1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2 Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9 so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name."
10 Again, it says, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples."
12 And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him."
13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
A Truly Universal Operating System
Romans 14:1-12
Sermon
by Larry Lange
Once upon a time, in a garage in the ancient city of Rome, a man developed a computer operating system that became the digital lingua franca for the ancient world. How his operating system defeated its competitor is one of the great mysteries of all time. There must have been something about its ugly, utilitarian appearance and its proclivity toward redundancy that appealed to the brutal bureaucrats who established the Roman Empire. Even the name of the operating system came from a word butchered beyond recognition: XC was supposed to be excello, excellent, but was really nothing more than an redundant clutter of labyrinthine pathways. It was no surprise that when Theseus found the Minotaur in the midst of such a maze, he killed it. XC's competitor, based on the more intuitive, graceful, pictorial language of the Egyptian civilization, decided to name its product after a fruit that in some quarters was blamed for all the world's troubles, and only a few years later its market share had been pared to a mere 5%.
Suddenly the name of the creator of XC was known all over the world — Billius Gaitius — no longer could his computer-geek golfing buddies call him Chip for short. He became the richest man in all the world and commanded as much respect, admiration, and honor as the emperor himself.
Unlike the emperor, however, Billius was a Christian. He was a member of the church of Rome at the time when the apostle Paul wrote the letter that is today's second lesson, much of which addressed the controversy that arose surrounding Billius' astounding rise to success.
Not long after it became clear that XC had become firmly established as the cyber standard of its time, a member of the church of Rome cornered Billius at coffee hour and confronted him with an accusation that troubled Billius deeply. As great and powerful a man as he was, his faith had suffused his personality and imbued him with a profound humility. This kept before him his plebian origins and inspired him to embark on a worldwide quest to improve health care for millions of people who had none.
The member of the church in Rome who had cornered Billius was not impressed by his philanthropy. "Is it true, Mr. Gaitius, that meat sacrificed to idols is served at Macrosoft corporate headquarters and at all official Macrosoft functions?"
Billius admitted that this was the case, but reminded his brother in the faith that almost all meat in the entire world was butchered under non-Christian religious auspices and had been, therefore, sacrificed to other gods. "Furthermore," Billius added, "most people have very little meat in their diet at all, so I feel that providing meat at all Macrosoft functions is just one more way we treat our employees with their well-being in mind and one more way we share our wealth with customers and potential customers alike."
"That's all beside the point," the church member persisted. "You also, I suppose, eat this meat sacrificed to idols?"
Billius admitted that he did, but went on to explain that he had talked with the apostle Paul himself about this issue when he had met him in Corinth. The apostle Paul himself said that nothing he ate ever made him any closer to God — with the possible exception of a habanera pepper he had eaten that just about killed him. "I believe it's just meat," Billius explained, "nothing more, nothing less."
"Maybe you are right. Maybe not. But maintaining the practice of eating meat sacrificed to idols makes you no different than the leaders of any other industry. It makes you no different than most of the citizens of the empire itself — all of whom worship gods other than our own; they even worship the emperor himself! Eating meat sacrificed to idols is a way of begging for the blessing of other gods for businesses and products and livelihoods. Now when a potential Christian or a Christian who is weak in our faith hears that a famous Christian like yourself eats meat sacrificed to idols, won't they think it's okay to worship other gods?"
The church member had a point here. Billius could not answer right away; he looked away, looked at his feet, and sighed. There was an element of serving meat at Macrosoft that had its origin in motivations other than supplementing the protein consumption of his employees. Macrosoft's success lie in the fact that it was competing brilliantly in a world composed of many religions. As a way of inspiring confidence among all these religious people, Billius made sure that everyone knew that meat served at official Macrosoft functions had been properly sacrificed in honor of the god of computers. Not to serve this sort of sacred meat at all Macrosoft functions would raise questions in the minds of customers and potential customers alike: If Macrosoft has not properly honored the god of computers, how can Macrosoft guarantee that they sell quality products? The competition would certainly be able to exploit this neglect of standard business practices in the ancient world. Billius personally knew of no corporation that had succeeded without sacrificing meat to idols.
"Some people, I suppose, just can't eat meat," said Billius at length. "Not many people can afford meat, anyway. And I don't look down on folks who won't eat meat, as some Christians in my circles do. In fact, at Macrosoft we provide both vegetarian and vegan entrees at all official functions. But if I were not to provide meat ... well ... there'd be no Macrosoft, and, by the way, I also wouldn't have any enormous financial resources for my health care initiatives."
"The ends never justify the means," Billius' critic countered.
"But there are no pure and holy means," Billius argued. "Do you check out the corporations from whom you buy your clothes and food? Are you sure that all your shirts and shoes are not manufactured in sweatshops by child labor? Are the plastic toys you buy for your children that are made in China made by one of the many companies there destroying the environment? Is your coffee purchased from farmers by multinational corporations at prices less than the cost to farmers for production? What about your own environmental footprint? Do you realize your insatiable thirst for oil and energy and plastic diverts billions upon billions of dollars from research and development of sustainable energy alternatives, contributes to global warming, and drives a foreign policy built on fearful attempts to maintain our grossly disproportionate consumption of dwindling global resources? You are an integral part of all of that evil, brother. You and I, we have wonderful marriages and families, but we are still both living in sin. Unless you join the Amish or unless you're Jesus himself, then who's not a part of the problem? Who are you to pass judgment on me?"
"So because we can't escape from sin, we might as well sin ... especially if it's good for the corporate bottom line ... is that your argument? All I hear from you, Mr. Gaitius, are rationalizations! That's a fine way to be a Christian in the world!" Billius' assailant moved closer to him. "My friends and I have already requested that the presbyter write to the apostle Paul about you. We don't worship here anymore; we're proud to say we don't eat meat at all; we're thinking of starting our own church. We can't associate with fools like you who worship idols and don't think anything of it. When Paul judges between us, you'll see!" The man pushed by Billius upsetting his cup of Equal Exchange coffee and scalding his thumb.
Even though Billius did have the advice from the apostle Paul himself, the fact that Macrosoft seemed to be causing a rift in his own church disturbed him. Maybe it would be better for him to sell Macrosoft and join the Amish or spend all the proceeds on his health care initiatives. Yet, even if he did that, Billius couldn't shake the feeling that it was all ill-gotten gain. He didn't even like XC himself, but secretly envied and owned one of the fruit computers.
The rift deepened in the church. Though it didn't affect the church much fiscally, Billius could see that more and more people just didn't seem to be showing up anymore. He heard that the group that had withdrawn from worship was speculating that since corporations almost had to have XC to compete successfully in the global economy, soon Macrosoft would be tracking all its customers with a mark "so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark" (Revelation 13:16-17). The mark was supposed to be the name of the apocalyptic beast and "the number of its name" (Revelation 13:17). A fellow from the group, named John, even claimed to have discovered that number in the XC software code.
Months later, when a letter finally came to the church in Rome from the apostle Paul (email in Rome had been fatally damaged by a series of Trojan Horses), Billius hoped that something in the letter would settle this issue about eating meat sacrificed to idols and heal the division in the church he felt he had precipitated.
On the first Sunday, a couple chapters of the letter were read during the service, and it seemed like there were more people in church than had been in recent weeks. At each service thereafter, more chapters were read during worship and discussed afterward. Billius was encouraged when in chapters 3 and 5 the presbyter read that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but that all are made right with God "by his grace, as a gift" (Romans 3:23-24). This seemed to support Billius' point of view that the observance of dietary laws of any kind were not necessary for salvation. In chapter 8, Billius was reassured that nothing could separate him from the love of God, not even his inevitable participation in a global economy that universally demanded some form of idol worship (Romans 8:31-39). In chapter 13, Billius was somewhat surprised at the sort of positive spin the apostle Paul put on the emperor when he advised Christians to "be subject to the governing authorities," because "the authorities that exist have been instituted by God!" (Romans 13:1). Billius knew there were Christians who held far less flattering views about the emperor.
Finally, right from the very first verses of the chapter, it appeared as if chapter 14 specifically addressed the dispute in Billius' church that distressed him so. Billius was glad the church was still as full as it had been the first Sunday the presbyter began reading the apostle Paul's letter. Billius wanted a chance to air and settle this quarrel with as many members as possible. The presbyter read:
Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? (Romans 14:1-4)
At this point the presbyter paused, looking over his reading glasses first at the leader of the group worshiping elsewhere and then at Billius. Billius' opponent couldn't help bursting out, "But it's the law, presbyter! ‘You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.' Exodus, chapter 20!"
"I am well aware of the content and location of the first commandment," the presbyter replied, remaining as composed as possible. "Mr. Gaitius," the presbyter turned his attention to Billius. "Do you worship the god of computers?"
"I do not, sir."
"Do you worship the emperor?"
"I pay the emperor the taxes, respect, and honor he is due. No more, no less."
"A prudent reply," the presbyter smiled, taking off his glasses. "What have you say to your brother in Christ who accuses you of breaking God's law?"
"First of all, I was somewhat saddened that the apostle Paul labeled those who only eat vegetables as ‘weak in faith.' I do not find my brother weak in the faith at all. He is a most sincere and genuine believer. He and his group have gone to great expense to continue to worship elsewhere every single Sunday. This sort of faithfulness is commendable, compared to 70% of the rest of the congregation. Yet, it is not this sort of wonderful obedience to the law that saves them. If I understand our Lord correctly, no one can obey the law perfectly enough to earn our salvation. I recall Jesus saying that even to call a brother a fool is to kill him, and who among us can say he is entirely innocent in this regard?"
"Indeed," said the presbyter.
"As soon as we say that we must obey the law in order to be saved, I ask myself, ‘which law?' The holiness laws about clean and unclean? The laws in regards to the celebration of religious days? The commandments? It's clear Jesus doesn't think we're capable of obeying even ten laws, much less a whole book full! The apostle Paul's letter today seems to indicate that eating meat sacrificed to idols (or not) or celebrating holy days of various kinds (or not) are not a matter we Christians should be fighting about. We shouldn't be fighting at all. We are, as the apostle Paul reminded us in chapter 12, one body. I like that metaphor."
"So do I," the presbyter agreed.
"What settles the whole issue for me was what the apostle Paul wrote just last week. Twice in chapter 13, he made the point that those who love fulfill the law. To me, this means we are to judge our every act by whether or not it is an act of love. It also means that every scriptural law must be judged by whether or not its obedience accomplishes love."
A few were tempted to begin applauding at Billius' speech, but the presbyter held his hand up to stop them. "Applause is for sporting events, brothers and sisters, in which there is a winner and a loser. There are no losers here, only one body of beloved equals. And so for those on either side of the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, the apostle Paul is very clear: We have no business quarreling about it or judging one another based on our opinions about it."
Billius' opponent objected, "But how can one live life with love as the only guide? It's untenable ... it's too vague, too ... too...."
"Demanding is the word I would use. You're right. Living life with love as your guide demands prayerful, thoughtful engagement in the world. I think Mr. Gaitius is demonstrating that. Conducting his business in this world is no simple matter. Yet, he has not let his power and success destroy him. He has channeled his wealth into acts of love. Try not to despise him. Steadfastly refusing to worship with him (and the rest of us) indicates that you have judged us. The apostle Paul has encouraged us not to judge, but to remain patient with each other. "Love is patient; love is kind. Love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist upon its own way" (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).
After the service, Billius complimented the presbyter on his handling of the issue. "And by the way," Billius wondered, "where did you hear that stuff about love being patient and kind?"
"In the apostle Paul's letter to the church in Corinth, which has been fighting about more things than we have. The whole passage is wonderful. You'll have to take a look at it sometime. I'm thinking of using it for a wedding next week."
"A wedding?" said Billius. "What a great idea! Think of how that would transform the idea of marriage! Marriage will no longer be merely a means by which parents arrange advantageous kinship alliances; it will become the dwelling place of the love of God; it will become a sacrament of the presence of Christ...."
"Remember that, Billius, when it's time to take the garbage out or when it's your turn to feed the baby at three in the morning."
"Ha! You're right, as usual, sir," said Billius, "love's a lot easier said than done!"
"Amen to that!" said the presbyter, moving away from Billius to chat with the leader of the group who had begun to worship elsewhere. Amen.
CSS Publishing, Inc., Sermons for Sundays after Pentecost (Middle Third): Grace for Those Who Fall, by Larry Lange
Overview: Previously Paul has discussed relational righteousness with God (12:1-2), ourselves (3-8), others (9-11),the state (13:1-7), the law (8-13), and the Day of the Lord (11-14),Now he turns to the last, relating to the weak, before drawinghis conclusion in 15:14-16:27.
As we mentioned in the introduction, the house churches in Rome were likely divided on the basis of the relationship between Jews and gentiles. The division between the “weak” and the “strong” described here provides additional details about that division. Most likely the “weak” are Jewish Christians who abstain from certain foods and observe certain days out of loyalty to the Mosaic law. They don’t believe they have to keep the law in order to be saved, but they prefer to abide by the law as a part of their Christi…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2 Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9 so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name."
10 Again, it says, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples."
12 And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him."
13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
14:1–15:13 Review · Unity in diversity: The believers in Rome are “holy people” (1:7), but they also have problems. In the final paragraph of his exhortation, Paul addresses the conflict that exists between believers who regard the Christian faith as an essentially Jewish movement and believers who do not pay attention to distinctive Jewish traditions—that is, between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (cf. 15:7–9). The critical debate is not about whether Gentile Christians must be circumcised (as in Galatians 2–4) or about the question of whether Christians can dine in pagan temples and eat food sacrificed to idols (as in 1Corinthians 8–10). The controversy concerns dietary practices (14:2, 21) and the observance of certain days (14:5–6). Paul’s discussion highlights, again, the nature of the people of God as the community of the new covenant, in which the old distinctions between Jews and Gentiles are no longer relevant. The controlling principle is not the specifics of obedience to the law but the reality of God’s love, which believers need to apply to relationships within the church (14:15; cf. 12:3, 9–10, 14–17, 21; 13:8–10).
14:1–12 · In his discussion of the divisions between the “weak” and the “strong,” Paul first argues that Christians who are weak in their faith (14:1) must stop condemning their fellow believers who are less scrupulous (14:3–5, 10, the strong of 15:1) because only God himself has the right to judge (14:10–12). Believers whose faith is weak place their trust in certain dietary practices: they eat only vegetables (14:2), they do not drink wine (14:21), and they observe certain days (14:5). They were Jewish believers (and Gentile Christians influenced by Jewish traditions) who practiced the dietary laws and who observed certain days (including probably the Sabbath). Eating meat and drinking wine are not prohibited in the law. However, Jews could eat only meat that was kosher, in other words, slaughtered according to the rules of the law (Israelites may not eat blood; cf. Deut. 12:15–16). When Claudius evicted the Jews from the city of Rome in AD 49, the Jewish slaughterhouses were probably shut down, prompting Jews who remained in the city (and Jews who later returned) to refrain from eating meat altogether in order to avoid any unclean meat. As wine may have been offered in ritual libations in pagan temples before it was sold in the market, a scrupulous observance of the law led some Jews to refrain from drinking wine altogether (cf. Daniel and his friends, Dan. 1:3–16; 10:3). Paul argues that those who observe these practices must not condemn those who do not, and that those who eat and drink anything must not despise those who have religious scruples regarding matters related to diet. Paul does not refrain from giving his opinion: those who have scruples concerning food or the observance of certain festival days are weak in their faith.
Paul emphasizes five concerns. (1) Believers must not judge each other, because only God judges people (14:10–12). (2) Believers must not despise others, because God has welcomed all believers (14:3, 10). (3) Believers must be convinced that the details of their personal behavior honor Jesus Christ the Lord and express their thankfulness to God (14:5–6), acknowledging that they are accountable to God (14:12). (4) Believers can have differences of opinion, which should be tolerated (14:1, 5–6; evidently the Jewish Christians did not argue that the observances they practiced were necessary for salvation and should be followed by “nonobservant” Christians as well). (5) The identity of Christian believers is not tied up with diet and religious holidays but with the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for sinners and who was raised from the dead. This means that believers who are united with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection seek to please God in all things, having been liberated from the fundamental human sin of setting their own priorities and constructing their own values (14:8–9).
14:13–23 · Second, Paul discusses renouncing one’s freedom out of love. He argues that Christians who are strong in their faith have the responsibility not to damage the believers who continue to adhere to Jewish legal practices in the area of dietary law and Sabbath observance. Paul agrees theologically with the strong: no food, no beverage, no day of the calendar is ritually unclean (14:14, 20). They are right in believing that the kingdom of God, which has been inaugurated with the coming of Jesus Christ, is not linked with food and drink but established and present in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (14:16–17). The strong have faith before God (14:22). However, they threaten to damage the weak, who could stumble and lose their footing (14:13), be injured and ruined (14:15), be destroyed and fall (14:20), take offense (14:21), and be condemned (14:23). This happens if the strong eat and drink what the weak cannot eat or drink, thinking that such behavior makes them unclean (14:14). Paul refers to what happens when Gentile Christians share meals with Jewish Christians who still keep the dietary laws (for Christian meals cf. 1Cor. 11:17–34). The behavior of the strong causes the weak to follow their example and eat food their faith does not allow them to eat. They consume food they regard as unclean, thereby violating their faith, a fact that damages them, as they are convinced that they have rebelled against the will of God (14:15). As a result of the damage that their faith repeatedly suffers in these situations, they doubt (14:23). Doubt is incompatible with faith (cf. Rom. 4:19–21), and everything that is not done from faith is sin (14:23).
Even though Paul implicitly challenges the weak to have a faith that is strong (he calls them “weak” and agrees with those who eat and drink anything), he calls on the strong to change their behavior. His straightforward command, eventually formulated in verse 21, is not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else that causes the Jewish believers to injure their faith. He asks them to resolve not to be a stumbling block for the weak (14:13), to show love for their fellow believers (14:15), to make sure that their behavior does not become grounds for irreverent comments about the gospel (14:16–17), to serve Christ and be acceptable to God (14:18), to act in such a manner that peace is maintained and that the fellowship of believers is being built up (14:19), and to keep the faith they have to themselves “before God” (14:22 NASB, NRSV; i.e., not to force their convictions on the weak, and to eat and drink what they wish in the privacy of their homes).
Paul mentions fundamental criteria for Christian behavior: acting out of love for fellow believers as a manifestation of God’s love for justified sinners (14:15; cf. 5:5, 8); evaluating the importance of differences of personal behavior in the light of the righteousness God has given to sinners, in the light of the peace that Jesus Christ has obtained for believers, and in the light of the joy of the Holy Spirit (14:17); safeguarding the continued growth of the church (14:19; cf. 1Cor. 14:1–5); and respecting the “work of God” (14:20), which is the faith of all believers, and the existence and the unity of the church.
15:1–6 · Before Paul concludes his discussion of the controversy between the strong and the weak in 15:7–13, he reminds believers of the basis of their Christian identity. In verses 1–2 Paul summarizes the primary responsibility of the strong. Those who are strong in the faith can and must accept the scruples of the weak as their own burden (cf. Gal. 6:2) by not eating and drinking what the weak cannot eat and drink. They must not insist on indulging their personal self-interest. They must endeavor to give pleasure to their fellow Christians. They must keep in mind the purpose of being a body of believers, which is the continued growth of all Christians. In verses 3–4 Paul explains the main reason for his advice to the strong: Jesus is their example. Jesus the Messiah did not live to please himself. Rather, he denied himself by submission to God’s will, which took him to the cross (cf. 2Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5–8). Psalm 69:9 confirms this: as the righteous person who is devoted to the Lord (69:10) is insulted by his enemies and also by his own family (69:8, 28), so Jesus was despised by the Roman authorities and by the Jewish leadership. In the same manner, as the Messiah was willing to be insulted for God’s honor, the Gentile believers should be willing to give up the focus on their personal interests. They should be willing to be ridiculed by their pagan friends and neighbors who will despise them if they follow Jewish scruples in the area of food and drink. Paul asserts in verse 3 that the Scriptures are crucial for understanding both Jesus Christ and their own identity, because the Scriptures give the believers comfort in the midst of their trials, which result in hope (cf. Rom. 5:1–5; 8:25). Paul ends with a prayer wish in which he prays for the unity of the strong and the weak (15:5–6). This is a unity expressed in Gentile believers and Jewish believers living together, which requires perseverance and encouragement; the constant orientation by Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah; and the desire to honor God with one voice.
15:7–13 · Paul summarizes the section on the controversy between the strong and the weak, and at the same time, he concludes the main body of the letter. In verse 7 he asserts that mutual acceptance and unity are fundamental values for two reasons: all believers have been accepted by Christ, with whom they are united by faith; and the glory of God is the primary concern and reality of those who honor the Creator, as he must be honored by his creatures, who live in his presence. In verses 8–9 Paul explains how Christ accepted both Jews and Gentiles. Christ came as a servant for the Jews who waited for messianic salvation (Rom. 2:1–3:20); Jesus’s death and resurrection have brought the salvation that confirms the promises of salvation given to the patriarchs (9:1–11:36). Since God’s promises to the fathers included the families of the earth, the Gentiles also have benefited from the coming of Jesus Christ; they needed salvation, as they had rebelled against God in their assault on his glory (Rom. 1:18–32); they have received salvation on account of God’s mercy, as have the Jews (3:21–5:21), with the result that they honor and glorify God. The truth of God, which has been abused by pagans and by Jews (Rom. 1:18, 25; 2:8; 3:7), has been vindicated through Jesus the Messiah. The promise given to the fathers has been fulfilled (Rom. 2:25–29; 4:9–22; 9:4, 8–9); the Gentiles have received God’s mercy (1:16–17; 3:21–31; 9:15–18; 11:30–32); the failure of humankind to honor God (1:21) has been reversed. The following quotations from Psalm 18:49 // 2Samuel 22:50, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10 confirm God’s promise that both Gentiles and Jews together would honor and glorify God. In his second prayer wish (after 15:5–6) Paul prays that the God who gives hope will fill both Jewish and Gentile believers with joy and peace, both of which result from faith (15:13). And he prays that the joy of the Lord and peace with God may result in an abundance of hope, which is the present desire for the future reality of life in the immediate presence of God (Rom. 5:2). The hope of sharing the glory of God, and the Christian life in general, is sustained not by the personal efforts of believers but by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Big Idea: Romans 14:1–15:13 forms a unit unto itself containing Paul’s plea for the Roman Christians to get along—specifically, that the weak and the strong in faith would accept each other in Christ. Romans 14:1–12 begins the discussion with a twofold exhortation (vv.1–3, 10–12) grounded in a theological explanation (vv.4–9).
Understanding the Text
In the past, some scholars have contended that Romans 14:1–15:13 is parenetic material that Paul includes in his letter at this point but that has no real connection to the churches at Rome.1According to this view, Paul rewrites and generalizes his earlier instructions in 1Corinthians 8:1–11:1 in Romans 14:1–15:13.2To be sure, there are similarities between Romans 14:1–15:13 and 1Corinthians 8:1–11:1: both address the “weak” (in faith); both center on the controversy of whether Christians should abstain from certain foods; both admonish believers in their decisions regarding that matter not to become stumbling blocks to their fellow believers.3
Most interpreters today argue instead that Romans 14:1–15:13 focuses on a divisive situation in the Roman congregations—whether to eat meat, drink wine, observe certain days as holy—with Paul ultimately answering, “Love one another.” This theme of loving others has dominated Paul’s discussion since 12:9. Moreover, significant differences between Romans 14:1–15:13 and 1Corinthians 8:1–11:1 indicate that Paul has tailored his parenetic material in the latter to apply to a specific situation in the former. For instance, unlike 1Corinthians 8:1–11:1, Romans 14:1–15:13 makes no mention of idolatry or eating meat dedicated to pagan deities in the temple, which are the key issues addressed in 1Corinthians 8:1–11:1. It therefore seems clear that Romans 14:1–15:13 speaks to a specific issue in the Roman churches.
Romans 14:1–15:13, most commentators recognize, divides into four sections: 14:1–12; 14:13–23; 15:1–6; 15:7–13. Romans 14:1–12, as Douglas Moo observes, is chiastic in structure:4
A The exhortation to unity (14:1–3)
B The theology for unity (14:4–9)
A? The exhortation to unity (14:10–12)
I will follow this division in the “Interpretive Insights” section below.
Historical and Cultural Background
The key background for Romans 14:1–15:13 is the identification of the strong and the weak in faith. Because this background dominates this entire section in Romans, here I must present an extended discussion of that identification.
Moo conveniently delineates six possible categories of identification of the weak and the strong:
1. The “weak” were mainly Gentile Christians who abstained from meat (and perhaps wine), particularly on certain “fast” days, under the influence of certain pagan religions.
2. The “weak” were Christians, perhaps both Jewish and Gentile, who practiced an ascetic lifestyle for reasons that we cannot determine.
3. The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who observed certain practices derived from the Mosaic law out of a concern to establish righteousness before God.
4. The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who followed a sectarian ascetic program as a means of expressing their piety. This program may have been the product of syncretistic tendencies.
5. The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who, like some of the Corinthians, believed that it was wrong to eat meat that was sold in the marketplace and probably was tainted by idolatry.
6. The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain kinds of food and observed certain days out of continuing loyalty to the Mosaic law.
Moo, following C.E.B. Cranfield,5opts for the sixth view, with which I agree. Moo adduces four pieces of evidence in support of that contention. First, the dispute between the weak in faith and the strong (14:1–15:13) corresponds to the differences between Jews and Gentiles (see Rom. 1:18–4:22; 9–11; 15:14–33). Second, a Jewish origin of the position of the weak can clearly be seen in the term koinos (“unclean” [14:14]), which had become a semitechnical way of proscribing certain foods under the Mosaic law (see Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14).6It is probably in that light that we are to understand the references to the abstention from meat and wine (14:3, 6b, 14b, 21) along with the observance of special days (14:6) on the part of the weak in faith.7These considerations effectively eliminate the first, second, and fourth options above. Third, Paul’s plea for both weak and strong to accept one another indicates that the weak were not propagating views antithetical to the gospel, such as was being done by the Judaizers, for whom Paul reserved his most scathing critique (see Rom. 1:18–3:31). This point refutes the third option above. Fourth, the lack of mention of “food sacrificed to idols” (cf. 1Cor. 8:1) speaks against the fifth option above. Thus we arrive at the sixth option as the preferred identification. The weak in faith were largely Jewish Christians who felt obligated to keep the ritual aspects of the law,8while the strong in faith were mostly Gentiles (and Jewish Christians, like Paul) who felt no such compulsion, because they realized that the law’s role ended at the cross.
Interpretive Insights
14:1–3 Accept the one whose faith is weak ... for God has accepted them. In 14:1–3 Paul gives the first of two exhortations found in 14:1–12: Christians are to accept one another even as God has accepted them. Verses1–3 unfold that exhortation in parallel statements:
The strong in faith (vv.1–2)
The weak in faith (v.2b)
The strong in faith (v.3a)
The weak in faith (v.3b)
To the strong in faith—those mostly Gentile Christians plus some Jewish Christians like Paul who ate meat—Paul offers the challenge to receive the weak in faith but not for the purpose of quarreling with them to belittle them (14:1–2a). In 14:3a Paul restates the exhortation: the strong in faith are not to despise or look down on those Christians who avoided nonkosher meat. Likewise, 14:2b and 14:3b admonish the weak in faith not to judge those who eat nonkosher food. Such a judgmental attitude brings to mind the condescending attitude of Jews toward Gentiles back in chapter2. Instead, both groups are to fully and unconditionally accept each other because their faith, strong or weak, is in Christ, and therefore God accepts both parties.9
14:4–9 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?... live or die, we belong to the Lord. In these verses Paul supplies the theological rationale as to why the two groups in Rome should accept each other: both are accountable to God and Christ.[10] Verse4 explicitly states the theological rationale: neither strong nor weak have the right to judge each other, since both are servants, with the Lord as their master. Only he has the prerogative to judge, and he will empower each group to stand accepted (implied) on judgment day.
Verses 5–6 specify the situation at Rome: each individual makes a personal decision in the matter of meat, special days, and wine, since both the strong and the weak take their respective stances as unto and in thanks to God.
Verses 7–9 make the point that Christians neither live nor die to themselves alone. Rather, since Jesus Christ died and arose again, Christians live and die unto Christ their Lord.
14:10–12 each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Verses 10–12 return to the exhortation given in 14:1–3: Paul rebukes the weak for judging their fellow believer (14:10a) and the strong for despising their fellow believer (14:10b). This should not be, because both will stand before the judgment seat of God.11Paul reinforces the fact that all will stand before God in judgment by quoting Isaiah 45:23LXX: “Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess to God” (cf. Phil. 2:11).12Paul concludes his exhortation with the reminder that all will give an account of their life to God. So two reasons emerge in 14:1–12 as to why weak and strong are to accept one another: first, God and Christ have accepted both; second, both are answerable to God and Christ.
Theological Insights
Romans 14:1–12 deals with “doubtful things” or “gray areas,” things that are not bedrock issues of the Christian faith but rather are matters of Christian liberty. So to the weak and the strong in faith Paul gives two exhortations. First, because both are accepted by God, both should be welcomed as fellow believers. Second, because both are answerable to God, in nonessential matters neither side has the right to judge the other’s viewpoint.
Teaching the Text
A good approach to communicating Romans 14:1–12 is to introduce some contemporary nonessential issues in an attempt to understand the situation Paul addressed in the Roman churches. (Nonessential issues are concerns that are important but do not directly relate to the fundamentals of the Christian faith; those fundamentals include justification by faith, the deity of Christ, the return of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, and the inspiration of the Bible). Then show from 14:1–12 the two principles that Paul offers for Christians dealing with “doubtful things”: because all Christians are acceptable and accountable to God, Christians ought to love fellow believers even when they differ on nonessential matters. Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (1582–1651) put the solution best: in essentials, let there be unity; in nonessentials, let there be liberty; in all things, let there be charity.
Here is a list of some of the nonessential issues that the church faces today: hair length for men, tattoos, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, appropriate forms of entertainment, types of music in worship services, ordination of women for pastoral ministry, tithing or proportionate giving, whether or not the more spectacular gifts of the Spirit are operative today, church governance, mode of baptism, whether or not the Lord’s Supper and baptism are sacramental. In all of these Romans 14:1–12 should be brought to bear upon the discussion.
Yet a caveat must be added to this discussion. We are not talking about matters that the Bible clearly condemns. That is, some things being debated in the modern Western world cannot be condoned if we wish to live biblically based lives. Perhaps the most contentious matter debated today in some churches is hom*osexuality and, related to that, same-sex marriage. Often those who support the hom*osexual lifestyle say that the same Bible that condemns such a practice also supports slavery and discrimination against women. So, it is argued, to be consistent, one cannot have it both ways—appealing to the Bible against one cause (hom*osexuality) but ignoring its support for others (slavery and discrimination against women). William Webb has written a book explaining why Scripture forbids hom*osexual behavior but should not be used to condone slavery and deny the ordination of women.13Webb’s answer is essentially that while the Bible clearly rejects hom*osexuality, it is ambiguous regarding slavery and the inequality of women. And it is the people of God who, following the trajectory of biblical teaching, discern that the seed was sown by Paul for the eventual overthrow of the latter two injustices.
Illustrating the Text
Both weak and strong Christians should be welcomed as fellow believers.
Literature: The Pilgrim’s Progress, by John Bunyan. In part1, section8 of The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678), Hopeful and Christian hear the story of a “good man” called Little-Faith who lives in the town of Sincere. He is much troubled by three brothers, Faint-Heart, Mistrust, and Guilt, who try to steal from him and even hit him on the head. Nevertheless, Great-Grace, from the city of Good-Confidence, helps him up. Clearly, Little-Faith will always feel his troubles deeply; nevertheless, he is not turned away from heaven. In his annotated version of this classic book, Warren Wiersbe comments, “This is one of our Lord’s favorite names for his disciples.... See Matthew 8:26; 14:31; 16:8. ... God honors even a little faith. Not all Christians are great victors.”14
Quote: Life Together, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This small book is the account of Pastor Bonhoeffer’s (1906–45) experience of Christian community, the story of the underground seminary conducted during the Nazi years, showing how life together in Christ can be carried on in families and in groups. Bonhoeffer writes,
God does not will that I should fashion the other person according to the image that seems good to me, that is, in my own image; rather in his very freedom from me God made this person in His image. I can never know beforehand how God’s image should appear in others.... Strong and weak, wise and foolish, gifted or ungifted, pious or impious, the diverse individuals in the community are no longer incentives for talking and judging and condemning, and thus excuses for self-justification. They are rather cause for rejoicing in one another and serving one another. Each member of the community is given his particular place. ... In a Christian community everything depends upon whether each individual is an indispensable link in the chain unbreakable.... Every Christian community must realize that not only do the weak need the strong, but also that the strong cannot exist without the weak. The elimination of the weak is the death of fellowship.15
Christians must love one another, even when we have different perspectives.
Film: Babette’s Feast. This Academy Award–winning Danish film (1987) is based on the story of the same title by Isak Dinesen (1885–1962). In this beautiful story, the theme of extravagant, sacrificial love is central. Babette, a prominent chef from Paris, arrives on the bleak coast of Jutland, escaping a political uprising in which her husband and son have been killed. She begs two sisters, Martine and Philippa, who preside over an aging, dwindling church, to hire her as a servant, and she gives everything to deliver these people from their spare, loveless religion, from living meagerly, bickering among themselves while claiming faith. After fourteen years as their cook, one day she wins a considerable sum of money in the lottery, and she chooses to spend it all on a sumptuous feast for the community. She invites this “frozen chosen” group to a lavish meal to taste the joy of the abundance of life. Babette woos them out of their darkness into a better way, of love for each other, one of joy.
Strong and Weak Christians: The New and the Old Covenants
Big Idea: The Christians at Rome who are strong in faith should, by limiting their own liberty, love the Christians who are weak in faith. To put it another way, those Christians who are living in the new covenant should love those Christians who are living like they are in the old covenant.
Understanding the Text
Romans 14:13–23 continues Paul’s instructions to the strong and the weak in faith at Rome by focusing on the need for the Christians strong in faith to love those Christians weak in faith. They should do this by limiting their own liberty in Christ and by not flaunting that liberty in the churches at Rome. Douglas Moo’s outline of 14:13–23 is good, noting a chiastic structure reminiscent of 14:1–12:
A Exhortation to the strong in faith: Do not cause the weak to stumble (14:13–16)
B Basis of the exhortation: The kingdom of God is more than food and drink (14:17–18)
A? Exhortation to the strong in faith: Do not cause the weak to stumble (14:19–23)1
Historical and Cultural Background
Three pieces of background information are vital to understanding Romans 14:13–23: the covenant language, the kingdom of God (and these first two are near synonyms), and the Jesus tradition. The first of these will require considerable discussion but will shed much light on this passage.
1. Several key terms in Romans 14:13–23 are rooted in Second Temple Judaism’s convictions about the old covenant (for more on these terms, see the sidebar): “stumbling block” (the noun proskomma [vv.13, 20]; the verb proskopt? [v.21]) and “obstacle” (skandalon [v.13]); “unclean” (koinos [v.14]) versus “clean” (katharos [v.20]); “destroy” (apollymi [v.15]) and the related terms “cause grief” (lype? [v.15]) and “destroy” (kataly? [v.20]); “blaspheme” (blasph?me? [v.16]) and “good” (agathos [v.16]); “building up” (oikodom? [v.19]); not to mention the ritual requirements to avoid both nonkosher meat and wine devoted to pagan deities (v.21). All of these words relate to ancient Judaism’s adherence to the dietary law in order to be holy before God and to participate in his covenant. To eat unclean foods, conversely, was to break the stipulations of the covenant and to suffer its curses.
2. Paul refers to the kingdom of God in Romans 14:17 (elsewhere in 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13 [kingdom of God’s son]; 1Thess. 2:12 with reference to the “already” aspect, and in 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5 [kingdom of Christ and God]; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; 2Thess. 1:5; 2Tim. 4:1, 18 with reference to the “not yet” aspect). Romans 14:17 describes the kingdom as righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, which are new-covenant blessings.
3. The Jesus tradition also undergirds Romans 14:13–23:
Romans 14:13-23 / Synoptic Gospels
Do not judge (v. 13) / Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37
Unclean (v. 14) / Mark 7:15
The kingdom of God (v. 17) / 105 times in the Synoptic Gospels
The kingdom of God and eating/drinking (v. 17) / Luke 22:30; see also Matt. 6:25; 11:18-19; John 6:54
Joy (v. 17) / Matt. 5:12
All things clean (v. 20) / Mark 7:19
Interpretive Insights
14:13–16 not to put any stumbling block ... in the way of a brother or sister. As I begin my interpretation of 14:13–23, it might be helpful to pull together in advance the argumentation of these verses, taking into consideration the “Historical and Cultural Background” section. I do so by making three statements. First, it is clear that Jesus and now Paul throw out the dietary laws as a means of keeping and staying in the covenant. Rather, the kingdom of God has dawned and, with it, the new covenant, which is entered into by faith in Christ alone. In terms of 14:13–23, it may be said, then, that believers strong in faith are in the new covenant and are living like it by enjoying the righteousness, peace, and joy of the kingdom of God. These persons enjoy the blessings of the new covenant (14:22). Second, the believers weak in faith are in the new covenant (Paul calls them “brothers and sisters” in 14:13, 15, 21), but their adherence to the dietary laws indicates that they are living like they are in the old covenant. Third, Paul nevertheless challenges the strong in faith to demonstrate the ethic of the new covenant—love—toward their weaker siblings.
Verse13 has a play on the word “judge” (krin?).2Paul tells them not to “judge” one another to “judge” this: that they do not cause a fellow believer to stumble. The focus of 14:13, and indeed the whole section of 14:13–23, is on the believer who is strong in faith not using liberty regarding the dietary laws as a stumbling block to the weak believer who does feel compelled to observe the clean/unclean distinction. Even though Paul sides with the strong because Christ abolished the dietary laws (compare 14:14a with Mark 7:15; cf. Acts 10:15; 11:9; 15:9), he challenges the strong to consider the convictions of the weak in that matter (14:14b). Thus, the strong believers should not eat nonkosher meat in the presence of the weak in faith because this might adversely influence weak Christians to eat against their conscience. Indeed, as the majority of recent commentaries on this passage observe, the weak in faith may suffer loss of salvation at the judgment seat if they persist in disobeying their faith, even if their faith is immature. Such a tragedy, obviously, would not proceed from the strong’s love for the weak, just as it is not based on Christ’s sacrificial love for the weak (14:15). This would be to pervert the blessings of the covenant upon the strong in faith into the curses of the covenant upon the weak in faith (14:16).
14:17–18 the kingdom of God is ... righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Verses 17–18 provide the theological rationale behind Paul’s exhortation to the strong: what really matters before God is not whether or not one eats or drinks, but the kingdom of God. We saw earlier that Paul taps into the Jesus tradition to speak of the dawning of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is God’s reign in the hearts of his people. He is their king, and they are his subjects. So the kingdom of God involves service to God and others, in this case service to the weak in faith by placing limits on one’s own liberty. This is what pleases God and others (14:18).
Paul uses three nouns—“righteousness,” “peace,” and “joy”—to characterize the blessings of the kingdom of God, all of which proceed from the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. 5:1–5). “Righteousness” is God’s imputed righteousness to the sinner through faith in Christ, which brings peace with God and eschatological joy. The Spirit is the one who unites the believer to Christ and his righteousness (cf. Rom. 8:1–16). Therefore, righteousness, peace, and joy in the Spirit are blessings of the new covenant (14:17).
14:19–23 do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. With 14:17–18 as the theological basis, Paul resumes his exhortation to the strong in faith in 14:19–23. Verses 19–20a challenge the strong to unify the church by making every effort to bring about peace and edification in their relationship with the weak in faith. Otherwise the strong’s flaunting of their liberty before the weak will destroy the church over the issue of food, which is a spiritual nonessential.
Verses20b–21 expand Paul’s exhortation by stating that the liberty of eating meat and drinking wine can cause the weak to stumble and fall in their faith. Therefore, the strong should limit their liberty.
Verse23, however, does encourage the strong in faith to enjoy their liberty in Christ, but to do so in private or at least not in the presence of weak believers. In practicing their liberty to eat meat and drink wine, the strong in faith can enjoy the approval and blessing of God and thereby the new covenant.
Verse22 contains two principles, one regarding the weak in faith, and one regarding all believers. The weak in faith should not eat meat and drink wine if they believe that in doing so they break the dietary laws of the covenant. Going against their conscience condemns them now and ultimately on judgment day before God. To put it another way, it is better for the weak in faith not to presently enjoy the liberty of the new covenant than to fail to remain in that covenant. The second principle addresses all believers: all of life should be lived by faith, for not to do so is sin. Indeed, faith is the means of justification, sanctification, and glorification.
Theological Insights
Several truths emerge from Romans 14:13–23. First, the more mature Christians may well need to limit their liberty in Christ for the sake of the weaker Christians and for the unity of the church. Second, although this is so, it need not mean that strong Christians should live in slavery to the whims of others. Limiting liberty does have reasonable boundaries. Third, either way—strong or weak in faith—the Christian life is a walk of faith.
Teaching the Text
There are two good ways to teach/preach Romans 14:13–23. One could follow the outline given above: exhortation to the strong (14:13–16); theological basis in the kingdom of God (14:17–18); exhortation to the strong (14:19–23). One could also follow a logical order in covering these verses: (1)The strong in faith enjoy the blessings of the new covenant. (2)The weak in faith are in the new covenant but live like they are in the old covenant. (3)The strong in faith should demonstrate toward the weak in faith the ethic of the new covenant: love. Either way, the title of this unit—“Strong and Weak Christians: The New and the Old Covenants”—could serve as the title of the lesson or sermon on this passage.
We might also compare the strong in faith today with those who feel comfortable with the responsible use of alcoholic beverages, or who feel free to wear to church whatever they want, or who prefer seeker-friendly worship. But when worshiping with believers who feel uncomfortable with the preceding matters, the strong may need to forgo having a glass of wine, or to dress differently, or to add a more traditional touch to worship. My father died because of alcoholism. Consequently, I do not drink any alcoholic beverages. Some of my ministerial colleagues, on the other hand, are comfortable with drinking responsibly. However, when they are with me they are considerate enough not to have a drink. In this case I would be the Christian weak in faith, and they would be the strong in faith, limiting their liberty in my presence.
Illustrating the Text
Mature Christians must limit their liberty for the weak and for church unity.
Quote: Martin Luther. In his beautiful piece “A Treatise on Christian Liberty,” Luther writes the following:
Although the Christian is thus free from all works, he ought in this liberty to empty himself, to take upon himself the form of a servant, to be made in the likeness of men, to be found in fashion as a man, and to serve, help, and in every way deal with his neighbor as he sees that God through Christ has dealt and still deals with himself. And this he should do freely, having regard to nothing except divine approval.3
Each Christian’s conscience must be the guide for what is right or wrong.
Literature: The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis. In LetterXIII of this famous satiric piece (1941), Screwtape, a senior demon, counsels young Wormwood, a junior tempter, to make the Christian give up all “likings and dislikings” instead, of course, of thinking through what is right or wrong. He is to get the Christian to move away from personal preference, becoming neutral. Screwtape continues,
I myself would carry this very far. I would make it a rule to eradicate from my patient any strong personal taste which is not actually a sin, even if it is something quite trivial such as a fondness for county cricket or collecting stamps or drinking cocoa. Such things, I grant you, have nothing of virtue in them; but there is a sort of innocence and humility and self-forgetfulness about them which I distrust. The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring twopence what other people say about it, is by that very fact fore-armed against some of our subtlest modes of attack.4
This section could be done as a dramatic dialogue before the message.
Although Christians are called to sacrificially refrain from enjoying some things for the sake of our weaker brothers and sisters, this should not obscure the deeper truth that God has created these (and many other pleasurable things) as good (see Rom. 14:16).
The Unity of the Strong and the Weak and the New Covenant
Big Idea: Paul concludes his challenge to the strong and weak Christians at Rome that began in chapter14. Here he challenges the strong and the weak to live in unity, thereby affirming the presence of the new covenant.
Understanding the Text
Romans 15:1–13 concludes Paul’s challenge begun in 14:1 for the strong and weak Christians to be unified. The theme of the new covenant continues to dominate the discussion. Accordingly, I outline Romans 15:1–13 thus:
1. The unity of the strong and the weak as an illustration of the new covenant (15:1–6)
a. The exhortation to the strong (15:1–2)
b. The rationale for the exhortation (15:3–4)
i. The sacrifice of Christ (15:3)
ii. The witness of the Old Testament (15:4)
c. The unity of the strong and weak (15:5–6)
2. Christ and the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of Jew and Gentile in the new covenant (15:7–13)
a. The exhortation to the strong and the weak (15:7a)
b. The resulting glory to God (15:7b)
c. The blessings of the new covenant (15:8–13)
Historical and Cultural Background
As many commentaries well recognize, the Old Testament prophecies of the coming new covenant are the key background informing Romans 15:1–13.1Such a background explains the following terms: “encouragement,” “hope,” “truth,” “mercy,” “promises” to the “patriarchs,” “joy,” and “peace,” along with the catena of Old Testament texts that Paul quotes in 15:9–12. I now briefly comment on each of these.
First, “encouragement” (15:4, 5) is the word parakl?sis, the famous term in Isaiah 40 and following (LXX; in the form of the verb parakale?) that refers to the future restoration of Israel and the new covenant.
Second, “hope” (elpis), as we saw in 5:1–5, also alludes to Israel’s hope for restoration and the new covenant. But here in 15:1–13 “hope” is a possession of Gentiles because they too share in the new covenant of the people of God. This is in contrast to the Gentiles before Christ, who were outside the covenant with God and therefore had no hope (see Eph. 2:12–13).
Third, “truth” and “mercy” (15:8–9) combine to bring to mind hesed, God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel in the Old Testament.
Fourth, the Old Testament “promises” to the “patriarchs” (15:8) consist of the same Abrahamic covenant / new covenant.2
Fifth, 15:9–12 draws on four Old Testament texts that predict that the new covenant (or the restoration of Israel) will unify Jew and Gentile in their praise to God (2Sam. 22:50 //Ps. 18:49; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 117:1; Isa. 11:10). And this is now being fulfilled in Christ.
Sixth, “joy” and “peace” describe some of the blessings of the arrival of the new covenant (recall the comments on Rom. 14:17 for the former and on 5:1–5 for the latter regarding the these two terms).
Interpretive Insights
15:1–2 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak. Verses1–6 have as their theme the unity of the strong and the weak as an illustration of the new covenant. We just noted the influence of the new covenant on 15:1–13 as a whole. Verses 1–2provide the first step toward the unity of the strong and weak at Rome. The strong are to bear the weaknesses of those who are not strong. The strong (hoi dynatoi) are, as in Galatians 6:2, to bear (bastaz?) the burdens (weaknesses) of the weak (hoi adynatoi), like Jesus bore (bastaz?) our diseases (Matt. 8:17). In other words, the strong in faith (Paul includes himself in this category) are to be careful not to let their liberty regarding the ritual law hurt the weak in faith.
The strong should be sensitive to the weak (Paul calls them “our neighbors” [15:2]) as an act of selflessness that will build up Jewish believers whose scruples will not allow them to discard the ritual law.
15:3 For even Christ did not please himself. The rationale for such an exhortation to the strong is that Christ sacrificed himself for others. Quoting Psalm 69:9, Paul applies that text to Christ. Christ has embraced the reproaches heaped upon God by sinners. Psalm 69 is applied to the passion of Christ in the New Testament (Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23, 36; Luke 23:36; John 2:17; 15:25; 19:29; Acts 1:20; Rom. 11:9–10), so it is fitting that Paul would quote from it in this context. Just as Christ was willing to be scorned for God’s honor, so also the strong should forsake their liberty for the weak.
15:4 through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. Paul further appeals to the Old Testament as a whole to motivate the strong to be sensitive to the weak. Paul believed that the Old Testament witnessed to Christ and his church (see, e.g., 1Cor. 10:1–11). Here Paul says that the Scriptures produce “endurance” and “encouragement” (or “comfort”) and thereby “hope” for believers. In light of the new-covenant theme that informs “encouragement” and “hope,” I suggest that Paul has the story of Israel in mind here (cf. again 1Cor. 10:1–11): Israel’s sin and exile (“endurance,” hypomon?) will give way to restoration (“encouragement, comfort,” parakl?sis) and therefore hope (elpis). But this message of the restoration of Israel includes Gentiles (see 15:9–12 to follow).
We can thus summarize 15:3–4 by saying that since Christ’s sacrificial death brought Gentiles into the new covenant, the least that the strong in faith at Rome (Gentiles) can do is to sacrifice for their weak Jewish Christian brothers and sisters there at Rome.
15:5–6 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind. Verses5–6 exhort both the strong and the weak at Rome to be one with each other. Both were once in sin and exile but now are restored by Christ and made to be participants in the new covenant (notice again the terms “endurance” and “encouragement”). This unity will bring glory to God. And such unity of Jew and Gentile bringing glory to God, as 15:7–12 will make clear, will illustrate that God is faithful to his Old Testament covenant promises.
15:8–12 that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed ... that the Gentiles might glorify God. Verses8–12 make the point that Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies that Jew and Gentile will share together in the new covenant. Paul states his thesis in 15:8–9a, while in 15:9b–12 he supplies the Old Testament proof. Verses8–9a state that Christ has fulfilled God’s covenant promises to the patriarchs, which included in their purview the conversion of the Gentiles.3According to 15:8, Jesus was a servant of the circumcised (the Jews) in that in him God has been faithful to his covenant with Abraham. In regard to the reference to the new covenant, recall my comments on 3:21–4:25 to the effect that Jesus’ death and resurrection fulfilled God’s covenant promise of salvation to Abraham by faith. Moreover, I also noted in that context that Paul aligns the Abrahamic covenant with the new covenant, and that in opposition to the Mosaic covenant. The terms “truth” (15:8) and “mercy” (15:9) recall hesed, the Old Testament term for God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham and Israel. According to 15:9, God’s promise to Abraham, as well as the new covenant, includes the salvation of the Gentiles and consequently their praise of God.
Verses9b–12 then supply the Old Testament proof that Christ is fulfilling God’s promise to include both Jew and Gentile in the new covenant.
Here I will briefly comment on these Old Testament texts. The words of 2Samuel 22:50 //Psalm 18:49 come from a psalm of David in praise of God for victory over the Gentiles. As Douglas Moo points out, Paul interprets the psalm typologically of Christ: Christ has conquered the Gentiles by converting them and including them in his messianic rule.4
As Thomas Schreiner observes, Deuteronomy 32:43 comes at the end of Moses’ song against Israel containing the threat of the covenant curses. But these curses, Moses predicts, will drive Israel and the Gentiles to God.5
Psalm 117:1 calls on Gentiles to praise the Lord. As Moo notes, the reason for such praise is that the Gentiles will also experience God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel (Ps. 117:2).6
Isaiah 11:10 is the prophecy of the Messiah, the Davidic “branch” who will deliver Israel. Moreover, Isaiah is famous for his prediction that Gentiles will be converted to Yahweh at the end of time in connection with Israel’s restoration (e.g., Isa. 2:1–4; 12:4–5; 17:7–8; 19:18–25). For Paul, Jesus is that messianic branch who is restoring Israel and converting the Gentiles.
These five verses that Paul quotes come from the Torah (Deut. 32:43), the Prophets (2Sam. 22:50; Isa. 11:10), and the Writings (Pss. 18:49; 117:1), representing the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible. And for Paul, these Old Testament prophecies of the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in the new covenant are coming to fruition in Christ.
15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace ... by the power of the Holy Spirit. We met some of the key words in this verse back in 5:1–5. “Hope,” “joy,” “peace,” and “the Holy Spirit” are all blessings of the new covenant.
There was much at stake, then, for Gentile Christians (the strong in faith) to get along with Jewish Christians (the weak in faith). In doing so, they illustrated that God was fulfilling his covenant in the Old Testament and now the new covenant.
Theological Insights
Romans 14:1–15:13 is often understood to be dealing with adiaphora, “indifferent things”—that is, things neither required of nor prohibited for Christians. Moo provides three helpful theological principles that emerge from these verses. First, Paul was a realist; he knew that we have to deal with people where they are (in the case of 14:1–15:13, Jewish scruples about ritual purity). Second, Christians who do not feel obligated by the scruples of their weaker brothers and sisters should nevertheless be willing to limit their liberty for the sake of fellow believers and for Christ’s sake. Third, Paul’s bottom line in adiaphora is the unity of the church.7
Teaching the Text
I would follow a somewhat different outline in preaching/teaching Romans 15:1–13 than the one noted above, making Christ the focal point of the two paragraphs: (1)Christ as the basis of unity (vv.1–6); (2)Christ as the means to unity (vv.7–13).
Verses 1–6 make the point that since Christ’s sacrifice brought Gentiles into the arrangement of the new covenant, they need to be sensitive to their Jewish Christian siblings for the sake of Christ. Here I think that Gentile believers need to bear with their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters by affirming the latter’s Jewish heritage. For example, for some time now in biblical scholarship Christian scholars have rightly focused on Jewish literature of the Second Temple period—the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and more. This literature is enormously important for a proper understanding of ancient (and modern) Judaism, not to mention the New Testament. For their part, Jewish scholars have made their own strides toward rapprochement with Christianity with their “reclamation of Jesus movement,” one that appreciates Jesus’ Jewishness. Also, in the worship setting of the church, Gentile believers would do well to celebrate the Passover Seder in connection with Good Friday services, since that was the background of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Or, at the very least, Gentile Christians could occasionally attend messianic congregations and support worship services held by their Jewish brothers and sisters. And Jewish believers can emulate the sacrifice of Christ by not imposing on their Gentile siblings Jewish culture.
Verses 7–13 root Christian unity in Christ. It is through Christ that both believing Jew and Gentile have access to God. Ultimately, the catena of Old Testament prophecies concerning Jew and Gentile worshiping God together that Paul draws on in these verses finds its fulfillment in Christ. Here we may apply a truism lamenting the racial divide between blacks and whites in Christian worship: America is never so segregated as it is during Sunday morning worship. This point relates to the issue that Paul discusses here: Jewish and Gentile Christians are never so segregated as they are during worship (we cannot even say “Sunday,” since messianic congregations worship on Saturday). But surely both of these people groups need to find a way to worship God together, if for no other reason than that they will do so before the heavenly throne one day.
Illustrating the Text
Christ is the basis for unity between weak and strong Christians.
Cultural Institution: Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) runs, writes Philip Yancey, “on two principles: radical honesty and radical dependence, the very same principles expressed in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus’ capsule summary of living ‘one day at a time.’” Many AA groups even recite the Lord’s Prayer at their meetings. Members are not allowed to say that they are “cured.” Even if they have not had a drink for many years, they must identify themselves as alcoholics, members of the same group based on the same principles and original weaknesses. “In AA,” Yancey adds, “the ground is level.” He then quotes Lewis Meyer, who puts it this way:
It is the only place I know where status means nothing. Nobody fools anybody else. Everyone is here because he or she made a slobbering mess of his or her life and is trying to put the pieces back together again.... I have attended thousands of church meetings, lodge meetings, brotherhood meetings—yet I have never found the kind of love I find at AA. For one small hour the high and mighty descend and the lowly rise. The leveling that results is what people mean when they use the word brotherhood.
The analogy is apt; just as AA members are united by their acknowledgment of weakness and need though they may be at different stages of growth and stability, so too Christians are united by their belief in Christ.8
Christ is the means for unity between weak and strong Christians.
Theological Book: Life Together, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Few books are better at describing what the life of the Christian community should be. In this book, referred to earlier (see the “Illustrating the Text” section in the unit on Rom. 14:1–12), Bonhoeffer notes,
The struggle we undergo with our brother in intercession may be a hard one, but that struggle has the promise that it will gain its goal. ... Intercession means no more than to bring our brother into the presence of God, to see him under the Cross of Jesus as a poor human being and sinner in need of grace. ... To make intercession means to grant our brother the same right that we have received, namely, to stand before Christ and share in his mercy.9
Teaching the Text by C. Marvin Pate, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
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).
The custom of cutting the foreskin of the male genitalia as a religious rite. Egyptians practiced circumcision, as did the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, and nomadic Arabians (Jer. 9:2526). Philistines, Assyrians, and Gentiles in general were uncircumcised (Judg. 14:3; Ezek. 32:17–32; Eph. 2:11).
Circumcision is first mentioned in the Bible as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:10). God commanded that every male be circumcised at eight days old (Gen. 17:12; cf. 21:4; Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21). Circumcision was required for a male to participate in the Passover (Exod. 12:48) or worship in the temple (Ezek. 44:9; cf. Acts 21:28–29).
Metaphorically, circumcision goes beyond the physical sign (Rom. 2:28). Ultimately, the enemies of God, whether circumcised or not, will be slain and laid in the grave with the uncircumcised (Ezek. 32:32). Physical circumcision is of no avail if the heart remains “uncircumcised” (Jer. 9:25–26; cf. Rom. 2:25). Circumcision of the heart is accomplished when one loves God completely (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29), but uncircumcised ears are disobedient (Acts 7:51). The circumcision accomplished by Christ occurs when the sinful nature is rejected (Col. 2:11). In him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value; what counts “is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6).
Controversy began in the NT church over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised (Acts 15:1–12). Evidently, a group existed that demanded circumcision (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:10). Paul argued that circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship (Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:11).
A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:56) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.
Cleanness does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (various discharges; e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.
One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).
Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.
Ceremonial cleansing is not just a topic in the OT; it appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).
In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).
In its more prominent use, “conviction” refers to the experience of becoming aware of one’s guilt before God. Isaiah’s vision of the throne of God provides a dramatic illustration of conviction. He describes the feeling of dread and self-revulsion that he experienced in the presence of God, who is holy: “‘Woe to me!’ I cried. ‘I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, ... and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty’” (Isa. 6:5). After a miraculous catch of fish, when Peter recognized that Jesus was the Christ, his initial response was similar: “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8).
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:2829).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the Letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the Letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
“The fall” refers to the events of the first human couple’s sin in the garden of Eden (Gen. 23). Although the word “fall” does not occur in the account, Christians have used the term to describe it, taking their cues from Paul’s writings (esp. Rom. 5:12–21). The term is important because it reflects an interpretation that the events in the garden are the entrance of human sin and that the sin has universal effects on humankind.
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:617). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.”
In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:68; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).
The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).
Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).
Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.
Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).
However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.
Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.
The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).
In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).
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.
A food eaten with lamb and unleavened bread at the Passover meal. The herbs often consisted of whatever bitter greens were available. Though not specifically identified, they included lettuce, endive, parsley, watercress, cucumber, and horseradish, all of which were plentiful in areas of the Sinai Peninsula, Palestine, and Egypt. The bitter herbs recalled the misery of slavery in Egypt (Exod. 12:8; Num. 9:11). In John 13:2627 Jesus, instead of dipping a “piece of bread” (Gk. psōmion), probably dipped bitter herbs, sharing them with Judas Iscariot (cf., in the Greek texts, Mark 14:20, where Jesus does not specify what is being dipped; Matt. 26:23, where Jesus talks about dipping a hand).
Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).
With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).
God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).
A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).
While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.
The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).
The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).
God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.
For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.
The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.
The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:1315). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life.
Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor. 3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).
At times simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:58; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).
In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1Cor. 13:13).
The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece.
The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah. Most scholars today, including many evangelical scholars, conclude that the book of Isaiah is the end result of a history of composition that began in the eighth century BC (so-called First Isaiah [139]), continued in the sixth century BC during the exile (Second Isaiah, chaps. 40–55), and then was completed after the exile (Third Isaiah, chaps. 56–66).
Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.
Isaiah 1–39
Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1= threat; 2:1–4= promise of hope; 2:5–4:1= threat; 4:2–6= promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.
Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.
The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.
A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.
Isaiah 40–55
A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.
Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”
The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).
Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.
Isaiah 56–66
In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).
Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.
In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.
First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.
It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).
From Bethlehem, he was the father of David and a descendant of Ruth the Moabite (Ruth 4:17); 1Sam. 22:3 implies that Jesse fled to Moab on one occasion. The Gospels recognize him as an ancestor of Jesus (Matt. 1:56; Luke 3:32). Prior to the anointing of David, Samuel was sent to Jesse (1Sam. 16:1) to choose from among his eight sons (1Sam. 17:12). Like the father of Samuel (1Sam. 1:1), Jesse is called an “Ephrathite,” a name associated with Bethlehem (1Sam. 17:12; cf. Ruth 1:2; Mic. 5:2). Isaiah alludes to the Davidic dynasty as a “Root of Jesse” (Isa. 11:1, 10).
Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.
The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2Chron. 24:24).
The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:78) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).
One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).
Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).
A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world.
A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan.3).
God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:1420). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).
The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While the theme is most fully developed in the NT, its origin is the OT, where the emphasis falls on God’s kingship. God is king of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of all the earth (2Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:14; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reign as king are references to a day when God will become king over his people (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). This emphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism and takes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and its anticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, which abandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the age will the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom is further developed throughout the NT.
Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1Kings 8:2324; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.
Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35).
In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]). These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe the whole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describe either a special ministry performed by an official functionary (1Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). In the early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchies but on services performed (1Tim. 3:113).
The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1Pet. 5:3).
Jesus’ ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NT writers describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39; Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministry of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).
The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).
Although ministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were those with special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart for particular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apart Apollos and Paul for special ministries (1Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7). The church called on special functionaries to carry out specific ministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individuals to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry the relief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2Cor. 8:19, 23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the elders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching and preaching and healing for the whole church.
All the ministries of the church, whether performed by believers in general or by some specially appointed functionary, were based on gifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1Tim. 1:12; 1Pet. 4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’s relationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians are equal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paul identifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ calls certain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. The ones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the church but rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph. 4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or her because those gifts were given for ministry to others (1Cor. 4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results in leadership.
It becomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others for ministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turn minister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2Tim. 2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is to build up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ (Rom. 15:15–17; 1Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1Thess. 2:19–20).
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.
There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:111; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).
Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1Tim. 1:10–11).
Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).
The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).
In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.
In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness.... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).
As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.
In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.
The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.
The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).
The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).
According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).
Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:2833; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).
The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.
In the OT, this image is used to convey the concept of a “stumbling block” in a literal (Lev. 19:14) or figurative (Jer. 6:21) sense. In the NT, the image is used as a messianic reference—Christ as a stumbling block (Rom. 9:3233; 1Cor. 1:23; 1Pet. 2:8). This rendition of messianic expectation plays off the Isaianic presentation of God as a stumbling block to his faithless people. The NT Greek words that are translated as “stumbling block” (skandalon) or “to cause to stumble” (skandalizō) have either a christological or a moral application.
An alcoholic beverage made primarily by fermenting grapes, wine was valued as both a pleasurable and a functional drink (Ps. 104:15; 1Tim. 5:23) and therefore a staple of ceremonial practice and social gatherings (Exod. 29:40; John 2:13). For this reason, wine is a symbol of God’s blessing (Gen. 27:28; John 2:11), particularly for his covenant people (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; 1Cor. 11:25). Yet the Bible also warns against the abuse of alcohol, which can lead to drunkenness and debauchery (Prov. 9:4–5; Eph. 5:18). Such abuse becomes a symbol of God’s curse for disobedience (Hos. 4:11; 9:2; Matt. 27:48–49).
Direct Matches
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
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.
To pass judgment on someone and, usually, elicit some form ofpunishment. The word is used throughout the Bible, especially inreference to the acts of God toward those who choose not to obey him.Other uses usually involve a political leader passing judgment onsome person.
Thereare only a couple of references in the Pentateuch. One is in Deut.13:17, which refers to the required condemnation of all things withina city that are captured and destroyed during the invasion of thePromised Land. Everything in specific cities was to be condemned asan offering to God.
Thebook of Job carefully focuses on the question of condemnation inlight of Job’s troubles. While Job questions God’sseeming condemnation of him (10:2), he realizes that his claims ofinnocence before God might be, ironically, worthy of condemnation(9:20). Nevertheless, he continues to maintain his own innocencebefore both God and his friends. Later, God asks Job whether hisclaim of innocence would imply a condemnation of God’s actions(40:8). Ultimately, Job is vindicated in his claim of innocencebefore God, but not before God reminds Job that divine methods andplans are ultimately beyond human understanding.
Psalm34 highlights the fact that those who serve God will not be condemned(v. 22). The psalms also emphasize that God actively pursues andcondemns some because of their actions (37:33). Proverbs stronglycriticizes those who work to pervert justice in the courts bycondemning the innocent (Prov. 17:15).
Inthe Gospels the word “condemn” is often used inconnection with Jesus. Usually it is found in a reference to theimpending condemnation of Jesus to the cross (Matt. 20:18; 27:3).Interestingly, John highlights the fact that followers of Jesus arenot condemned on account of their sin (John 3:18; 5:24). In a similardisplay of compassion, when a woman caught in the act of adultery isbrought before Jesus, he, after challenging her accusers so severelythat they leave, tells her that he does not condemn her (8:1–11).
Oneof the best-known verses about condemnation is Rom. 8:1, where Paulstates, “There is now no condemnation for those who are inChrist Jesus.” Paul bases his claim on Jesus’ dying andremoving, by his death, the power that the law had in condemningthose who could not follow the law. In Rom. 14 Paul also argues thatit is one’s own conscience that condemns a person. Whendiscussing the issue of eating meat offered to idols, Paul observesthat some Christians who believe that eating meat offered to idols isnot sinful condemn those who do not eat meat and vice versa. Paul’ssolution is to say that in this case the condemned person iscondemned because of violating his or her conscience, not because ofeating or not eating meat (14:22–23).
In the OT, “to confess” is used in reference toverbal acknowledgment of one’s sin or of God’s name infaith. An object of confession is one’s sins. Confessionresults in the cleansing of sin and the restoration of one’srelationship with God (Lev. 5:5; Ps. 32:5). Solomon prays that Godmay forgive people’s sin when they confess God’s name(1 Kings 8:35). Moses, on the Day of Atonement, commands Aaronto lay “both hands on the head of the live goat and confessover it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites”(Lev. 16:21).
Anotherobject of confession is God’s name. To confess the name of Godmeans “to give thanks/praise” to God (Josh. 7:19). Itinvolves not only negative matters such as sins and wrongdoings (Lev.26:40; Prov. 28:13), but also positive ones such as God’s name(1 King 8:33, 35; 2 Chron. 6:24, 26; Dan. 9:4). In thisrespect, confession conceptually involves a double function: toremove obstacles to fellowship with God, and to recover fellowship incovenantal faithfulness to God (1 Kings 8:33). Through itsdouble function, therefore, confession often occupies the center ofthe cultic service of worshiping God (Neh. 9:3). Israelites madefellowship offerings and gave praise to God (2 Chron. 30:22).Coming back from Babylon, Ezra prayed, confessing, weeping, andthrowing himself down before the house of God (Ezra 10:1).
Thedouble function of confession continues in the NT. John the Baptistexhorted people to confess their sins (Matt. 3:6). Epistles alsoemphasize the importance of confession of sins as a basis ofatonement and purification (1 John 1:9; James 5:16). In the NT,the positive aspect of confession as confessing God’s name isrecast in terms of Jesus, who fulfilled the OT prophecies. Therefore,to “confess” Jesus as Lord is reckoned as confessingGod’s name so as to obtain salvation (Rom. 10:10 ESV, NRSV;NIV: “profess”). Verbal confession of Jesus in public isa means for spreading the gospel and witnessing to people about him.Thus, Paul regards his confession of God through Gentile evangelismas singing praises to God’s name (Rom. 15:9).
Refusalto confess Jesus’ name constitutes as grave a sin as denyingGod. John teaches that “every spirit that does not acknowledgeJesus is not from God” (1 John 4:3), but those who confessthat “Jesus is the Son of God” live in God and God inthem (4:15). Public confession of Jesus functions to test one’sfaith. Many Jewish leaders believed in Jesus but failed to confesshim in public for fear of excommunication (John 12:42). Theirhalfhearted faith is sharply contrasted with the faith of the blindman excommunicated for his confession of Jesus to the council ofPharisees (John 9). Jesus teaches that anyone who denies him inpublic will be denied by him on the judgment day (Matt. 10:32).
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. 1:1–2; 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; 1 Sam. 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).
A fuller revelation of God’s will is given in the Mosaic law. God gives commandments in part to heighten the Israelites’ awareness concerning right and wrong, so that with their obedience they might enjoy a covenant relationship within God’s holy presence (e.g., Deut. 28:1–14). This informed social conscience was intended to curb evil behavior (Gal. 3:19). The author of Judges anticipates the need for the law by complaining that “everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25).
However, the biblical narrative also makes room for paradoxical situations and competing values, which complicate moral reasoning (e.g., Gen. 38; Judg. 11:29–40). In the law, God expressly forbids child sacrifice, but he commands Abraham to present his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:1–14). On a rooftop Peter receives a vision in which the Lord commands him to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts 10:1–8). In both cases, God tests faith by commanding the believer to betray personal conscience, to open his heart to a fuller revelation of the divine plan. Even the moral reasoning of God is not always straightforward. God is committed to doing right, but he also weighs decisions with compassion and mercy. Abraham and Moses appeal to God’s character, and they are able to intercede on behalf of sinful people (Gen. 18:22–33; Exod. 32). Jonah even comes to despise this quality of God’s character, which appears to compromise justice (4:1–11).
These tensions anticipate the gospel, which claims that God loves sinners and has provided a means to express mercy toward them without compromising justice (Rom. 3:21–26). Like the Mosaic law, the gospel also provides further revelation into God’s will and therefore a more informed conscience. With citations drawn from throughout the OT, Paul claims that all people suffer from a distorted conscience (Rom. 3:9–20). God has spoken to all people through their conscience, but despite this innate awareness of right and wrong, both Jews, who possess God’s commandments, and non-Jews, who know something about God from nature (creation), have compromised their own ethical stance, so that they have only themselves to blame (1:18–32). This universal inner conflict, emphasized by Jesus and Paul, removes appealing to one’s conscience as a means of justification at the future judgment (Mark 7:1–23; Luke 13:1–5, 22–30). Furthermore, this habitual compromising leads to present self-deception and a skewed perception of the world.
But through repentance and faith in the gospel, returning to God (the Creator), a person’s conscience may be renewed and aligned with the mind and actions of Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1–2; 1 Cor. 2:16). Despite this restoration, the complexity of moral reasoning is not always overcome. Indeed, living in Christ with others from different cultural backgrounds and values often requires deeper reflection. Paul acknowledges that there can be different perceptions by believers, which can lead to different practices. Eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols is neutral or wrong depending upon one’s conscience and that of the observer (1 Cor. 8:1–3). He applies the same perspective to Jewish calendar observance and food laws (Rom. 14:1–23; but see Gal. 4:8–11). But the apostle also presumes that personal conscience can grow in knowledge. Ultimately, believers’ consciences should be informed by relating everything to the lordship of Christ (Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2; 5:11), meditating on the goodness of all creation (Titus 1:10–16), and placing the well-being of others before their own (Phil. 2:1–11).
Edification is the building up, strengthening, and encouraging of others in the body of Christ. This is primarily a Pauline concept and takes place in the context of mutual relationships among members in the local church: “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing” (1Thess. 5:11). The frequency of this concept in Paul’s letters shows how important this was and how much he sought to develop this practice among his readers: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19). This building up of one another in the body should lead to a properly functioning local church where Christ is at the center and “the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Eph. 4:16). Put simply, “Knowledge puffs up while love builds up” (1Cor. 8:1).
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
Types of Food
In the biblical era, food consisted primarily of meats, cereals, vegetables, and fruits, though cereals and vegetables made up the bulk of the diet of people in the ancient Near East. Grains generally were ground into either coarse or fine flour. With or without leaven, the flour was made into a loaf of sorts, baked, and consumed. Usually, one grain was used for any particular bread, though in difficult times multiple types of grains could be combined to create a loaf large enough for consumption (Ezek. 4:9).
Vegetables and fruits were not as varied in the ancient cultures as they are today. Generally, among vegetables, the consumer was limited to various types of lentils, cucumbers, onions, and leeks. These were eaten raw or cooked. Fruits were limited to dates, grapes, melons, olives, and figs. Fruits generally were dried, but they were also eaten raw and prepared in various ways. Nuts, including almonds and pistachios, also were consumed (Gen. 43:11), as were pulses such as lentils and legumes such as beans (2Sam. 17:28).
Meat consumption usually was reserved for festivals and special occasions. The most important animals used for consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. Lamb was much more common as a dietary element than beef because it was less costly and more common. As prescribed by Scripture, the blood could not be consumed when eating meat (Lev. 17:10–11). Meat generally was boiled when prepared, though it could be roasted on a spit (1Sam. 2:15). On a rare occasion, game meat was consumed, but this was considered a delicacy (Gen. 27:5–7). In order to be considered clean and capable of being consumed, the animal from which the meat was acquired had to have chewed a cud and have a divided hoof (Lev. 11:2–8).
Fish were consumed in good quantity but are mentioned much less often in the OT than in the NT, especially the Gospels. There is mention of the Fish Gate in Jerusalem (2Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), which suggests that fish were sufficiently available to merit their own marketplace in the city. Fish were salted and dried before their consumption and seem to have been primarily an import item in Israel’s early history (Neh. 13:16), though by the time of the NT, Israel had obviously developed its own thriving fishing industry. To be ceremonially clean and fit for consumption, fish had to possess both fins and scales (thus shellfish were unclean; Lev. 11:9–12).
Animal by-products, such as honey, milk, and cheese, were a staple in Israelite diets (Deut. 32:14; Prov. 30:33; Isa. 7:15). These were stored in skins or in wooden vessels and sometimes were mixed to create a sweet milk or cheese. Milk was also used as a cooking element, though it was forbidden to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exod. 34:26).
Meals and Dietary Issues
A formal dinner or banquet typically consisted of an appetizer (usually something pickled), the meal proper, and a dessert. Wine was consumed, sometimes flavored with spices or honey. The people consuming the meal reclined at the table with their feet away from the food, thus allowing servants to continue to wash feet as necessary. Some sort of entertainment usually took place, including music, reading, or dialogue on some significant matter.
The early church struggled with various dietary issues. The first of these was the matter of the consumption of unclean animals. The events of Acts 10; 15 suggest that for the early church, these dietary laws were abandoned. In fact, of the OT regulations, only the one prohibiting the eating of meat with blood in it was enforced by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29). Paul seems to go further than this in stating that no food is unclean in and of itself (Rom. 14:14; cf. Mark 7:19). The second dietary issue centered not on the food itself, but rather on the prior use of that food, in this case meat, in pagan rituals and worship (see Food Sacrificed to Idols). Like most ancient Near Eastern cultures, the Greeks acquired some of their meat from the temples, which had a ready supply of it following religious rites and festivals. Most meat used for consumption had already been offered to an idol, and Christians debated whether it was appropriate to eat such meat. Paul responds to this question in 1Corinthians, arguing that believers are free to eat such meat if their conscience is clear in doing so, but not if doing so offends or troubles the faith of fellow believers (1Cor. 8; 10:23–11:1).
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).
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).
The Bible makes strong distinctions between righteous andsinful judging. God commands his people to exercise fair andimpartial judgment, especially to society’s poor and helpless(e.g., Exod. 23:1–9; Prov. 31:9; Isa. 1:17), punishing theperversions of favoritism and bribery (Deut. 16:19; Amos 5:12). TheNT warns against partiality (James 2:1–9) and judging byoutward appearances (John 7:24). Jesus denounces selfish andhypocritical judgment: “Do not judge, or you too will bejudged” (Matt. 7:1 [cf. Luke 6:37]). This kind of judgingpresumes moral superiority over others (Rom. 2:1–5) and revealsan unrepentant heart, blind to its own sinfulness. It criticizesothers over spiritually disputable matters (“specks” [seeMatt. 7:3–5]), whereas Christian love defers such judgments toGod (Rom. 14:1–18). Believers still must confront sin in thechurch (Matt. 18:15–17; Heb. 3:12–13; James 5:19–20)and the world (2Cor. 10:5), but they must do so in a humble,gentle spirit (Gal. 6:1) that repents of its own sin beforeaddressing another’s (Matt. 7:5).
JudgmentDay in the Bible
Thebook of Revelation concludes with a harrowing vision of finaljudgment. On that day, when the God of all creation sits on his greatwhite throne and holds court, the dead will rise and answer for theirdeeds, whether good or bad (20:11–13). The record of eachperson’s conduct appears in books, one of which is the Book ofLife (20:12–13). Anyone whose name does not appear in the Bookof Life is thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).
Theapostle Paul refers to this same event in Acts 17:30–31. Allhuman beings will face their scheduled day in court, as God certifiedby raising Christ from the dead. It will be a day of wrath, amongother things, when God’s righteous anger against sin is fullydisplayed (Rom. 2:5). In the presence of this God, Isaiah proclaimedhimself to be ruined because of his sinfulness before the one who iscalled “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–5). Wetherefore confess with the author of Hebrews, who says, “It is[and will be] a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the livingGod” (Heb. 10:31).
Manyother texts of Scripture forecast the same event: judgment day iscoming, and nothing can stop it. They also describe this day inequally frightening terms, anticipating fire, darkness, and weepingfor some, but everlasting joy and peace for others. Even Christianswill be judged on this day, notwithstanding the promise ofeverlasting life for everyone who believes (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24;Rom. 3:21–24; 8:1–2; 2Cor. 5:21). In Rom. 14:10–12Paul says, “For we will all stand before God’s judgmentseat,” at which time, “each of us will give an account ofourselves to God.” Similarly, in 2Cor. 5:10 Paul warns,“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, sothat each one of us may receive what is due us for the things donewhile in the body, whether good or bad.”
Justificationand Judgment
Inthese texts, an apparent tension exists between the promise ofjustification, upon which all Christian hope stands, and thecertainty of final judgment, including the judgment of believers. Itwill not do simply to downplay the one or the other, as if thebiblical writers had not really intended one or both of them. Thesetexts say what they say, the good news no less plainly than the bad.Yet, closer inspection shows that the tension is merely apparent.
Wemust first recognize that Scripture treats piety as the evidence ofregeneration and saving faith. Jesus says that a “good tree,”which is a genuine disciple, bears good fruit (Matt. 7:17). That is,the observable righteousness of such a disciple will surpass thehypocritical casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Onjudgment day, therefore, no actual conflict will or ever could arisebetween the general tendency of the believer’s conduct and hisor her position in Christ. Over a lifetime, the believer’shabitual behavior will have differed fundamentally, though neversatisfactorily, from that of a lost person. As for unrepentantsinners, they will be sentenced to eternal damnation because of theirlawlessness (Rom. 3:9–19). Their conduct demonstrates that theyhave rejected the gospel and are deserving of wrath (Heb. 2:3). Thislinkage between justification and right conduct accounts for James’spolemical statement: “You see that a person is consideredrighteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).Abraham’s positional righteousness, secured by faith in whatGod would do on his behalf, became publicly evident through hisobedience (James 2:21–22).
Weshould also note the different purpose that God has in judging hischurch. One aspect of it certainly is to grasp the enormity of oursins, so that we might properly acknowledge the depth of his mercy onthat day. But also this judgment will occur in order to mete out thediffering rewards that Scripture anticipates for the people of God.The definitive text in this regard is 1Cor. 3:1–17, whichconnects the believer’s rewards and losses to the quality ofhis or her behavior within the body of Christ. Some are building onChrist, the sure foundation, using the available materials, and theyreceive their proper reward. Others build selfishly on themselves,with the result that they are saved, “though only as oneescaping through the flames” (1Cor. 3:15). In both cases,however, the question seems to be one of greater and lesser reward,as opposed to salvation or damnation. Even in hell itself, variousdegrees of suffering come into play. According to Jesus, one canreceive a heavy or light “beating” for disobedience,based on one’s prior knowledge of the master’s will (Luke12:47–48). Judgment day, therefore, should not frightenChristians. Jesus really did suffer the full measure of God’swrath against our sin. But this day reminds us that we areaccountable for what we do as his disciples, and it motivates theevangelism that we are commanded to practice.
Aplatform (Gk. bēma) from which civil officials held session tohear legal cases and render judgments (Acts 18:12; 25:6, 10, 17).Jesus was brought before the judgment seat of Pilate (Matt. 27:19;John 19:13), and Paul before that of Gallio (Acts 18:12). The NTclaims that all people will stand for judgment before God (Matt.16:27; 25:31–46; Rev. 20:11–15). Paul asserts thatChristians too will give an account for how they lived and will havetheir works tested (Rom. 14:10; 2Cor. 5:10). In Rom 14:10 someGreek manuscripts, probably influenced by 2Cor. 5:10, read“judgment seat of Christ” (followed by the KJV) ratherthan “judgment seat of God.”
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.
OldTestament
TheHebrew word for “Lord,” yhwh (usually pronounced“Yahweh”), occurs more than 6,800 times in the OT and isin every book except Ecclesiastes and Esther. “Yahweh” isGod’s personal name and is revealed as such in Exod. 3:13–14.God tells Moses to declare to the Israelites in Egypt, “I amhas sent me to you” (3:14). The Hebrew behind “I am”connotes active being; the Lord is the one who is there for hispeople and, in the book of Exodus, does so through miraculous events(14:13–14). This demonstrates the close association betweenone’s name and one’s character in the ancient world.Yahweh is one who is with his people (Exod. 3:12; 6:2, 4; Isa. 26:4).Although the divine name is used before the exodus (Gen. 12:1; 15:1),it is not until the time of Moses that God reveals its redemptivesignificance. Nonetheless, the divine name is used in Genesis incontexts where the immanence of God is evident. In Gen. 3:8 “theLord God ... was walking in the garden in the cool of theday.” Further, the Lord makes a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12;15; 17), and the Lord will remain faithful to his covenants for athousand generations (Deut. 7:9). Later in Israel’s history,Micah, in the face of those who worship other gods, reassures thepeople of Israel that Yahweh is distinct from all others, and thatthey will walk in his name because he will one day act to effectjustice for all (Mic. 4:3–5).
Thedivine name also occurs as a form of address in various prayersthroughout the OT (Gen. 15:2, 8; Exod. 5:22; 2Sam. 7:18;2Kings 6:17), most notably in the psalms, where it occurs overtwo hundred times. In the psalms an abbreviated form of the name isoften seen in an exclamation of praise, halleluyah, “praiseYah[weh]” (e.g., Pss. 149:1; 150:1).
Itis interesting to note the origin of the pronunciation of yhwh as“Jehovah.” To avoid breaking the third commandment,against misusing the name of God, pious Jews did not pronounce thedivine name yhwh, substituting the word ’adonay (“mymaster”) in its place. In medieval times Jewish scholars addedvowels to the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible to aid in correctpronunciation. For yhwh, they used the vowels of ’adonay,which, when pronounced, creates a name unknown to the biblicalauthors, “Jehovah.”
Inthe postexilic period the appellation “Yahweh” occurs farless frequently, being replaced by adonay (Hebrew) or kyrios (Greek).The latter is used for Yahweh over six thousand times in the LXX. InHellenistic literature kyrios is used to describe various gods andgoddesses. The Roman emperors were also called kyrios, often withimplications of deity. Some argue that the early Christians employedthe title polemically to refer to Christ, the true kyrios. A clearexample is found in Phil. 2:11, where it is said that every tonguewill confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (cf. 1Cor.8:5–8). Kyrios was also used nonreligiously to refer to a“master” of a slave and as a term of respect to addresssomeone of superior status (“sir”). Peter addresses Jesusas “lord” when he washes Peter’s feet (John 13:6).
NewTestament
Inthe NT, the majority of occurrences of “Lord” (kyrios)appear in Luke-Acts and the writings of Paul, perhaps due to thepredominantly Hellenistic audiences of these texts, who would knowwell its Greco-Roman connotations. As for Paul, the use of “Lord”by Luke may point to the deity of Jesus. In the Lukan birthnarrative, Elizabeth wonders why “the mother of my Lord shouldcome to me?” (Luke 1:43; cf. 7:19; 10:1). In Acts 1:21 the name“Jesus” is preceded by the definite form of “Lord,”reflecting an oft-repeated confessional title in Acts and Paul (Acts15:11; 20:35; 2Cor. 1:2). According to some, if Matthew intendsa divine connotation by his use of the term “Lord,” it ismore oblique. For instance, in Matt. 4:7 Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16,where “the Lord” is Yahweh and not Jesus (cf. Matt.9:38). There are occasions in Mark where “lord,” althoughappearing to function in a nonreligious sense, does seem to point toYahweh. In Mark 2:28 Jesus claims that “the Son of Man is lordeven of the sabbath” (NRSV). Since the Sabbath belongs toYahweh and falls under his sovereign authority (Exod. 20:8–11),it is quite probable that Mark’s readers would now ascribe thatdominion to the Son of Man. This is not unlike his authority toforgive sins (Mark 2:10), which, as the scribes rightfully point out,is something that only Yahweh can do. In light of these usages, onecannot help but think that the use of the term in Mark 11:3, at thetriumphal entry, also carries divine significance. In John, there areexamples of both the nonreligious use of “lord,” as areverent form of address (5:7; 9:36), and the religious, divinesense, particularly after the resurrection (20:28; 21:7).
Itis quite likely that Jewish Christians, even before Paul, regardedJesus as one who shares in Yahweh’s divinity. In his letter tothe Corinthians, a Greek-speaking congregation, Paul uses theexpression maranatha (1Cor. 16:22), a Greektransliteration of an Aramaic phrase that means “Our Lord,come!” This term likely was a part of an early Jewish Christianliturgy. Further, there are places where Paul refers to Jesus simplyas “the Lord,” suggesting a common understanding of theappellation among the early Christians (Rom. 14:6; 1Cor. 3:5).In addition to Phil. 2:11, Paul expresses the divinity of Jesus byalluding to Deut. 6:4, the Shema, in 1Cor. 8:6: “Yet forus there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came andfor whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, throughwhom all things came and through whom we live.” In the book ofRevelation divine status is ascribed to Jesus. While in the vision ofGod in Rev. 4 the title is used of God (4:8, 11), at the conclusionof the book appears the invocation “Come, Lord Jesus”(22:20; cf. 22:21).
ForPaul, a particularly important component of the lordship of Jesus ishis resurrection, through which he becomes “the Lord of boththe dead and the living” (Rom. 14:9; cf. 1:4), and his returnmarks the “day of the Lord,” which in the OT was the dayof Yahweh (1Thess. 5:2; cf. 5:23). Exactly how JewishChristians could attribute such a status to Jesus and yet maintain astrict monotheism remains a matter of considerable debate. Is Christincluded in the identity of the Godhead, or is he an intermediaryfigure (of which Second Temple Judaism had many), possessing aquasi-divine status? If Jesus is an intermediary figure, then hisauthority to do that which only Yahweh can (such as forgiving sinsand fulfilling roles originally referring to God) suggests a veryclose identification between Yahweh and Jesus himself. See also Namesof God; YHWH.
Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this daybelongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. Theterm itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions howhe was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” whenChrist commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10).There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture aboutthe identification of this day or how it was observed. Ourunderstanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages ofScripture touches on three separate issues.
Aspecial day.First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in aspecial way? At least some believers throughout history have believedthat it is possible to observe every day of the week as equallyspecial in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord hasmade; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paulregards the observance of special days for worship as an area ofChristian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacredthan another; another considers every day alike. Each of them shouldbe fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The sameprinciple is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyonejudge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religiousfestival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “theLord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during theweek when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.
Aspecific day.Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way?When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear:it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both theidea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day arebased ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. ThisSabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicatethat the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and theiranimals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15).Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews inthe present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-DayAdventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OTevidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day forworship.
Nevertheless,most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the earlychurch to gather together for worship on the first day of the week.Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. InActs 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supperspecifically “on the first day of the week,” and in1Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect anoffering specifically “on the first day of every week”(presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christianshave concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of theSabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16),and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “onthe first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).
Asacred day.Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and othersthroughout church history have considered Sunday as the ChristianSabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day ofthe week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age,but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for theSabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, mostChristians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,”when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OTceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working.Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering togetheron a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolvedaround various annual feasts and festivals when people would gathertogether at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year.The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during theBabylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue.Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer atransposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, andconsequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “theydevoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).
In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb“to associate with.” This is an important connectionbecause relationships of various kinds are central to the issue ofneighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend(2Sam. 13:3), a rival (1Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1),or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentiallydefines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethicalresponsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29).Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technicalmeaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite”(=“brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literatureprohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) aswell as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife(Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor areprohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negativestipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 areclimactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically.Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev.19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even theresident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev.19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).
Whenthe NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that isroutinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotesLev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt.19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Whois my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan(Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more importantthan conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor wasanyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” inpurely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits ofone’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism,denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in”or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expandsocial, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality ofrelationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NTnow prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal.6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).
Either a sin or wrongdoing (often in the NIV) or a cause ofstumbling (usually in other versions). In the first category,sometimes “offense” and “sin” translatesimilar Hebrew words (Job 10:14; 13:23; Ps. 59:3). Those who breakthe law commit an offense (Deut. 19:15; 21:22; Acts 25:8), but theterm can have a more relational sense (1Sam. 25:28; Prov. 17:9;19:11). In the second category are those offenses that “trippeople up” by offending them; such offenses are often notintrinsically wrong. Thus, Jesus and his teaching were an offense(e.g., Matt. 13:57; 1Pet. 2:8), and Christians can offendweaker brothers and sisters by engaging in activities that areallowed within Christian liberty (Rom. 14:20; 1Cor. 10:32).
The male head of a family. The OT describes the Israelitenation as an extended family descended from a line of commonancestors, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called“Israel” [see Gen. 32:28]). Each of Jacob’s sons(or his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh) traditionally gave his nameto one of the tribes that made up the Israelite people. The NTapplies the term “patriarch” to individuals of thegenerations from Abraham (Heb. 7:4) to his twelve great-grandsons(Acts 7:8) and, in one case, to the tenth-century king David (Acts2:29). In the OT the term “patriarch” is not used, thoughthe concept of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as national fathers isfrequently expressed, as in Exod. 3:15, which refers to Israel’sGod as “the Lord, the God of your fathers—the God ofAbraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
TheBible regards the patriarchs as the original recipients of God’spromises, as in Deut. 6:10, which speaks of “the land [God]swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you.”Similarly, Rom. 15:8 speaks of the patriarchs as the recipients ofGod’s promises. The reference to David as a patriarch in Acts2:29 also has in view his role as the recipient of a divine promise.The terminology of national fatherhood is applied particularly to theunnamed ancestors of the generation of the exodus (Josh. 24:6;1Kings 8:21) and to the line of Judahite and Israelite kings,as in 2Chron. 25:28, where Amaziah is said to have been buried“with his fathers” (ESV, NASB) (i.e., his royalpredecessors) in Jerusalem. In fact, the deaths of several kings aredescribed as going to rest “with his fathers” (cf. Luke16:22, where Lazarus is taken to Abraham when he dies).
Thepatriarchs are most significant in the Bible for explaining Israelitenational origins (descent from the patriarchs), the Israeliteposition in the land of Canaan (the land promised to the patriarchs),the origins of Israelite religion (“the God of the fathers”),and the nature of death (going to be with the fathers).
ThePatriarchs and History
Theimplied chronology of the Bible places Abraham in the mid-secondmillennium BC, in the Middle Bronze Age. A more precise date dependson the controversial matter of dating the exodus from Egypt. Thetraditional date ofthe exodus in the fifteenth century BCplaces the patriarchs in the final centuries of the third millenniumBC, based on the tabulation of life spans reported in the Bible andanchored to the date of Solomon’s temple given in 1Kings6:1. One recent calculation dates the birth of Abraham to 2166 BC. Alow date for the exodus (in the thirteenth century BC) in turn lowersthe date of Abraham. Because they pertain tothe story of asingle family, it is difficult to date the patriarchal stories basedon extrabiblical historical records and archaeological findings. WhenAbraham and his descendants interact with figures of internationalprominence, they are either unnamed (the unnamed pharaohs of Egypt),have generic royal names (Abimelek), or are otherwise unknown inextrabiblical historical records (the many kings named in Gen.14:1–2). In contrast, the biblical history of the monarchicperiod of Israel and Judah names several Mesopotamian and Egyptiankings known from securely dated inscriptions.
Inlight of this methodological difficulty, some have examined thecultural world of the patriarchal narratives and attempted tocorrelate customs attested in the stories to those known from datableexternal sources. In particular, proponents of this approach havesought connections between the customs pertaining to marriage andfamily depicted in the Nuzi tablets (fifteenth century BC), thoughtto reflect earlier customs on the basis of their similarities totexts found at Mari (eighteenth century BC). Certain behaviors of thepatriarchs, including their use of cultic practices known to havebeen condemned in first-millennium BC biblical texts, suggest thatthe patriarchal narratives are an authentic reflection of the earlysecond millennium BC. On the other hand, the patriarchal narrativescontain some information inconsistent with an early-second-millenniumdate, notably the presence of Philistines (Gen. 21:22–34), whodid not appear in the region until the twelfth century BC. Thecultural history of the patriarchal narratives remains disputed.
TheImportance of the Patriarchs
Apartfrom the historical questions treated above, one thing is clear: forIsraelites of the first millennium BC who wrote, edited, and read thebook of Genesis, the patriarchs held great interest and importance.
Forthe biblical authors, the God of Israel was the “God of thefathers,” and the Israelite religion was understood as aspecial relationship between God and the nation that began with thefamous ancestors. The patriarchal stories explained other social“facts” observable in Iron Age Israel. The relationshipbetween the Israelites and the Edomites alternated between peace andhostility. Linguistically, culturally, and geographically, the twopeoples were closely connected, so it is not surprising that thebiblical stories about Jacob (or Israel) and Esau (or Edom) show abrotherly relationship that mirrored the later regional rivalry oftheir descendants. Similar observations can be made regarding theIshmaelites (descended from the brother of Isaac), the Moabites andthe Ammonites (both descended from Abraham’s nephew Lot), andthe Midianites (from Abraham through his wife Keturah). Other localgroups, such as the Philistines, are not incorporated into thepatriarchal extended family, accurately reflecting the origin of thispopulation and its culture outside the land of Palestine. Thepatriarchal stories account for the founding of several importantcultic sites. Thus, the patriarchal stories served to organize thesocial and geographical world of the Israelites, who cherished themas their national history.
WithinIsrael itself, the status and relationships of various tribescorresponded to the depiction of the eponymous patriarchal ancestors.The special prominence of the Levites, the Ju-dah-ites, and theEphraimites is explained by stories focusing on the exploits of Levi,Judah, and Joseph (the father of Ephraim). The presentation of thetribes as coming from twelve brothers of four different mothersreflects the complex political parity and disparity of the “twelvetribes.” Apart from the twelve-tribe structure, other, lessprominent Israelite groups are known from the Bible. “Makir”is a prominent group in Judg. 5:14 (one of the earliest biblicaltexts), where it is listed on an equal footing among the othertribes. In the usual twelve-tribe “patriarchal” depictionof Israel, however, Makir recedes in importance and is named as a sonof Manasseh (a tribe not mentioned in the list of Judg. 5) in Gen.50:23. Presumably, the two texts represent varying conceptions ofwhich groups were most important in the Israelite society of theirrespective times. For the author of Judg. 5, Makir was one of theprincipal groups in Israel; for the author of Gen. 50:23, Makir wasless important than Manasseh.
OutsideGenesis, the names of Abraham and Isaac usually appear only in theformula “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The name of Jacob orIsrael, in contrast, is regularly used to denote the people ofIsrael, as are the names of Jacob’s son Judah (for the southernpart of the country) and his grandson Ephraim (for the northernpart). The name of Isaac is used twice in Amos 7:9, 16 to refer to anapparently northern entity, the “high places of Isaac.”
The state of remaining faithful to God in light of therevelation given to persons at their particular stage of redemptivehistory. Perseverance has always required a continued trust in God,obedience to his commands, and reliance upon his merciful provision.
OldTestament.In the OT, perseverance is related to the covenantal relationshipthat God had with his people. Abraham was the quintessential model ofperseverance, as he was faithful in waiting for God to provide himwith the heir that had been promised him. Israel had to persevere byremaining faithful to its covenant with God, which meant beingobedient to his commandments and decrees. In the subsequent historyof Israel, however, the nation lacked perseverance and fidelity andoften turned away from God to worship the gods of other nations.Indeed, the sweep of Israel’s history, according to theprophets, was that Israel had failed miserably at persevering in thecovenantal promises and thus had incurred God’s judgment (e.g.,Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:1–39; Dan. 9:4–19).
NewTestament.In the Gospels, Jesus is the ultimate example of the faithfulIsraelite and also provides many exhortations about perseverance inlight of the dawning kingdom of God. Jesus perseveres when tested bySatan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke4:1–13). The parables of growth warn about those who do notpersevere in their reception of the word (e.g., Luke 8:15). Enduranceunder the duress of eschatological trials is also the means by whichone gains one’s life (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke21:19). In his farewell speech in the Gospel of John, Jesus exhortshis disciples to abide in him as branches stay rooted in a vine orelse risk being cut off (John 15:1–11).
Inthe course of his letters, Paul has much to say about persevering infaithin Christ. Paul considers “endurance” (hypomonē) tobe among the cardinal qualities of a believer (Rom. 5:3–4;1Thess. 1:3; 2Thess. 1:4; 8:25; 1Tim. 6:11; Titus2:2). There is a sense in which God himself gives endurance to thebeliever (Rom. 15:5; Col.1:11; 2Thess. 3:5). Paul offers some stern warnings aboutapostasy and falling away (Rom. 11:21–22; 1Cor. 10:1–12;Gal. 5:4), but he also adds that Christians experience a sense ofassurance because God is “faithful” and will keepbelievers “blameless” on the day of Christ Jesus (1Cor.1:8–9; Phil. 1:10; 1Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Paul also writesthat nothing in creation can separate a believer from the love of Godin Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:31–39).
TheGeneral Epistles provide further teaching about perseverance. Jamescommends the virtue of perseverance that leads to maturity (1:3–4)and urges his audience to endure just as Job endured sufferings(5:11). Jude writes that believers should endeavor to “keepyourselves in God’s love” while also acknowledging thatGod himself will “keep you from falling” (vv. 21, 24).The book of Hebrews is built around the theme of perseverance andendurance, with key statements about not “drift[ing] away”(2:1) and the exhortation to “run with perseverance the racemarked out for us” (12:1).
Thebook of Revelation focuses strongly on persevering in light ofpersecution and hardship. In the letters to the seven churches thereis the repeated promise of the blessings that await those who“overcome,” which means enduring in the faith (2:7, 11,17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. 21:7). The churches of Asia Minorcorporately are admonished to remain faithful to the point of death(2:10) and in light of the coming judgment (14:12). Three times callsfor patient endurance are made (1:9; 13:10; 14:12). In Revelation,perseverance means holding to the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 17:6;19:10; 20:4).
Summary.Thebiblical teaching on perseverance attempts to balance divinesovereignty and human responsibility. The warnings of apostasy andthe promises of assurance are interwoven in such a way so as not tocompromise the grace and justice of God.
The state of remaining faithful to God in light of therevelation given to persons at their particular stage of redemptivehistory. Perseverance has always required a continued trust in God,obedience to his commands, and reliance upon his merciful provision.
OldTestament.In the OT, perseverance is related to the covenantal relationshipthat God had with his people. Abraham was the quintessential model ofperseverance, as he was faithful in waiting for God to provide himwith the heir that had been promised him. Israel had to persevere byremaining faithful to its covenant with God, which meant beingobedient to his commandments and decrees. In the subsequent historyof Israel, however, the nation lacked perseverance and fidelity andoften turned away from God to worship the gods of other nations.Indeed, the sweep of Israel’s history, according to theprophets, was that Israel had failed miserably at persevering in thecovenantal promises and thus had incurred God’s judgment (e.g.,Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:1–39; Dan. 9:4–19).
NewTestament.In the Gospels, Jesus is the ultimate example of the faithfulIsraelite and also provides many exhortations about perseverance inlight of the dawning kingdom of God. Jesus perseveres when tested bySatan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke4:1–13). The parables of growth warn about those who do notpersevere in their reception of the word (e.g., Luke 8:15). Enduranceunder the duress of eschatological trials is also the means by whichone gains one’s life (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke21:19). In his farewell speech in the Gospel of John, Jesus exhortshis disciples to abide in him as branches stay rooted in a vine orelse risk being cut off (John 15:1–11).
Inthe course of his letters, Paul has much to say about persevering infaithin Christ. Paul considers “endurance” (hypomonē) tobe among the cardinal qualities of a believer (Rom. 5:3–4;1Thess. 1:3; 2Thess. 1:4; 8:25; 1Tim. 6:11; Titus2:2). There is a sense in which God himself gives endurance to thebeliever (Rom. 15:5; Col.1:11; 2Thess. 3:5). Paul offers some stern warnings aboutapostasy and falling away (Rom. 11:21–22; 1Cor. 10:1–12;Gal. 5:4), but he also adds that Christians experience a sense ofassurance because God is “faithful” and will keepbelievers “blameless” on the day of Christ Jesus (1Cor.1:8–9; Phil. 1:10; 1Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Paul also writesthat nothing in creation can separate a believer from the love of Godin Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:31–39).
TheGeneral Epistles provide further teaching about perseverance. Jamescommends the virtue of perseverance that leads to maturity (1:3–4)and urges his audience to endure just as Job endured sufferings(5:11). Jude writes that believers should endeavor to “keepyourselves in God’s love” while also acknowledging thatGod himself will “keep you from falling” (vv. 21, 24).The book of Hebrews is built around the theme of perseverance andendurance, with key statements about not “drift[ing] away”(2:1) and the exhortation to “run with perseverance the racemarked out for us” (12:1).
Thebook of Revelation focuses strongly on persevering in light ofpersecution and hardship. In the letters to the seven churches thereis the repeated promise of the blessings that await those who“overcome,” which means enduring in the faith (2:7, 11,17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. 21:7). The churches of Asia Minorcorporately are admonished to remain faithful to the point of death(2:10) and in light of the coming judgment (14:12). Three times callsfor patient endurance are made (1:9; 13:10; 14:12). In Revelation,perseverance means holding to the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 17:6;19:10; 20:4).
Summary.Thebiblical teaching on perseverance attempts to balance divinesovereignty and human responsibility. The warnings of apostasy andthe promises of assurance are interwoven in such a way so as not tocompromise the grace and justice of God.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
It is hard to offer a simple definition of praise becausemultiple words are used in the Bible to describe praise and its manydifferent forms. The physical aspects of praise include bowing(1Chron. 29:20), kneeling (Ps. 95:6), singing (Ps. 96:2), beingquiet (Ps. 131:2), making noise (Luke 19:37), opening hands (1Kings8:54), lifting hands (Ps. 134:2), meditating (Ps. 145:5), exulting(Ps. 21:13), and living an obedient life before God (Rom. 15:7). Theemotive aspects of praise include adoration (Ps. 9:1), prayer (Ps.66:20), thanksgiving (Ps. 69:30), and joy (Ps. 71:23). Furthermore,praise can be given in any location and at any time. Finally, God isto be praised because of his creation, his good works, his love, andthe life, death, and resurrection of his Son.
Generally,praise acknowledges and thanksGod for all the good things in life. The Bible is full of examples ofsuch praise; best known are the numerous psalms of praise in thePsalter. The Hebrew expression hallelu yah literally means “praisethe Lord” and is used in both Testaments (Gk. hallēlouia).In the OT, God is portrayed as jealous for the praise of his people(Isa. 42:8); God is supposed to be the only object of praise.Conversely, Jesus cautions his followers to seek praise from Godrather than from other humans (Matt. 6:1–4).
Notonly are humans to be active in giving praise to God, but also allcreation, including the sun, the moon, and the stars (Pss. 19:1–3;148), takes part. The final psalm in the Psalter encourages“everything that has breath [to] praise the Lord” (Ps.150:6). Throughout the OT praise was an important part of thetabernacle and temple worship, with specific people being assignedthe duty of making music and singing praises to God (1Chron.6:31–32). Moses and Miriam broke into spontaneous praise afterthe Israelites had crossed the Red Sea and seen the Egyptians drowned(Exod. 15:1–21). David praised God not only in words but alsoin dance (2 Sam. 6:14). The angels praised God during theannouncement of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:13). Both James and Peterencouraged Christians to praise God in spite of their externalcirc*mstances (James 5:13; 1Pet. 4:16). Revelation records thepraising of God forever as one of the final eschatological events(19:1–10).
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
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.
The word “tongue” has several senses in bothTestaments. In the OT, lashon refers to the physical organ (Judg.7:5; Job 20:12; 41:1), the physical tongue that creates speech(2Sam. 23:2; Job 6:30), and the physical organ in reference toindividuals as they profess before God (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11;Phil. 2:11).
Theword “tongue” frequently refers to language (Gen. 10:5;Neh. 13:24; Isa. 28:11; cf. 1Cor. 14:21). Related to this, theword refers to speech as deceitful (Ps. 52:2), as speaking strife(31:20 KJV, RSV), or as that which praises God (35:28). The tonguesings (Ps. 51:14) and extols (66:17).
Thetongue is able to produce very powerful speech that can bring lifeand death (Prov. 18:21). To guard one’s speech is to betrouble-free (21:23). Soft and forbearing speech is persuasive andwins the day rather than aggravates (25:15). Flattering speech seemsfavorable but will be disregarded in the end (28:23).
Thespeech of God is a consuming fire (Isa. 30:27). The mute will havespeech when all things are set right in the eschaton (35:6).
Inthe OT, the word “tongue” is used in parallel withseveral other words. The physical organ is parallel to lips (Ps.12:4), mouth (Job 33:2; Pss. 10:7; 50:19), or throat (Ps. 5:9, wherethe tongue is the source of flattery).
Asimilar Hebrew word, sapah,has several senses, among them “lip” (and so also oftenof the edge or shore of a body of water), and can refer to thelanguage produced by lips. It is sometimes placed in parallel withlashon (Ps. 12:4).
Inthe NT, the word glōssa refers to the physical organ (Mark7:33–35) and language (Acts 2:11; 1Cor. 14:21[heteroglōssos]) and can refer to the miraculous gift oflanguages (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1Cor. 12–14).Luke also uses the word in the unusualdescription of the gift of languages coming on the disciples—tonguesof fire resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3).
Finally,James, writing in the style of OT wisdom literature, notes that anuncontrolled tongue—unbridled speech—is not indicative ofthe people of God (James 1:26–27) and is ultimately destructive(3:5–10). See also Speech Impediment.
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
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 Bible has much to say about works, and an understandingof the topic is important because works play a role in mostreligions. In the most generic sense, “works” refers tothe products or activities of human moral agents in the context ofreligious discussion. God’s works are frequently mentioned inScripture, and they are always good. His works include creation (Gen.2:2–3; Isa. 40:28; 42:5), sustenance of the earth (Ps. 104;Heb. 1:3), and redemption (Exod. 6:6; Ps. 111:9; Rom. 8:23). Humanworks, therefore, should be in alignment with God’s works,though obviously of a different sort. Works in the Bible usuallyreflect a moral polarity: good or evil, righteous or unrighteous,just or unjust. The context of the passage often determines the moralcharacter of the works (e.g., Isa. 3:10–11; 2Cor. 11:15).
Importantquestions follow from the existence of works and their moral quality.Do good works merit God’s favor or please him? Can good workssave at the time of God’s judgment? When people asked Jesus,“What must we do to do the works God requires?” heanswered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one hehas sent” (John 6:28–29). Without faith it is impossibleto please God (Heb. 11:6). The people from the OT commended in Heb.11 did their works in the precondition of faith. Explicitly in the NTand often implicitly in the OT, faith is the condition for truly goodworks. God elects out of his mercy, not out of human works (Rom.9:12, 16; Titus 3:5; cf. Rom. 11:2). Works not done in faith, even ifconsidered “good” by human standards, are not commendableto God, since all humankind is under sin (Rom. 3:9) and no person isrighteous or does good (Rom. 3:10–18; cf. Isa. 64:6). Workscannot save; salvation is a gift to be received by faith (Eph. 2:8–9;2Tim. 1:9; cf. Rom. 4:2–6). Even works of the Mosaic laware not salvific (Rom. 3:20, 27–28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2; 5:4). Goodworks follow from faith (2Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; 1Thess.1:3; James 2:18, 22; cf. Acts 26:20). The works of those who havefaith will be judged, but this judgment appears to be related torewards, not salvation (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2Cor. 5:10; cf.Rom. 14:10; 1Cor. 3:13–15).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Romans 14:1--15:13
is mentioned in the definition.
The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.
In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”
As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.
Old Testament
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.
The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.
The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).
Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.
When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).
When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).
Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).
God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).
Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.
New Testament
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).
Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.
In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).
Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.
Faith and the Church
Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).
Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.
Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).
Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).
Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).
The books of Samuel tell the story of how kingship began in Israel and was subsequently secured under David. Almost all of David’s own story is recounted in Samuel, including God’s promise to him of a dynasty. This promise became a key seedbed for the messianic hope within the OT, which finds its fulfillment in Jesus as David’s son (Matt. 1:1).
Genre and Purpose
Samuel is part of a block of texts running from Joshua through Kings (excluding Ruth), which is known in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets. This block offers a more or less continuous account of Israel’s life in the land of promise from its entry under Joshua until the exile after Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians (2Kings 25). Any assessment of the genre and purpose of Samuel must consider its relationship to these surrounding texts, though it should also recognize the distinctive elements of Samuel itself.
At its simplest, Samuel is a work of narrative prose that tells how kingship began in Israel and was secured under David after the failure of Saul, though it also contains a number of important poems. Although contemporary history writing would not be done in the same way, since Samuel points to the ways in which God is active throughout this time, Samuel certainly offers a testimony to this crucial period in Israel’s history. It is not the whole story of the period, as its testimony is concerned with a specific set of issues, and that testimony is related through God’s purposes for Samuel, Saul, and David. But this observation is vital for appreciating that Samuel is not just the story of how kingship came to Israel but is specifically a theological examination of it. It explores how God was at work, fulfilling the hope for kingship that had been expressed through Judg. 17–21, while also providing hope that the exile was not the end of his purposes for Israel as a whole and the kings of David’s line in particular. We should not think of this as a dry piece of history writing, for an important element is also that the telling of this story should entertain and grip those who either read or (perhaps more likely) heard it. Knowing that God had acted in the past for his people and that these actions continued to be important was not enough; the excitement that this should generate also needed to be apparent in the skill with which the story was told.
Outline
I. The Rise of Samuel (1Sam. 1–7)
II. The Birth of Monarchy (1Sam. 8–12)
III. Saul’s Early Reign and Rejection (1Sam. 13–15)
IV. Long Rivalry Narrative: David and Saul (1Sam.16–2Sam. 1)
A. David’s anointing and arrival at court (1Sam. 16–17)
B. David within Saul’s court (1Sam. 18–20)
C. David as an outlaw in Judah (1Sam. 21–26)
D. David in Philistine territory and Saul’s death (1Sam. 27–2Sam. 1)
V. Short Rivalry Narrative: David and Ish-Bosheth (2Sam. 2:1–5:5)
VI. First Summary of David’s Reign (2Sam. 5:6–8:18)
VII. Narrative of David’s Court (2Sam. 9–20)
A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2Sam. 9)
B. The war with Ammon and David’s sin (2Sam. 10–12)
C. Long rebellion narrative: Absalom against David (2Sam. 13–19)
D. Short rebellion narrative: Sheba against David (2Sam. 20)
VIII. Second Summary of David’s Reign (2Sam. 21–24)
Composition
Authorship and sources. The books of Samuel are anonymous, and any assessment of their authorship needs to start with this basic fact. There is a tradition in the Talmud (b.B.Bat. 14b; 15a) that associates the book with Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, presumably concluding that the books of Samuel constitute the source mentioned by 1Chron. 29:29. But this reference is only to information on David’s life and thus is unlikely to refer to the whole of Samuel. Since Samuel’s own death is recorded in 1Sam. 25:1, the book’s title in our tradition (in the LXX the books of Samuel are the first two books of Kingdoms, which continue into Kings) is unlikely to refer to authorship. Rather, it is more likely that a later author has drawn together a range of source materials in order to offer a coherent testimony about the origins of kingship.
For some time, the main sources behind Samuel seemed to have been identified, and they included a series of Shiloh traditions concerning the end of the house of Eli and the rise of Samuel (1Sam. 1:1–4:1a), an ark narrative (2Sam. 4:1b–7:1; 6), traditions concerning Saul and the origins of kingship (1Sam. 7:2–15:35), a history of David’s rise (1Sam. 16:1–2Sam. 5:5), a succession narrative (2Sam. 9–20), and a Samuel appendix (2Sam. 21–24). Within this analysis, the place of 2Sam. 5:6–25 and 2Sam. 7:1–8:17 remained unclear, but the general thought was that the sources were more or less placed one after the other in their chronological sequence. But the probability of this conclusion has been challenged in recent times because the various sections of the books are clearly aware of information in other parts, so that the whole is actually well integrated. In addition, the actual boundaries of the sources remained unclear. An unfortunate effect of the source theories is that they tended to downplay some parts of the book, especially 2Sam. 21–24, as being of less importance, whereas some recent studies have shown that they are closely integrated into the rest of the book, tying together themes developed elsewhere while also showing the structural integrity of the whole of Samuel.
Samuel is likely the end product of several stages of material collected together, rather than being the product of sources that are kept intact, but it is still a unified work. Possibly the oldest material is the collection of longer poems in 1Sam. 2:1–10; 2Sam. 1:17–27; 22:1–23:7, all of which draws on common themes and language and comments on the nature of kingship. The opening and closing blocks form the bookends, raising the hope of kingship (1Sam. 2:1–10) and then commenting on how the king must submit to God’s reign (2Sam. 22:1–23:7). In the central poem (2Sam. 1:17–27) David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. It is likely that these poems were joined with the stories about Samuel, Saul, and David in the ninth century BC but were then carefully placed to comment on the stories and yet also be commented on by them. Further editing may have continued until the time of Hezekiah in the late eighth century BC. Later on, more or less the whole of Samuel as we know it was included in the Former Prophets, perhaps during the exile. The important point to note here is that Samuel is a carefully composed whole and not simply a collection of source materials.
Literary devices. Evidence for the nature of the book’s composition can be seen in how it employs certain literary devices throughout. Two that are worth noting are the way the text plays with narrative chronology and employs repetition in various forms. The play with narrative chronology means that although the movement of the book is broadly chronological (moving from the origins of the monarchy to the latter period of David’s reign), not every element is recorded in its actual chronological sequence, since at some points other factors were more important. Alternatively, at some points different narrative strands are brought into a chronological relationship with one another, most notably in comparing the locations of David and Saul in 1Sam. 27–2Sam. 1. A simple example of relating material outside its chronological sequence occurs in 1Sam. 26:12, where it is said that God had caused Saul’s soldiers to sleep so that David could enter Saul’s camp only after David had reached Saul, though clearly the soldiers must already have been asleep.
At other points, the breaks with chronological sequence cover different stories about David. For example, in 2Sam. 5:17–8:14 there are four accounts about David, two in which he overcomes enemies (5:17–25; 8:1–14) and two associated with events in Jerusalem and public worship (6:1–7:29). Since 7:1 tells us that David’s desire to build a temple came after God had delivered him from all his enemies, it follows that the events of chapter 7 must have come after those of 8:1–14. Here, arranging the material to highlight the theme of public worship was more important than placing it in chronological sequence.
This same section also demonstrates the use of repetition. Hence, 5:17–25 recounts two nearly identical defeats of the Philistines in which David must trust God, while the victories in 8:1–14 are twice said to come about because God gave David victory wherever he went (8:6, 14). Similarly, both 6:1–23 and 7:1–29 depend upon interest in the ark and thus mutually interpret each other. Other large-scale repetitions include two announcements of the coming of kingship (1Sam. 2:10, 34), two announcements of the end of Eli and his family in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1Sam. 2:27–36; 3:10–14), and two times when David does not kill Saul (1Sam. 24; 26). In an oral culture, such repetitions are not evidence of poor composition but rather are a crucial tool for emphasizing the central themes being developed. In addition, variations within each repetition are a tool for increasing the audience’s interest, showing that the authors of Samuel were interested in both giving historical testimony and entertaining their audience.
Text
It is generally agreed that the text of Samuel poses more than its fair share of difficulties, something that can be seen in the often significant differences between the received Hebrew text (MT) and the early translations, especially the main Greek translation (LXX). For example, in 1Sam. 17 the best-regarded edition of the LXX lacks vv. 12–31, 50, 55–58, and even in shared material it is sometimes significantly shorter. It is generally agreed that the Greek version resolves a number of anomalies, but is this because the MT has been expanded or because the LXX has been abbreviated? In addition, three significant Samuel manuscripts were found at Qumran. Although two of these are only fragmentary, one covers significant portions of Samuel. Although the disputed portions of 1Sam. 17 are absent from it, there are some points where it appears to support the LXX and others where it agrees with the MT while also introducing some other issues of its own.
It is clear, therefore, that complex issues are involved in determining the text of Samuel, and one must avoid taking a doctrinaire position and allow each point to be resolved on its own merits. At the same time, the difficulties should not be magnified beyond reason, since large sections of the text can be established with reasonable certainty, and for all the problems, the MT remains a reliable guide. One might suggest in the case of 1Sam. 17, for example, that the LXX text represents an early attempt to address apparent difficulties in the narrative (especially the question of when Saul met David) that nevertheless failed to realize that not everything in Samuel is narrated in exact chronological order. Nevertheless, anyone who compares different translations of Samuel (e.g., NIV and NRSV) will notice variants and should make use of good commentaries at that point.
Central Themes
The reign of God. Kingship lies at the heart of Samuel. But although it is concerned with the story of Israel’s first two kings (Abimelek in Judg. 9 is an aberration and probably only a local figure), it places their story within the framework of God’s reign. No matter what authority a king in Israel might claim, it was always subject to God’s greater authority. Indeed, Samuel makes clear that God did not need a king but rather chose the monarchy as the means by which his own reign might be demonstrated.
An important way in which God’s reign is demonstrated is through the motif of the reversal of fortunes, in which the powerful are brought down and the weak raised. This is announced in Hannah’s Song (1Sam. 2:4–8) and is then demonstrated when God removed the corrupt family of Eli from their position of power in the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:27–36; 4:1–18). On the other hand, Samuel himself came to prominence even though he had no position of power. Saul, likewise, although a member of a relatively wealthy family (9:1–2), knew that he was not someone who had automatic power (9:21) but still was raised up to be king by God. Yet when he, like Eli before him, became corrupt and clung to power rather than submit to God, he too was removed so that he could be replaced (15:28–29).
David also came from a humble position as the youngest son in his family (1Sam. 16:11), but unlike Eli and Saul, he would not grasp power for himself. Indeed, he twice refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (1Sam. 24; 26) and punished those who claimed that they could exercise violence on his behalf (2Sam. 1:11–16; 4:9–12). Even when it seemed that David had later lost all to Absalom, he held to the fact that he could reign only as long as he had God’s support (2Sam. 15:25–26). This, in fact, is a central theme in 2Sam. 7 when David wanted to build a temple for God, for there it is made clear that David cannot act without God’s authority, and that his descendants will have authority as long as they too submit to God (2Sam. 7:11b–15). David’s closing songs (22:1–23:7) make clear that the king has no authority apart from God.
Kingship. Kingship in Israel is closely related to the theme of God’s reign. The possibility of kingship first arises in Hannah’s Song (1Sam. 2:10) and is confirmed by the man of God who announces the judgment against Eli’s family (2:34). Both references occur before Israel’s elders requested a king because of the failure of Samuel’s sons (8:1–9), indicating that the request for a king did not take God by surprise. In addition, it indicates that authentic kingship in Israel could only be that which was initiated by God.
The story of Saul’s rise to the throne needs to be read in light of this. Although the human move to kingship stemmed from the request of the elders for a king (1Sam. 8:4–9), it was still the case that Saul could become king only because of God’s decision. Although 1Sam. 8–12 often has been broken down into supposedly conflicting sources, it is better to read it as a unified text but to note that the narrator’s voice is not equivalent to any of the characters that speak through it. When the text is understood in this way, it is possible to appreciate that kingship was part of God’s purposes for Israel, but it needed to follow his model. Kings in Israel could prosper only when they submitted to the greater reign of God. It was Saul’s mistake that he did not recognize this. David, although he made some terrible mistakes, always understood this truth, and his closing songs (2Sam. 22:1–23:7) reflect on it. David learned what Saul never did: power is never something to be grasped; rather, it can only be accepted as a gracious gift from God to be used for his purposes.
New Testament Connections
The importance of the books of Samuel for the NT is far greater than its five direct citations there (Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:9; 2Cor. 6:18 [2×]; Heb. 1:5) might indicate. The theme of kingship and the associated promise to David in 2Sam. 7 are fundamental to the messianic hope throughout the OT and are picked up in the NT. Even when the NT cites other OT texts (such as Ps. 2) with reference to Jesus, it is still the books of Samuel that lie behind the citation. In addition, the NT frequently indicates that Jesus was a son of David (e.g., Matt. 1:1). Although such texts do not cite Samuel directly, they clearly allude to it because of God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever (2Sam. 7:16). Jesus’ ministry transcends that of David in every way, but we cannot understand his ministry apart from David and God’s promise to him.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
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 burning of the body of a deceased person as a final act of disposition of the body. Christians today are confronted with the question of whether the body of a loved one should be buried or cremated. Scripture reveals three basic principles: (1) the Bible does not use the word “cremation” or directly address this as a practice, so it would be improper to conclude that cremation is a sin; (2) the burial of the body in the ground or a tomb/vault is the clear and consistent pattern throughout Scripture for the proper handling of the body of the deceased; and (3) what references there are in Scripture to people’s bodies being burned following death are often associated with judgment and disrespect for the person’s body.
The early church rejected cremation, partly because of its association with pagan cultures of Greece and Rome. Thus, early Christians followed earlier Jewish practices and buried their dead in graves or catacombs (underground vaults). The strong preference for burial has continued for most of church history. The practice of cremation has emerged in the Western world only in the past century or so. Christians today are often attracted to cremation for reasons of cost and/or saving the environment. The best way to handle such matters that are not clearly specified or given directives in Scripture is to show tolerance for the views of others and for each person to “be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
A prescribed selection of foods. The Mosaic law requires adistinctive diet for Israel that excludes, among other foods, camel,hare, rock badger, and blood (see Lev. 11; Deut. 14:1–21) andrequires a day-long fast on the Day of Atonement. The basis is notentirely clear. Some argue for a nutritional advantage to the diet;others view the commandments as an opportunity to express obedienceand self-discipline. Although God allows the consumption of the fleshof certain animals, but not their blood (Gen. 9:2–4; Lev.17:10–16), the ideal diet appears to be fruits, grains, andvegetables (Gen. 1:11–12; 2:5; Exod. 16; Dan. 1:11–16;Matt. 6:11). Israelites could also make a Nazirite vow, by which theyabstained from wine and anything derived from grapes (Num. 6:1–21;Judg. 13:5–7). John the Baptist adopted a restrictive diet oflocusts and wild honey, probably as an expression of mournfulfasting—a diet that Jesus departs from, leading to accusationsof him being a drunkard and glutton (Matt. 3:4; 9:14–17;11:16–19). Otherwise, the Bible eschews stringent asceticism.With rampant poverty and drought, few people then struggled with themodern preoccupation with overeating and becoming overweight (but seeJudg. 3:17). Within the bounds of moderation, humaneness towardanimals killed for food, and sensitivity to the conscience of others,Christians are free from restrictions concerning food (Mark 7:19;Rom. 14:14; Phil. 3:19). Like Paul, they may choose to adopt aNazirite vow (Acts 18:18) or observe other restrictions for the sakeof their conscience (e.g., vegetarianism), but they should do sowithout judging another’s diet.
Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.
Old Testament
According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.
The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.
First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.
Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).
Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.
A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”
New Testament
The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.
All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.
The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.
The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).
The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).
Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).
A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.
We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).
The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).
James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).
Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.
In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.
Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).
The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).
Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.
Summary
The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
Hope is one of the main themes of Scripture, and many ofthese hopes focus on the future. For example, Jeremiah gave hisfellow countrymen in the Babylonian captivity this promise: “ ‘ForI know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plansto prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and afuture’ ” (Jer. 29:11). The apostle Paul picks upthis theme of hope: “May the God of hope fill you with all joyand peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope bythe power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:13).
HopeBased on Promises
Abeliever’s hope focuses on several different kinds of promises.First, there are many promises of God’s assistance in thestruggles and difficulties of life. Paul, for example, concludes,“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angelsnor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will beable to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus ourLord” (Rom. 8:38–39). Christians can have the confidencethat “no temptation has overtaken you except what is common tomankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyondwhat you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide away out so that you can endure it” (1Cor. 10:13).
Second,believers also have promises that God will be with them and go withthem through the future experiences of physical suffering and death.Here the classic promise is found in words of the psalmist: “Eventhough I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, foryou are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Ps.23:4). It is because of promises such as this that Paul can wonderwhether it is better to die or to keep on living: “I am tornbetween the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which isbetter by far” (Phil. 1:23).
Third,there are promises related to the whole constellation of eventssurrounding Jesus’ return and the conclusion of human historyas we know it. Jesus’ return is described as “the blessedhope” (Titus 2:13). Furthermore, the trials and struggles ofthis present life will be over, and God will complete all histransforming work in our lives in one final moment of glorification.John describes this process this way: “When Christ appears, weshall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (in 1John3:2). The classic depiction of the future hope is in Rev. 21–22,when “ ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes.There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, forthe old order of things has passed away” (21:4).
ThePresent World and the Future Hope
Atthe same time, it is no secret that the broader culture does notaccept this future hope. Paul foresees, “The time will comewhen people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suittheir own desires, they will gather around them a great number ofteachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2Tim.4:3). Peter warns, “In the last days scoffers will come,scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Whereis this “coming” he promised? Ever since our ancestorsdied, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation’ ”(2Pet. 3:3–4). There is always the danger that “theworries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth” (Matt.13:22) will choke out and negate whatever positive spiritualinfluences a person has received in this present life.
Christiansare called to protect themselves from this danger of beingsidetracked by the attractions of this present world by learning tolive life with a daily sense of expectation for Jesus’ return.Three verbs stand out in the description of this proper lifestyle:(1)“watch,” in the sense of being spiritually alertand ready at any time (Matt. 25:13: “Therefore keep watch,because you do not know the day or the hour”; 1Thess.5:6: “So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, butlet us be awake and sober”); (2)“wait,” inthe sense of being prepared for a long wait (see the story of thefive foolish virgins in Matt. 25:1–13); and (3)“work,”making the best use of our time (see the parable of the talents inMatt. 25:14–30). Truly, “our salvation is nearer now thanwhen we first believed” (Rom. 13:11). The biblical teachings oneschatology are given not merely as information but rather totransform us. The future hope described in Scripture is repeatedlyused as the basis for exhortations as to how we should live our liveshere in the present. Jesus did not simply affirm that these greatevents were to occur; he also emphasized the appropriate behavior inlight of this future reality. “He who testifies to these thingssays, ‘Yes, I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus”(Rev. 22:20).
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.
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.
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
JudgmentDay in the Bible
Thebook of Revelation concludes with a harrowing vision of finaljudgment. On that day, when the God of all creation sits on his greatwhite throne and holds court, the dead will rise and answer for theirdeeds, whether good or bad (20:11–13). The record of eachperson’s conduct appears in books, one of which is the Book ofLife (20:12–13). Anyone whose name does not appear in the Bookof Life is thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).
Theapostle Paul refers to this same event in Acts 17:30–31. Allhuman beings will face their scheduled day in court, as God certifiedby raising Christ from the dead. It will be a day of wrath, amongother things, when God’s righteous anger against sin is fullydisplayed (Rom. 2:5). In the presence of this God, Isaiah proclaimedhimself to be ruined because of his sinfulness before the one who iscalled “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–5). Wetherefore confess with the author of Hebrews, who says, “It is[and will be] a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the livingGod” (Heb. 10:31).
Manyother texts of Scripture forecast the same event: judgment day iscoming, and nothing can stop it. They also describe this day inequally frightening terms, anticipating fire, darkness, and weepingfor some, but everlasting joy and peace for others. Even Christianswill be judged on this day, notwithstanding the promise ofeverlasting life for everyone who believes (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24;Rom. 3:21–24; 8:1–2; 2Cor. 5:21). In Rom. 14:10–12Paul says, “For we will all stand before God’s judgmentseat,” at which time, “each of us will give an account ofourselves to God.” Similarly, in 2Cor. 5:10 Paul warns,“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, sothat each one of us may receive what is due us for the things donewhile in the body, whether good or bad.”
Justificationand Judgment
Inthese texts, an apparent tension exists between the promise ofjustification, upon which all Christian hope stands, and thecertainty of final judgment, including the judgment of believers. Itwill not do simply to downplay the one or the other, as if thebiblical writers had not really intended one or both of them. Thesetexts say what they say, the good news no less plainly than the bad.Yet, closer inspection shows that the tension is merely apparent.
Wemust first recognize that Scripture treats piety as the evidence ofregeneration and saving faith. Jesus says that a “good tree,”which is a genuine disciple, bears good fruit (Matt. 7:17). That is,the observable righteousness of such a disciple will surpass thehypocritical casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Onjudgment day, therefore, no actual conflict will or ever could arisebetween the general tendency of the believer’s conduct and hisor her position in Christ. Over a lifetime, the believer’shabitual behavior will have differed fundamentally, though neversatisfactorily, from that of a lost person. As for unrepentantsinners, they will be sentenced to eternal damnation because of theirlawlessness (Rom. 3:9–19). Their conduct demonstrates that theyhave rejected the gospel and are deserving of wrath (Heb. 2:3). Thislinkage between justification and right conduct accounts for James’spolemical statement: “You see that a person is consideredrighteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).Abraham’s positional righteousness, secured by faith in whatGod would do on his behalf, became publicly evident through hisobedience (James 2:21–22).
Weshould also note the different purpose that God has in judging hischurch. One aspect of it certainly is to grasp the enormity of oursins, so that we might properly acknowledge the depth of his mercy onthat day. But also this judgment will occur in order to mete out thediffering rewards that Scripture anticipates for the people of God.The definitive text in this regard is 1Cor. 3:1–17, whichconnects the believer’s rewards and losses to the quality ofhis or her behavior within the body of Christ. Some are building onChrist, the sure foundation, using the available materials, and theyreceive their proper reward. Others build selfishly on themselves,with the result that they are saved, “though only as oneescaping through the flames” (1Cor. 3:15). In both cases,however, the question seems to be one of greater and lesser reward,as opposed to salvation or damnation. Even in hell itself, variousdegrees of suffering come into play. According to Jesus, one canreceive a heavy or light “beating” for disobedience,based on one’s prior knowledge of the master’s will (Luke12:47–48). Judgment day, therefore, should not frightenChristians. Jesus really did suffer the full measure of God’swrath against our sin. But this day reminds us that we areaccountable for what we do as his disciples, and it motivates theevangelism that we are commanded to practice.
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.
Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.
Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.
Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.
Reasons for Controversy
Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.
Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.
Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.
Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation
The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand yearsago.
Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.
1.The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.
2.How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.
3.A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.
4.A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.
5.The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.
Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.
The Resurrection and the Final Judgment
The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2Tim.4:1).
This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.
Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.
There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.
The Millennium
The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.
Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.
Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.
Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.
Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.
Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.
Heaven and Hell
God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).
The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.
Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.
Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.
The Benefits of Eschatology
Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.
A recurring theme in both Testaments involving freedom frombondage. God values liberty and expects his people to live in a waythat exhibits and promotes this value. The event of the exodus (Exod.12:31–14:31) is often referenced to encourage the people of Godto live in a way that encourages liberty (e.g., Exod. 22:21; Lev.25:10; Deut. 10:17–19; cf. Ezek. 46:17). Following God’sprecepts is considered walking in liberty (Ps. 119:45). Jesusexplains his ministry in terms of God’s liberation (Luke4:16–20; cf. Gal. 5:1). Liberty is valued not for its own sakebut rather for the freedom to follow God (Lev. 25:42; Rom. 14:7–8;1Cor. 6:12–20). Living in freedom must include living alife of love for others (1Cor. 8:9; 10:29).
A recurring theme in both Testaments involving freedom frombondage. God values liberty and expects his people to live in a waythat exhibits and promotes this value. The event of the exodus (Exod.12:31–14:31) is often referenced to encourage the people of Godto live in a way that encourages liberty (e.g., Exod. 22:21; Lev.25:10; Deut. 10:17–19; cf. Ezek. 46:17). Following God’sprecepts is considered walking in liberty (Ps. 119:45). Jesusexplains his ministry in terms of God’s liberation (Luke4:16–20; cf. Gal. 5:1). Liberty is valued not for its own sakebut rather for the freedom to follow God (Lev. 25:42; Rom. 14:7–8;1Cor. 6:12–20). Living in freedom must include living alife of love for others (1Cor. 8:9; 10:29).
Meat, or food,sacrificed to idols refers to animal offerings to pagan deities. Theexpression translates the Greek word eidōlothyton, meaning “idolsacrifice,” which was a wordplayon the pagan term hierothytos meaning “offered in a templesacrifice.” Consumption of this meat was prohibited for Gentileconverts by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29; 21:25) because it waslinked to pagan worship, especially when combined with sexualimmorality (cf. Ezek. 18:5–6, 15; 22:9; Rev. 2:14, 20).However, the ban eventually created problems for Christians (e.g.,dining out), as most meat markets in the Greco-Roman world obtainedtheir inventory from local temples (Rom. 14:21; 1Cor. 8;10:18–33). Paul therefore modified the teaching by upholdingthe prohibition in cases where eating the meat violated one’sconscience, harmed Christian witness, or caused a weaker Christian tostumble, but relaxing it in cases where partaking was a socialcourtesy or otherwise separated from pagan practice.
Those who bring rest, harmony, and well-being into theirenvironment. Jesus pronounces blessing upon peacemakers and promisesthat God will call them his children (Matt. 5:9; see also Rom. 14:19;Heb. 12:14). We are to make peace with God, other people, and therest of creation. Within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, thevehicles for peace are love and forgiveness (Matt. 5:39).
A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).
OldTestament
Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).
Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).
Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).
Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of theone praying.
Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.
Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.
NewTestament
Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.
Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).
Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.
Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.
Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).
TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).
Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).
A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).
OldTestament
Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).
Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).
Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).
Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of theone praying.
Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.
Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.
NewTestament
Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.
Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).
Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.
Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.
Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).
TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).
Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).
A distinction needs to be made between the variousoccurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer”in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of thesame words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “topray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer tothe act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do notnormally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think ofas being included in the act of praying, such as praise orthanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greekwords translated “topray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē)also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. Butother words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated“to pray” and “prayer,” and this article willdeal with the larger concept,including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposedto the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (seealso Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).
OldTestament
Inthe OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modernways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayerdoes not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer toGod, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray tohumans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction betweenthe sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in theOT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, suchas that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. Theseshould be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, butrather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” inrecognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. Inthe NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
Manyof the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context.God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithfulto those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OTprayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for boththose praying and God’s answering (1Kings 8:23–25;Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20;89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, andDaniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use ofprior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal)back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closenessengendered by the covenant relationship between God and his peoplewas unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel,“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near themthe way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”(Deut. 4:7).
Prayermust be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is noguarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28;Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” thatGod requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart”(Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).
Althoughseveral passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g.,Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in thelegal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions forthe kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connectionwith the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhapspostexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore nosacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asksGod to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and theevening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).
Apresupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and mayindeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is notprimarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of theone praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of theone praying.
Thereis a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in manyOT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people(Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’sjustice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s faceand demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37).The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps.89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebukeJeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignorethem or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encouragesuch honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.
Literarily,accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizationsof the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham,Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety andhumility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded inJon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on thepart of the reluctant prophet.
NewTestament
Thedepiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of theOT, but there are important developments.
Jesustells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt.6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship hasdemonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our“daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyondwhat was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverenceas well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Fatherin heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “HolyFather” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely inhis epistles using the word “Father” by itself, butinstead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7)and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our LordJesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf.Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Fatherbefore whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).
Prayerto God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20;John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as tothe exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the veryleast, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus wouldaffirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressedwill. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offeredis one that Jesus would approve.
Prayercan also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him inthe early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Theinstances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally eitherexclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to theFather, through Jesus’ name.
Unlikeanything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke23:34; Acts 7:60).
TheHoly Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we areable to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is tobe done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor.14:15).
Jesusencourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesusbecomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions(Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points(Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offersprayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers thatare (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and notgive up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overlyliteralized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb.5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and evennow, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, ourintercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb.4:14–16).
The state of remaining faithful to God in light of therevelation given to persons at their particular stage of redemptivehistory. Perseverance has always required a continued trust in God,obedience to his commands, and reliance upon his merciful provision.
OldTestament.In the OT, perseverance is related to the covenantal relationshipthat God had with his people. Abraham was the quintessential model ofperseverance, as he was faithful in waiting for God to provide himwith the heir that had been promised him. Israel had to persevere byremaining faithful to its covenant with God, which meant beingobedient to his commandments and decrees. In the subsequent historyof Israel, however, the nation lacked perseverance and fidelity andoften turned away from God to worship the gods of other nations.Indeed, the sweep of Israel’s history, according to theprophets, was that Israel had failed miserably at persevering in thecovenantal promises and thus had incurred God’s judgment (e.g.,Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:1–39; Dan. 9:4–19).
NewTestament.In the Gospels, Jesus is the ultimate example of the faithfulIsraelite and also provides many exhortations about perseverance inlight of the dawning kingdom of God. Jesus perseveres when tested bySatan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke4:1–13). The parables of growth warn about those who do notpersevere in their reception of the word (e.g., Luke 8:15). Enduranceunder the duress of eschatological trials is also the means by whichone gains one’s life (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke21:19). In his farewell speech in the Gospel of John, Jesus exhortshis disciples to abide in him as branches stay rooted in a vine orelse risk being cut off (John 15:1–11).
Inthe course of his letters, Paul has much to say about persevering infaithin Christ. Paul considers “endurance” (hypomonē) tobe among the cardinal qualities of a believer (Rom. 5:3–4;1Thess. 1:3; 2Thess. 1:4; 8:25; 1Tim. 6:11; Titus2:2). There is a sense in which God himself gives endurance to thebeliever (Rom. 15:5; Col.1:11; 2Thess. 3:5). Paul offers some stern warnings aboutapostasy and falling away (Rom. 11:21–22; 1Cor. 10:1–12;Gal. 5:4), but he also adds that Christians experience a sense ofassurance because God is “faithful” and will keepbelievers “blameless” on the day of Christ Jesus (1Cor.1:8–9; Phil. 1:10; 1Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Paul also writesthat nothing in creation can separate a believer from the love of Godin Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:31–39).
TheGeneral Epistles provide further teaching about perseverance. Jamescommends the virtue of perseverance that leads to maturity (1:3–4)and urges his audience to endure just as Job endured sufferings(5:11). Jude writes that believers should endeavor to “keepyourselves in God’s love” while also acknowledging thatGod himself will “keep you from falling” (vv. 21, 24).The book of Hebrews is built around the theme of perseverance andendurance, with key statements about not “drift[ing] away”(2:1) and the exhortation to “run with perseverance the racemarked out for us” (12:1).
Thebook of Revelation focuses strongly on persevering in light ofpersecution and hardship. In the letters to the seven churches thereis the repeated promise of the blessings that await those who“overcome,” which means enduring in the faith (2:7, 11,17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. 21:7). The churches of Asia Minorcorporately are admonished to remain faithful to the point of death(2:10) and in light of the coming judgment (14:12). Three times callsfor patient endurance are made (1:9; 13:10; 14:12). In Revelation,perseverance means holding to the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 17:6;19:10; 20:4).
Summary.Thebiblical teaching on perseverance attempts to balance divinesovereignty and human responsibility. The warnings of apostasy andthe promises of assurance are interwoven in such a way so as not tocompromise the grace and justice of God.
Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this daybelongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. Theterm itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions howhe was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” whenChrist commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10).There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture aboutthe identification of this day or how it was observed. Ourunderstanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages ofScripture touches on three separate issues.
Aspecial day.First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in aspecial way? At least some believers throughout history have believedthat it is possible to observe every day of the week as equallyspecial in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord hasmade; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paulregards the observance of special days for worship as an area ofChristian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacredthan another; another considers every day alike. Each of them shouldbe fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The sameprinciple is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyonejudge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religiousfestival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “theLord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during theweek when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.
Aspecific day.Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way?When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear:it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both theidea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day arebased ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. ThisSabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicatethat the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and theiranimals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15).Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews inthe present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-DayAdventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OTevidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day forworship.
Nevertheless,most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the earlychurch to gather together for worship on the first day of the week.Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. InActs 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supperspecifically “on the first day of the week,” and in1Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect anoffering specifically “on the first day of every week”(presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christianshave concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of theSabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16),and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “onthe first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).
Asacred day.Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and othersthroughout church history have considered Sunday as the ChristianSabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day ofthe week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age,but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for theSabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, mostChristians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,”when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OTceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working.Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering togetheron a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolvedaround various annual feasts and festivals when people would gathertogether at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year.The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during theBabylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue.Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer atransposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, andconsequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “theydevoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).
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.
Showing
1
to
50
of263
results
1. Parable of Conversion and Conversation
Illustration
"Mother, what do Christians talk about" asked John.
"Everything! But it is the way they talk that makes them Christians," said his mother.
Conversion implies a change from one condition to another and may hold also the meaning which changes human life to Godly living. Christians are engaged in the business of God which brings about conversion.
Conversation may be of such a light nature and of unimportant speech as to leave no impact. Nevertheless the words are related.
The conversation of a Christian, no matter how light its subject matter, can well reflect the love of God and of fellowman. And that conversation ought also to reveal nothing which is detrimental to man's faith. Thus, the hearer of Christian conversation may be impressed with the joy of living under God, whether deeply engaged in matters of conviction or lightly engaged in the pleasantries of daily experience.
We live by the Word, the Word of God. Our communications to one another are by our own words. Our words have power to cleanse, to love, to heal, to direct, to correct and to bless. Therefore, let us so choose our words that we may be God's children. Let the spirit of His Word be in our words bringing joy and understanding and fellowship with one another and with God.
Thus, conversion and conversation may fill the needs and the moods of life in harmony with God.
2. PARABLE OF THE BEST CHURCH
Illustration
"Mother, isn't our Church better than the one Eddie goes to?"
"Billy, we do not talk that way about places of worship," replied the mother. "God, our Heavenly Father, is worshiped in each place."
"But he says his is better," Billy persisted, "and I say it is not. Which of us is right?"
"Perhaps his is better for him, and ours is better for us. We do have a freedom of choice in America, and that is a fine blessing," stated the mother.
"What do you mean? One has to be better than the others, doesn't it?" asked the son.
Faced with the question while shopping for clothes, the mother used the material at hand to explain her answer. She pointed out the many different pairs of trousers on the counters. There are some that fit better than others, and even with the size correct her choice of color, style and purpose, as well as cost, would determine the selection. All the trousers were made to clothe the wearer, yet some were most suitable for work or play.
"Yes, there are some who will criticize you for what you wear, and for where you worship. But, Billy, you will come to know what fits best and feels best, and suits your needs. But you may proudly wear what you have chosen," reasoned the mother.
We are all made by the same Heavenly Father and dwell within the boundaries of what God has made for man. We worship Christ in many different ways. Some honor Him as a great Teacher, as a perfect Example, as the Son of God, and as a personal Saviour.
We all may honor Him in remembrance of the Words He spoke, "In this shall ye know my disciples, that ye love one another," and "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Each disciple saw Christ from his own point of experience and belief, but all sought to follow as best he knew how. Yet they quarreled among themselves.
Through our faith in God, Human hatreds are to be overcome by Godly Love.
3. Sacred Pleasures
Illustration
Leonard Sweet
There is an old Hasidic tradition. You may have heard of it before. A large drop of honey is placed on the first page of the Torah the first time a Jewish child opens the Bible to read and study it. The child is instructed to lick the honey from the page, forever imprinting the young scholar with the memory-paste of pleasure, the conviction that the study of God's "Word" is sweet.
It is what we are calling a "sacred pleasure."
4. JC = PJP!
Illustration
John H. Krahn
JC = PJP is the formula for a happy and successful life. The formula begins with a few shepherds and a suddenly-appearing angel who tells them of a wonderful event happening in Bethlehem. In this nondescript place, the Savior, Jesus Christ, is being born. The angel is now joined by the armies of heaven praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Peace came to earth as the Son of God struggled out of a human womb. God became man. The Prince of Peace was born. That peace can now become ours. For peace is to know Christ is mine and all is well.
Yes JC = P but it also equals J! With Jesus Christ and his peace also comes joy. Christianity is a religion of joy and enthusiasm. There is nothing dull about it! If you cannot stand excitement, it has little to offer you. Long faces and sad eyes are out of place. So if you see someone who does not have a smile, give him one of yours.
Jesus Christ equals Peace! Joy! and also Power! The Bible tells us that we now have the power for doing his will as we wait for the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of this power, Christianity is the religion of great possibilities. Saint Luke writes, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." When we know Jesus, even the impossible can become a possibility for our lives.
A successful and a happy life is one in which the Holy Spirit works the formula JC = PJP. For in Jesus Christ we can have the peace of God that the angels sang about. In Jesus Christ we can have great joy enabling us to sing all the way through life. In Jesus Christ we can have the power of God that even makes the impossible, possible.
5. The First Fruits of the Spirit
Illustration
Jane Shepherd
Do we have the first fruits of the Spirit? Can someone coming into our door to visit for the first time recognize these traits in us?
Love: do we love each other, and do we love those who are different from us? Do we love and welcome visitors, no matter who they are? Do we try to make their acquaintance, so that we can love them? Do we put their comfort above our own?
Goodness: Peter tells usto support our faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge. Our salvation is the result of God's goodness. Likewise, other persons should benefit as a result of our goodness. Our mission work should clearly show our faith in God's goodness.
Peace: Is there peace between us, and peace within us? Can someone tell by being with us, that we have a peaceful soul, based upon God as the source of all that we have?
Faithfulness: Is our steadfastness to Christ's church based upon an enduring loyalty that is true to God, no matter how we feel about the pastor, the district, the conference, the women's group, the organist, or any other facet of our organization?
Gentleness: Do we exhibit care and protection for all of God's creation? Are we gentle with the environment, with each other, and with ourselves?
Joy: Do we look joyous to the outsider? Do we feel joy inside? True joy in being a child of God should be able to override all unhappiness and bitterness we feel, and should be reflected in our total involvement in our worship.
Kindness: This action word can be directed outwardly or inwardly. Do we show compassion and generosity to others and ourselves?
Patience: How many of us are willing to let others (and ourselves) come along at each one's own pace? How many of us can forgive seven times seventy?
Self-Control: This is one of the hardest, and may include all of the others. This requires an inner discipline only manageable with the grace of God's Spirit to sustain us in our trials. Do we constantly pray for help in this area, and constantly call on God to help us? If not, we should.
6. When I Say I Am a Christian
Illustration
James W. Moore
In 1988, the poet Carol Wimmer, became concerned about the self-righteous, judgmental spirit she was seeing in some people because she felt strongly that being judgmental is a perversion of the Christian faith. So, she wrote a poem about this. It's called "When I say I am a Christian" and it reads like this:
"When I say, ‘I am a Christian,' I'm not shouting, ‘I've been saved!' I'm
whispering, ‘I get lost!' That's why I chose this way.
When I say ‘I am a Christian,' I don't speak with human pride. I'm
confessing that I stumble – needing God to be my guide.
When I say ‘I am a Christian,' I'm not trying to be strong. I'm professing
that I'm weak and pray for strength to carry on.
When I say ‘I am a Christian,' I'm not bragging of success. I'm admitting
that I've failed and cannot ever pay the debt.
When I say, ‘I am a Christian,' I don't think I know it all. I submit to
my confusion asking humbly to be taught.
When I say ‘I am a Christian,' I'm not claiming to be perfect. My flaws
are far too visible, but God believes I'm worth it.
When I say, ‘I am a Christian,' I still feel the sting of pain. I have my
share of heartache which is why I seek His name.
When I say, ‘I am a Christian,' I do not wish to judge. I have no
authority – I only know I'm loved."
7. 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.
8. The Peace that Jesus Gives
Illustration
Lee Griess
There is a road in southern Italy that begins in the city of Eboli and ends in the mountain village of Gagliano. To anyone who makes that journey, it is an ascent to hell. Gagliano is no more than a scattered cluster of fallen down whitewashed old buildings, hanging desperately to barren slopes near a rocky cliff. The village has been there for centuries and for as far back as the oldest person can remember it has always been a place of severe poverty, unrelenting disease, frightening superstition, monotonous despair, and death. Oppressed and defeated by those conditions, it is said that the peasants of Gagliano do not sing and there is a saying among them that "Christ stopped in Eboli," that somehow God had forgotten them and Christ stopped at the other end of the road. Because hope and joy, the fullness of human life that God means for us to have, are not found there, the road to Gagliano is a road that leads to hell.
Likewise, there are some stairs in a New York City tenement that go up six flights to an apartment that houses a family of ten -- a grandmother, her two daughters and their seven children. Anyone who has climbed those stairs and shared in the experiences of that family this past year has made an ascent to hell. Unemployed, with few or no job skills, the family subsists on welfare payments and the meager wages one daughter brings home from work at a fast-food restaurant. Often the heat does not work and there is no hot water. Many days there is no food, for alcohol and drugs often eat up their money. Five days before Christmas, while the grandmother was down on the first floor to fetch the mail, one of the little boys climbed up on the gas stove, turned it on and set himself ablaze. While the rest of the world was singing "Joy to the World," that family, already dead to the world around them, mourned the painful death of one of their children.
In another part of the world, there is a trail in eastern Turkey that winds its way through the rocky barrens to the squalor of a refugee camp. Here thousands of people are housed in makeshift tents -- tattered blanket homes. If you were to take that road and visit those camps, you would hike yourself into hell. Sickness and disease are rampant there. Death is a frequent visitor where fresh water and food are scarce and sanitary conditions are unheard of. The people who live in those camps are trapped -- unable to move forward into Turkey and, because of war and fighting behind, unable to go back to their homes.
In this so-called modern world, which is supposed to be undergoing a revolution of change in the direction of a "new world order," so many of its roads lead not up, or forward, into the future, but back and down into hell. Sickness stalks the streets of Zaire under the name of the Ebola virus. In fact, all over our world, and even here in the United States,there are streets and stairways, elevators and superhighways that lead to hell, places of evil where people are trapped in boredom, bigotry, loneliness, leukemia, poverty, psychosis, despair, and death.
Trouble is all about us and the words of Saint Paul ring true when he wrote, "Outwardly we are wasting away. Daily we are being given over to death." To us Jesus speaks this morning, saying, "Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled. Neither let them be afraid."
9. KNEELING TIME
Illustration
John H. Krahn
The greatest story of all time begins as silently as a single snowflake slowly drifting down into a quiet forest at midnight. "And in that region there were shepherds out in the fields keeping watch over their flock by night." Imagine the feeling of those shepherds as the sky filled with angels singing, "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men." No wonder they "came to the manger with haste" and arriving there they found the Holy Family. On the faces of our Lord’s parents was wonder and reverence mixed with gratitude and joy.
In the Ozark Mountains, I am told, there is an old legend that at midnight on Christmas Eve the cattle kneel in adoration of the Savior who came into their stable so many years ago. A part of the legend, however, is that they will not kneel if any human being is watching. That, of course, makes the story safe from prying, scientific eyes. We shall never be able to prove it or disprove it with our senses. But isn’t that the way Christmas is ... an intimate and ultimate experience which is forever beyond the eyes of proud minds.
Only the cattle know if they really kneel to the Savior at midnight - as only we ourselves know in the deepest regions of our hearts whether we too are really there at the manger. Christmas is kneeling time for the entire earth as the eyes of faith-filled hearts look upon the only-begotten Son of the Father. And as we look, our hard and distraught faces melt into expressions of joy and adoration. For those who kneel at the manger rise again, filled with the love of God which brings peace and joy to their lives.
10. The Testimony of a Good Conscience
Illustration
C.F.H. Henry
The glory of a good person is the testimony of a good conscience. A good conscience is able to bear very much and is very cheerful in adversities. An evil conscience is always fearful and unquiet. Never rejoice except when you have done well. You shall rest sweetly if your heart does not accuse you. Sinners never have true joy or feel inward peace, because 'there is no peace for the wicked,' says the Lord (Isaiah 57:21). The glory of the good is in their consciences, and not in the tongues of others, The gladness of the just is of God, and in God; and their joy is of the truth.
A person will easily be content and pacified whose conscience is pure. If you consider what you are within, you will not care what others say concerning you. People consider the deeds, but God weighs the intentions. To be always doing well and to esteem little of one's self is the sign of a humble soul. For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends, 'says Paul (2 Corinthians 10:18). To walk inwardly with God, and not to be kept abroad by any outward affection, is the state of a spiritual person. Conscience is that faculty in me which attaches itself to the highest that I know, and tells me what the highest I know demands that I do. It is the eye of the soul which looks out either toward God or toward what it regards as the highest authority. If I am in the habit of steadily facing toward God, my conscience will always introduce God's perfect law and indicate what I should do. The point is, will I obey? I have to make an effort to keep my conscience so sensitive that I walk without offense. I should be living in such perfect sympathy with God's Son that in every circ*mstance the spirit of my mind is renewed. The one thing that keeps the conscience sensitive to Him is the habit of being open to God on the inside. When there is any debate, quit. There is no debate possible when conscience speaks.
11. Letting God Bless You
Illustration
Joel D. Kline
In his book Letting God Bless You John Killinger concludes with the challenge:
Permit God to bless you. Don't look around you and think how hard life is. Look around and see how filled with mystery and goodness it is. See how wonderful the world looks when you know God is at work redeeming it and setting up the anti-structures, so that humility and purity and compassion and longing for justice and peace will all be fulfilled and rewarded in the eternal scheme of things.
Give thanks to God for the richness of existence.
Then look around to see who you can share it with.
That will make you even richer.
If you will learn to live this way every day, you will always have a song in your heart and the path before you will be lined with flowers. Joy will spring up inside you like a fountain, and you will lie down to sleep at night with peace in your soul. And you will say, "Blessed be the name of our God forever and ever, who calls us to a new rule where righteousness will be the order of the day forever!"
This Advent season, my friends, let us make the critical choice of permitting God to bless us and to fill us with a new sense of hope and purposeful living. Let us live in the assurance that the present darkness is not our final destination, that there is indeed much more yet to come. Along the way we will begin to experience joy springing up within us like a fountain. Thanks be to God, who blesses us with love and grace beyond measure.
12. The First and Last Things
Illustration
Brett Blair
H.G. Wells had thereputation as the apostle of scientific materialism and the deadly foe of organized faith. So it's surprising that in one of his most successful but least known novelsMr. Britling Sees It Through, he made a rather startlingly confession, or at least it appears to be a confession. It is generally thought that the characterMr. Britling is a surrogate for Wells. The characterexpresses asimple but clear faith, leaving no doubt as to the meaning. At first, his religious views are passionate, but notstrictly orthodox. Mr. Britling makes this confession, giving us a window into Wells' on beliefs:
"Religion is the first thing and the last thing, and until a man has found God and been found by God, he begins at no beginning, he works to no end. He may have his friendships, his partial loyalties, his scraps of honour. But all these things fall into place and life falls into place only with God. Only with God. God, who fights through men against Blind Force and Night and Non-Existence; who is the end, who is the meaning. He is the only King. . . . It was as if he had been groping all this time in the darkness, thinking himself alone amidst rocks and pitfalls and pitiless things, and suddenly a hand, a firmstrong hand, had touched his own. And a voice within him bade him be of good courage. . . . God was beside him and within him and about him."
Note: Wells, through the Britling Character,draws more a picture of a finite God rather than an Omnipotent Being, saying, "After all, the real God of the Christians is Christ, not God Almighty; a poor mocked and wounded God nailed on a cross of matter…. Some day He will triumph…. But it is not fair to say that He causes all things now. It is not fair to make out a case against him. You have been misled. It is a theologian’s folly. God is not absolute; God is finite…. A finite God who struggles in his great and comprehensive way as we struggle in our weak and silly way—who is with us..." Go Here for more.
13. The Spirit Bird
Illustration
John E. Sumwalt
One summer morning in a mission camp where I was serving as a teacher of Galatians to junior high youth, a bird appeared at morning devotions, and lighted on the head of one of the girls. From there the bird hopped to her arm and then onto the arm of another camper and then another. The bird seemed to be looking for someone. We learned later that it was indeed a tame bird, the pet of a camper in an adjoining camp. We were also told that some boys in our camp had thrown sticks at the bird and frightened it so much that it would not come out of the woods.
The following night, at campfire, one of the counselors got up during our sharing time and told this story. When the bird came among us yesterday morning I was reminded of another camp I attended many summers ago when we were visited by a bird in much the same way. It proved to be a most remarkable bird, and the wonders it worked among us I shall never forget.
It was larger than the bird we saw yesterday, about as big as a pigeon -- black on top with a snowy white breast -- with the most peculiar array of feathers I have ever seen. I have never seen one like it before or since. It came to bring us a blessing at a time when a blessing was very much needed. Our camp was full of dissension. The campers had little respect for the camp, for their fellow campers, or for the counseling staff. They wrote graffiti on the cabin walls and interrupted the counselors with obnoxious noises and giggling during evening devotions. Campers teased one another and called each other hateful names. The counselors had to break up several fights, including a food fight one day in the dining hall during lunch.
There was one boy who was older and bigger than the rest who was the instigator of much of the disharmony and fighting. His name was Johnny. He would start the teasing and then egg others on until a fight had erupted. He got the food fight going simply by daring one of the other boys to throw spaghetti at a group of girls. Conditions in the camp reached a low point when Johnny's cabin raided one of the other cabins. They dumped their luggage on the floor and threw their sleeping bags in the lake. The director tried everything she could think of to restore order, but nothing seemed to work. She was ready to call some of the parents and ask them to come and take their campers home. And then the bird appeared -- suddenly, as if out of nowhere -- on a cold and rainy evening as we were all gathered here around the campfire. It hopped softly and gently among us, flitting from one camper to another, lighting on a head here and an arm there, spreading joy and love as it went. The bird stayed with us for several days. Peace returned to our camp.
One of the counselors, a man in his 70s who had been coming to the camp for many years, told us one night at campfire that it was a spirit bird sent by God to show us how to live peacefully together. Johnny whispered to some of his friends that it wasn't true. He said it was an evil bird, and that if we didn't do something, it would spread disease and sickness throughout the camp. After the campfire Johnny's friends lured the bird into the woods with some bread left from their supper and then pelted it with sticks and stones until it was dead. Johnny watched from behind a tree, and later, when the director asked him what had happened to the bird, he claimed that he had had nothing to do with it.
The next day the old counselor and several of the campers carried the bird's body out to the meadow and laid it gently in a shallow grave beneath the shade of a small pine tree. Then they joined hands and prayed the Lord's Prayer. On the path back to the camp as the little band of faithful mourners sang "We Are One In The Spirit," Johnny and his friends jumped down from a tree from where they had been watching the burial and pelted them with water balloons.
Later that week Johnny plotted with his friends to raid one of the neighboring camps. They planned to soak their sleeping bags with water balloons. When they were about halfway down the path the spirit bird appeared suddenly over their heads, as if out of nowhere. It dove down and landed on Johnny's head with such force that he was knocked to the ground. Then the bird perched on his arm and spoke to him in a human voice. "Johnny, you cannot kill the spirit of God. Whenever I am struck down, I rise up with greater strength and power than before. I want you to go back to the camp and tell everyone that I am alive. Teach them to live by the Spirit."
Johnny went back to the camp and began immediately to tell everyone that the Spirit bird was alive. He became one of the most fervent followers of the Spirit, spreading love, joy and peace wherever he went. I know because I am Johnny. I am the one who caused the other campers to fight with each other and to kill the spirit bird. But since the spirit bird spoke to me, I have been living with the Spirit in my heart. I have not seen the spirit bird since that day on the path, but I see signs of its presence everywhere." Then the old counselor opened a pouch that he carried on his belt and took out a handful of black and white feathers. He walked around the fire circle and gave a feather to each camper and counselor. We closed our campfire that night by joining hands and singing, "We Are One In The Spirit."
Author's Note: This story is dedicated to the campers and counselors of the July 1990 Mission Camp at Lake Lucerne near Neshkoro, Wisconsin -- with special thanks to our director Karen King and my fellow teachers, Isabel Molina Jefferson and Dick and Pat Myer.
14. Carry Someone with You
Illustration
King Duncan
There was a tribe of Indians who lived a long time ago in the state of Mississippi. They lived next to a very swift and dangerous river. The current was so strong that if somebody happened to fall in or stumbled into it they could be swept away downstream.
One day the tribe was attacked by a hostile group of settlers. They found themselves with their backs against the river. They were greatly outnumbered and their only chance for escape was to cross the rushing river. They huddled together and those who were strong picked up the weak and put them on their shoulders; the little children, the sick, the old and the infirm, those who were ill or wounded were carried on the backs of those who were strongest. They waded out into the river, and to their surprise they discovered that the weight on their shoulders carrying the least and the lowest helped them to keep their footing and to make it safely across the river.
Jesus is trying to teach the disciples an object lesson about greatness, about servanthood, about leadership. He is saying to them and to us, "Have you lost the childlike joy and love and faith that once were yours?" He is also saying to them and to us, "If you want to walk on secure ground in this world it helps to carry someone with you."
15. EASTER POWER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Easter is a magnificent day! It is the most significant day of the entire year. It is a day of celebration ... the finest clothes, lilies trumpeting their beautiful fragrance, Christian fellowship, joyful greetings ... nothing can be too good. On Easter we celebrate new hope and the possibility of living life to its fullest. God is saying to us that his blessings and love are ours. Good and even great days are now possible for us with the best of days still to come in heaven.
What problems lurk in your life? Are you afraid of death? Are you afraid of life? Easter proclaims that you can be victorious over any problem that you might face. Victory can be yours by believing in Easter and by appropriating Easter into your daily life.
But what is Easter? Easter is power. The power of God released which raised a dead Son after he had been in the grave for three days. Many gravestones carry the inscription, "Here lies ...," but on Christ’s tomb are the words, "He is not here." In Joseph’s garden is history’s only empty grave. I believe Christ rose from the dead, and I believe the resurrection power of God is still being unleashed today.
God wants to resurrect us from whatever defeat is in our lives and then give us a victorious death. He wants to resurrect us from a life of loneliness and gloom into one of meaning and joy. He wants to resurrect us from a life deadened by fear to a life enlivened by confidence. He especially wants to resurrect us from our own personal death into his very own personal paradise.
So roll back the stone of any unbelief in your hearts, behold the glory of the empty tomb, and thrill to the power that can now be yours. Place your weak and trembling hand into his and say with Thomas, "My Lord and my God." Belief in Jesus and his resurrection is the key that delivers us from fear and sorrow. Jesus is the key to personal happiness, to peace, and to life everlasting. You can know this peace, you can know this joy, you can have this power, if today you will commit yourself to him, and then say with your whole heart, "I know that my Redeemer lives!"
16. Blessed Are They Who Find Christmas
Illustration
James Garrett
Blessed are they who find Christmas in the age-old story of a babe born in Bethlehem. To them a little child will always mean hope and promise to a troubled world.
Blessed are they who find Christmas in the Christmas star. Their lives may ever reflect its beauty and light.
Blessed are they who find Christmas in the joy of giving lovingly to others.They shall share the gladness and joy of the shepherds and wise men of old.
Blessed are they who find Christmas in the fragrant greens, the cheerful holly and soft flicker of candles. To them shall come bright memories of love and happiness.
Blessed are they who find Christmas in the happy music of Christmas time. They shall have a song of joy ever singing in their hearts.
Blessed are they who find Christmas in the message of the Prince of Peace. They will ever strive to help him bring peace on earth, good will to men (author unknown).
17. The Healing Power Of Faith
Illustration
Harold H. Lentz
The woman with the issue of blood had faith that by contact with Christ she could be cured. All around us in daily life are examples of people who, by faith, are overcoming life's difficulties.
A telephone linesman was up a pole when the pole, which was held in place only by cables, fell over him and he was dashed to the ground. His insides were badly crushed and as he was rushed to the hospital; there was little hope that he could survive. A pastor learned of the accident when the man's wife called from the hospital. She said that the very best surgeons in the community had operated but found that he was beyond repair and they had given up all hope. She had been informed that her husband would die within the hour. She asked the pastor to hurry to the hospital to baptize her husband before he died. The pastor entered the sickroom to find a patient with the color of death, too weak to speak. Quickly the pastor explained that God loved the patient. In a few words he explained that baptism makes one a child of God whose sins are forgiven through Christ's death on the cross. Then he asked the patient if he wished to be baptized. The man was too weak to do more than slightly shake his head in consent.
As the pastor left he asked the wife to call him when death came. The pastor got no call that day, nor through the following night. So the next morning he called the wife, who told him that her husband was still alive and some of his color had returned. He fell asleep after the pastor's visit, something he had not done since the accident, and he even ate some food for the first time. The man recovered completely and in a few months was once again climbing telephone poles. All medical help had proven of no avail, but evidently the introduction of faith, and the spiritual dimension, had caused the man to rally. It has been well said, that "more things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of."
18. FOLLOW THE LEADER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
A father was filling out the application form for his daughter who was seeking entrance to a very exclusive college. He came to the question on the form asking whether his daughter was a leader. In honesty he wrote, "No, but she’s a good follower." A few weeks later a letter arrived notifying him that his daughter had been accepted. At the bottom of the letter the dean had written, "Since the entering class of 500 has 499 leaders, we thought there ought to be one follower." Unlike the entering class of that college, the church has but one leader and many followers. Jesus Christ leads, we follow.
Remember when we, as children, played the game, "Follow the Leader"? To be a good player we had to keep our eyes on the leader and our mind on the game. As we anticipated the next action, we were able to follow it within a split second. It is difficult to follow our Lord’s lead when our eyes and minds wander away from him by focusing on ourselves or on plastic goals and desires. By plastic, I mean things that lack substance compared to love, joy, peace, patience, and kindness which the Bible describes as the fruits of knowing Christ and following him.
If you haven’t tasted joy for awhile and peace is something you have been longing for, consider getting your eyes back on the Leader. We do that by getting back into the Bible, by talking our life over with him in prayer, and by tasting his forgiveness at the Holy Communion table. Goodness, patience, and kindness can be ours as we follow the Leader.
And the ever popular concept of love ... what about that? The Lord, dwelling in the hearts of his followers, helps them develop a love that is fervent, hardy, and creative. A love that strains like a horse in full gallop. A love that endures like the strength of a long-distance runner. One that helps us create our own personality as we help others create theirs.
19. Fully Awake
Illustration
J. Ellsworth Kalas
The glory of God comes to us when we are most "fully awake." A list of the half-dozen or more true geniuses of human history would surely include the name of Blaise Pascal the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. In his brief 39 years, he made scientific discoveries which are basic to a great amount of our most significant contemporary knowledge.
But with all his ability in logic and all his commitment to tough-minded scholarship, Pascal found hisgreatest personalassurance, not in sciencebutin faith. On the evening of Monday, November 23, 1654, he felt the reality of Jesus Christ in such an intense waythat it changed him. Sothat he would never forget that moment and forget his Lord he he wrote his feelings down on parchment and sewed it into the lining of his coat,which he wore for the rest ofhis life. Here is some of what he wrote:
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob.
Not of the Philosophers and Scientists.
Certainty, Certainty, Feeling Joy, Peace.
God of Jesus Christ
May I not forget your words. Amen.
The words were found by his servant after his death nearly eight years later. For Pascal the greatest reality was not what he discovered in laboratory experiments, but what he found in his communion with God. It was at such a time that he was "fully awake."
Note: Here is the full writing as it appears on the parchment in his jacket:
Memorial
The year of grace 1654,
Monday, 23 November, feast of St. Clement, pope and martyr,
and others in the martyrology.
Vigil of St. Chrysogonus, martyr, and others.
From about half past ten at night until about half past midnight,
FIRE.
GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob
not of the philosophers and of the learned.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
GOD of Jesus Christ.
My God and your God.
Your GOD will be my God.
Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD.
He is only found by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Grandeur of the human soul.
Righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you.
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have departed from him:
They have forsaken me, the fount of living water.
My God, will you leave me?
Let me not be separated from him forever.
This is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God,
and the one that you sent, Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
I left him; I fled him, renounced, crucified.
Let me never be separated from him.
He is only kept securely by the ways taught in the Gospel:
Renunciation, total and sweet.
Complete submission to Jesus Christ and to my director.
Eternally in joy for a day’s exercise on the earth.
May I not forget your words. Amen.
20. Limiting Labels
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
In his novel The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald penned a sentence that begged serious reflection: “Reserving judgment is a matter of infinite hope.”
One of the most common and destructive ways we judge is to put people in boxes by pinning them with labels.
As a young preacher in Mississippi in the early ‘60s, I was labeled a liberal because of my stand on civil rights. When I left Mississippi and moved to southern California, I was soon labeled a conservative because I was evangelistic in my preaching and had a southern accent.
In both instances the labels were limiting. People heard me out of their own preconceptions of who I was and what I stood for.
When we reserve judgment, we’re saying, “There’s more to you than I now perceive. I will wait and be patient. I will seek to see clearly. I will not limit you with a label.”
Fitzgerald is right. “Reserving judgment is a matter of infinite hope.”
21. PRIEST
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Deuteronomy 26:4 - "Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God."
Among the nomadic tribes there was no developed priesthood. Religion partook of the general simplicity of desert life; apart from the private worship of household gods, the ritual observances were mainly visits to the tribal sanctuary to salute the god. with a gift of the first-fruits. These acts required no priestly aid; each man slew his own victim and divided the sacrifice in his own family circle; the share of the god was the blood which was smeared upon or poured out beside the stone set up as an altar. In the beginning, therefore, we find no trace of a sacrifical priesthood.
With the beginning of nationality, however, starting with the Exodus and developing into the Conquest, there was developed a unity of worship. However, even then, this unity was still not expressed in fixed institutions; the first-fruits were still a free gift, and every household represented and consumed them with his own family circle in a sacrificial meal without preistly aid.
In fact, rather than being just an officiator at sacrifice, the priest was the organ of revelation and he gave guidance in the ordinary affairs of life, the word for priest as adopted by the Hebrews from a Canaanite word, means "soothsayer," or "revealer." So, then, the function of the early priests was to reveal the word of God, either by reference to a legal code which contained the revealed will of God and the accumulated experience of the past.
Even after the people settled and sancturies were built, the role of the priest continued to be more of a judge than the person we think of as offering sacrifice. However, as more and more sanctuaries appeared and the Hebrews absorbed more of the ways of their neighbors, and, ultimately, with the establishment of the monarchy, a more and more elaborate ritual developed that required a professional priesthood.
There were regular public offerings maintained by the king and offered by the priests; private sacrifices required priestly aid; their judicial functions also brought them profit, since fines were exacted for certain offenses and paid to them. The greater priestly offices were therefore in every respect very important places, and the priests of the royal sanctuaries were among the grandees of the realm, but there is no indication of a hierarchy existing by divine right.
It was in post-exilic Israel that the priesthood as we usually think of it came into existence, although the reform by Josiah in 621 B.C. gave the prerogative of sacrifice to the priests alone. Already in the time of Josiah, altar service and not the judicial or "teaching" function had become the essential thing, but by the time of Ezekiel it had mainly to do with ritual, with the distinction between holy and profane, clean and unclean, with the statutory observances at festivals and the like.
The holiness of Israel centered in the sanctuary, and round the sanctuary stood the priests, who alone could approach the most holy things without profanation, and who were the guardians of Israel’s sanctity, partly by protecting the one meeting place of God and man from profane contact, and partly as mediators of the continual atoning rites by which breaches of holiness are expiated. In the old kingdom the priests had shared the place of the prophets as the leaders of thought were the psalmists and the scribes, who spoke much more directly to the piety of the nation.
From the foundation of the Hasmonean state to the time of Herod the history of the high priesthood merges into the political history of the nation; from Herod onward the priestly aristocracy of the Sadducees lost its chief hold over the nation and expired in vain controversy with the Pharisees.
Today, aside from the Roman Catholic Church, and the High Episcopal Church, we prefer to use the term "pastor" rather than priest for our spiritual leaders. But we must recognize the influence of the Hebrew priesthood on the thought and organization of Christendom. Two main points were taken over - the doctrine of priestly mediation and the system of priestly hierarchy. We cannot here go into doctrinal matters, but it is enough to say that the concepts of sacrifice which are still retained in the Roman system are the stumbling-block on which Protestant apologists fall. Within the Roman Church the old priestly system still is evident in many ways.
22. Built Upon Love
Illustration
Brett Blair
Lebanon innorthern Israel has rocky hillsides, while the valleys, where the rivers run, are sandy because of erosion coming down from higher ground. A village builder in Jesus' day had two choices. They did not excavate foundations. You built a house in the valley on sandy soil or on a rocky hillside. Valley buildingwas easier, but hillside was safer. Hillside builders planned for the worse; valley builders hoped for the best. Whenthe winter rains come in a rush, a dry creek bedquickly becomes a torrent that sweeps all away. Hard rain andstrong winds: it blew and beat on both houses. They look alike, but when the storm passes, and flash floods rage only one remains. Same materials, different foundations. The imagery is not about the troubles of this life, though that might not be a bad secondary application; it is about the final judgment of God pictured as a sudden storm that tests everything all at once.
Which foundation are you building your house on? It's a simple question whose message is clear. Build your house on the foundation of love, joy, peace, forgiveness. And nostorm,nowind,no flood will take your home away.
23. The Moral Character of God
Illustration
James Packer
Why do men shy away from the thought of God as a judge? Why do they feel unworthy of him? The truth is that part of God's moral perfection is his perfection in judgment. Would a God who did not care about the difference between right and wrong be a good and admirable being? Would a God who put no distinction between the beasts of history, the Hitlers and Stalins (if we dare use names), and his own saints be morally praiseworthy and perfect? Moral indifference would be an imperfection in God, not a perfection. And not to judge the world would be to show moral indifference. The final proof that God is a perfect moral being, not indifferent to questions of right and wrong, is the fact that he has committed himself to judge the world.
It is clear that the reality of divine judgment must have a direct effect on our view of life. If we know that retributive judgment faces us at the end of the road, we shall not live as otherwise we would. But it must be emphasized that the doctrine of divine judgment, and particularly of the final judgment, is not to be thought of primarily as a bogeyman, with which to frighten men into an outward form of conventional righteousness. It has its frightening implications for godless men, it is true; but its main thrust is as a revelation of the moral character of God, and an imparting of moral significance to human life.
24. Bless That Weak Message
Illustration
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, known as "the prince of preachers," felt he delivered his sermon so poorly one Sunday that he was ashamed of himself. As he walked away from his church, the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, he wondered how any good could come from that message. When he arrived home, he dropped to his knees and prayed, "Lord God, You can do something with nothing. Bless that poor sermon."
In the months that followed, 41 people said that they had decided to trust Christ as Saviour because of that "weak" message. The following Sunday, to make up for his previous "failure," Spurgeon had prepared a "great" sermon but no one responded.
Spurgeon's experience underscores two important lessons for all who serve the Lord. First, we need the blessing of God on our efforts. Solomon said in Psalm 127:1, "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it." And second, our weakness is an occasion for the working of God's power. The apostle Paul said, "I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor. 12:10).
25. Parable of the Rich Man's Wife
Illustration
Staff
Two couples stood at the altar in a double wedding ceremony. Capable, hopeful, ambitious young people they entered the ways of wedded bliss with faith and confidence.
As time wrote its story the one young man was exceedingly successful in business and year by year his income grew larger.
The other young man was successful, but his work of service never made him rich in income.
Strangely as the wealthy business man grew richer, his wife became less and less capable; so that her duties as wife, mother and homemaker became more of a burden and the care of her home and children was taken on by servants. Boredom and drink consumed her days until she became a weak and unbalanced person.
The second wife knew she was needed and carried a full load of responsibility in working with her husband to raise family, carry the cost of living and render community service.
The experiences of success and failure cemented their marriage in a commoness of understanding, which made them confident personalities and happy individuals.
By worldly gain and eminent business success the first couple wrote its social achievements with a mansion and automobiles. The second couple wrote its story in service and activity.
Wealth may impower us to do good or evil to ourselves and to others. When we measure the program and progress of our lives, we may enrich or impoverish our souls. We cannot neglect the feeding of the mind and soul with heavenly riches without severely penalizing our lives.
In the ease of the double wedding, which husband was rich?
26. Joy Is Not The Opposite Of Faith
Illustration
Robert Beringer
After a service of ordination to the Christian ministry, a sad-faced woman came up to the newly-ordained pastor and said, "It's a grand thing you are doing as a young man - giving up the joys of life to serve the Lord." That woman's attitude reflects a commonly held belief that to be serious about our faith means that we expect all joy to be taken out of living. For many, Christianity appears to be a depressing faith, with unwelcome disciplines, that cramps our lifestyle and crushes our spirits.
In one Doonesbury cartoon, an officer is standing by the bedside of a Navy sailor who is in sick bay aboard a cruiser. The officer says, "We've got you scheduled for surgery at four bells tomorrow! Your surgeon will be Commander Torres." As he leaves the officer says, "Well, take care, sport. I'll see you tonight during rounds." The sailor is puzzled and says to the officer, "What exactly do you do here?" The officer replies, "I'm ship's morale officer." And wide-eyed, the sailor says, "You mean, a ... a chaplain?" And the officer replies, "No. No. I really do cheer people up!"
How sad that this word joy which Isaiah uses so many times in our text for today is so often thought to be the very opposite of faith! What a commentary that is on we Christians who seem to be saints with sour faces - people who talk about rejoicing before the Lord but who give little evidence of that joy in our living. When you turn to the pages of the Bible, you find that word joy or its variants being used more than 350 times in the scriptures. Isaiah speaks here of a new beginning in the history of Israel. The prophet foresees a time of light and peace after the terrible suffering Isaiah has endured in the long and oppressive reign of Tiglath-Pileser.
27. BE EASTER PEOPLE
Illustration
John H. Krahn
After the tomb was found empty and Jesus appeared to the early church on many occasions, doubt disappeared, and the early church had overwhelming confidence in the Lord. The church today must live and be about its ministry with the same Easter confidence. We say we rely on God’s mercy for our salvation; we need to give over all areas of our lives to God’s control. What aspects of ourselves are outside God’s control? Our temper? Our money? Our time? We need join the psalmist and say, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Our trust in the Lord must be complete. We are no longer defeated people but powerful Easter people. Little children in danger or in despair literally run and throw themselves into the arms of their mother. This is confident faith. When was the last time we ran and thrust ourselves onto the Lord? A cautious step in his direction is better than none at all, but believing with abandonment is called forth by an empty tomb. God wants us to fall head over heels in love with him so he can bring the greatest joy and purpose possible into our lives.
God also encourages us to hold fast to hope without wavering. Scripture says, "Where there is no hope, the people perish." Too many of us view too much of our lives and the world as hopeless. Without hope, no great strides will be made in the future; there is no venturesome faith without hope. Without hope we burrow into the ground and live the life of a mole instead of walking freely in God’s sunlight. In a difficult situation, a hopeful people find the challenge and opportunity to do something great with God.
Confident in our faith, with an unwavering hope, the Lord also encourages us to stir up one another to love and good works. We must do something. Faith and hope must move from the abstract to the particular.
Easter people are called upon to celebrate the Festival of the Resurrection each Sunday, for each Sunday is a little Easter. "... Not neglecting to meet together," is how it is written in Hebrews. To break fellowship with the worshiping community is to pursue a weakening faith. It is also a form of denial of all that Christ means. True faith, strong faith, is never faith in isolation but must always be faith shared and strengthened through regular worship. We must encourage one another to be regular in worship and strong in the faith.
The end is drawing near. The Lord will return soon to reclaim his fallen creation. When the Lord of the church comes again, how will he find us? Will we be acting like people who have been touched by the meaning of the cross and the empty tomb? Therefore, let us continue to draw near to the Lord with a true heart and a confident faith. We hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering. We consider how to stir up one another to love and good works. We do not neglect to worship but encourage one another. In sum, we will all be Easter people.
28. You Have Judged Yourself
Illustration
Brian Stoffregen
A story related to this text has a group of the very pious waiting in heaven for the judgment. As they are waiting and complaining about the wait, they begin to see some of the "sinners" they knew on earth coming into the waiting room: a corrupt politician, an itinerant woman who had been convicted of shoplifting numerous times, a prostitute, a drug addict, a man who spent most of his life in prison, etc.
With each of these arrivals, the feeling of hostility increased in the first group. They glare at the others. They talk among themselves. Within a short time, words were spoken to those others, "What makes you think you're going to get in with that evil, sinful life you lived on earth?"
"We're relying on the mercy and grace of God. What makes you so sure you're going to get in?"
"Our good lives, of course." They turned their backs to the others.
Time began to drag on for the first group. They began to complain to one another. "If those other people get in, there's no justice. After all the sacrifices we've made. It's not fair."
The Lord arrived. He turned towards the first group, "I understand you've been wondering why there has been no judgment."
"Yes!" they cried out. "We want a judgment. We want justice."
"The judgment has already taken place. You've judged yourselves. By judging these, the least of my brothers and sisters, you have judged yourselves. In rejecting them you have rejected me. You have shown yourselves unworthy of the kingdom of God."
Hare says something similar in his conclusion to this section: "We are defiled, Jesus tells us, by the unloving words that spring so readily from our mouths."
29. The One I Loved the Most
Illustration
Donald J. Shelby
Journalist Bill Ritter tells of a TV interview that once caught his attention. The person being interviewed was a heroic mother who had single-handedly raised a large family. In spite of all the frustrations, disappointments and obstacles, she had persevered and every one of her children had made remarkable achievements, not only in their schooling but also in their vocation. It was an inspiring story worth celebrating, for it revealed the heights and depths of human greatness. During the interview, the mother was asked her secret by the reporter who said, 'I suppose you loved all your children equally, making sure that all got the same treatment?'
"The mother replied, 'I loved them. I loved them all, each one of them, but not equally. I loved the one the most that was down until he was up. I loved the one the most that was weak until she was strong. I loved the one the most that was hurt until he was healed. I loved the one the most that was lost until she was found."'
30. Demosthenes on the Podium
Illustration
Jay Oswald Sanders
When Demosthenes, the famed Greek orator, first spoke in public, he was hissed off the platform. His voice was harsh and weak and his appearance unimpressive. He determined that his fellow citizens would yet appreciate his words, so he practiced day and night. He shaved half his head so no one would want to invite him to social events. To overcome a stammer, he recited with pebbles in his mouth and yelled against the thunders of the Aegean Sea so his voice would get louder. He stood beneath a suspended sword to train himself not to favor a shoulder that kept hitching. He practiced facial expressions in front of a mirror. It's not surprising that when he next appeared in public he moved the Greek nation.
He and another orator spoke on a matter of national concern. When his companion concluded his speech, the crowd said, "What marvelous oratory!" But when Demosthenes finished, they cried with one voice, "Let us go and fight!"
Note: The legend is basically true though details are hard to verify. Clickhere for more information.
31. Overcoming Temptation and Spiritual Growth
Illustration
Fulton J. Sheen
John the Evangelist, who is praised for his charity, once induced his mother to use political influence, and on another occasion, when the city of the Samaritans rejected our Lord, he and his brother, James, asked our Lord to rain down fire from the heaven and destroy the city. This was not charity. In fact, there must have been a tendency to hate in John, for not without aptness did his master call him who wanted to send down lightening, a Son of Thunder. But some time or other in John's life, he seized upon the weak spot in his character, namely, want of kindness to fellow man, and through cooperation with grace, he became the great apostle of charity.
The Temptations of the saints were for them opportunities of self-discovery. They revealed the breaches in the fortress of their souls that needed to be fortified, until they became the strongest points. This explains the curious fact about many saintly people, that they often become the opposite of what they seemed to be. When we hear of the holiness of certain souls, our first reaction is: "I knew him when...." Between the "then" and the "now" has intervened a battle, in which selfishness lost and faith won.
32. I WANT TO BE NOTICED
Illustration
John H. Krahn
How many hairs on a human head? Have you ever stopped long enough to count yours? Even to count the hairs on a balding head would be nearly impossible. Who cares anyway? God does! "Even the hairs on your head are all numbered," the Bible says. So intimate is God’s interest in you that he keeps a personal count of every hair on your head.
Everyone goes through life wanting to be noticed. Few view life as a terminal illness. Few live in perpetual apathy. Friends and fame are sought by most. Success in sports, in business, with the opposite sex is important. We want our lives to count. "He’s a great guy," is the least we want to hear about ourselves.
But few lives are even second page news. Most are not distinctive at all. At the end they can be encapsulated in a simple dash ... John Doe, 1924-19__. A lifetime summarized so briefly.
Jesus said things can be different for you. There is life after birth. Good life. Meaningful life. Abundant life. When you permit Christ in your life, he brings with him the gifts of joy, peace, and happiness. Purpose and direction for living become apparent to you. Saying yes to the Lord is saying yes to yourself and the full life God wants you to have.
There is also life after death. During his life, Jesus spoiled every funeral he ever went to ... even his own. After his crucifixion they buried him, but he did not stay buried. He is also willing to spoil your funeral if you will only let him. Letting him means believing that in Jesus there is forgiveness for your shortcomings and wrong actions ... that in Jesus there is a bridge from this life into eternity.
The next time you comb your hair, making sure each piece is in place, remember who cares enough to subtract the several strands that inevitably come out in the comb. Even the seemingly insignificant aspects of your life are noticed by God. He cares that much for you.
33. Waiting - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
As a child I remember that the most difficult part of Christmas was simply waiting for it to come. From Thanksgiving to December 25 seemed more like an eternity than a month. Days seemed like weeks. Weeks felt like seasons. Time seemed to stand still.
Waiting is foreign to our society. It seems unnatural. We hunger for immediate gratification. The idea of delayed satisfaction is a stranger to our thinking.
The symbols of our unwillingness to wait are all around us. Fast food chains boom because we don't have time to eat. We stand in crooked lines, then yell out an order, get it down in five minutes and then get back to the rat race. We haven't got time to sit down and read a book anymore. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that we have condensed versions of the Bible. In kitchens all over America there are gadgets to get the meal prepared quickly. I would guess Mr. Coffee started it all. Simply spoon in the coffee and pour water. The coffee is made before you can even find a cup. When we become sick we want to be made well now, not later. Medicine, doctors, pastoral care and love are often rejected if they are not swift.
I, like you, accept most of our no—wait approach to life, with the exception of instant potatoes, which are intolerable. But the truth is that, though we do not like waiting, waiting is a part of living. We must wait for payday, a break, quitting time, and for the mailman. When you do your Christmas shopping, you had certainly better be prepared to wait in a line to get checked out, wait to get a parking place, and wait through at least four red lights before making a left hand turn on Poplar Ave.
But there are also very serious matters for which we wait. Some wait for health to return, some for the coming of food stamps, some for marriage or remarriage. We must wait for peace. A scared child waits for the coming of morning, and a scared adult awaits death. And an expectant mother waits for delivery. Waiting can be pure agony. It's like the jury is out.
The problem is that scripture time and time again tells us that God's clock is wound in a different way. Time is different to him. We look at seconds; he looks at the ages. Waiting, not hurrying is one of his characteristics. And this waiting God tells his people that often, they too must wait.
And that is where the story of Christmas really begins. It begins thousands of years before the birth of Christ. They longed for that one who would bring light out of darkness, and make the blind to see. They
Longed for that one who would turn their sorrow into joy, and vanquish their enemies. But, God said, you must wait. Let us look at how God's people have waited throughout the ages…
1. Waiting in the Old Testament
2. John the Baptist's Waiting
3. The Waiting in Advent
34. Floodlight Ministry
Illustration
James Packer
The Holy Spirit's distinctive role is to fulfill what we may call a floodlight ministry in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. So far as this role was concerned, the Spirit "was not yet" (John 7:29, literal Greek) while Jesus was on earth; only when the Father had glorified him (John 17:1, 5) could the Spirit's work of making men aware of Jesus' glory begin.
One pastor recalls walking to church one winter evening to preach on the words, "He will glorify me" (John 16:14), seeing the building floodlit as he turned a corner, and realizing that this was exactly the illustration his message needed. When floodlighting is well done, the floodlights are placed so that you do not see them; in fact, you are not supposed to see where the light is coming from; what you are meant to see is just the building on which the floodlights are trained. The intended effect is to make it visible when otherwise it would not be seen for the darkness, and to maximize its dignity by throwing all its details into relief so that you can see it properly. This perfectly illustrated the Spirit's new covenant role. He is, so to speak, the hidden floodlight shining on the Savior.
Or think of it this way. It is as if the Spirit stands behind us, throwing light over our shoulder on to Jesus who stands facing us. The Spirit's message to us is never, "Look at me; listen to me; come to me; get to know me", but always, "Look at him, and see his glory; listen to him and hear his word; go to him and have life; get to know him and taste his gift of joy and peace." The Spirit, we might say, is the matchmaker, the celestial marriage broker, whose role it is to bring us and Christ together and ensure that we stay together.
35. Wait on the Lord
Illustration
James Packer
Grace is God drawing sinners closer and closer to him. How does God in grace prosecute this purpose? Not by shielding us from assault by the work, the flesh, and the devil, nor by protecting us from burdensome and frustrating circ*mstance, not yet by shielding us from troubles created by our own temperament and psychology, but rather by exposing us to all these things, so as to overwhelm us with a sense of our own inadequacy, and to drive us to cling to him more closely.
This is the ultimate reason, from our standpoint, why God fills our lives with troubles and perplexities of one sort and another it is to ensure that we shall learn to hold him fast. The reason why the Bible spends so much of its time reiterating that God is a strong rock, a firm defense, and a sure refuge and help for the weak is that God spends so much of his time showing us that we are weak, both mentally and morally, and dare not trust ourselves to find or follow the right road. When we walk along a clear road feeling fine, and someone takes our arm to help us, likely we would impatiently shake him off; but when we are caught in rough country in the dark, with a storm brewing and our strength spent, and someone takes our arm to help us, we would thankfully lean on him. And God wants us to feel that our way through life is rough and perplexing, so that we may learn to lean on him thankfully. Therefore he takes steps to drive us out of self-confidence to trust in himself, to in the classic scriptural phrase for the secret of the godly man's life "wait on the Lord."
36. IN SEARCH OF HAPPINESS AND SUCCESS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Often in counseling I ask the question, "Given all the positive and negative forces in your life, when you put it all together, are you basically happy?" When a person says, "No," I realize that we have work to do.
I believe that Jesus Christ is at the center of personal happiness and a successful life. To live a life favorable to him is to permit God’s Spirit to exert control over our lives. And if we permit his control of our lives, then his will becomes our will. And what is Christ’s will? Jesus once said, "I came that you might have life and have it more abundantly." His will is that we have happiness and purpose in life.
I would like to suggest what I call the three P’s to developing a relationship with God. They are: People, Prayer, and Pursuit. Sort of three P’s in a pod - the pod, or encompassing factor, is God himself.
Our first P is for People. It is difficult to discover God in a vacuum. On several occasions teenagers leaving for college have told me that they didn’t plan to attend church at college. They wanted to use the time in college to make up their own minds about God. Taking such a position, they cut off one of the surest ways to experience God - being around people whose lives are God-touched. If your faith ever becomes weak, that is the time when your church attendance and your activity with other Christians need to be the most intense. God will use his people to reach out to you if you don’t avoid them.
Our second P in a good relationship with God is prayer. God is not the Tooth Fairy who has an unlimited source of extra money to solve all problems. God is not an escape artist to invoke when all else fails. A powerful prayer life must also be a consistent prayer life as we try to discover God’s will for our lives. Let me try to illustrate. If you’re in a little boat approaching a sandy beach and you throw out the anchor, and it digs into the sand, and you pull on the anchor rope until the boat slides into the sand, what have you done? Have you moved the shore to the boat, or have you moved the boat to the shore? Of course, you’ve moved the boat to the shore. The purpose of prayer, likewise, is not to move God and heaven to you, but to move you until you want what God wants.
Our third P is pursuit. To know God and his will we must pursue our Christianity as we pursue any other worthwhile endeavor. We must be disciplined as Christians, not only in weekly worship, but also in studying his Word, and in taking the opportunity to touch others with his love. We do not pursue God in order to have God on our terms, but to discover his terms and follow them to a happy and successful life.
Make a very deep commitment of your life to Jesus Christ. People, prayer, and pursuit will help you along the way in your search for happiness and success.
37. Wing of Faith
Illustration
Richard S. McDermott
Michael Novak is the author of the book entitled, “On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.” In this book, Novak suggests the American experiment is symbolized by an eagle flying with two wings. One wing is the common sense of plain reason coming out of the Enlightenment and embodied in the writings of Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke. The other wing of the American experiment is the humble Christian faith held by virtually all of the approximately 100 men considered to be founders of our country, as well as the faithful women who were their wives, like Martha Washington and Abigail Adams.
Unfortunately, the way the story of the United States has been told for the past one hundred years, in both culture and academy, this wing of faith has been largely ignored or given short shrift. Novak says, “[The telling] has cut off one of the two wings by which the American eagle flies, her compact with the God of the Jews--the God of Israel championed by the nation’s first Protestants--the God who prefers the humble and weak things of this world, the small tribe of Israel being one of them; Who brings down the mighty and lifts up the poor; and Who has done so all throughout history, and will do so till the end of time. Believe whether there is such a God or not--the founding generation did, and relied upon this belief. Their faith is an “indispensable” part of the story.”
38. From A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23
Illustration
Phillip Keller
As I have moved among men and women from all strata of society as both a lay pastor and as a scientist I have become increasingly aware of one thing. It is the boss, the manager, the Master in people's lives who makes the difference in their destiny.
I have known some of the wealthiest men on this continent intimately—-also some of the leading scientists and professional people. Despite their dazzling outward show of success, despite their affluence and their prestige, they remained poor in spirit, shriveled in soul, and unhappy in life. They were joyless people held in the iron grip and heartless ownership of the wrong master.
By way of contrast, I have numerous friends among relatively poor people—-people who have known hardship, disaster and the struggle to stay afloat financially. But because they belong to Christ and have recognized Him as Lord and Master of their lives, their owner and manager, they are permeated by a deep, quiet, settled peace that is beautiful to behold.
It is indeed a delight to visit some of these humble homes where men and women are rich in spirit, generous in heart and large of soul. They radiate a serene confidence and quiet joy that surmounts all the tragedies of their time.
They are under God's care and they know it. They have entrusted themselves to Christ's control and found contentment.
39. A Higher Priority
Illustration
Brett Blair
At the Olympic games in Paris in 1924 the sport of canoe racing was added to the list of international competitions. The favorite team in the four-man canoe race was the United States team. One member of that team was a young man by the name of Bill Havens.
As the time for the Olympics neared, it became clear that Bill's wife would give birth to her first child about the time that Bill would be competing in the Paris Games. In 1924 there were no jet airliners from Paris to the United States, only slow-moving ocean-going ships. And so Bill found himself in a dilemma. Should he go to Paris and risk not being at his wife's side when their first child was born? Or should he withdraw from the team and remain behind. Bill's wife insisted that he go to Paris. After all, he had been working towards this for all these years. It was the culmination of a life-long dream.
Clearly the decision was not easy for Bill to make. Finally, after much soul searching, Bill decided to withdraw from the competition and remain behind with his wife so that he could be with her when their first child arrived. Bill considered being at her side a higher priority than going to Paris to fulfill a life-long dream.
To make a long story short, the United States four-man canoe team won the gold medal at the Paris Olympics. And Bill's wife was late in giving birth to her first child. She was so late that Bill could have competed in the event and returned home in time to be with her when she gave birth.
People said, "What a shame." But Bill said he had no regrets. After all, his commitment to his wife was more important then, and it still was now. Bill Havenspaid a high price to fulfill a commitment to the one he loved.
NOTE: If the above illustration is used offer this sequelas the ending of your sermon:
There is a sequel to the story of Bill Havens. The child eventually born to Bill and his wife was a boy, whom they named Frank.Twenty-eight years later, in 1952, Bill received a cablegram from Frank. It was sent from Helsinki, Finland, where the 1952 Olympics were being held. The cablegram read, and I quote it exactly: "Dad, I won. I'm bringing home the gold medal you lost while waiting for me to be born."
Frank Havens had just won the gold medal for the United States in the canoe-racing event, a medal his father had dreamed of winning but never did.
There is a sequel to our acts of commitment as well, our commitments to one another, and our commitment to God. In these sacrifices we make here in this life, we may...miss out. But, we shallreceive a harvest of righteousness, aharvest of joy and peace that will endureforever.
40. Where Is Heaven?
Illustration
Billy Graham
What is heaven going to be like? Just as there is a mystery to hell, so there is a mystery to heaven. Yet I believe the Bible teaches that heaven is a literal place. Is it one of the stars? I don't know. I can't even speculate. The Bible doesn't inform us. I believe that out there in space where there are one thousand million galaxies, each a hundred thousand light years or more in diameter, God can find some place to put us in heaven. I'm not worried about where it is. I know it is going to be where Jesus is. Christians don’t have to go around discouraged and despondent with their shoulders bent. Think of it—the joy, the peace, the sense of forgiveness that He gives you, and then heaven, too.
41. A Shoe Clerk Named Moody
Illustration
Brett Blair
How did Billy Graham become aChristian? Well, let me lay it out for you.
- A 19th century Sunday School teacher named Kimball led a shoe clerk named Moody to Jesus Christ.
- Dwight L. Moody became a famous evangelist who influenced Frederick B. Meyer to preach on college campuses.
- Meyer led J. Wilbur Chapman to the Lord on those campuses.
- Chapman while working with the YMCA arranged for Billy Sunday to come to Charlotte, North Carolina to attend revival meetings.
- Community leaders in Charlotte, seeing the success of the revivals, scheduled another revival with Mordecai Hamm.
- Under Hamm's preaching in these revivals Billy Graham gave his heart to Jesus Christ.
That's how Graham became a Christian, andBilly Graham has preached to more people than any man in history. I am sure this Sunday School teacher in Boston had no idea what would happen from leading a shoe clerk to Christ. As we examine this passage of Scripture, I encourage you to look at the owner of the donkey and his response to the king who entered into Jerusalem that day.
42. God Renews Our Strength
Illustration
King Duncan
In times of need, Jesus promises his disciples, you will receive strength from beyond. Rabbi Harold Kushner reflects on this strength. "I have seen weak people become strong," he writes, "timid people become brave, selfish people become generous. I have seen people care for their elderly parents, for brain damaged children, for wives in wheelchairs, for years, even decades, and I have asked myself, where do people get the strength to keep doing that for so long? Where do they get the resources of love and loyalty to keep going? The only answer I come up with is when we are weary and out of strength, we turn to God and God renews our strength, so we can run and not grow weary, so that we can walk and not feel faint."
43. Precious Lord, Take My Hand
Illustration
Wayne Brouwer
There is a familiar gospel song that breathes with both the pain and the urgency of Jesus' pleading challenge in these verses. Thomas Dorsey was born in 1899 with music in his soul. He was known as "Georgia Tom," entertainer and blues singer. When he became a Christian, his music took on more depth as Dorsey explored the profound spiritual blues of scripture.
In 1938, Dorsey was scheduled to be the lead singer at a series of revival meetings in St. Louis, Missouri. His wife was pregnant, and Dorsey grew more hesitant to leave her as the due date approached. But she knew the impact of his ministry, and urged her husband to keep his musical commitments for the sake of those who were seeking God. So he traveled the long road from Chicago to St. Louis.
On the first night of the revival, while Dorsey was already on the platform and the service was in progress, a telegram came. Dorsey's wife had died in a sudden and serious childbirth complication. Dorsey left for Chicago immediately, and found his infant son barely hanging onto life. The child died a few hours later. In a moving funeral service, Thomas Dorsey buried his beloved wife and tiny son in the same casket.
Despondency set in. The great blues singer wandered in a depression that seemed to know no limits. A friend took him in for a while, just to care for his physical needs. One evening, Dorsey wandered over to a piano and began to improvise on the keyboard. A melody gradually emerged, and the words soon followed. It sings in the heart of every person who has struggled to hold on to their faith in hard times
Precious Lord, take my hand,
Lead me on, help me stand,
I am tired, I am weak, I am worn.
Through the storm, through the night,
Lead me on to the light.
Take my hand, precious Lord; lead me home.
When my way grows drear,
Precious Lord, linger near -
When my life is almost gone.
Hear my cry, hear my call,
Hold my hand lest I fall -
Take my hand, precious Lord; lead me home.
When the darkness appears,
And the night draws near,
And the day is past and gone,
At the river I stand,
Guide my feet, hold my hand,
Take my hand, precious Lord; lead me home.
44. TOO MUCH RELIGION?
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Once when talking about God with a banker, he told me that he had enough religion. More would be too much. I asked him whether he could foresee a time when his bank might make too much money. He could not imagine such a circ*mstance. Likewise, I said, I do not see how one could have too much of God and his love.
Happiness is everyone’s goal. It is also God’s wish for our lives. The closer we are to him, the happier we are. The Bible says that joy and peace and happiness come from being very close to God and trusting in him.
Suppose my young daughter came to me and said, "Daddy, I love you and will do anything you want me to." To which I reply, "Lisa, get rid of all your toys, no more friends, stay in your room, and very soon you will be the unhappiest child on Long Island." How ridiculous! If she came trusting me with her life, I would try even harder to give enhancing direction to it. God is no different. When we give ourselves completely to him, we come away the better for it.
So tomorrow when we rise from the horizontal to the vertical, let’s begin the day talking it over with the Lord. As we meet family and associates, we would do well to try to capture God’s vision of them: precious people, worthy of a Son’s death. And when the problems come, may we realize we can bear great and heavy burdens if we do not try to carry them alone. Then retiring at night, we talk the day over with the Lord and fall asleep realizing that each dawn brings a new beginning.
Too much religion? Not possible!
45. Christ Understands Us
Illustration
C. Welton Gaddy
The gospels of the New Testament do not demand that we understand Christ. Rather, they offer the burden-lightening insight that Christ understands us. We do not have to understand Easter to experience Easter.
Christ's capacity for understanding defies our comprehension. This one who inspires magnificent visions also ministers amid shattered dreams. This one known as the Prince of Peace does not shy away from chaos and conflict. This one who taught us to pray accepts people who are so troubled that they can't pray. This one who offers salvation identifies with people confounded by feelings of lostness. This one who offers unmatched encouragement knows better than any other the depths of discouragement.
Do you hear? Do you grasp the meaning? If you did not sense the joy of Easter morning, if you have not felt Christ rise, if you cannot shout hallelujah, that does not mean that you must drop your head and take off toward Emmaus or some other place to give up. Christ understands. He understands you. So, Christ appears.
The presence of Christ among us does not depend upon the quality of our understanding of Christ or even upon the nature of our reception of his presence. Christ appears in the midst of people not even looking for him.
46. Two Wolves
Illustration
Brett Blair
One of my favorite theologians, Mr. Rogers, used to say: "Have you noticed that the very same people who are bad sometimes are the very same people who are good sometimes?" It reminds me of a story called, "Two Wolves." It goes like this:
An old Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life..."A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. 'It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego.
The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"
The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."
47. How Much Is the Pearl?
Illustration
Juan Carlos Ortiz
The Bible says the kingdom of God is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he finds the pearl of great price, he sells everything he has and buys that pearl. Jesus is the pearl of great price and man the merchant. So when man finds Jesus, it costs him everything. Jesus has happiness, joy, peace, healing, security, eternity.
Man marvels at such a pearl and says, 'I want this pearl. How much does it cost?"
"The seller says, 'it's too dear, too costly.'
"But how much?'
"Well, it's very expensive.'
"Do you think I could buy it?'
"It costs everything you have no more, no less so anybody can buy it.'
"I'll buy it.'
"What do you have? Let's write it down.'
"I have $10,000 in the bank.'
"Good, $10,000. What else?'
"I have nothing more. That's all I have.'
"Have you nothing more?'
"Well, I have some dollars here in my pocket.'
"How many?'
"I'll see: Thirty, forty, fifty, eighty, one hundred, one hundred twenty one hundred twenty dollars.'
"That's fine. What else do you have?'
"I have nothing else. That's all.'
"Where do you live?"
"I live in my house.'
"The house, too.'
"Then you mean I must live in the garage?'
"Have you a garage, too? That, too. What else?'
"Do you mean that I must live in my car, then?'
"Have you a car?'
"I have two.'
"Both become mine. Both cars. What else?'
"Well, you have my house, the garage, the cars, the money, everything.'
"What else?'
"Are you alone in the world?'
"No, I have a wife, two children...'
"Your wife and children, too.'
"Too?'
"Yes, everything you have. What else?'
"I have nothing else, I am left alone now."
"Oh, you too! Everything becomes mine wife, children, house, money, cars everything. And you too. Now you can use all those things here but don't forget they are mine, as you are. When I need any of the things you are using, you must give them to me because now I am the owner."
48. Sterile or Defiled
Illustration
J. D. Pentecost
A surgeon who selects a scalpel in the operating room rejects a scalpel with a minute spot of defilement on it as readily as one that was severely defiled, because even the smallest spot means the scalpel is defiled and cannot be used in surgery. The degree of defilement is inconsequential. The fact of defilement is what matters to the surgeon. A thing is sterile or defiled, clean or unclean. A person is holy or unholy. God is not concerned with degrees, only with the absolute.
49. The Christmas Touch
Illustration
Robert L. Crouch
Let me tell about a man who in my book wasa "light for revelation" as Simeonputit.When he was alive his parents called him Billy Frank. His wife calledhim Bill. His face was drawn by the gravitational pull of years. The wrinkles on his brow betrayed a life of hard work and stress. His legs wereweak. So, too, his arms. His hands trembled involuntarily. His voice, once strong, grewtired. He grew old gracefully. For most of his 82 years, this man touched the world by holding before it the Christ of Christmas.
Jesus knows the trembling hands that hold on to him with unflinching tenacity. He recognizes his faithful follower’s tender touch. He understands that the cause for which he came into our fallen world is the cause to which this frail fellow hadcommitted his life. Since embracing the Savior as a teenager, Billcarried in his heart a concern for all kinds of people in all kinds of places. The races of the world have been equally important to him. Ever since graduating from Wheaton College, this North Carolinianwalked his talk around the block and across the seas. William Franklin Graham wasa living example of what it means to embrace others with the love of God. In Billy Graham we saw alight. A light for all humanity to see the revelation of God in Christ.
50. I Choose You
Illustration
Victoria Brooks
There's an old, word-of-mouth story, which is probably aprochryphal, about Abraham Lincoln visitinga slave auction. Observing the proceedings from the rear of the crowd, his attention was caught by a strong, defiant, young slave girl with sharp, angry eyes.
Something in her manner pierced him; the sheer intensity of her gaze spoke to him of the anguish of her captivity and her longing for freedom. When it was her turn to step to the auction block, he and several others bid. With each rise in price, her hostility grew. Finally, Lincoln won, paid the money, and had her brought to him.
She came, rigid with resistance, arms tied behind her back, leg chains dragging.
“Untie her,” Lincoln said.
“Oh no, sir!” her auctioneer responded, pulling her forward with a jerk. “She be a wild one! Ain’t no end o’ trouble in her. Ya best git her home afore ya be takin’ her chains off.” With that, he secured her to the horse rail, turned, and left.
Lincoln stood quietly for a moment, looking at the young woman. “What is your name?” he asked.
She did not respond.
“What are you called?” he repeated.
Steeling herself for the inevitable blow, she set her jaw, stared at the ground, and said nothing.
Taking the bill of sale from his pocket, Lincoln read it carefully, then marked the bottom with his signature. Slowly he stooped, undid the clasp of her ankle irons, and untied the rope that had cut into her wrists.
“You’re free to go, Sara-Jane,” he said, handing her the document. “You are free to choose your own life now.”
Reaching again into his pocket, he drew out a card and several coins. “If you have any trouble,” he said, “call on me at this address and I will help you.”
As the reality of what she had heard seeped slowly through her brain and into her muscles, the young woman grew weak and unable to sustain her rage. Minutes ticked by as anger gave way to confusion, and confusion to disbelief. Like someone in the grip of a personal earthquake, shockwaves of agonizing hope rippled through the muscles of her face. As she fought for control, her jaw clenched, then settled again; her muscular shoulders convulsed, then were still. Finally, a large, work-callused hand rose to take the papers and the money. Instantly, she turned and ran.
Lincoln watched as she disappeared down the rutted road.
Taking the reins of his horse, he began to mount when he saw her suddenly stop. Some distance away, she stood totally still. More minutes passed. Then, slowly, deliberately, she made her way back. Standing in front of him, she handed him the money.
“I choose you,” she said, looking up for the first time into Lincoln’s gaunt, craggy face. “You say I choose my own life now,” she continued haltingly, “ ... that I work for who I want. You give me papers to show that I be free.” The deep sinkholes of her oval face were wet with emotion. “If that be true . . . if I be free . . . then I choose you.”
Showing
1
to
50
of
263
results
- Bodycam footage shows police frustrated with Secret Service after Trump assassination attempt
- Christian dance group in Barbados demands investigation after arbiter admits bias
- 'Disinformation' enabling religious persecution abroad, watchdog warns
- Pro-life activist sentenced under FACE Act vows to continue 'biblical obedience'
- Whistleblowers allege border agency ignoring federal DNA law, endangering Americans: report
- Televangelist Keith Moore gets third jet priced at $17.5M; Creflo Dollar’s new jet listed at $18.6M
- US says it is ‘committed to the security of Israel,’ approves $20 billion in weapons sales
- Christian charity's lawsuit over hiring practices can proceed: appeals court
- 'Barbaric and unwarranted': Muslims burn down church building in Nigera
- Olympic gold medalist Yemisi Ogunleye goes viral singing gospel song after victory
- Died: Patricia Gundry, Evangelical Feminist Who Wanted Women to Be Free
- Some Churches Lose Coverage as Insurers Hit by a Wave of Storm Claims
- The Olympics’ Most Iconic Photo Has a Christian Message
- Died: Doris Brougham, Missionary Who Taught English to Taiwan
- Walz’s Brand Is More Left than Lutheran Among Minnesota Evangelicals
- Why Changes to India’s Colonial Criminal Code Concern Christians
- Gordon College Loses Religious Liberty Case for Loan Forgiveness
- Yes, Fiji Olympians Are Singing Hymns
- Churches Find a Homelessness Solution in Their Own Backyards
- Venezuelan Churches Brace for Migration Wave After Disputed Maduro Election
- Modi Calls For an End to India’s Religion-Based Laws
- Divine intervention? Evangelicals once 'hijacked by MAGA’ flock to Harris-Walz ticket
- The Islamist terror of Israel and Bangladesh has spread to the West - opinion
- Marvel's Most Powerful God Appeared Just Once & You'll Never See Him In The MCU
- What happens to the Republican Party if Trump is defeated?
- The Journeys of Paul the Apostle
- HOLY MOSES ‘Against the First Amendment,’ rage parents as school adds two courses on the Bible – months after counselor controversy
- Dear US bishops: Modern society is not the enemy
- BHAI VIR SINGH JI: A PROLIFIC PUNJABI POET
- French government warns of ‘very high’ terrorist threat on Catholic solemnity
- Catholic Converts Like JD Vance Are Reshaping Republican Politics
- Can a Church Become a Mosque?
- Do Jews Have Martyrs?
- The Battles to Lift Mormonism's Racial Priesthood-Temple Ban
- France on High Terror Alert Ahead of Tomorrow's Catholic Holiday
- Some Evangelicals Are Leaving Protestantism for Other Traditions
- Repurposing the Catholic Campaign for Human Development
- Our Civilizational Moment
- Seeking the Stylite
- Sign Up for Our Free Morning Newsletter
