good God, why does he allow this kind of suffering?” Dramatically she tears off the bandages and old rags that bind her hands, displaying her broken, mangled fingers and says, “I’m the first violinist of the symphony orchestra. Did your God will this?”
For a moment no one answers. Then Corrie ten Boom steps to the side of her sister and says, “We can’t answer that question. All we know is that our God came to this earth, and became one of us, and he suffered with us and was crucified and died. And that he did it for love.”
17. Apologies
Illustration
King Duncan
In the comic strip, Andy Capp, the principal character is a chronically unemployed co*ckney ne'er-do-well who spends most of his days playing soccer and most of his nights at the corner pub, both of which drive his long-suffering wife, Flo, up the wall. In one episode, Andy is pacing the floor while Flo stands with her arms crossed.
Finally, she breaks the silence: "Three whole days without speaking. This is ridiculous." In the next frame she says to Andy, "I'm sorry I acted the way I did . . . you were right. Friends?"
A bit nonplussed, Andy says, "OK, friends."
Flo hugs him and gives him a kiss on the cheek. As Andy leaves the house, he meets one of his soccer buddies, who says, "I'eard that, Andy. It takes a good woman to apologize when she is in the wrong."
As they walk down the street, Andy reflects on Chalkie's remark and replies, "It takes a better one to apologize when she's not."
Now I recognize the danger in using this example. Too many women through the years have allowed themselves to be walked on in order to maintain peace in the home. This is unhealthy for both partners and for the marriage. Still, there are times when who's right is not as important as maintaining communication.
18. Cheap Talk about an All Powerful God
Illustration
Shirley Guthrie
One Christian writer has said, "All cheap and easy talk about a God of sovereign power who is in control of a world in which there is so much poverty, suffering, and injustice is obscene. All self-confident talk about a powerful church that has the mandate and the ability to change society with this or that conservative or liberal social/political agenda or with this or that evangelistic program is increasingly absurd in a disintegrating church that cannot solve its own problems, much less the problems of the world. The only gospel that makes sense and can help… is the good news of a God who loves enough to suffer with and for a suffering humanity. And the only believable church is one that is willing to bear witness to such a God by its willingness to do the same thing"
19. God Is Here with Us
Illustration
Elie Wiesel
In his book NIGHT, Elie Wiesel wrote of the year he spent in Auschwitz, where both his parents and his sister died and where he witnessed unspeakable horrors. He told of one terrible evening when the whole camp was forced to witness the hanging of three prisoners. One of them was just a child whose crime was stealing bread. Wiesel said the boy had the face of a sad angel. When the three victims were being prepared for execution, a man behind Wiesel asked, "Where is God?" As the whole camp was forced to march past the gallows where the two adults were no longer alive, but the boy was still dying, Wiesel heard the same man behind him asking, "Where is God now?" Ellie Wiesel said he heard a voice in himself answer him, "Where is God? God is here, hanging on this gallows...." (Wiesel, Ellie, Night, Bantam Books, pg. 61-62)
The incarnate God in Christ, who himself died an ignominious death on a cross, is always with us. He does not leave us alone in life or in death, in the best or the worst times. God shows up at the strangest times and in the strangest people.
20. The Time for Practice Is Now
Illustration
To those Christians who are always in a hurry, here's some good advice from the 19th-century preacher A.B. Simpson:
"Beloved, have you ever thought that someday you will not have anything to try you, or anyone to vex you again? There will be no opportunity in heaven to learn or to show the spirit of patience, forbearance, and long-suffering. If you are to practice these things, it must be now."
Yes, each day affords countless opportunities to learn patience. Let's not waste them.
Commenting on our need for this virtue, M.H. Lount has said, "God's best gifts come slowly. We could not use them if they did not. Many a man, called of God to...a work in which he is pouring out his life, is convinced that the Lord means to bring his efforts to a successful conclusion. Nevertheless, even such a confident worker grows discouraged at times and worries because results do not come as rapidly as he would desire. But growth and strength in waiting are results often greater than the end so impatiently longed for. Paul had time to realize this as he lay in prison. Moses must have asked, 'Why?' many times during the delays in Midian and in the wilderness. Jesus Himself experienced the discipline of delay in His silent years before His great public ministry began."
God wants us to see results as we work for Him, but His first concern is our growth. That's why He often withholds success until we have learned patience. The Lord teaches us this needed lesson through the blessed discipline of delay.
21. I Love You More than Salt
Illustration
King Duncan
An ancient king once asked his three daughters how much they loved him. One daughter said she loved him more than all the gold in the world. One said she loved him more than all the silver in the world. The youngest daughter said she loved him more than salt. The king was not pleased with this answer. But the cook overheard the conversation, so the next day he prepared a good meal for the king, but left out the salt. The food was so insipid that the king couldn't eat it. Then he understood what his daughter meant. He understood the value of salt.
In the ancient world salt was a valuable and scarce commodity. It was used as currency in some countries even into modern times. During an invasion of Ethiopia, in the late 19th century, Italian soldiers found blocks of salt stored in bank vaults along with other familiar forms of currency. Jesus was paying his disciples a compliment when he called them salt.
22. From One Sufferer To Another
Illustration
Bob Greene
Douglas Maurer, 15, of Creve Coeur, Missouri, had been feeling bad for several days. His temperature was ranging between 103 and 105 degrees, and he was suffering from severe flu-like symptoms. Finally, his mother took him to the hospital in St. Louis. Douglas Maurer was diagnosed as having leukemia.
The doctors told him in frank terms about his disease. They said that for the next three years, he would have to undergo chemotherapy. They didn't sugarcoat the side effects. They told Douglas he would go bald and that his body would most likely bloat. Upon learning this, he went into a deep depression.
His aunt called a floral shop to send Douglas an arrangement of flowers. She told the clerk that it was for her teenage nephew who has leukemia. When the flowers arrived at the hospital, they were beautiful. Douglas read the card from his aunt. Then he saw a second card. It said: "Douglas I took your order. I work at Brix florist. I had leukemia when I was 7 years old. I'm 22 years old now. Good luck. My heart goes out to you. Sincerely, Laura Bradley."
His face lit up. He said, "Oh!"
It's funny: Douglas Maurer was in a hospital filled with millions of dollars of the most sophisticated medical equipment. He was being treated by expert doctors and nurses with medical training totaling in the hundreds of years. But it was a salesclerk in a flower shop, a woman making $170 a week, who by taking the time to care, and by being willing to go with what her heart told her to do gave Douglas hope and the will to carry on.
23. In Time Of Trouble
Illustration
Michael P. Green
In 1895, Andrew Murray was in England suffering from a terribly painful back, the result of an injury he had incurred years before. One morning while he was eating breakfast in his room, his hostess told him of a woman downstairs who was in great trouble and wanted to know if he had any advice for her. Andrew Murray handed her a paper he had been writing on and said, “Give her this advice I’m writing down for myself. It may be that she’ll find it helpful.” This is what was written:
"In time of trouble, say, “First, he brought me here. It is by his will I am in thisplace; in that I will rest.” Next, “He will keep me here in his love, and give me grace in this trial to behave as his child.” Then say, “He will make the trial a blessing, teaching me lessons he intends me to learn, and working in me the grace he means to bestow.” And last, say, “In his good time he can bring me out again. How and when, he knows.” Therefore, say “I am here (1) by God’s appointment, (2)in his keeping, (3) under his training, (4) for his time.”
24. Intelligent Planning
Illustration
Michael B. Brown
Intelligent planning is, of course, the key. It is never wise to answer questions people are not asking nor to offer food for which they are not hungry. About 20 miles outside a bustling southern city was a small, rural, white frame church with a new pastor fresh out of seminary. He was enthusiastic, if not altogether realistic. In short order, dreaming loftily, he convinced his church members that the city 20 miles away was growing in their direction and they should aggressively meet it. He convinced them of the urgent need to evangelize America's business and corporate community (a point at which he is no doubt correct). In any event, this young pastor talked his members into sponsoring a "Saturday Morning CEO Breakfast." Letters were sent out to 100 leaders in the business community. The letters explained the breakfast program and invited the execs to become participants. The women's group prepared breakfast on Saturday morning for 100 hungry businessmen. Saturday came, but they didn't. Not a single one of them showed up. Why not? Because leading CEOs in a large city arenot going to drive 20 miles out in the country to a little white frame church to eat pancakes and be preached to. The program was self-defeating from the very outset.
However, another small church down the road heard about the idea and developed a reasonable variation. They sent letters and made phone calls to all the farmers in the area (hog farmers, dairy farmers, horse breeders, whomever). They offered a 6:30 a.m. breakfast on Thursdays with a brief program prepared by a representative of the county's Agricultural Extension Department. On the inaugural Thursday, 14 men attended. Now they have in excess of 20 per week (several of whom have become members of their church). Small groups, intelligently planned, which address needs that people actually experience can become inexpressibly valuable tools not simply for offering authentic ministry to the community but also for building the spirit and size of a local congregation.
25. THE DISCIPLINE OF SUFFERING
Illustration
John H. Krahn
In our quest of freedom and spontaneity, many of us have grown up in a generation that has underrated the place of discipline. Much of our educational system has abhorred inhibitions, stated that impulses must have free rein, and has deified doing your own thing. It forgot some very elemental facts of life. Let me mention just a few. No simple deed is performed such as preparing a meal, reading a book, or going to church without the discipline of ignoring a thousand allurements. Attention shuts out literally hundreds of distracting sights and sounds, forbids hundreds of inward promptings that would divert us from the task at hand. No significant act is done without discipline. Sporadic church attendance shows lack of discipline in many cases. To see the totally uninhibited life, where people obey their impulses without hindrance, look at some of the patients in a mental institution. This is the uninhibited life, par excellence.
God who is even smarter than John Dewey, the father of progressive education, has always known we needed discipline. Because of this, he even uses suffering to a good purpose in our lives. Saint Paul says, "The Lord disciplines him whom he loves." Saint Paul knew personally what this meant. In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians he spoke of a particularly troubling malady that he had asked God on several occasions to remove from him. Each time God answered that he could use Paul better with his weakness than with it removed. Finally, Paul accepted his malady, seeing that it drew him closer to the Lord.
"The Lord disciplines him whom he loves," is a most difficult scriptural lesson to accept. We are tempted to cry out, "Lord, please stop loving me so much." I’m sure my children often feel that way in the middle of a spanking ... Dad, don’t love me so much. God loves us so much that he can even use the painful experiences of our lives to draw us closer to him. The next time suffering visits our lives, we should not only pray God for release from it, but also to help us grow through it.
26. Small Acts of Kindness
Illustration
Robert W. Bohl
Have you ever felt like giving up? Have you ever wondered, even in what you try to do for God, whether it is doing any good? I remember a story about a little girl nicknamed Annie who in 1876 was ten years of age. Her actual name was Joanna Sullivan. She was put into a poor house for children...called the Tewkesbury Alms House in Massachusetts. Her mother had died and her father had deserted her. Her aunt and uncle found her too difficult to handle. She had a bad disposition, a violent temper...stemming in part from eyes that were partially blind due to the disease Trachoma, which left her without reading or writing skills.She had been put in the poorhouse because no one wanted her. She was such a wild one that at times she had to be tied down.
But there was another childnamed Maggie who cared for Annie. Maggie talked to her, fed her, even though Annie would throw her food on the floor, cursing and rebelling with every ounce of her being. But Maggie was a Christian and out of her convictions she was determined to love this dirty, unkempt, spiteful, unloving little girl. It wasn't easy, butMaggie also had been abandoned, so she understood Annie's pain.Slowly, Maggie,got through to Annie that she was not the only onewas suffering.And gradually Annie began to respond.
Maggie told her about a school for the blind and Annie began to beg to be sent there, and finally, consent was given and she went to the Perkins Institute. After a series of operations her sight was partially restored. She was able to finish her schooling and graduate at age twenty. Having been blind so long she told the director of Perkins that she wanted to work with blind and difficult children. They found a little girl seven years old in Alabama who was blind and deaf from the age of two. So, Annie Sullivan went to Tuscumbia, Alabama to unlock the door of Helen Keller's dark prison and to set her free.
One human being, in the name of Christ, helping another human being! That's how God's kingdom comes, through small acts of kindness!
Note: We were not able to verify the friend Maggie's part of this story. The rest is pretty accurate. TheTewkesbury Alms House was investigated for reports of cruelty to inmates including sexually perverted practices, during the time that Annie Sullivan was there as a child.
27. Break A Leg
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Please see the note below this illustration.
A woman visiting in Switzerland came to a sheepfold on one of her daily walks. Venturing in, she saw the shepherd seated on the ground with his flock around him. Nearby, on a pile of straw lay a single sheep, which seemed to be suffering. Looking closely, the woman saw that its leg was broken.
Her sympathy went out to the suffering sheep, and she looked up inquiringly to the shepherd as she asked how it happened. “I broke it myself,” said the shepherd sadly and then explained. “Of all the sheep in my flock, this was the most wayward. It would not obey my voice and would not follow when I was leading the flock. On more than one occasion, it wandered to the edge of a perilous cliff. And not only was it disobedient itself, but it was leading other sheep astray.
“Based on my experience with this kind of sheep, I knew I had no choice, so I broke its leg. The next day I took food and it tried to bite me. After letting it lie alone for a couple of days, I went back and it not only eagerly took the food, but licked my hand and showed every sign of submission and affection.
“And now, let me say this. When this sheep is well, it will be the model sheep of my entire flock. No sheep will hear my voice so quickly nor follow so closely. Instead of leading the others away, it will be an example of devotion and obedience. In short, a complete change will come into the life of this wayward sheep. It will have learned obedience through its sufferings.”
Many times it is the same in human experience. Through our suffering, God may be seeking to teach us obedience and reliance on his care.
Note: There is no evidence that this was a practice among shepherds. See the following page for more information.
28. Redemption Is Found Through Suffering
Illustration
John M. Braaten
The heroes and heroines of history are not those who took it easy, who had it good, but those who struggled and who overcame seemingly insurmountable odds.
A striking example is the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky regarded by many as one of the greatest literary geniuses of all time. His books are classics. The Brothers Karamazov is regarded by many as the greatest novel ever written. His stories all have a similar theme, that our redemption is to be found through suffering, not simply physical suffering, but in the anguish of our selfhood. We become fully human, Dostoyevsky believed, by being tested and being strengthened through it.
29. Accepting a Human Messiah
Illustration
Brian Stoffregen
In contrast to the theology of the cross and our suffering/dying king. Robert Capon in Hunting the Divine Fox presents a wonderful picture of our typical American Messiah and it doesn't look much like Jesus on the cross.
Almost nobody resists the temptation to jazz up the humanity of Christ. The true paradigm of the ordinary American view of Jesus is Superman: "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. It's Superman! Strange visitor from another planet, who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American Way." If that isn't popular christology, I'll eat my hat. Jesus gentle, meek and mild, but with secret, souped-up, more-than-human insides bumbles around for thirty-three years, nearly gets himself done in for good by the Kryptonite Kross, but at the last minute, struggles into the phone booth of the Empty Tomb, changes into his Easter suit and, with a single bound, leaps back up to the planet Heaven.
You think that's funny? Don't laugh. The human race is, was and probably always will be deeply unwilling to accept a human messiah. We don't want to be saved in our humanity; we want to be fished out of it. We crucified Jesus, not because he was God, but because he blasphemed: He claimed to be God and then failed to come up to our standards for assessing the claim. It's not that we weren't looking for the Messiah; it's just that he wasn't what we were looking for. Our kind of Messiah would come down from a cross. He would carry a folding phone booth in his back pocket. He wouldn't do a stupid thing like rising from the dead. He would do a smart thing like never dying." [pp. 90-91; this book has been reprinted, along with two others under the title The Romance of the Word: One Man's Love Affair with Theology]
30. 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.
31. Love Is Patient
Illustration
Dale Johnson
A good illustration of Christ like patience is seen in the life of Abraham Lincoln. From his earliest days in politics, Lincoln had a critic, an enemy, who continually treated him with contempt, a man by the name of Edwin Stanton. Stanton would say to newspaper reporters that Lincoln was a "low cunning clown" and "the original gorilla". He said it was ridiculous for explorers to go to Africa to capture a gorilla "when they could find one easily in Springfield, Illinois." Lincoln never responded to such slander; he never retaliated in the least. And when, as President, he needed a Secretary of War, he selected Edwin Stanton. When his friends asked why, Lincoln replied, "Because he is the best man for the job."
Years later, that fateful night came when an assassin's bullet murdered the president in a theater. Lincoln's body was carried off to another room. Stanton came, and looking down upon the silent, rugged, face of his dead President, he said through his tears, "There lies the greatest ruler of men the world has ever seen." Stanton's animosity had finally been broken. How? By Lincoln's patient, long-suffering, non-retaliatory love.
32. Scarred Hands
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
A small boy lived with his grandmother. One night their house caught fire. The grandmother, trying to rescue the little boy asleep upstairs, perished in the smoke and flames. A crowd gathered around the burning house. The boy's cries for help were heard above the crackling of the blaze. No one seemed to know what to do, for the front of the house was a mass of flames.
Suddenly a stranger rushed from the crowd and circled to the back where he spotted an iron pipe that reached an upstairs window. He disappeared for a minute, then reappeared with the boy in his arms. Amid the cheers of the crowd, he climbed down the hot pipe as the boy hung around his neck.
Weeks later a public hearing was held in the town hall to determine in whose custody the boy would be placed. Each person wanting the boy was allowed to speak briefly. The first man said, "I have a big farm. Everybody needs the out-of-doors." The second man told of the advantages he could provide. "I'm a teacher. I have a large library. He would get a good education." Others spoke. Finally, the richest man in the community said, "I'm wealthy. I could give the boy everything mentioned tonight: farm, education, and more, including money and travel. I'd like him in my home."
The chairman asked, "Anyone else like to say a word?" From the backseat rose a stranger who had slipped in unnoticed. As he walked toward the front, deep suffering showed on his face. Reaching the front of the room, he stood directly in front of the little boy. Slowly the stranger removed his hands from his pockets. A gasp went up from the crowd. The little boy, whose eyes had been focused on the floor until now, looked up. The man's hands were terribly scarred. Suddenly the boy emitted a cry of recognition. Here was the man who had saved his life. His hands were scarred from climbing up and down the hot pipe. With a leap the boy threw himself around the stranger's neck and held on for life. The farmer rose and left. The teacher, too. Then the rich man. Everyone departed, leaving the boy and his rescuer who had won him without a word. Those marred hands spoke more effectively than any words.
SHORT VERSION
Thestory has been told of aboy who was living with his grandmother when their house caught fire.Thegrandmother, tryingtoget upstairstorescuetheboy, died intheflames.Theboy’s cries for help were finally answered by a man who climbed an iron drain pipeandcame down withtheboy hanging tightlytohis neck.
Several weeks later, a public hearing was heldtodetermine who would receive custody ofthechild. A farmer, a teacher,andthetown’s wealthiest citizen all gavethereasons they felt they should be chosentogivetheboy a home. As they talked,thelad’s eyes remained focused onthefloor.
Then astrangerwalkedtothefrontandslowlytook his hands from his pockets, revealing scars on them. Asthecrowd gasped,theboy cried out in recognition. This wastheman who had saved his lifeandwhose hands had been burned when he climbedthehot pipe. With a leaptheboy threw his arms aroundtheman’s neckandheld on for dear life.Theother men silentlywalkedaway, leavingtheboyandhis rescuer alone. Those marred hands had settledtheissue.
33. Eyes to See
Illustration
William G. Carter
There's a woman who received eyes to see. A few years ago, with the help of Presbyterian mission money, she helped to establish a halfway house for women who are recovering drug addicts. She schedules twelve-step groups, arranges for child care, and generally tries to get the women back on their feet. In a lot of ways, you would never expect her to be involved with such work. She is even-tempered, gentle, and articulate. But something happened a few years ago that caused her to see anew.
She was a graduate school student in Pittsburgh, looking for a part-time job. A newspaper listed an administrative position with a soup kitchen. That looked interesting, so she clipped it and prepared for the interview. On the day of her interview, she put on a dark blue business suit, put together a manila folder full of resumes and references, and clipped back her hair.
Arriving a few minutes before noon, she saw the sign: "East End Cooperative Ministry." She knocked on the door. Someone inside said, "It's unlocked." She went in, only to find a long line of people in front of her. Disappointment washed over her. Then she realized it was lunch time. The people in the line weren't there for the same interview, they were waiting for soup.
She grew nervous as she looked at the people in line. Some of them, in turn, looked at her. She felt self-conscious about the way she was dressed. Apparently others began to sense her anxiety. A woman in a moth-eaten sweater smiled and tried to make conversation. "Is this your first time here?"
"Yes, it is."
"Don't worry," said the lady in the sweater, "it gets easier."
"The scales fell from my eyes that day," reflected the young woman. "I went there looking for a job, and that woman thought I was there for soup. As far as she knew, the world had been as cruel to me as it was to her. But in the kindest way she could, she welcomed me as a fellow human being. She saw me as someone equally in need, which I was and still am. I didn't realize it at the time, but that was the day when God began to convert me."
Looking around the halfway house, she smiled and said, "You see all of these wonderful things God is doing here? They began when God gave us eyes to see where Jesus was leading us."
"What do you want?" asked Jesus. A church could ask for more prestige, a greater impact, and a sense of power, but I would like our church to answer Jesus' question, "What do you want?" with this:"We want eyes to see. To see thee more clearly, love thee more dearly, follow thee more nearly" ... all the way to the cross.
34. Rethinking the Formula
Illustration
James Emery White
Some of you may remember comedian Yakov Smirnoff. He said when he first came to the United States from Russia; he wasn't prepared for the incredible variety of instant products available in American grocery stores. He says, "On my first shopping trip, I saw powdered milk--you just add water, and you get milk. Then I saw powdered orange juice--you just add water, and you get orange juice. And then I saw baby powder, and I thought to myself, what a country!"
One of the most basic assumptions made about life change is that it happens instantly at salvation. 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. As a result disciples are born not made.
The question for rethinking discipleship is this: Are these assumptions valid? If they are, then working this formula in the life of the church should consistently give the same result: a new community of people who are becoming increasingly like Jesus in their life and thought. If that is not the answer a church gets when it works the equation, then it needs to rethink whether the formula is sound.
Unfortunately, many churches are not getting the correct answer. In fact, a Search Institute 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 not trying, and it is a team effort.
35. CHEEK-TURNING POWER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
How many of us are in the process of developing ulcers? How many of us are carrying resentments? How much damage is being done internally because we will not forgive someone who hurt us deeply? How much of our daily life is being colored grey by an angry mind quarreling in fantasy bouts with an adversary, an ex-husband, an ex-wife, a relative, a neighbor, a fellow worker, or even a fellow parishioner? Who are suffering from high blood pressure or even heart problems because they have not forgiven completely?
In the face of all of this, we consider the love chapter in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, for some very good advice. Saint Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes, "Love is not irritable or resentful ..."
Snow is hardly news in many parts of our nation. After a blizzard, it takes a snowplow to tackle the snowdrifts and help us become mobile again. Resentments are like snowdrifts, and forgiveness is the snowplow. In the Christian life forgiveness is a snowplow that opens roads again, removing barriers so that we can communicate and listen to those with whom we had been at odds.
When a person offends us, we feel like punching him out. Many a child has done just that on the way home from school at a predetermined spot. Those of us who are mature are more sophisticated but no less harmful as we unleash a lethal tongue, or verbally stab people behind their backs. God reminds us in the epistle that love is not resentful.
Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us some pretty tough advice while he was alive. On the subject we are considering, he says, "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Jesus states that the mere fact that we have been wronged does not give us the license to do wrong. Followers of Jesus are not to retaliate but must even be willing to suffer the same injury again. Cheek-turning power is no easy matter. It is perhaps as powerful a weapon as there is toward maintaining and even improving most human relationships. When I have been wise enough to use it, I can tell you firsthand that it works.
Love is the language of forgiveness. Love does not resent, it forgives. Cheek-turning love is Christian love in action. On our own, we seldom have the power to turn the other cheek. Such power is only possible when Jesus Christ lives within us. It comes when we practice the presence of God, inviting Jesus’ indwelling through prayer. Then as we partake of his body and blood, we not only receive forgiveness for ourselves, but we also receive the powerful presence of Jesus Christ: a presence that can cause a cheek to turn and a life of loving forgiveness to plow through snowdrifts of resentment.
36. Better Than Revenge
Illustration
When we are wronged in some way, our natural inclination is to fight back, to get even. Needless to say, this reaction, though thoroughly human, is almost always in error. "Forgiveness," said Epictetus, "is better than revenge, for forgiveness is the sign of a gentle nature, but revenge is the sign of a savage nature."
A dramatic example is the experience of a Hungarian refugee. To protect his privacy we'll call him Joseph Kudar. Kudar was a successful young lawyer in Hungary before the uprisings in that country in 1956. A strong believer in freedom for his country, he fought Soviet tanks in the streets of Budapest with his friends. When the uprising failed, he was forced to flee the country.
When Kudar arrived in the U.S. he had no money, no job, no friends. He was, however, well educated; he spoke and wrote several languages, including English. For several months he tried to get a job in a law office, but because of his lack of familiarity with American law, he received only polite refusals.
Finally, it occurred to him that with his knowledge of language he might be able to get a job with an import-export company. He selected one such company and wrote a letter to the owner. Two weeks later he received an answer, but was hardly prepared for the vindictiveness of the man's reply. Among other things, it said that even if they did need someone, they wouldn't hire him because he couldn't even write good English. Crushed, Kudar's hurt quickly turned to anger. What right did this rude, arrogant man have to tell him he couldn't write the language! The man was obviously crude and uneducated, his letter was chock-full of grammatical errors!
Kudar sat down and, in the white heat of anger, wrote a scathing reply, calculated to rip the man to shreds. When he'd finished, however, as he was reading it over, his anger began to drain away. Then he remembered the biblical admonition, "A soft answer turneth away wrath." No, he wouldn't mail the letter. Maybe the man was right. English was not his native tongue. Maybe he did need further study in it. Possibly this man had done him a favor by making him realize he did need to work harder on perfecting his English.
Kudar tore up the letter and wrote another. This time he apologized for the previous letter, explained his situation, and thanked the man for pointing out his need for further study. Two days later he received a phone call inviting him to New York for an interview. A week later he went to work for them as a correspondent. Later, Joseph Kudar became vice president and executive officer of the company, destined to succeed the man he had hated and sought revenge against for a fleeting moment and then resisted.
37. Encourage One Another
Illustration
The New Testament book of Hebrews, initially, was a letter written to the Christians of the first century church. Those people were suffering horrible persecutions. They had much to discourage them. They needed one another urgently and deeply.
In this letter to them the writer says, "Stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another." They needed the encouragement of their meeting together and being together. And so they met - whatever the danger to them, they gathered regularly together.
In our gathering today, you and I do not confront the kind of danger those people did. Still we need one another no less than they did. As they could draw strength mutually from the faith and courage of one another, so can we. Their meeting at risk of their very lives stands to shame us for any indifference we may feel toward our meeting, especially since there is now involved absolutely no risk at all.
By our being here today we are giving encouragement and support to one another in one of the historic essentials of Christian faith and fellowship, the meeting together of the people of Christ. Thank you for the ministry of your presence.
38. An Example of God’s People
Illustration
Edward F. Markquart
Dr. Mark Jacobson, as I recall, was valedictorian of his class at Harvard, and then he went to the University of Minnesota Medical School where again he was the top student in his class. Again, he was the valedictorian and gave the valedictorian address. He is an incredibly brilliant man. Then he went to Arusha, Tanzania, there with immense suffering. He used his brains and resources to work in that area of the world. Each year, his hospital takes care of 35,000 patients, and they pay a dollar a person, or $35,000 income, paid by the patients and their families for their medical care. The patients feel good and self-respecting about paying their medical bills. Dr. Jacobson could have used his resources to escape suffering; he could have used his resources, brains and education to build a lucrative medical practice; but he didn't.You could not have stopped him with a bulldozer or semi-truck. That's the way love is; that's the way God is; that's the way God's people are.
Note: As of September 2020 he is still there after 32 years. It is called theArusha Lutheran Medical Centre. He is the Executive Director.
39. Gratitude Lunch
Illustration
Courtland Milloy
Jermaine Washington, 26, did something that amazes many people. He became a kidney donor, giving a vital organ to a woman he describes as "just a friend." Washington met Michelle Stevens, 23, when they began working together at the Washington, D.C., Department of Employment Services. They used to have lunch with one another and chitchat during breaks. "He was somebody I could talk to," says Stevens. "One day, I cried on his shoulder. I had been on the kidney donor waiting list for 11 months, and I had lost all hope."
She told Washington how depressing it was to spend three days a week, three hours a day, on a kidney dialysis machine. She suffered chronic fatigue and blackouts and was plagued by joint pain. He could already see that she had lost her smile. "I saw my friend dying before my eyes," Washington recalls. "What was I supposed to do? Sit back and watch her die?"
Steven's mother, suffering from hypertension, was ineligible to donate a kidney. Her two brothers were reluctant. "I understood," says Stevens. "They said they loved me very much, but they were just too afraid."
The operation at Washington Hospital Center in April 1991 began with a painful procedure in which doctors inserted a catheter into an artery in Washington's groin. They then injected dye through the catheter into his kidney before taking X rays to determine if it was fit for transplant. A week later, an incision nearly 15 inches long was made from his navel to the middle of his back. After surgery he remained hospitalized for five days.
Today, both Stevens and Washington are fully recovered. "I jog at least twice a week," Washington says. Three times a month, they get together for what they call a "gratitude lunch." Despite occasional pressure by friends, a romantic relationship is not what they want. "We are thankful for the beautiful friendship that we have," Stevens says. "We don't want to mess up a good thing."
To this day, people wonder why Washington did it and even question his sanity. But when one admirer asked him where he had found the courage to give away a kidney, his answer quelled the skeptics. "I prayed for it," Washington replied. "I asked God for guidance and that's what I got."
HERE IS A SHORTER VERSION OF THIS STORY:
Three times a month,JermaineWashingtonand Michelle Stevens get together for what they call a "gratitude lunch." With good reason!Washingtondonated a kidney to Stevens, whom he described as "just a friend." They met at work where they used to have lunch together. One day Michelle wept as she spoke about waiting on a kidney donor list for 11 months. She was being sustained by kidney dialysis, but suffered chronic fatigue and blackouts and was plagued by joint pain. BecauseWashingtoncouldn't stand the thought of watching his friend die, he gave her one of his kidneys. When you've got something great to be thankful for, having a "gratitude lunch" is a great way to celebrate.
40. The Dollars Are in the Way
Illustration
King Duncan
Henry Ford once asked an associate about his life goals. The man replied that his goal was to make a million dollars. A few days later Ford gave the man a pair of glasses made out of two silver dollars. He told the man to put them on and asked what he could see. "Nothing," the man said. "The dollars are in the way." Ford told him that he wanted to teach him a lesson: If his only goal was dollars, he would miss a host of greater opportunities. He should invest himself in serving others, not simply in making money.
That's a great secret of life that far too few people discover. Money is important. No question about that. But money is only a means by which we reach higher goals. Service to others. Obedience to God. God comes to the rich man and says, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?" The answer was clear. The rich man had put his trust in things. Now he was leaving these things behind.
41. 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.
42. What Can You Bear?
Illustration
Charles Ryrie
What is fruit? Actually the question ought to be phrased in the plural: What are fruits which a Christian can bear? The N.T. gives several answers to the question.
ONE, a developing Christian character is fruit. If the goal of the Christian life may be stated as Christlikeness, then surely every trait developed in us that reflects His character must be fruit that is very pleasing to Him. Paul describes the fruit of the Spirit in nine terms in Galatians 5:22-23, and Peter urges the development of seven accompaniments to faith in order that we might be fruitful (2 Peter 1:5-8). Two of these terms are common to both lists: love and self-control. The others are joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, virtue, knowledge, endurance, piety, and brotherly love. To show these character traits is to bear fruit in one's life.
TWO, right character will result in right conduct, and as we live a life of good works we produce fruit (Colossians 1:10). This goes hand in hand with increasing in the knowledge of God, for as we learn what pleases Him, our fruitful works become more and more conformed to that knowledge. When Paul expressed how torn he was between the two possibilities of either dying and being with Christ or living on in this life, he said that living on would mean fruitful labor or work (Philippians 1:22). This phrase could mean that (1) his work itself was fruit, or (2) fruit would result from his work. In either case, his life and work were fruit. So may ours be.
THREE, those who come to Christ through our witness are fruit. Paul longed to go to Rome to have some fruit from his ministry there (Romans 1:13), and he characterized the conversion of the household of Stephanas as the first fruits of Achaia (I Corinthians 16:15).
FOUR, we may also bear fruit with our lips by giving praise to God and thankfully confessing His name (Hebrews 13:15). In other words, our lips bear fruit when we offer thankful acknowledgement to the name of God. And this is something we should do continually.
FIVE, we bear fruit when we give money. Paul designated the collection of money for the poorer saints in Jerusalem as fruit (Romans 15:28). Too, when he thanked the Philippians for their financial support of his ministry, he said that their act of giving brought fruit to their account (Philippians 4:17, KJV).
43. Footprints
Illustration
Robert R. Kopp
No doubt you have heard the story Footprints: One night a man had a dream. He dreamed he was walking along the beach with the Lord. Across the sky flashed scenes from his life. For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand, one belonging to him, and the other belonging to the Lord. When the last scene of his life flashed before him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path of his life there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in his life. This really bothered him and he questioned the Lord about it. "Lord, You said that once I decided to follow You, You'd walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me." The Lord replied, "My precious, precious child, I love you and I would never leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you saw only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."
It's refreshing to be reminded God is with us at all times. I ran across an update which is called "A Variation on Footprints":
Now imagine you and the Lord Jesus walking down the road together. For much of the way, the Lord's footprints go along steadily and consistently, rarely varying the pace. But your prints are disorganized, a stream of zigzags, starts, stops, turnarounds, circles, departures and returns. For much of the way, it seems to go like this.
But gradually, your footprints come more in line with the Lord's soon paralleling His consistently. You and Jesus are walking as true friends. This seems perfect, but then an interesting thing happens. Your footprints that were etched in the sand next to the Master's are now walking precisely in His steps. Inside His larger footprints is the small "sand-print," safely enclosed. You and Jesus are becoming one. This goes on for many miles.
But you notice another change. The footprint inside the larger footprint seems to grow larger. Eventually, it disappears altogether. There is only one set of footprints. They have become one. Again, this goes on for a long time. But then something awful happens. The second set of footprints is back. And this time, it seems even worse. Zigzags all over the place. They stop. They start. Deep gashes in the sand. A veritable mess of prints. You're amazed and shocked. But this is the end of your dream. Now you speak: "Lord, I understand the first scene with the zigzags and fits and starts and so on. I was a new Christian, just learning. But you walked on through the storm and helped me learn to walk with you."
"That is correct."
"Yes, and when the smaller footprints were inside of Yours, I was actually learning to walk in Your steps. I followed You very closely."
"Very good. You understand everything so far." "Then the smaller footprints grew and eventually filled in with Yours. I suppose that I was actually growing so much that I was becoming like You in every way."
"Precisely."
"But this is my question. Lord, was there a regression or something? The footprints went back to two, and this time it was worse than the first." The Lord smiles, then laughs. He says, "You didn't know? That was when we danced!"
That's what happens when you're equipped.
44. A Damaged Rudder
Illustration
Michael P. Green
On May 21, 1941, the “unsinkable” German battleship, the Bismarck, was sighted in the North Atlantic. Immediately planes and ships from the Royal British Navy sped to the scene. As the Bismarck headed toward the German-controlled French coast where it would be safe from attack, to the astonishment of all the massive battleship suddenly swung around and reentered the area where the British ships were massed in greatest strength. At the same time, she began to steer an erratic zigzag course, which made it much easier for the British to overtake her. You see, a torpedo had damaged her rudder and without its control the “unsinkable” Bismarck was sunk. As the rudder controls a ship, so the tongue controls a person.
45. All the More Reason
Illustration
Brett Blair
It is interesting to note that it wasn't until we were at war, the Civil War to be exact, that our Thanksgiving holiday was officially recognized by Congress. It had started in the small Plymouth Colony in 1621 when the English Pilgrims feasted with members of the Wampanoag (Wam·pa·no·ag) Indians who brought gifts of food as a gesture of goodwill. The custom grew in various colonies as a means of celebrating the harvest. In 1777, over 100 years later, the continental congress proclaimed a national day of Thanksgiving after the American Revolution victory at the Battle of Saratoga. But it was twelve years later that George Washington proclaimed another national day of thanksgiving in honor of the ratification of the Constitution and requested that the congress finally make it an annual event. They declined and it would be another 100 years and the end of a bloody civil war before President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November Thanksgiving. The year was 1865. It might surprise you to learn that it took still another 40 years, the early 1900's, before the tradition really caught on. For you see Lincoln's official Thanksgiving was sanctioned in order to bolster the Union's morale. Many Southerners saw the new holiday as an attempt to impose Northern customs on their conquered land.
Thanksgiving today is a mild-mannered holiday full of football, hot apple pie, and family reunions. But that's not a realistic historical picture of Thanksgiving. It is more often born of adversity and difficult times. So many of the greatest expressions of thanksgiving have occurred under circ*mstances so debilitating one wonders why people give thanks. It would seem the more reasonable response would be bitterness and ingratitude.
Paul writing from a prison cell and probably knowing that he would soon die by the guillotine writes to the Philippians, "I give thanks to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor imprisoned in 1943 for his political and Christian opposition to the Nazi regime, was executed two years later. On the day that the sentence was carried out he conducted a service for the other prisoners. One of those prisoners, an English officer who survived, wrote these words:
"Bonhoeffer always seemed to me to spread an atmosphere of happiness and joy over the least incident, and profound gratitude for the mere fact that he was alive... He was one of the very few persons I have ever met for whom God was real and always near... On Sunday, April 8, 1945, Pastor Bonhoeffer conducted a little service of worship and spoke to us in a way that went to the heart of all of us. He found just the right words to express the spirit of our imprisonment, and the thoughts and resolutions it had brought us. He had hardly ended his last prayer when the door opened and two civilians entered. They said, "Prisoner Bonhoeffer, come with us." That had only one meaning for all prisoners--the gallows. We said good-bye to him. He took me aside: "This is the end; but for me it is the beginning of life." The next day he was hanged in Flossenburg.
Out of great suffering have come the greatest expressions of gratitude. And so I suggest to you this morning that in the wake of the terrorist attacks, the Afghan war, the anthrax attacks, the economic turmoil, the market crash, and the flight 587 crash we have all the more reason to celebrate Thanksgiving?
46. The Special Olympic Race
Illustration
Brett Blair
John Beck used to be a football star for the University of Kentucky. Later on he became a preacher and was named as Chaplain of the U.S. Olympic Teams. For a number of years he traveled with our Olympic Teams all over the world, leading in their devotions, counseling & praying with many of the athletes.
As he watched these young men and women train for the events in which they competed, he decided that this was a picture of what Christianity really ought to be. Here were people who were sincere and fervent and dedicated to the task before them. They were willing to pay any price, regardless of how much suffering or pain they had to endure. They were willing to pay any price to be number one, to win.
Then one day John Beck was invited to visit the Special Olympics. Special Olympics, as you know, are made up of special athletes. All of them suffer from some kind of mental or physical impairment. He watched them as eight runners lined up for the 100-yard dash. They all took off when the starting gun fired, and he was amazed at how good they actually were. But as they reached halfway in the race, one of the boys fell down, skinned his knee on the track, and started to cry.He said that what happened next was both beautiful and amazing. All seven of the other runners stopped, and all seven of them turned around and went to the boy who had fallen. Together they helped him to his feet. And the eight walked to the finish line together. Beck said that he then realized that he had seen the true meaning of Christianity, not in the Olympics, but in the Special Olympics.
Our highly competitive world seems always to be saying that the only thing that counts is "Number One." I understand and appreciate the need for excellence, to be number one. But I know a better way. Will you pay the price to pick up the fallen?
47. Repent Your Way to a Merry Christmas - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
A number of years ago a couple traveled to the offices of an Adoption Society in England to receive a baby. They had been on the waiting list a long time. They had been interviewed and carefully scrutinized. Now at last their dreams were to be fulfilled. But their day of happiness was another's pain.
Arriving at the offices of the Society they were led up a flight of stairs to a waiting room. After a few minutes they heard someone else climbing the stairs. It was the young student mother whose baby was to be adopted. She was met by the lady responsible for the adoption arrangements and taken into another room. Our friends heard a muffled conversation and a few minutes later footsteps on the stairs as the young mother left. They heard her convulsive sobbing until the front door of the office was closed. Then, there was silence.
The lady in charge then conducted them next door. In a little crib was a six week old baby boy. On a chair beside it was a brown paper bag containing a change of clothes and two letters. One of these, addressed to the new parents, thanked them for providing a home for her baby and acknowledged that under the terms of the adoption each would never know the other's identity. Then the young mother added one request. Would they allow her little son to read the other letter on his eighteenth birthday? She assured them that she had not included any information about her identity. The couple entrusted that letter to a lawyer and one day the young man will read the message which his mother wrote on the day, when with breaking heart, she parted with him.
I wonder what she wrote? If I had to condense all I feel about life and love into a few precious words what would I say? I would have no time for trivia. I would not be concerned about economics, politics, the weather, the size of house or the type of car. At such a time I would want to dwell on the profundities, on what life was all about and what things were absolutely essential.
John in the desert was in the great tradition of the Hebrew prophets. He was aware that time was running out. In his burning message he had no time for peripheral matters. He was not playing Trivial Pursuit nor was he prepared to splash about in the shallows. Soon the sword of Herod's guard would flash and his tongue would lie silent in the grave. Superficial people came out from Jerusalem to see him. They were intrigued by this strange phenomenon of a wild man preaching repentance. They were fascinated by frivolous things such as his dress, his diet, and his fierce declamatory oratory. They wanted to interview him and then tell all their friends about their remarkable experience. "Who are you?" they asked. His answer was curt: "I am not the Christ." "Are you Elijah?" "No!" "Then who are you?" they persisted. They had their doubts about who he was but his message to their ears was clear: Repent.
There comes a moment when the preacher longs for his hearers to lose sight of everything except his message. "Don't listen to my accent. Don't look at my clothes. Don't comment on my style. Don't search my biographical details for my University pedigree. Just listen to what I am saying. Repent!"
I would like to suggest this morning that Repent was the first component of his message. There are two others. Let's take a look at the first.
1. John's Message Called People to Repentance
2. John Told People to Share.
3. The Third Thrust of John's Message Was to Serve.
48. Setting the Prisoners Free
Illustration
Brett Blair
No greater image of oppression and captivity exist today than that of World War II's Nazi concentration camps. Elie Wiesel, a teenager then, witnessed the death of many family members. He recalls the day when he, as well as the other prisoners, were finally liberated from Auschwitz by the allies. On that day powerful, strong soldiers broke down the fences of the concentration camp to release the prisoners. Frail, feeble, gaunt, and near death they were terrible victims of a horrible criminal evil.
In spite of his condition Wiesel remembers one solider, a strong black man who upon seeing the horror of human suffering was overcome with grief. He fell to his knees sobbing in a mix of disbelief and sorrow. The captives, now liberated, walked over to the soldier, put their arms around him, and offered comfort to him.
I can't help but wonder what it is that Jesus saw on that day he began his ministry. Looking out at those gathered in the synagogue, just as I am looking out at you this morning, as near as I can figure, he saw the same thing that strong black soldier saw: Terrible victims of a horrible criminal evil. Now this is no complement! Listen to his words: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor, he has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.
We don't like to think of ourselves as victims of sin. But evil, in a manner of speaking, has had its own way with us and when Jesus arrived on the scene ready to liberate us prisoners I am sure he was over come with grief.
(If this is used as a sermon ender then finish with the line: The good news is that our Ally has Arrived. Amen!)
49. Redemption Is Found Through Suffering
Illustration
John M. Braaten
The heroes and heroines of history are not those who took it easy, who had it good, but those who struggled and who overcame seemingly insurmountable odds.A striking example is the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky regarded by many as one of the greatest literary geniuses of all time. His books are classics. The Brothers Karamazov is regarded by many as the greatest novel ever written. His stories all have a similar theme, that our redemption is to be found through suffering, not simply physical suffering, but in the anguish of our selfhood. We become fully human, Dostoyevsky believed, by being tested and being strengthened through it.
50. Dime a Dozen
Illustration
James Dent
A Russian, a Cuban, an American businessman and an American lawyer were on a train traveling across Europe. The Russian took out a large bottle of vodka, poured each of his companions a drink and then hurled the semi-full bottle out the window.
"Why did you do that?" asked the American businessman.
"Vodka is plentiful in my country," said the Russian. "In fact, we have more than we will ever use."
A little later, the Cuban passed around fine Havana cigars. He took a couple of puffs of his and then tossed it out the window.
"I thought the Cuban economy was suffering," the businessman said. "Yet you threw that perfectly good cigar away."
"Cigars," the Cuban replied, "are a dime a dozen in Cuba. We have more of them than we know what to do with."
The American businessman sat in silence for a moment. Then he got up, grabbed the lawyer and threw him out the window.
Showing
1
to
50
of
226
results
- Black preachers condemn Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood: 'Nothing is more racist in America'
- Liberty University faces civil rights lawsuit after firing trans-identified employee
- 'Duck Dynasty' star Willie Robertson on turning darkness into light one conversation at a time
- 13-year-old budding preacher who lived for the ‘Glory of God’ killed for camera
- 5 things to know about Kamala Harris' pastor
- Nigerian Christian remained in captivity to aid elderly Muslim woman
- Nigerian bishop leaves UMC amid hom*osexuality schism; regional body’s future uncertain
- Sen. Mike Lee warns of 'increased hostility' toward Christianity in Washington
- Top 5 nominees for 2024 Gospel Music Association Dove Awards
- Russell Brand slams Olympics opening ceremony 'decadence,' shares favorite Bible verse
- Choctaw Bibles Connect Christians with Lost Heritage
- An Assassination Attempt in Brazil Brought Politics into Churches
- In Asian American Churches, Generational Differences Deter Young Leaders
- What Wrestling Taught an Olympic Gold Medalist About God
- O Say Can You See God in These 5 National Anthems?
- Nigerian Church Watches, Prays as Ocean Rises
- New Alliance Aims to Unite Chinese Churches Divided by Geopolitics
- Americans Are Still Inviting People to Church
- ERLC Retracts Announcement Firing President Brent Leatherwood
- Homelessness Hits Record High, Straining Rescue Missions
- Christian Bioethicists Help Students Consider The Moral Complexities Of IVF
- Hinduism: Concepts and Controversies
- Boys, Boys, Boys - 3 Quarks Daily
- 13-year-old budding preacher who lived for the ‘Glory of God’ killed for camera
- Mahesh Bhatt On Giving Daughters Alia And Shaheen Muslim Names: 'My Mother Was Worried...'
- Harris hit with blistering ad targeting Catholic, Hispanic voters on key issue in crucial swing state
- Bride Is Slammed For Wearing See-Through Wedding Dress To Her Church Ceremony
- “The word on the street was, ‘No-one could be playing that without overdubs.’ Well, the secret’s out. I’ve come clean”: Still copping Victor Wooten’s 20-year-old bass licks? You’d better take another look
- Texas pastor resigns over ‘inappropriate and hurtful’ actions
- Genius Candace Owens dismantles evolution theory
- Trump's 'Beautiful Christians' are Not Only Ones Whose Values Matter
- Being Good Is as Important as Being Right
- Blasphème & Olympiques
- Drag Queen in Olympic Opening Ceremony has No Regrets
- Is Hindu Nationalism Friendly to Christianity?
- Where Lynchings Still Happen
- Vatican II: For Better or For Worse
- After the Fall: A Christian's Confession of His Role in Afghanistan
- Art Center Founded By Fr. Rupnik Pushes Back on Removal of Artwork
- The Trad Family
