. A person from whom a person or group has descended in either a physical or a spiritual sense. For Israel, the concept of one’s ancestors and their God was of great significance in determining both identity and religious practice. Biblical concepts such as covenant and promise primarily found expression in the OT in terms of the ancestral agreements established with God (Deut. 6:10; 9:5; 29:13; 30:20; cf. Gen. 12:1–7). The effect of ancestors on one’s spiritual condition could have either positive or negative implications (Exod. 3:13; Josh. 24:14–15; 2 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 11). The people of Israel are portrayed as suffering judgment both for their sins and for those of their ancestors, but also they could find repentance and hope because of the same relationships (Zech. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:1–5).

There are thirteen primary genealogical lists in the OT and two in the NT, although there are numerous passages that include more limited lineages to identify an individual. Genealogical lists could also function to engender a notion of commonality of relationship outside single family lines, such as when extended family genealogies are given (Gen. 10; 25:12–18; 36:1–30). For priests and kings, it was of utmost importance to be able to establish ancestral identity. This necessity may have played a role in at least two discussions of Jesus. His genealogical lists in both Matt. 1 and Luke 3 established his claim to the line of David, and his spiritual ancestry in the person of Melchizedek in Heb. 7 granted him superior status to the priesthood of Levi.

Worship of ancestors, or the related but distinct cult of the dead, was common in nearly every culture with which Israel interacted and may have even found expression in popular practice among Israelites, as evidenced by the apparent leaving of gifts at several tomb locations throughout Palestine (cf. Ezek. 43:7–9). However, the biblical record is consistent throughout that such practices were prohibited. Among laws centered on the topic of ancestral worship were restrictions on consulting the dead at all (Deut. 18:11), giving offerings to the dead (Deut. 26:14), self-laceration for the dead (Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6), and seeking ancestors to foretell the future (Isa. 8:19; 65:4–8).

A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) who received Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he granted authority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43; 2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as they testified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broader usage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) and Andronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of his calling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).

Worn around the neck, gold chains were a symbol of honor (Gen. 41:42; Prov. 1:9; Dan. 5:7). The temple and its furniture were decorated with chain-like ornamentation (2 Chron. 3:5); similar motifs are found also in non-Yahwistic cultic paraphernalia (Isa. 40:19).

Prisoners (Ps. 107:10; Acts 12:6; 16:26; 21:33; Heb. 11:36) and war captives (Isa. 45:14; Jer. 40:1) were bound with chains, by the hands (Jer. 40:4) or neck (Isa. 52:2). In one case, the Bible records an unsuccessful attempt to confine a demon-possessed man with chains (Mark 5:3–4). Paul often mentions the chains of his imprisonment (Phil. 1:7, 13–17; Col. 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:9; Philem. 10, 13), once referring to himself paradoxically as an “ambassador in chains” (Eph. 6:20).

At Lachish four links of an iron chain were found. Extrabiblical records of the siege of Lachish suggest that such a chain was lowered from the city walls in an attempt to foul the Assyrian battering ram.

The NT begins with the claim that Jesus is the “son” or descendant of King David, presupposing the significance of the biblical narrative about the kings of Israel for understanding the gospel (Matt. 1:1, 6; see also Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). The epithet also creates an almost immediate conflict with Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1–2), who was given the title “King of the Jews” by the Roman senate in 40 BC, although he was not a Jew. Herod unsuccessfully attempts to kill the infant king, but Jesus finally is executed by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate as “King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37 pars.).

Greco-Roman and Jewish Backgrounds

The conflict between the king and the child somewhat parallels a more extensive Greco-Roman motif. Virgil, in his Fourth Bucolic, offers a vision of a golden age to attend the birth of a child king. (Christians in the Middle Ages interpreted his poem as a prophecy of Christ’s birth.) The threat upon Jesus’ life also resembles Herodotus’s account of Cyrus: King Astyages has a dream vision that the magi interpret to be a prophecy that the child of his daughter will eventually rule in his place. He commands Harpagus, his most faithful servant, to take the male child, “adorned for its death,” and kill him. Overcome with emotion, Harpagus pawns the child off to a cowherd, Mitradates, who is instructed to lay the child “in the most desolate part of the mountains.” When Mitradates’s wife sees the beauty of the child, she pleads for his life and devises a plan to switch her stillborn child with Cyrus. They then raise Cyrus under a pseudonym as their own (Herodotus, Hist. 1.107–30). Interestingly, the prophet Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the Lord’s “messiah” or “anointed” (Isa. 45:1), a uniquely positive role for a non-Israelite king. By God’s power, Cyrus will free the exiles (Isa. 45:13).

In the OT, God promises David, the king of Israel, an eternal reign for his “offspring” (2 Sam. 7:12–16). After the fall of the Davidic monarchy, the prophets reiterate the promise in visions of God’s future salvation (Isa. 55:3; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:8; 5:1–5 [cited in Matt. 2:5–6]; Zech. 3:8). By the first century, “son of David” had become a popular messianic title, signifying a warrior who would free the Jews from Roman oppression and establish an everlasting kingdom. Although not viewed as a supernatural being, the Davidic messiah, some claimed, would be without sin, ruling with perfect wisdom, justice, mercy, and power—different from his predecessors. He would restore the ancient tribal divisions and regather the Diaspora, Jews living outside Judea and Galilee. The nations (non-Jews) would pay him homage (see Psalms of Solomon).

Jesus’ Kingship

The popular Jewish emphasis on a violent overthrow of Rome probably explains why in the Gospels Jesus himself does not emphasize his kingship in his ministry, except for the explicit fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble king riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.; cf. Zech. 9:9; see also Isa. 62:11). However, following his resurrection and final instructions to his disciples, Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:6–11; 2:33–36), a coronation ceremony foretold in the psalms (Pss. 2; 110). He presently reigns from heaven (Rev. 1:5; cf. Matt. 28:18), but he will return to make his authority explicit on earth, which includes the dispensing of justice (2 Thess. 1:5–12). His rule is present, however, in the lives of those who obey him and wherever the Holy Spirit is manifested. Through his ministry, the God of Israel comes near so as to once again exercise sovereign power on behalf of God’s people. For Christians, Jesus alone is Lord and Savior (Phil. 3:20). Paul presents Jesus as the “Savior of all people” (1 Tim. 4:10). This title was given to the Roman emperors. (The preamble to a decree by the council of the province of Asia describes Augustus as “the father who gives us happy life; the savior of all mankind.”)

The Western church has largely maintained a distinction between two spheres of authority: political and ecclesiastical. Hosius, bishop of Cordova (AD 296–357), wrote to Emperor Constantius, “For into your hands God has put the kingdom; the affairs of his Church he has committed to us. . . . We are not permitted to exercise an earthly rule; and you, Sire, are not authorized to burn incense.” Paul affirms the continuing role of government despite the overarching lordship of Jesus Christ, who preferred to speak of the kingdom of God, a restored theocracy that incorporates yet transcends the Davidic covenant (Rom. 13:1–7; cf. John 18:36). But this process does begin a delegitimizing of all contrary claims to authority and will lead to their complete withdrawal. For this reason, the kingdom of God cannot be separated from the political, economic, and religious conflicts taking place in Roman Palestine in the first century and wherever similar conflicts occur today.

Headgear signifying honor, victory, power, or authority. A crown was worn by monarchs in the ancient world to designate their royal power, often including a golden headband with precious stones in it, as well as a turban.

There are two important types of crowns in the OT: the priestly and the royal. A royal crown first appears with Saul (2 Sam. 1:10) and is worn by monarchs after him, including David (2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2; see also Pss. 21:3; 132:18) and Joash (2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11). Jeremiah 13:18 warns of a day when the royal crowns of Judah will be taken away, signifying the monarchy’s fall from power. Esther wears a Persian royal crown (Esther 1:11; 2:17), as does Mordecai (8:15).

The book of Exodus depicts a crownlike turban to which is affixed a golden “sacred emblem” bearing the inscription “Holy to the Lord,” which is to be worn by the high priest (Exod. 28:36–37; 29:6; see also, e.g., 39:30; Lev. 8:9).

Zechariah 6:11–14 looks to a future messiah, “the Branch,” who will be both priest and king, thus wearing a priestly and royal crown. Before his crucifixion, Jesus’ tormentors place on his head a mock crown made of thorns (Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2, 5). In the book of Revelation both godly and satanic figures wear crowns: the elders in heaven (4:4, 10), the rider of the white horse (6:2), the locusts from the Abyss (9:7), the woman clothed with the sun (12:1), the dragon and the beast (12:3; 13:1), the one “like a son of man” (14:14), and Christ himself (19:12).

Crowns symbolize human honor (Ps. 8:5; Prov. 4:9; Heb. 2:7, 9) and kingly power (Ps. 89:39), as well as the loss of such glory (Job 19:9; Ezek. 21:26) and its ultimate renewal in eternal life (1 Pet. 5:4). Similarly, crowns often represent eternal salvation (Ps. 149:4; James 1:12; Rev. 2:10). Paul even calls his converts his “crown” (Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19). The figure of a crownlike garland, the prize for victory in Greco-Roman athletic games, signifies the Christian’s final enjoyment of eternal bliss (1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8). Crowns portray divine blessings, including joy (Isa. 35:10; 51:11), love (Ps. 103:4), and beauty, the last of which symbolizes divine restoration after judgment (Isa. 61:3). God is even portrayed as the crown of his people (Isa. 28:5). In addition, a crown stands for several human features, such as wealth (Prov. 14:24) and pride (Isa. 28:1, 3).

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life, wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such as respiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequately encompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

The Beginning of Death

Death is introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of the divine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells the first man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you will certainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a useful basis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First, as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor the woman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eating the fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblical notion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointing to the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation and separation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed by Jesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and by Paul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sins and transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the common punishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen. 9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss of access to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first man and woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, but their fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and the intimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second, the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, as originally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortal in the same manner as God (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), but rather that they were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death but sustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through the provision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once they were cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

The account of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us little about how death affected animals, since the Bible consistently presents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirms human ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans and animals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is not entirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sin for humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to the fall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortality prior to the fall.

Death in the Old Testament

Death is frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from its initial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presented as that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss. 18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the author of Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines any possible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). The tragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, from God (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and from people. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality and profundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17; cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present death more positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlight the appalling circumstances of the speaker’s life rather than any blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, see Rev. 9:6).

The OT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a good death as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. So Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17) are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, some passages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,” suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death, presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead are never explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death within language used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Although there are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of the dead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show that burial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23; cf. 1 Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriate burial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillborn child is better off than someone who lives a long life but receives no burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation of those not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16; 16:4).

Life after Death in the Old Testament

Belief in some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of the ancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to the state of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoing existence that could even surpass what one may have experienced before death (although such an opportunity was a reasonable expectation only for the upper classes, while the general population probably had more modest expectations of the nature of their existence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefs depicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but the very few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensure them some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there was little hope for any positive experience following death.

The OT, however, has little to say about the state of those who have died. The widespread belief in some form of continued existence beyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in the absence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probably assumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death. Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, such as the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as “gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead (sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spirits of the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generally described as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, there are prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death (e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’s death (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Death in the New Testament

The NT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view of death presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence of and punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity is stated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by the notion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead in their sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death, according to Paul, is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), and yet to die is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being with Christ, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” than being alive in this body in this world.

Central to both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death in the Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’ death provides the basis for countering the consequences of the original rebellion against God by the first couple (2 Cor. 5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itself destroyed death (2 Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesus offers—eternal life—is available to the believer in the present (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimately abolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe in him will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

The NT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the dead from the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearly presented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of the existence of distinctions among those who have died, such that the rich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used in the LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus is far off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a danger in reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflect something of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among some in Jesus’ day.

The NT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to the state of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from which there will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ will not experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwelling place with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

(1) The dregs or residue, used metaphorically to speak of people’s remaining impurities (Ezek. 24:6, 11–12). (2) An amount of money or other valuable entrusted to another (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23; 2 Tim. 1:14) or used as a down payment. In three instances in the NT the Greek word arrabōn is used to refer to the Holy Spirit as the deposit that guarantees what is still to come (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13–14). The last of these passages notes that the deposit of the Spirit in view is the redemption of God’s people, their future inheritance.

(1) The dregs or residue, used metaphorically to speak of people’s remaining impurities (Ezek. 24:6, 11–12). (2) An amount of money or other valuable entrusted to another (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23; 2 Tim. 1:14) or used as a down payment. In three instances in the NT the Greek word arrabōn is used to refer to the Holy Spirit as the deposit that guarantees what is still to come (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13–14). The last of these passages notes that the deposit of the Spirit in view is the redemption of God’s people, their future inheritance.

The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1 Sam. 25:27).

Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.

Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1 Kings 9:16).

Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1 Sam. 9:7; 1 Kings 13:7; 2 Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1 Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1 Kings 15:19; 2 Kings 16:8; 20:12).

Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2 Sam. 11:8).

Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).

The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).

On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).

Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1 Cor. 13:2; 14:1).

The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1 Sam. 25:27).

Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.

Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1 Kings 9:16).

Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1 Sam. 9:7; 1 Kings 13:7; 2 Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1 Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1 Kings 15:19; 2 Kings 16:8; 20:12).

Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2 Sam. 11:8).

Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).

The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).

On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).

Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1 Cor. 13:2; 14:1).

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.

Imagery of God

God’s character and attributes are revealed primarily through the use of imagery, the best and most understandable way to describe the mysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describe God’s being and character. Some examples follow here.

God is compared to the father who shows compassion and love to his children (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used by the prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesus predominantly uses the language of “Father” in reference to God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationship with the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel even before the Israelites have a human king (1 Sam. 10:19).

The Psalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’s sovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24; 74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as the shepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict his nature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image of the potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, who creates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as the long-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the setting of war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against his enemy (Exod. 15:3).

God is also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), and lawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is also frequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionate care, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, and more (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is often referred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, as does the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit is identified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide (John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared to various things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps. 27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut. 32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many images in nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g., Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.

Last, anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’s activities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak of God: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2 Chron. 16:9), mouth (Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra 7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Names and Attributes of God

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. 3:13–15). 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. (See also Names of God.)

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.” Below are further explanations of some of the representative attributes of God.

Holiness. The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all other attributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by the adjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holy righteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is the only supremely holy one (1 Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’s name is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemned as guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one who has concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned among the nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of his defiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealed by his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but also he expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All the sacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements of holiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character of holiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and he brings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).

Love and justice. Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledge of God without having love (1 John 4:8). Images of the father and the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’s love (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4). God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his only Son Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1 John 4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’s sacrificial love (1 John 3:16).

God’s justice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4; Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps. 99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’s justice is demonstrated in judging people according to their deeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice by upholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicating those afflicted (1 Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial in implementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, God requires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

God keeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice. God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa. The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in one act. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people; because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of their sins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

Righteousness and mercy. God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’s nature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness (Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness and justice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14). God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness will ultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22; cf. Ps. 7:11).

The English word “mercy” renders various words in the original languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek, charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate these variously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,” “kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy” is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’s mercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In the Psalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosen people (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins are forgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), and even sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14). God is “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

God keeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. His righteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does one operate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy is shown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent of their sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness. God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that he made with his people. God “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). God is faithful to his character, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seen in fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulness by fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3; Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build the temple that he promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–13; 1 Kings 8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon and returning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3). God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending Jesus Christ, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness. Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), in his work of creation (1 Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), and in his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience. God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which is a favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts 13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa. 42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophet Jonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10). The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people toward repentance (Rom. 2:4).

God of the Trinity

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 (2 Sam. 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; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 2 Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1 Pet. 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).

Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.

The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and goodwill between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.

Old Testament

Genesis. The grace of the creation narratives is summarized with the repeated use of the term “good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). God is good, and he made a good creation with abundant gifts for Adam and Eve to enjoy. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, he righteously judged and graciously provided for an ongoing relationship. God clothed the naked Adam and Eve (3:21) and announced that the seed of the woman would yield a redeemer (3:15).

Grace in the postcreation narratives (Gen. 4–6) is focused on individuals. God looked with favor on Abel and his offering (4:4), and Noah found grace in God’s eyes (6:8). God looked at and had regard for the offering of Abel (Gen. 4). Jacob confessed to Esau that God graced him with descendants and with possessions (33:5).

Grace and graciousness also characterize interaction between individuals. The Jacob and Esau exchange uses grace vocabulary for the gift and the disposition of grace. Jacob invited Esau to accept his gift if he had a favorable disposition toward him (Gen. 33:11). The covenant son Joseph received favorable treatment from the prison warden because of his disposition toward him (39:21).

Exodus. The exodus narrative recounts how the seed of Abraham multiplies, is redeemed, and then is given the law, which defines the relationship of God to Israel. All these events are tied to the gracious promises that God made to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12; 15; 17; see also Gen. 21; 27).

The grace associated with the redemption of Israel from Egypt is celebrated in the song of Exod. 15. God’s victory over the Egyptian army and his covenant fidelity to the patriarchs are the song’s themes. Moses and the Israelites sing because God heard Israel’s groaning; he remembered his covenant with Abraham and looked on Israel with concern (2:24). God made Egypt favorably disposed toward Israel (3:21) and parted the sea for Israel to escape (11:3; 12:36). The confession “He is my God . . . my father’s God” ties together major sections of redemptive history and affirms the constancy of God’s grace throughout the periods (15:2). God’s tenacious covenant loyalty (khesed) to the nation and his covenant grace (15:13) to Israel cannot be merited.

The giving of the law in Exod. 20 is prefaced by a gracious and powerful presentation of God to the nation in Exod. 19. In the organization and development of Exod. 19–20, grace themes emerge. The grace associated with redemption and covenant life is marked in Exod. 19. God took Israel from Egyptian bondage, redeemed it, and brought the nation to himself (19:4). Through this action, the nation will become a special treasure, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests (19:5–6). In sum, Israel exists because God created, loved, and redeemed it.

Second, the Decalogue of Exod. 20 follows upon the redemption effected by God, defining how Israel will relate to its God. In this sense, law is viewed as a gift that expresses the divine will. When compared and contrasted with ancient Near Eastern laws, Torah reflects the grace of God’s character and his genuine concern for the poor, slaves, aliens, and widows. In addition, there is a grace ethic that motivates obedience to the law. The motivational statements in the Decalogue in Exod. 20 relate to the grace of redemption (v. 2), the righteousness of God (vv. 4–7), the creation work of God (vv. 8–11), and long life (v. 12).

Exodus 32–34 is a key passage that links the covenant with grace terminology. This section begins with the story of the golden calf (chap. 32) and ends with the account of Moses’ radiant face (34:29–35). The grace terminology is observed in 33:19; 34:6–7. The context of 33:19 involves Moses meeting with God face-to-face. According to 33:12–17, Moses wanted to know who would be left after the purge of 33:5. He acknowledged God’s favor in his life and wondered who else might enjoy it. Moses reminded God that the nation was his people (33:13). The grace of this account is God’s assurance of his presence with Israel and the unmerited purposeful expression of his grace.

Exodus 34:6–7 employs a series of adjectives in a grace confessional statement. This statement arises out of God’s instructions to Moses to cut two new tablets of stone like the first ones (34:1; see also 24:12), which were broken after the incident of the golden calf (32:19). God descended in a cloud, stood with Moses, and proclaimed his name to him (34:5). The rhetoric of the passage emphasizes the speech of God, who defines himself in connection with covenant making. God is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and distinguished by steadfast love.

Grace and covenant loyalty. These key passages are foundational for understanding the grace and steadfast loyalty of God expressed in the subsequent events of covenant history. Grace and khesed are expressed in connection with covenant curse implementation (Num. 14:18; Hos. 4:1; 6:4, 6), in the overall structure of Deuteronomy (5:10; 7:9, 12), in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:15; 1 Chron. 17:13), in the future hope of Israel (Isa. 54:8), in restoration (Jer. 32:18), in the new covenant (Jer. 31:31), and in exile (Dan. 9:4).

To round out the OT discussion, we may note that covenant siblings were to be gracious and loyal in their ongoing relationships with one another. The book of Ruth illustrates covenant grace in action (2:2, 10, 13). In addition, grace is to be expressed toward the poor (Prov. 28:8), the young and the old (Deut. 28:50), and those who suffer (Job 19:21).

New Testament

The NT focus of grace is developed in keeping with the foundation laid in the OT. The triune God is the center and source of grace: it is the grace of God (Rom. 1:7), the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29), and the grace of Christ (John 1:17). The grace of God revealed in the OT is unveiled uniquely in the person and work of Christ.

The Gospel of John. The canonical development of the grace theme between the Testaments is explained in the opening chapter of John’s Gospel. Jesus Christ is the Word, who was with God, who is God, and who created the world (John 1:1–3). Christ then became flesh and dwelled among us (1:14). In doing so, he made known the glory of God to us. At this point in the development of chapter 1, John connects Christ (the Word) with the adjectives describing God in Exod. 34:6 to affirm that Christ has the very same virtues that God has. The assertion in John 1:17 that Jesus is full of grace and truth parallels the statement in Exod. 34:6 of God’s steadfast love and faithfulness. In Christ we are able to see the glory that Moses hoped to see in God (John 1:18). Christ is both the message and the messenger of grace and truth.

The Epistles and Acts. The NT Epistles develop the “full of grace and truth” statement about Christ (John 1:14) in several ways. The grace and truth found in Christ are given to his servants (1 Cor. 1:4) and are a reason for praise (2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 1:6, 15; Eph. 4:7; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:1). This grace from Christ is effective in bringing about redemption and sustaining a life of godliness. Ephesians 2:8–9 is the classic statement affirming that God’s favor is the source of salvation. Paul makes this point by repeating “it is by grace” in 2:5, 8 and clarifying the grace of salvation with the “it is the gift of God” statement in 2:8. This design of salvation celebrates the incomparable riches of Christ’s grace and the expression of his kindness to us (cf. Eph. 1:7). Salvation is devoid of human merit, gifts, or favor (2:8). Keeping the law as a means of entrance into a relationship with God and as a means of gaining favor with God is antithetical to the nature of grace. God’s favor expressed to people in salvation is an expression of his sovereign will.

Romans 5 declares many of the same themes found in Eph. 2. In Rom. 5 Paul contrasts the action and result of Adam’s transgression with the obedience of Christ. Salvation is God’s grace and gift brought by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ (v. 15). The gift and grace of Christ brought about justification.

The effective operation of God’s grace in salvation is illustrated in the historical narratives of Acts. The men involved in the heated debate of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:2) affirmed the salvation of the Gentiles by grace after hearing the report of Barnabas and Paul (15:12). Those in Achaia (18:27) are another illustration of an effective operation of grace.

The grace of God that saves is also the grace that sanctifies. Titus 2:11 declares that redemptive grace instructs the redeemed to say no to a life of ungodliness. The instructional nature of grace is highlighted in the development of the Titus 2 context. The teacher in 2:1–10, 15 is Titus, who is to nurture godly people. There is a change of instructors in 2:11, with grace now teaching. Redemptive grace works in harmony with sanctifying grace to provide for godly living.

According to Titus 3:8, those who trust in the generosity of God’s grace should devote themselves to doing what is good. By God’s grace, justified sinners will find their delight and satisfaction in the promises of God for a life of persevering godliness.

Grace also functions as an enablement for life and ministry. Paul often rehearses this feature of grace in his letters. In Rom. 1:5 Paul testifies about the grace associated with a commission to be an apostle. When reflecting on his role in the church, he affirms that by God’s grace he has been able to lay a foundation (1 Cor. 3:10). Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor. 15:10 demonstrates the essential role of grace in making him who he is and effectively enabling what he does. Giving is also viewed as an exercise of grace (2 Cor. 8:7) reflecting the grace received by individual believers. This gift of grace for life and ministry is somehow recognizable. Peter, James, and John recognized it in Paul (Gal. 2:9). It was upon the apostles (Acts 4:33), and it was seen in the church of Antioch (11:23).

Given the source and the effective nature of grace, one can understand the appropriateness of appealing to grace in greetings and salutations (Rom. 1:7; 16:20; Gal. 1:3; 6:18).

Common grace. Finally, grace does operate beyond the context of the elect and the work of salvation and sanctification. Theologians define this as “common grace.” God’s sending rain and giving creatures intellectual and artistic abilities are expressions of common grace.

God puts Adam in the garden of Eden to literally “guard” it (Heb. shamar, Gen. 2:15; NIV “take care of it”), but on account of sin he must be removed. God places cherubim to guard against intruders (cf. 1 Sam. 26:15; Song 5:7; Isa. 21:11), to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). God “preserves” the faithful (Ps. 31:23) and “guards” their lives (Prov. 24:12) from trouble (Ps. 32:7), from violent people (Ps. 140:1, 4), and from the enemy’s plan (Ps. 64:1). The noun mishmeret derives from shamar and is found in both military (2 Sam. 20:3; Neh. 7:3; Isa. 21:8) and cultic (Num. 8:26; 1 Chron. 9:27; Ezek. 40:46) contexts.

Several verbs are used in the NT to render the sense “to guard.” Most pertinent is phylassō, which is used of “guarding” prisoners (Luke 8:29; Acts 12:4; 28:16) and personal property (Luke 2:8; 11:21; Acts 22:20). Paul exhorts Timothy to guard the deposit of faith entrusted to him (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12), and people are encouraged to guard themselves against covetousness (Luke 12:15), idols (1 John 5:21), and lawlessness (2 Pet. 3:17). God also serves as a guard who safely delivers his people (John 17:12; 2 Pet. 2:5) and promises to protect them from the evil one (2 Thess. 3:3).

A messenger commissioned to deliver a proclamation on behalf of a royal personage or God. King Nebuchadnezzar’s herald announces that all subjects must worship a golden statue or else be thrown into a blazing furnace (Dan. 3:4). God instructs Habakkuk to record his oracle regarding the future destruction of Babylon on a tablet so that it might be delivered by a herald (Hab. 2:2). Paul was appointed as an apostle and a herald of the gospel to the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).

An apostacized believer whom Paul names while writing from prison (2 Tim. 1:15). Paul claims that Hermogenes, Phygelus, and everyone else in the province of Asia have deserted him. Paul’s disappointment with Hermogenes is mentioned in the context of his exhortation not to be ashamed of suffering for the sake of the gospel.

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

Laying hands on someone/something has two literal uses and two with symbolic significance. (1) Literally, to take something (e.g., Exod. 22:8–11; Esther 9:10–16; Matt. 26:51; Luke 9:62) or someone—that is, to make an arrest (e.g., Neh. 13:21; Matt. 26:50; Mark 14:46; Luke 20:19; 21:12; 22:53; John 7:30, 44; Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:1; 21:27). (2) Literally, to lay hands on persons (or things) so as to hurt or destroy them (e.g., Gen. 22:12; 37:22; 1 Sam. 22:17; 24:5–13; 26:9–23; Job 1:12; 9:33; Isa. 11:14; Jer. 15:6; Ezek. 39:21). (3) Laying a hand over one’s mouth as a symbolic gesture of amazement (Mic. 7:16) or humility (Job 40:4). (4) A gesture to symbolize the transfer of something from one person to another. Transfer symbolism applications include the transfer of representative identity in sacrificing (e.g., Exod. 29:10–19; Lev. 1:4; 16:21; Num. 8:10–12; 2 Chron. 29:23–24), of authority in commissioning (ordination) (e.g., Num. 27:18–23; Deut. 34:9; Acts 6:6; 13:3), of blessing (e.g., Gen. 48:13–20; Matt. 19:13–15), of life and health (e.g., Matt. 8:3, 15; 9:18, 25, 29; 20:34; Mark 6:5; 7:32–33; 8:22–26; 16:18; Luke 4:40; 7:14; 13:13; 22:51; Acts 8:17; 9:12, 17; 28:8), and of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifting (Acts 8:17–19; 9:17; 19:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).

Three additional things should be noted about this transfer symbolism. First, the laying on of hands is symbolic rather than purely causative. This is evidenced when Jesus and the apostles credit faith, and not mere touch, for healings (e.g., Matt. 9:22, 29–30; Luke 17:19; Acts 3:12–16; 14:9; cf. Matt. 13:58), when healings occur from a distance (e.g., Matt. 8:5–13; 15:21–28; John 4:46–54) and/or with no apparent touch involved (e.g., Matt. 8:28–34; 9:1–8, 32–33; 12:22; 17:14–21; Mark 1:23–28; Luke 17:11–19; John 5:1–9; 11:1–44; Acts 5:15; 9:32–35, 40–41; 14:8–10; 16:18), when the Holy Spirit comes upon people without touch (e.g., Acts 10:44–45), and when Peter strongly rebukes Simon Magus for assuming that the Holy Spirit is dispensed by mere touch (Acts 8:17–24).

Second, the early church used the laying on of hands for commissioning church workers (Acts 6:6), missionaries (Acts 13:3), and elders (Acts 14:23 [the Greek word used for “appointing,” cheirotoneō, is derived from the words for “extend,” teinō, and “hand,” cheir; cf. 2 Cor. 8:19). Since the act was conducted by apostles (Acts 6:6), by prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1–3), by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23; 2 Tim. 1:6), and by church elders (1 Tim. 4:14), we may conclude that the early church had no established hierarchy for ordination.

Third, the NT has some guidelines for commissioning Christian workers (cf. Heb. 6:2). Church leaders have weighty responsibilities (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:1–13; 5:17; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Pet. 5:1–4), so it is not surprising that a church elder/overseer must not be a recent convert (1 Tim. 3:6) or hastily ordained (1 Tim. 5:22), and that a deacon must first be tested (1 Tim. 3:10).

The devout Jewish Christian maternal grandmother of Timothy. Paul praises her faith as a legacy to both her daughter Eunice and her grandson (2 Tim. 1:5).

In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1 Cor. 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 (1 Cor. 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 (1 Tim. 3:1–13).

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. 1 Pet. 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 1 Pet. 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; 1 Pet. 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; 1 Pet. 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 (1 Cor. 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 (2 Cor. 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; 1 Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 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 (1 Cor. 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; 2 Tim. 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; 1 Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1 Thess. 2:19–20).

An early Christian disciple who, in the context of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy not to be ashamed of the gospel or of his “chains” (2 Tim. 1:8, 16), is praised as an example worthy of imitation (1:16–18). Onesiphorus (his name means “profit bringer”) is commended for diligently and courageously seeking out Paul in prison and for his many acts of kindness to Paul and the church at Ephesus. Paul’s prayer for God’s mercy is directed not to Onesiphorus but to his household, suggesting that he was not with them at the time of writing (1:16; 4:19).

A man who “turned away from” Paul (2 Tim. 1:15 NASB) in the latter years of Paul’s life. Phygelus and Hermogenes were two of many people from the province of Asia who deserted Paul. The apostle also names Demas in the same letter as a deserter (2 Tim. 4:10).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

The historical origins of Christianity need to be set against Jewish history, beliefs, and culture in Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean, but they also need to be set in the context of the wider Greco-Roman world that was dominated politically and militarily by the Roman Empire.

From Republic to Empire

Rome began as a city-state but soon became a transcontinental empire reaching over parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Rome emerged as the most dominant force in the Mediterranean after it defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). Thereafter, Rome began to expand its control and power over the various Hellenistic city-states in the east, including Macedonia, Illyria, and Asia Minor. By the mid-first century AD, Rome had also conquered or annexed Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Cyrene, Gaul, Spain, North Africa, and Armenia.

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire took place under the Roman emperors beginning with Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), who, after crossing the Rubicon and defeating Pompey, was proclaimed dictator perpetuus (“dictator for life”). The period after Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 BC) was a time of political upheaval as Rome was marred by a series of civil wars. The first was between Octavius and Antony against Caesar’s assassins Brutus and Cassius. This climaxed in the Battle of Philippi (42 BC), which the former allies of Julius Caesar won. The second was between Octavius and Antony, where Antony and Cleopatra were defeated at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, leaving Octavius as the undisputed leader of Rome.

Octavius was given the honorific name “Augustus” by the senate. His reign (31 BC–AD 14) marked a period of consolidation, reorganization, and renewal of the Roman Empire. Augustus embarked on an empire-wide policy of fiscal rationalization, developed a constitutional settlement for Rome, centralized his military authority over the various provinces, and had Julius Caesar deified. Writers and artists of the era heralded Augustus’s reign as a time of unprecedented peace and security—peace from civil war and security from the Germanic tribes in the north and the Parthian Empire in the east. Worship of the emperor became more frequent especially in the Roman East, although Augustus did not permit it in Rome. What is most significant about Augustus is that it is with his reign that the Roman Empire essentially began. He was the emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1). It was under Trajan (AD 98–117), however, that the Roman Empire expanded to its largest area, encompassing parts of Britain and Persia.

Emperors (AD 14–98)

Tiberius, Augustus’s adopted heir, reigned in the years AD 14–37. He was a highly successful military general, but as emperor he was remembered as being gloomy and melancholic. Tiberius even went into a self-imposed exile for a time, leaving the praetorian prefect Sejanus in charge until Tiberius finally had him executed for treason. It was during the reign of Tiberius that Jesus conducted his ministry in Palestine.

Tiberius was succeeded by his adopted grandson Caligula, who reigned in the years AD 37–41. Caligula was the son of the popular Roman general Germanicus, who died in Antioch in AD 19. Historical sources are not favorably disposed toward Caligula, who was remembered as a malevolent tyrant given to self-aggrandizement and sexual perversity. In AD 39/40 Caligula departed from imperial policy that permitted emperor worship in the east and veneration of deceased emperors in Rome, and he often appeared dressed as a god in public and demanded worship as a living god. During this time he deposed Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, on suspicion of consorting with Parthia (Josephus, Ant. 18.7). Caligula also ordered that his statue be placed in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (Philo, Embassy 203). Petronius, the governor of Syria, knowing that such an act would lead to civil war, refused to comply and appealed to Caligula to reverse the order. In response, Caligula sent an order to Petronius that he commit suicide. Fortunately, news of Caligula’s assassination by a conspiracy involving the praetorian guard and senators reached Petronius first.

Claudius, Caligula’s uncle, reigned in the years AD 41–54, and his rule was defined by numerous public works, a reordering of the judicial system, a torrid series of marriages, the conquest of Britain, and a number of attempted coups by the Roman senate. In AD 49 he expelled the Jews from Rome because of disputes about a certain “Chrestus,” probably Christ (cf. Acts 18:2). No one is sure whether Claudius was murdered or died of old age, but he remained a sharp contrast to the brutal excesses of Caligula and Nero.

Nero, the stepson of Claudius, reigned in the years AD 54–68. The early period of his rule was marked by cultural endeavors and diplomatic efforts. The later years were, in contrast, distinguished by tyranny and self-aggrandizement. There was a Jewish revolt against Rome in Judea (AD 66–70) during Nero’s reign, and Vespasian was sent to pacify the territory. According to ancient sources, Nero accused Christians of starting the fire of Rome in AD 64 and subjected them to the cruelest of punishments, including crucifixion, being thrown to wild animals, and even being burned alive. It probably was during this time that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Nero eventually was declared a public enemy by the Roman senate, and he committed suicide before he could be captured in AD 68. There arose a “Nero redivivus” legend, whereby many hoped or feared that Nero had not died in AD 68 but had fled to Parthia and would return to Rome in order to destroy it (Sib. Or. 4.119–124; 5.137–141, 361–396), and this arguably stands behind the imagery of Rev. 13:3; 17:8–11.

The suicide of Nero left a power vacuum in Rome, and AD 69 saw no less than four emperors ascend the throne: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally Vespasian. Galba was governor of Hispania Tarraconensis and was invited to become emperor by the senate, but he was killed by the praetorian guard after they were bribed by the praetor Otho. Otho himself committed suicide after his forces were defeated by Vitellius, the commander of the legions on the Rhine. Vitellius became emperor, but he was fiscally irresponsible and murdered many of his rivals. The legions in the Danube, Egypt, Syria, and Judea had declared Vespasian emperor and marched on Rome. Vespasian controlled the grain supplies to Rome from Egypt and had a superior force. Vitellius’s forces were defeated at Bedriacum, and Vitellius went into hiding but eventually was killed in Rome. Vespasian was declared emperor by the senate, and so began the Flavian dynasty, which restored order after the chaos of civil war.

The Flavians ruled in the years AD 69–96. Vespasian (r. AD 69–79) consolidated the empire after its year of strife and instituted new taxes, such as the fiscus judaicus, a war reparation tax placed on all Jews and paid to the temple of Jupiter in lieu of the Jerusalem temple tax. Vespasian was succeeded by his sons Titus (r. AD 79–81) and Domitian (r. AD 81–96). When Vespasian sailed to Rome from Judea, Titus was left in charge of the siege of Jerusalem, which he completed and celebrated in a triumph in Rome in AD 72. This triumph is memorialized in the Arch of Titus, which depicts Roman soldiers bringing the vessels of the temple to Rome as part of the booty taken. Later Roman writers regarded Domitian as a malevolent and malicious tyrant (e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius), but this probably is an exaggeration caused partly by a desire to highlight the greatness of succeeding emperors such as Nerva and Trajan. It probably was during the reign of Domitian that some Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted for their failure to worship the emperor, as depicted in the book of Revelation.

Table 7. Roman Emperors (31 BC–AD 117)

31 BC-AD 14 – Augustus

AD 14-37 – Tiberius

AD 37-41 – Caligula

AD 41-54 – Claudius

AD 54-68 – Nero

AD 68-69 – Galba

AD 69 – Otho

AD 69 – Vitellius

AD 69-79 – Vespasian

AD 79-81 – Titus

AD 81-96 – Domitian

AD 96-98 – Nerva

AD 98-117 – Trajan

Military

Military expeditions expanded Rome’s control of foreign territories and safeguarded its borders from incursion, most threateningly from the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine River and north of the Danube River and from the Parthian (= Neo-Persian) Empire east of the Euphrates River. A Roman legion consisted of around six thousand men, including cavalry. Under Tiberius, there were twenty-five legions stationed across the empire: eight on the Rhine, three in Spain, two in Egypt, four in Syria, two in Africa, and six in the Danube region. In terms of command structures, the legions were under the control of certain regional commands by men of consular rank, including two on the Rhine, one in Spain, one in Syria, and three in the Balkans (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5). These were among the most powerful persons outside the ruling family and could be kingmakers or contenders during times of civil war. A legion was divided into ten cohorts and commanded by a legate, usually of senatorial rank. Units of one hundred were commanded by centurions, and service in the legions was set at between twenty and twenty-five years. Upon recruitment, the soldier swore an oath of loyalty to the emperor (sacramentum) that was renewed annually. During times of peace, Roman soldiers could perform a number of civil tasks relating to taxation, building projects, and policing.

Centurions are mentioned several times in the NT (e.g., Matt. 8:5; Mark 15:39; Acts 10:1; 21:32; 27:1). There is a mention of a “legion” of demons that oppressed the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:9), and Jesus refers to the possibility of the Father sending him “legions” of angels (Matt. 26:53). Military terminology is very apparent in Paul’s letters, where he refers to fighting armor (Rom. 13:11–13; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:10–18), compares commitment to Christ to military service (2 Tim. 2:4), refers to his coworkers as “soldiers” or “fellow soldiers” (Phil. 2:25; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. 2:3), and likens ministerial remuneration to a soldier being paid his salarium (1 Cor. 9:7).

Culture and Religion

One of the primary reasons for Rome’s rise and dominance, militarily and culturally, was its capacity to absorb other peoples and even other gods into its constituency and pantheon. Its constantly growing pantheon, application of the rule of law, and superior military force made Rome what it was: a melting pot of all cultures and a Romanizer of other cultures.

Roman society was heavily stratified, but social mobility, upward and downward, was possible. Wealth, marriage, education, and military exploits were the primary means to social advancement. The senatorial class represented the wealthy nobility of Rome and provided the primary cohort of civil and military administrators. The equestrian class (or “knights,” as they are sometimes called) were a larger group of less wealthy Roman citizens. Decurions were members of civil councils in provincial cities who often acted as magistrates and were leaders of local communities. The plebeians represented the general citizenry of Rome, who, until the time of Tiberius, had some power in electing officials. Finally, there were freedmen, who were ex-slaves usually in a relationship with their former master, and also slaves, who were regarded as little more than property.

The ancient Roman religions focused on the numen, the somewhat impersonal divine power associated with certain localities. From the third century BC, Greek deities were assimilated and Romanized, so that Zeus became Jupiter, and Vesta was identified as Hestia. The Capitoline Hill was crowned with a temple that was dedicated around 500 BC to Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno. These were the principal gods of Rome, although others were added to the pantheon as the Romans conquered other peoples and adopted their gods. Other gods also received greater honor, such as the goddess Pax, the personification of peace (based on the Greek goddess Eirene); Vespasian built and dedicated a temple in her honor in Rome in AD 75. The Roman emperor was the Pontifex Maximus and supreme high priest of Rome and the empire. In the mid- to late first century AD, the fastest-growing religion was the imperial cult, the worship of (usually) deceased Roman emperors. This cult became popular in the eastern Mediterranean cities, where worship of rulers was commonplace, but was regarded with indifference in Rome.

Religions and philosophies from all over the known world eventually made their way to Rome. Egyptian rites and religions gained followings, Mithraism acquired currency within the ranks of the military and among public servants, Judaism entered Rome probably with the Hasmonean delegation sent there around 139 BC, and Christianity came to Rome probably during the late 30s and early 40s of the first century AD through Jewish pilgrims visiting the east and through Judean immigration to Rome. Many Roman intellectuals lamented the fact that so many foreign superstitions had found their way to Rome, and that Roman peoples found them more attractive than their own state religion. Roman religion was largely controlled by the state through a set calendar and the appointment of priests and vestal virgins. It was practiced in public and in the home. As such, religious life was very much intertwined with social and political life. Roman religion engendered the need for its citizens to act with pietas, the honoring of one’s obligations to the gods, and with religio, which designated appropriate scruples and rites in the presence of the gods.

Summary

The birth of the church and the growth of Christianity took place within the wider social, religious, and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world. The politics and power of the Roman Empire provide the backdrop for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1), and since Rome was considered to be the center of the world, it was necessary that Paul himself testify to Jesus Christ there (Acts 19:21). The history, literature, and cultural background of Rome form an important background to the NT and should be studied along with the history and literature of Judaism during the time of Jesus and the apostles. Although the Romans were the primary threat to the survival of Christians in the ancient world, after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century AD, they became the primary means by which Christianity spread to the rest of Europe and western Asia. See also Roman Law.

Self-control involves the willingness to submit to the boundaries of nature, society, and family that God places in the world to bring about order and harmony in relationships. The self-restraint of an individual’s thoughts, words, and actions reflects the ordered discipline of God’s creation (Gen. 1–3; 8:22; Prov. 6:6–8). Discipline of the self is essential to live a productive life in community (Prov. 25:28).

“Self-control” is one of the terms that Luke uses to summarize Paul’s message to Felix (Acts 24:25). God’s people must exercise self-control (1 Thess. 5:6; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2 Pet. 1:6). Ultimately, self-control is a gift, a fruit that comes from being in submission to God’s Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

Although the events narrated in the NT took place during a time of peace in the Roman Empire, Roman soldiers were a fixture in Judea, and they appear in a number of stories: the centurion whose servant Jesus healed (Matt. 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10); the soldiers who tortured and executed Jesus (Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19) and guarded his tomb (Matt. 28:4); the God-fearing centurion Cornelius (Acts 10); and the Roman garrison in Jerusalem (Acts 21:27–40). Soldiers also guarded prisoners (Acts 12:1–10; 23; 27:1–2, 31–32, 42–44; 28:16). In several places Paul writes of Christian workers as soldiers (1 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 6:10–17; Phil. 2:25; 2 Tim. 2:3–4; Philem. 1:2).

The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OT suffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev. 26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25; cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by which blessing comes to humanity.

The Bible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17; 6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2 Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18; 1 Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assume that he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4, 20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in the final chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friends for their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writer makes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness. Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume that blindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesus rejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3, 6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).

The prayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal and thirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within the laments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, make requests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Why have you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints against God (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“You have made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemies mock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm and not a man” [22:6]).

The NT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in the OT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:22–23; 1 Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps. 22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presented as the answer to human suffering: (1) Through the incarnation, God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2) Through his suffering, Christ paid the price for sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set free from sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18). (3) Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom. 8:34–35). (4) Christ is the example in suffering (1 Pet. 2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1 Pet. 4:13), and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to suffer as his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5) Christ provides hope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1 Cor. 15:20–26; Phil. 3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev. 21:4).

There are many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21; Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19; 16:22–24; 18:17; 2 Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb. 10:32; 1 Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’s plan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1 Thess. 3:2–4) and is part of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 2:21; 4:12).

The NT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it has become part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering of believers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel (Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2 Cor. 4:10–11; 6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1 Thess. 2:14–16; 2 Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Thess. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb. 10:32–34, 38–39; 1 Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), and the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of the development toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2 Cor. 4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:1).

Suffering is associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal (2 Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness, sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2 Cor. 4:4–10); comfort and endurance (2 Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8); blessing (1 Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2 Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christian suffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character and hope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2 Cor. 12:10), and maturity and completeness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentary when compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1 Pet. 1:5–7; 4:12–13).

Throughout the Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OT law provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10, 35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesus regularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3; 19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’ responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom. 12:8; 2 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom. 12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visit prisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.

Understanding many aspects of education in Israel during OT times and, to a lesser extent, into the NT period is extraordinarily difficult. Many studies draw quite specific conclusions based on very slender evidence and inferences drawn from supposed parallels with neighboring societies, inferences themselves beset by uncertainties. Therefore, conclusions are necessarily tentative at many points. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that things did not remain constant through history, and that what can be reliably discerned for one period may not accurately reflect the situation in other times.

Education encompasses several areas of life in the biblical world. Aside from academic education (relating to literacy and numeracy), there was moral and religious education, military education, and vocational training. These are not all distinct; those whose vocation lay in diplomatic circles or within the royal court as scribes would have received academic education, while those living in the country and working a farm would have had little opportunity to access such knowledge.

Old Testament

Settings for education. There were three primary arenas of education in OT times: home, school, and temple.

Home. The most important setting for education in OT times was the home (Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19). Both parents were expected to play a role in a child’s education (Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 23:22; 31:1). Sons generally were trained in their father’s vocation, and such training took the form of an apprenticeship (1 Sam. 16:11; 2 Kings 4:18); girls learned from their mothers as they undertook their work on a daily basis (Exod. 35:25–26; 2 Sam. 13:8).

In part, the extent of home education is tied to the question of the extent of formal schooling in ancient Israel. As noted below, the nature and extent of schools is unclear, and if (as the evidence seems to suggest) schools were virtually nonexistent outside the royal court, then the home ultimately would have been the locus of any academic education received by children and the source of any widespread literacy and numeracy in the community. The frequent use of father/son language in Proverbs, however, need not imply an exclusively familial context for the instruction contained therein, as there is evidence from Egypt that such language was used between teacher and student.

School. The existence, nature, and extent of schools in OT times is extensively debated and ultimately uncertain. The first explicit reference to a school is found in the second century BC in Sir. 51:23. The virtual silence of the OT on the topic may reflect either that schools were absent in ancient Israel or that their existence was somehow of little interest and so warranted little reflection by biblical authors. In any case, it is likely that some form of school for scribes and those training to work in government existed in the vicinity of the royal court, as they did in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These did not form a comprehensive national schooling system for young children but were more specifically targeted to the few individuals who aimed to become scribes or advisers.

Outside the Bible there exist a number of inscriptions that could suggest the existence of schools in Israel prior to the exile. These include abecedaries (lists of the letters of the alphabet written out, usually as practice exercises or as examples), words written out several times, lists of month names, and possible exercises in reading foreign languages, among others.

There is also extensive evidence of schools in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and probably also Ugarit from an early date (cf. Acts 7:22). Whether their existence supports the existence of schools in Israel is unclear. Egypt and Mesopotamia had large and complex bureaucracies necessary to administer their kingdoms, and they employed writing systems far more difficult to master than Hebrew. In addition, mathematical texts reflect a concern with numeracy within the schools of these kingdoms, for which there is no clear evidence in ancient Israel.

The sages and scribes appear to be the primary source for the material supposedly employed in schools. Ecclesiastes 12:9 identifies one of the tasks of the sages as teaching the people, and some claim that Proverbs functioned as a textbook within a school setting. Indeed, Prov. 4:5; 17:16 speak of the “buying” (Heb. qanah) of knowledge, interpreted by some as a reference to teachers paid for providing tuition. Again, the context in which such tuition may have taken place is uncertain.

Temple. Priests were also involved in some teaching (1 Sam. 2:21, 26). According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, King Jehoshaphat sent five officials, nine Levites, and two priests to teach the people of Judah from the Book of the Law, a point that stresses both the importance of the task and the probable failure of the home setting to adequately convey this instruction, at least by the late fifth century BC.

Types of education. In OT times four types of education can be discerned: moral and religious, academic, vocational, and military.

Moral and religious education. The Bible stresses the importance of moral and religious education above all other forms (Exod. 10:2; 12:26; 13:8; Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20–21; 32:7, 46).

Academic education. The extent of literacy and numeracy in ancient Israel is difficult to ascertain. Rudimentary numeracy almost certainly was widespread and learned within the home and in the course of vocational training when necessary. Many among the population also appear to have been at least capable of reading and writing names or other simple texts (Deut. 6:9; 11:20; Judg. 8:14).

Vocational training. Most commonly, boys followed in their father’s vocation and thus learned through observation and participation. Under some circumstances, however, children served apprenticeships under the tutelage of others, such as was apparently the case for prophetic schools (2 Kings 2:7; 4:38; 6:1–2; Amos 7:14–15).

Military training. There are clear indications that kings recruited mercenaries to form the most important part of their army (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2; 25:13). These mercenaries were paid and likely had received some formal training, but the nature of that training is nowhere explained. In addition to these elite forces, all able-bodied men apparently were considered eligible for military service when the need arose (2 Chron. 25:5). So, for example, the elite troops were responsible for staging the attack (2 Sam. 11:14–17; 12:26), while the remainder of the army served as reinforcements where necessary (2 Sam. 12:29). The use of chariots (under David and Solomon) would have required some training, as would the wielding of various weapons (swords, spears, bows, and slings). Ultimately, however, there are only allusions to such training (e.g., Judg. 3:2; 2 Sam. 22:35).

Educational methods. Throughout the ancient Near East there is evidence that corporal punishment played a significant role in education. There is a somewhat comical text from Mesopotamia that relates a day in the life of a student who receives physical punishment for virtually everything he does. Similarly, the book of Proverbs highlights the importance of discipline in raising and training children (e.g., 13:24; 22:15; 29:15, 17). Nonetheless, Proverbs uses “the rod” as a means to signify discipline as a whole without necessarily endorsing corporal punishment as the only or even the primary means of discipline. This is apparent because Proverbs contrasts the rod not with other, lesser forms of discipline but rather with no discipline at all. Thus, although there is evidence that corporal punishment was used extensively (and probably excessively [see Sir. 30]), Proverbs endorses a more nuanced approach to disciplining children.

Academic, religious, and moral education also involved the use of various techniques that facilitated learning. These included the use of poetry or poetic couplets (common in wisdom literature and in psalms), numerical sayings (e.g., Ps. 62:11; Prov. 6:16), and acrostics, as well as the celebration of feasts and memorials at various times throughout the year.

New Testament

Greco-Roman education. Greek education developed from about the fourth century BC and spread throughout the Mediterranean region, adopted with minor modification by the Romans. The curriculum was dominated by sports and a focus on literacy, with little place given to religious education (although philosophy was taught and did bear some religious traits). Education in the Greco-Roman world was expensive, and its provision was a parental responsibility, which tended to restrict formal education to the elite.

At about the age of fifteen, boys could move from elementary schooling to the gymnasium, where they received intellectual and physical training. Some in the Corinthian church may have received such an education, a possibility raised by Paul’s terminology in 1 Corinthians that reflects educational language: his claim to be father of the Corinthian household (4:14–21); sporting imagery (esp. 9:24–27); language of nursing and nature (3:1–4); agricultural imagery (3:5–9); his threat to come with a rod (4:21), which could be related to the rod of correction; the term grammateus (1:20), which may refer to the gymnasium instructor; reference to writing (4:6); and talk of removing the marks of circumcision (7:18).

Education in Israel. One Jewish tradition states that in AD 63 the high priest Joshua ben Gamla decreed that every town should appoint a schoolteacher for the education of children of six or seven years of age. This, together with the existence of Sirach’s school more than two centuries earlier, indicates that some form of schooling existed within Israel in the first century AD.

Although some Jews throughout the ancient world received a standard Hellenistic education, others reacted against the influence of Hellenism and sought to educate their children within the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The DSS refer to the importance placed on study of the Torah (1QS 6:6–7). There were also rabbinic schools that focused on such teaching.

By NT times, synagogues were well established. Although determining precisely what took place within the synagogues is difficult, indications are that the focus on Scripture and its exposition played an important role in teaching both its importance and the appropriate way to interpret it. Teaching, however, was not confined to synagogues or the temple, as is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which Jesus is described as teaching in a variety of settings. Nonetheless, the temple itself did appear to serve as a center for religious education, as is reflected in the account of the twelve-year-old Jesus’ interactions with the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus’ own teaching was remarkable, however, in that it was delivered with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).

Education in the church. Paul highlights one of the prerequisites for being an overseer of a church as the ability to teach, stressing the importance of the NT church as a place of learning (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24). This teaching involved a familiarity with right doctrine in order to avoid being led astray, an exemplary life that modeled godly behavior for all to see, and the maturity required to apply discipline when necessary.

One of Paul’s faithful companions who proved himself as a valuable coworker (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10; Phil. 2:19–24). Many think that Timothy responded to Paul’s preaching during the first missionary journey, explaining the frequent references to Timothy as Paul’s “son” (1 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul circumcised Timothy because he had a Greek father and Jewish mother. He ministered with Paul from the second missionary journey (Acts 16) to late in Paul’s life (2 Timothy), probably about twenty years. Timothy is not mentioned in much of Acts 16, an expression of Luke’s deference to the most prominent members of the missionary team, Paul and Silas. In Acts 19:22 Luke refers to Timothy as Paul’s “helper,” one who serves. This designation and Luke’s silence in Acts 16, however, should not be taken to mean that Timothy, who clearly has a subordinate role to Paul, had menial roles and functions.

Titles and ministry assignments demonstrate Timothy’s important role in Pauline mission. Paul calls Timothy a “brother” (2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philem. 1), “my co-worker” (Rom. 16:21), a “co-worker in God’s service” (1 Thess. 3:2 [textual variant: “servant of God”]), and “servant of Christ Jesus” with Paul (Phil. 1:1) and refers to him metaphorically as a “soldier” and “hardworking farmer” (2 Tim. 2:3, 6). Paul probably includes Timothy among the “apostles of Christ” in 1 Thess. 2:6, a reference to his role as a qualified ambassador of the gospel, not as an apostle in the technical sense. Paul sent Timothy out on ministry assignments to difficult places (e.g., Thessalonica and Corinth [see 1–2 Timothy]).

Apparently, Timothy worked alongside Paul a great deal of the time and was well respected in many locations, because Paul identifies Timothy as cosender of six letters: 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. He was also with Paul during the writing of Romans and 1 Corinthians. Mentioned as released from prison in Heb. 13:23, he was an acquaintance of the author of Hebrews.

The Bible has much to say about works, and an understanding of the topic is important because works play a role in most religions. In the most generic sense, “works” refers to the products or activities of human moral agents in the context of religious discussion. God’s works are frequently mentioned in Scripture, and they are always good. His works include creation (Gen. 2:2–3; 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). Human works, therefore, should be in alignment with God’s works, though obviously of a different sort. Works in the Bible usually reflect a moral polarity: good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, just or unjust. The context of the passage often determines the moral character of the works (e.g., Isa. 3:10–11; 2 Cor. 11:15).

Important questions follow from the existence of works and their moral quality. Do good works merit God’s favor or please him? Can good works save at the time of God’s judgment? When people asked Jesus, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” he answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:28–29). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). The people from the OT commended in Heb. 11 did their works in the precondition of faith. Explicitly in the NT and often implicitly in the OT, faith is the condition for truly good works. God elects out of his mercy, not out of human works (Rom. 9:12, 16; Titus 3:5; cf. Rom. 11:2). Works not done in faith, even if considered “good” by human standards, are not commendable to God, since all humankind is under sin (Rom. 3:9) and no person is righteous or does good (Rom. 3:10–18; cf. Isa. 64:6). Works cannot save; salvation is a gift to be received by faith (Eph. 2:8–9; 2 Tim. 1:9; cf. Rom. 4:2–6). Even works of the Mosaic law are not salvific (Rom. 3:20, 27–28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2; 5:4). Good works follow from faith (2 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:3; James 2:18, 22; cf. Acts 26:20). The works of those who have faith will be judged, but this judgment appears to be related to rewards, not salvation (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:13–15).

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life, wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such as respiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequately encompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

The Beginning of Death

Death is introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of the divine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells the first man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you will certainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a useful basis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First, as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor the woman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eating the fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblical notion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointing to the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation and separation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed by Jesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and by Paul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sins and transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the common punishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen. 9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss of access to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first man and woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, but their fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and the intimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second, the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, as originally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortal in the same manner as God (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), but rather that they were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death but sustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through the provision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once they were cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

The account of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us little about how death affected animals, since the Bible consistently presents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirms human ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans and animals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is not entirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sin for humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to the fall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortality prior to the fall.

Death in the Old Testament

Death is frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from its initial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presented as that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss. 18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the author of Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines any possible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). The tragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, from God (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and from people. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality and profundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17; cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present death more positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlight the appalling circumstances of the speaker’s life rather than any blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, see Rev. 9:6).

The OT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a good death as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. So Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17) are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, some passages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,” suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death, presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead are never explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death within language used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Although there are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of the dead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show that burial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23; cf. 1 Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriate burial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillborn child is better off than someone who lives a long life but receives no burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation of those not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16; 16:4).

Life after Death in the Old Testament

Belief in some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of the ancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to the state of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoing existence that could even surpass what one may have experienced before death (although such an opportunity was a reasonable expectation only for the upper classes, while the general population probably had more modest expectations of the nature of their existence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefs depicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but the very few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensure them some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there was little hope for any positive experience following death.

The OT, however, has little to say about the state of those who have died. The widespread belief in some form of continued existence beyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in the absence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probably assumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death. Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, such as the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as “gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead (sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spirits of the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generally described as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, there are prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death (e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’s death (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Death in the New Testament

The NT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view of death presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence of and punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity is stated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by the notion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead in their sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death, according to Paul, is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), and yet to die is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being with Christ, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” than being alive in this body in this world.

Central to both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death in the Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’ death provides the basis for countering the consequences of the original rebellion against God by the first couple (2 Cor. 5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itself destroyed death (2 Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesus offers—eternal life—is available to the believer in the present (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimately abolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe in him will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

The NT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the dead from the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearly presented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of the existence of distinctions among those who have died, such that the rich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used in the LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus is far off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a danger in reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflect something of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among some in Jesus’ day.

The NT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to the state of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from which there will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ will not experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwelling place with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

The historical origins of Christianity need to be set against Jewish history, beliefs, and culture in Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean, but they also need to be set in the context of the wider Greco-Roman world that was dominated politically and militarily by the Roman Empire.

From Republic to Empire

Rome began as a city-state but soon became a transcontinental empire reaching over parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Rome emerged as the most dominant force in the Mediterranean after it defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). Thereafter, Rome began to expand its control and power over the various Hellenistic city-states in the east, including Macedonia, Illyria, and Asia Minor. By the mid-first century AD, Rome had also conquered or annexed Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Cyrene, Gaul, Spain, North Africa, and Armenia.

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire took place under the Roman emperors beginning with Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), who, after crossing the Rubicon and defeating Pompey, was proclaimed dictator perpetuus (“dictator for life”). The period after Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 BC) was a time of political upheaval as Rome was marred by a series of civil wars. The first was between Octavius and Antony against Caesar’s assassins Brutus and Cassius. This climaxed in the Battle of Philippi (42 BC), which the former allies of Julius Caesar won. The second was between Octavius and Antony, where Antony and Cleopatra were defeated at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, leaving Octavius as the undisputed leader of Rome.

Octavius was given the honorific name “Augustus” by the senate. His reign (31 BC–AD 14) marked a period of consolidation, reorganization, and renewal of the Roman Empire. Augustus embarked on an empire-wide policy of fiscal rationalization, developed a constitutional settlement for Rome, centralized his military authority over the various provinces, and had Julius Caesar deified. Writers and artists of the era heralded Augustus’s reign as a time of unprecedented peace and security—peace from civil war and security from the Germanic tribes in the north and the Parthian Empire in the east. Worship of the emperor became more frequent especially in the Roman East, although Augustus did not permit it in Rome. What is most significant about Augustus is that it is with his reign that the Roman Empire essentially began. He was the emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1). It was under Trajan (AD 98–117), however, that the Roman Empire expanded to its largest area, encompassing parts of Britain and Persia.

Emperors (AD 14–98)

Tiberius, Augustus’s adopted heir, reigned in the years AD 14–37. He was a highly successful military general, but as emperor he was remembered as being gloomy and melancholic. Tiberius even went into a self-imposed exile for a time, leaving the praetorian prefect Sejanus in charge until Tiberius finally had him executed for treason. It was during the reign of Tiberius that Jesus conducted his ministry in Palestine.

Tiberius was succeeded by his adopted grandson Caligula, who reigned in the years AD 37–41. Caligula was the son of the popular Roman general Germanicus, who died in Antioch in AD 19. Historical sources are not favorably disposed toward Caligula, who was remembered as a malevolent tyrant given to self-aggrandizement and sexual perversity. In AD 39/40 Caligula departed from imperial policy that permitted emperor worship in the east and veneration of deceased emperors in Rome, and he often appeared dressed as a god in public and demanded worship as a living god. During this time he deposed Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, on suspicion of consorting with Parthia (Josephus, Ant. 18.7). Caligula also ordered that his statue be placed in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (Philo, Embassy 203). Petronius, the governor of Syria, knowing that such an act would lead to civil war, refused to comply and appealed to Caligula to reverse the order. In response, Caligula sent an order to Petronius that he commit suicide. Fortunately, news of Caligula’s assassination by a conspiracy involving the praetorian guard and senators reached Petronius first.

Claudius, Caligula’s uncle, reigned in the years AD 41–54, and his rule was defined by numerous public works, a reordering of the judicial system, a torrid series of marriages, the conquest of Britain, and a number of attempted coups by the Roman senate. In AD 49 he expelled the Jews from Rome because of disputes about a certain “Chrestus,” probably Christ (cf. Acts 18:2). No one is sure whether Claudius was murdered or died of old age, but he remained a sharp contrast to the brutal excesses of Caligula and Nero.

Nero, the stepson of Claudius, reigned in the years AD 54–68. The early period of his rule was marked by cultural endeavors and diplomatic efforts. The later years were, in contrast, distinguished by tyranny and self-aggrandizement. There was a Jewish revolt against Rome in Judea (AD 66–70) during Nero’s reign, and Vespasian was sent to pacify the territory. According to ancient sources, Nero accused Christians of starting the fire of Rome in AD 64 and subjected them to the cruelest of punishments, including crucifixion, being thrown to wild animals, and even being burned alive. It probably was during this time that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Nero eventually was declared a public enemy by the Roman senate, and he committed suicide before he could be captured in AD 68. There arose a “Nero redivivus” legend, whereby many hoped or feared that Nero had not died in AD 68 but had fled to Parthia and would return to Rome in order to destroy it (Sib. Or. 4.119–124; 5.137–141, 361–396), and this arguably stands behind the imagery of Rev. 13:3; 17:8–11.

The suicide of Nero left a power vacuum in Rome, and AD 69 saw no less than four emperors ascend the throne: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally Vespasian. Galba was governor of Hispania Tarraconensis and was invited to become emperor by the senate, but he was killed by the praetorian guard after they were bribed by the praetor Otho. Otho himself committed suicide after his forces were defeated by Vitellius, the commander of the legions on the Rhine. Vitellius became emperor, but he was fiscally irresponsible and murdered many of his rivals. The legions in the Danube, Egypt, Syria, and Judea had declared Vespasian emperor and marched on Rome. Vespasian controlled the grain supplies to Rome from Egypt and had a superior force. Vitellius’s forces were defeated at Bedriacum, and Vitellius went into hiding but eventually was killed in Rome. Vespasian was declared emperor by the senate, and so began the Flavian dynasty, which restored order after the chaos of civil war.

The Flavians ruled in the years AD 69–96. Vespasian (r. AD 69–79) consolidated the empire after its year of strife and instituted new taxes, such as the fiscus judaicus, a war reparation tax placed on all Jews and paid to the temple of Jupiter in lieu of the Jerusalem temple tax. Vespasian was succeeded by his sons Titus (r. AD 79–81) and Domitian (r. AD 81–96). When Vespasian sailed to Rome from Judea, Titus was left in charge of the siege of Jerusalem, which he completed and celebrated in a triumph in Rome in AD 72. This triumph is memorialized in the Arch of Titus, which depicts Roman soldiers bringing the vessels of the temple to Rome as part of the booty taken. Later Roman writers regarded Domitian as a malevolent and malicious tyrant (e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius), but this probably is an exaggeration caused partly by a desire to highlight the greatness of succeeding emperors such as Nerva and Trajan. It probably was during the reign of Domitian that some Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted for their failure to worship the emperor, as depicted in the book of Revelation.

Table 7. Roman Emperors (31 BC–AD 117)

31 BC-AD 14 – Augustus

AD 14-37 – Tiberius

AD 37-41 – Caligula

AD 41-54 – Claudius

AD 54-68 – Nero

AD 68-69 – Galba

AD 69 – Otho

AD 69 – Vitellius

AD 69-79 – Vespasian

AD 79-81 – Titus

AD 81-96 – Domitian

AD 96-98 – Nerva

AD 98-117 – Trajan

Military

Military expeditions expanded Rome’s control of foreign territories and safeguarded its borders from incursion, most threateningly from the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine River and north of the Danube River and from the Parthian (= Neo-Persian) Empire east of the Euphrates River. A Roman legion consisted of around six thousand men, including cavalry. Under Tiberius, there were twenty-five legions stationed across the empire: eight on the Rhine, three in Spain, two in Egypt, four in Syria, two in Africa, and six in the Danube region. In terms of command structures, the legions were under the control of certain regional commands by men of consular rank, including two on the Rhine, one in Spain, one in Syria, and three in the Balkans (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5). These were among the most powerful persons outside the ruling family and could be kingmakers or contenders during times of civil war. A legion was divided into ten cohorts and commanded by a legate, usually of senatorial rank. Units of one hundred were commanded by centurions, and service in the legions was set at between twenty and twenty-five years. Upon recruitment, the soldier swore an oath of loyalty to the emperor (sacramentum) that was renewed annually. During times of peace, Roman soldiers could perform a number of civil tasks relating to taxation, building projects, and policing.

Centurions are mentioned several times in the NT (e.g., Matt. 8:5; Mark 15:39; Acts 10:1; 21:32; 27:1). There is a mention of a “legion” of demons that oppressed the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:9), and Jesus refers to the possibility of the Father sending him “legions” of angels (Matt. 26:53). Military terminology is very apparent in Paul’s letters, where he refers to fighting armor (Rom. 13:11–13; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:10–18), compares commitment to Christ to military service (2 Tim. 2:4), refers to his coworkers as “soldiers” or “fellow soldiers” (Phil. 2:25; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. 2:3), and likens ministerial remuneration to a soldier being paid his salarium (1 Cor. 9:7).

Culture and Religion

One of the primary reasons for Rome’s rise and dominance, militarily and culturally, was its capacity to absorb other peoples and even other gods into its constituency and pantheon. Its constantly growing pantheon, application of the rule of law, and superior military force made Rome what it was: a melting pot of all cultures and a Romanizer of other cultures.

Roman society was heavily stratified, but social mobility, upward and downward, was possible. Wealth, marriage, education, and military exploits were the primary means to social advancement. The senatorial class represented the wealthy nobility of Rome and provided the primary cohort of civil and military administrators. The equestrian class (or “knights,” as they are sometimes called) were a larger group of less wealthy Roman citizens. Decurions were members of civil councils in provincial cities who often acted as magistrates and were leaders of local communities. The plebeians represented the general citizenry of Rome, who, until the time of Tiberius, had some power in electing officials. Finally, there were freedmen, who were ex-slaves usually in a relationship with their former master, and also slaves, who were regarded as little more than property.

The ancient Roman religions focused on the numen, the somewhat impersonal divine power associated with certain localities. From the third century BC, Greek deities were assimilated and Romanized, so that Zeus became Jupiter, and Vesta was identified as Hestia. The Capitoline Hill was crowned with a temple that was dedicated around 500 BC to Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno. These were the principal gods of Rome, although others were added to the pantheon as the Romans conquered other peoples and adopted their gods. Other gods also received greater honor, such as the goddess Pax, the personification of peace (based on the Greek goddess Eirene); Vespasian built and dedicated a temple in her honor in Rome in AD 75. The Roman emperor was the Pontifex Maximus and supreme high priest of Rome and the empire. In the mid- to late first century AD, the fastest-growing religion was the imperial cult, the worship of (usually) deceased Roman emperors. This cult became popular in the eastern Mediterranean cities, where worship of rulers was commonplace, but was regarded with indifference in Rome.

Religions and philosophies from all over the known world eventually made their way to Rome. Egyptian rites and religions gained followings, Mithraism acquired currency within the ranks of the military and among public servants, Judaism entered Rome probably with the Hasmonean delegation sent there around 139 BC, and Christianity came to Rome probably during the late 30s and early 40s of the first century AD through Jewish pilgrims visiting the east and through Judean immigration to Rome. Many Roman intellectuals lamented the fact that so many foreign superstitions had found their way to Rome, and that Roman peoples found them more attractive than their own state religion. Roman religion was largely controlled by the state through a set calendar and the appointment of priests and vestal virgins. It was practiced in public and in the home. As such, religious life was very much intertwined with social and political life. Roman religion engendered the need for its citizens to act with pietas, the honoring of one’s obligations to the gods, and with religio, which designated appropriate scruples and rites in the presence of the gods.

Summary

The birth of the church and the growth of Christianity took place within the wider social, religious, and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world. The politics and power of the Roman Empire provide the backdrop for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1), and since Rome was considered to be the center of the world, it was necessary that Paul himself testify to Jesus Christ there (Acts 19:21). The history, literature, and cultural background of Rome form an important background to the NT and should be studied along with the history and literature of Judaism during the time of Jesus and the apostles. Although the Romans were the primary threat to the survival of Christians in the ancient world, after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century AD, they became the primary means by which Christianity spread to the rest of Europe and western Asia. See also Roman Law.

Ancient Ephesus was located on the western coast of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). This cosmopolitan and multiethnic seaport city of some quarter of a million people was one of the largest and most important cities in the Roman Empire. Ephesus experienced tremendous growth during the reign of Caesar Augustus, who elevated the city to the capital of the province of Asia. The city became a center of international trade (because of its location), of finance (the main treasury for the tax collectors in Asia), and of communications (the base for a group of Roman military couriers).

Ephesus itself was an impressive place, featuring modern roads, a business market, a civic center, expensive homes, public baths, a stadium, a gymnasium, temples to various gods and emperors, a concert hall, an impressive library, and much more. Two particular landmarks would have stood out to visitors. First was a theater that seated almost twenty-five thousand people. This is the place where the silversmith Demetrius led the crowd to riot in opposition to Paul (see Acts 19:23–41). Second was the temple of Artemis, a structure about four times as large as the Parthenon in Athens. The building measured 130 meters by 70 meters and contained 127 columns that were 2 meters in diameter and 20 meters high. The temple served as the most important financial institution in Asia. Many ancient lists included the temple of Artemis as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

Religiously, Artemis was the most important deity to the people of Ephesus. At least two major festivals were held in honor of Artemis, in which the Ephesians celebrated with competitions and religious processions. The city also featured other religions and cults, including worship of the Roman emperor. There were several temples dedicated to emperors at Ephesus, including one to Domitian (likely the emperor when Revelation was written), built around AD 89–90. The city was also a center for the practice of magic and occult arts. In Acts 19:18–19 we read about new Christians turning away from the practice and burning their magic books (worth “fifty thousand drachmas”—i.e., the wages for fifty thousand days of work).

The apostle Paul’s ministry in Asia was strongly connected to Ephesus (see Acts 18–20). After serving the church in Corinth for nearly two years (18:11), Paul went to Ephesus accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, the couple who later instructed Apollos (18:26). Paul reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue for a short time before leaving for Antioch (18:19–22). On his third missionary tour, Paul came to Ephesus (18:24; 19:1), where he shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with twelve disciples of John the Baptist (19:1–7). He taught in the synagogue for three months, but later he moved to the lecture hall of Tyrannus, where he ministered for two years with tremendous results (Acts 19:8–20; cf. 1 Cor. 16:8). When conversions to Christ hurt sales of Artemis idols, the local silversmiths started a riot in the theater against the Christians (Acts 19:23–41; cf. 1 Cor. 15:32). Paul then left Ephesus for Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and spent the winter in Corinth. On his return trip to Jerusalem, he stopped in nearby Miletus, where he met with the Ephesian elders (20:16–38). Paul made it to Jerusalem but was arrested and eventually transferred to Rome. Many think that Paul wrote the Letter to the Ephesians from Rome (AD 60–62). Paul’s coworkers Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3), Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:18), and Tychicus (2 Tim. 4:12) are associated with his ministry in Ephesus.

Early church tradition says that the apostle John lived in Ephesus toward the end of his life. Also, the church in Ephesus received the first of the letters to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:11; 2:1–7). The church in Ephesus was commended for its perseverance and doctrinal purity but faulted for abandoning its first love. Those who overcame were promised access to the tree of life in paradise, an image contrasting with the sacred tree shrine in the temple of Artemis.

In Christian theology, doctrine is the synthesis of Christian teaching, especially as set forth in its various related themes. The early disciples frequently referred to the teachings of Christ and to the teachings of the apostles and the church. These were memorized, compiled, and passed through the generations in the church (2 Tim. 2). As early as Acts 2 reference is made to the teaching of the apostles and the devotion of the church to it. By the second century, a body of teaching had crystallized into a doctrinal treatise called the Didache. Doctrinal teaching as a set structure is especially emphasized in the Pastoral Epistles, such that it has caused some to conjecture a later date and early catholic outlook for those letters. Regardless of the validity of this postulation, these letters evidence an early doctrinal and confessional outlook within the church.

This was, of course, nothing new, since the Israelites had a body of teaching that they had passed on through the generations: the law, both written and oral. For the Israelites, the law, both written and oral, was memorized, taught, interpreted, and heeded through all of society. The church simply followed suit in forming its teachings.

In the NT two words, didachē and didaskalia, are commonly translated “teaching” and in some cases are rendered by some translations as “doctrine.” The term didachē appears more widely throughout the NT, whereas didaskalia is used largely in the Pastoral Epistles (referring to both the content and the act of teaching). The term didaskalia is sometimes used with the term logos when the latter indicates sound speech (Titus 2:7–8) and words of the faith (1 Tim. 4:6). In fact, in one verse in the Pastoral Epistles all three terms are used together as “the faithful word,” “in accordance with the teaching,” and “in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9 NASB).

The first body of teaching for the church is the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 7:28), such as that found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus notes the ethic of his messiahship and his followers. The teaching of Jesus, which is authoritative (Mark 1:22, 27), and confrontational (Mark 12:38), is an astonishing answer to the religious leaders (Matt. 22:33; cf. Luke 4:32). Jesus notes the vanity of teaching the human commandments as if they were the doctrine from God (Mark 7:7). When questioned, Jesus sets forth his teaching as from the Father (John 7:16–17). The chief priests seek to destroy both Jesus and his followers because of the teaching (Mark 11:18; John 18:19; Acts 5:28). On Cyprus the proconsul is astonished at the doctrine of Christ taught by Paul (Acts 13:12), and in Athens Paul’s teaching about Christ is new and unusual to those of the Areopagus (Acts 17:18–20).

For Paul, doctrine is fundamental for believers. He notes the commitment to the teaching of Christ after conversion as normative for the Roman believers (Rom. 6:17), and he instructs further that they keep an eye out for those who cause division and hinder adherence to sound doctrine (Rom. 16:17). In fact, God has given gifted people to the body for building up the saints to avoid such doctrinal problems (Eph. 4:12–14). Further, a straightforward expression of teaching has priority over gifts such as tongues (1 Cor. 14:6, 26). Paul also points out that the Colossian heresy is the doctrine of human beings rather than that of God (Col. 2:22).

In the Pastoral Epistles the injunction from Paul to Timothy is that he be nourished on and persevere in sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6, 16) and set forth doctrine in preaching (1 Tim. 4:13 [along with public reading of Scripture]; 2 Tim. 4:2). All this is certainly fitting for Timothy, as he has followed the teaching of Paul (2 Tim. 3:10). The injunction to Titus is to hold to the word and to the sound doctrine and teaching as he corrects the church (Titus 1:9). Those who are servants are encouraged to show honesty and good faith, so that the teaching of the Savior will be respected (Titus 2:10). It is clear for Paul that Scripture is the basis of doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16). This doctrine (teaching) will be tolerated by few; as a whole, sound doctrine will be rejected in favor of a message more palatable to human interest (2 Tim. 4:3). The task of the servant of God is to stand against heterodox teaching (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3). Heterodoxy leads to heteropraxy (1 Tim. 1:10). Paul notes the doctrine of demons, false teaching that is ultimately based in satanic teaching (1 Tim. 4:1).

The injunction of the writer to the Hebrews is that they are not to submit to strange teachings, which deny grace (13:9). This accords with the book’s argument as a whole. For John, staying in the doctrine of Christ is salvific, but going outside it is not (2 John 9). John’s readers are not to receive those who pervert the doctrine of Christ (2 John 10).

In the book of Revelation, Jesus warns the church at Pergamum about the false teaching of Balaam (2:14) and that of the Nicolaitans (2:15). The church at Thyatira is likewise warned to shun the teachings of the false prophetess known as “Jezebel” (2:20, 24).

Understanding many aspects of education in Israel during OT times and, to a lesser extent, into the NT period is extraordinarily difficult. Many studies draw quite specific conclusions based on very slender evidence and inferences drawn from supposed parallels with neighboring societies, inferences themselves beset by uncertainties. Therefore, conclusions are necessarily tentative at many points. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that things did not remain constant through history, and that what can be reliably discerned for one period may not accurately reflect the situation in other times.

Education encompasses several areas of life in the biblical world. Aside from academic education (relating to literacy and numeracy), there was moral and religious education, military education, and vocational training. These are not all distinct; those whose vocation lay in diplomatic circles or within the royal court as scribes would have received academic education, while those living in the country and working a farm would have had little opportunity to access such knowledge.

Old Testament

Settings for education. There were three primary arenas of education in OT times: home, school, and temple.

Home. The most important setting for education in OT times was the home (Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19). Both parents were expected to play a role in a child’s education (Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 23:22; 31:1). Sons generally were trained in their father’s vocation, and such training took the form of an apprenticeship (1 Sam. 16:11; 2 Kings 4:18); girls learned from their mothers as they undertook their work on a daily basis (Exod. 35:25–26; 2 Sam. 13:8).

In part, the extent of home education is tied to the question of the extent of formal schooling in ancient Israel. As noted below, the nature and extent of schools is unclear, and if (as the evidence seems to suggest) schools were virtually nonexistent outside the royal court, then the home ultimately would have been the locus of any academic education received by children and the source of any widespread literacy and numeracy in the community. The frequent use of father/son language in Proverbs, however, need not imply an exclusively familial context for the instruction contained therein, as there is evidence from Egypt that such language was used between teacher and student.

School. The existence, nature, and extent of schools in OT times is extensively debated and ultimately uncertain. The first explicit reference to a school is found in the second century BC in Sir. 51:23. The virtual silence of the OT on the topic may reflect either that schools were absent in ancient Israel or that their existence was somehow of little interest and so warranted little reflection by biblical authors. In any case, it is likely that some form of school for scribes and those training to work in government existed in the vicinity of the royal court, as they did in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These did not form a comprehensive national schooling system for young children but were more specifically targeted to the few individuals who aimed to become scribes or advisers.

Outside the Bible there exist a number of inscriptions that could suggest the existence of schools in Israel prior to the exile. These include abecedaries (lists of the letters of the alphabet written out, usually as practice exercises or as examples), words written out several times, lists of month names, and possible exercises in reading foreign languages, among others.

There is also extensive evidence of schools in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and probably also Ugarit from an early date (cf. Acts 7:22). Whether their existence supports the existence of schools in Israel is unclear. Egypt and Mesopotamia had large and complex bureaucracies necessary to administer their kingdoms, and they employed writing systems far more difficult to master than Hebrew. In addition, mathematical texts reflect a concern with numeracy within the schools of these kingdoms, for which there is no clear evidence in ancient Israel.

The sages and scribes appear to be the primary source for the material supposedly employed in schools. Ecclesiastes 12:9 identifies one of the tasks of the sages as teaching the people, and some claim that Proverbs functioned as a textbook within a school setting. Indeed, Prov. 4:5; 17:16 speak of the “buying” (Heb. qanah) of knowledge, interpreted by some as a reference to teachers paid for providing tuition. Again, the context in which such tuition may have taken place is uncertain.

Temple. Priests were also involved in some teaching (1 Sam. 2:21, 26). According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, King Jehoshaphat sent five officials, nine Levites, and two priests to teach the people of Judah from the Book of the Law, a point that stresses both the importance of the task and the probable failure of the home setting to adequately convey this instruction, at least by the late fifth century BC.

Types of education. In OT times four types of education can be discerned: moral and religious, academic, vocational, and military.

Moral and religious education. The Bible stresses the importance of moral and religious education above all other forms (Exod. 10:2; 12:26; 13:8; Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20–21; 32:7, 46).

Academic education. The extent of literacy and numeracy in ancient Israel is difficult to ascertain. Rudimentary numeracy almost certainly was widespread and learned within the home and in the course of vocational training when necessary. Many among the population also appear to have been at least capable of reading and writing names or other simple texts (Deut. 6:9; 11:20; Judg. 8:14).

Vocational training. Most commonly, boys followed in their father’s vocation and thus learned through observation and participation. Under some circumstances, however, children served apprenticeships under the tutelage of others, such as was apparently the case for prophetic schools (2 Kings 2:7; 4:38; 6:1–2; Amos 7:14–15).

Military training. There are clear indications that kings recruited mercenaries to form the most important part of their army (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2; 25:13). These mercenaries were paid and likely had received some formal training, but the nature of that training is nowhere explained. In addition to these elite forces, all able-bodied men apparently were considered eligible for military service when the need arose (2 Chron. 25:5). So, for example, the elite troops were responsible for staging the attack (2 Sam. 11:14–17; 12:26), while the remainder of the army served as reinforcements where necessary (2 Sam. 12:29). The use of chariots (under David and Solomon) would have required some training, as would the wielding of various weapons (swords, spears, bows, and slings). Ultimately, however, there are only allusions to such training (e.g., Judg. 3:2; 2 Sam. 22:35).

Educational methods. Throughout the ancient Near East there is evidence that corporal punishment played a significant role in education. There is a somewhat comical text from Mesopotamia that relates a day in the life of a student who receives physical punishment for virtually everything he does. Similarly, the book of Proverbs highlights the importance of discipline in raising and training children (e.g., 13:24; 22:15; 29:15, 17). Nonetheless, Proverbs uses “the rod” as a means to signify discipline as a whole without necessarily endorsing corporal punishment as the only or even the primary means of discipline. This is apparent because Proverbs contrasts the rod not with other, lesser forms of discipline but rather with no discipline at all. Thus, although there is evidence that corporal punishment was used extensively (and probably excessively [see Sir. 30]), Proverbs endorses a more nuanced approach to disciplining children.

Academic, religious, and moral education also involved the use of various techniques that facilitated learning. These included the use of poetry or poetic couplets (common in wisdom literature and in psalms), numerical sayings (e.g., Ps. 62:11; Prov. 6:16), and acrostics, as well as the celebration of feasts and memorials at various times throughout the year.

New Testament

Greco-Roman education. Greek education developed from about the fourth century BC and spread throughout the Mediterranean region, adopted with minor modification by the Romans. The curriculum was dominated by sports and a focus on literacy, with little place given to religious education (although philosophy was taught and did bear some religious traits). Education in the Greco-Roman world was expensive, and its provision was a parental responsibility, which tended to restrict formal education to the elite.

At about the age of fifteen, boys could move from elementary schooling to the gymnasium, where they received intellectual and physical training. Some in the Corinthian church may have received such an education, a possibility raised by Paul’s terminology in 1 Corinthians that reflects educational language: his claim to be father of the Corinthian household (4:14–21); sporting imagery (esp. 9:24–27); language of nursing and nature (3:1–4); agricultural imagery (3:5–9); his threat to come with a rod (4:21), which could be related to the rod of correction; the term grammateus (1:20), which may refer to the gymnasium instructor; reference to writing (4:6); and talk of removing the marks of circumcision (7:18).

Education in Israel. One Jewish tradition states that in AD 63 the high priest Joshua ben Gamla decreed that every town should appoint a schoolteacher for the education of children of six or seven years of age. This, together with the existence of Sirach’s school more than two centuries earlier, indicates that some form of schooling existed within Israel in the first century AD.

Although some Jews throughout the ancient world received a standard Hellenistic education, others reacted against the influence of Hellenism and sought to educate their children within the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The DSS refer to the importance placed on study of the Torah (1QS 6:6–7). There were also rabbinic schools that focused on such teaching.

By NT times, synagogues were well established. Although determining precisely what took place within the synagogues is difficult, indications are that the focus on Scripture and its exposition played an important role in teaching both its importance and the appropriate way to interpret it. Teaching, however, was not confined to synagogues or the temple, as is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which Jesus is described as teaching in a variety of settings. Nonetheless, the temple itself did appear to serve as a center for religious education, as is reflected in the account of the twelve-year-old Jesus’ interactions with the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus’ own teaching was remarkable, however, in that it was delivered with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).

Education in the church. Paul highlights one of the prerequisites for being an overseer of a church as the ability to teach, stressing the importance of the NT church as a place of learning (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24). This teaching involved a familiarity with right doctrine in order to avoid being led astray, an exemplary life that modeled godly behavior for all to see, and the maturity required to apply discipline when necessary.

First Timothy, along with 2 Timothy and Titus, is known as one of the apostle Paul’s Pastoral Epistles. These letters have earned this designation because they were addressed to pastors and deal with particular problems that they were facing in their respective churches. This letter was addressed to Timothy, whom Paul affectionately called “my son,” most likely because the apostle had led him to faith in Christ (1:18; cf. 1:2). At Paul’s urging, Timothy took on the role of providing leadership to the church in Ephesus (1:3), which had been infiltrated by false teachers (1:3–4). Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, instructing him to rebuke the false teachers in the church and to fight the good fight of faith (1:18). The apostle concisely summarized the major theme of this letter by saying, “I am writing you these instructions so that . . . you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (3:14–15).

Authorship and Date

The authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles has been questioned more than that of any of Paul’s other letters. This is due to differences in style and theology as well as the difficulty in establishing their place in the travels of Paul in Acts. The letters, it is presumed, were written by a disciple of Paul after his death and were meant to be a “testament” honoring the memory of Paul.

Despite these claims, there is not enough evidence to overturn Pauline authorship. Differences in theology can be accounted for by the different circumstances addressed. Stylistic differences may have arisen from Paul’s use of an amanuensis (scribe) to write the letter, a common practice in the ancient world (see Rom. 16:22). In terms of their time of writing, the Pastorals were likely written after Paul’s first Roman imprisonment and so after the narrative of Acts. Paul expected to be released (Phil. 1:25; 2:24), and it is likely that his Jewish accusers never made the long and arduous trip from Jerusalem to Rome.

Evidence in support of Pauline authorship can also be found: (1) The many personal comments to Timothy (cf. 2 Tim. 4:13) show that the letters are either authentic, or blatant forgeries, not “testaments” honoring the memory of Paul. (2) All of Paul’s key theological themes appear in the Pastorals. (3) Paul makes negative statements about himself that a disciple writing to honor Paul is unlikely to have made, for example, referring to himself as the “worst” of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).

First Timothy was likely written between AD 63 and 66, after Paul’s release from his first imprisonment in Rome (AD 62–63; cf. 3:14; Acts 28:30–31).

Recipient

Timothy came from the city of Lystra in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). His father was Greek and his mother Jewish (Acts 16:1). Eunice, his mother, and Lois, his grandmother, brought him up under the influence of the Jewish religion (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14–15). Timothy gained a good reputation among the local believers, so Paul added him to his missionary team (Acts 16:2–3). He accompanied Paul during his second and third missionary journeys (Acts 16:3; 17:14; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4). Paul listed Timothy as the coauthor or cosender in several of his letters (2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philem. 1) and included him in the greetings that he sent to the church in Rome (Rom. 16:21). In addition, the apostle sent his protégé as a messenger to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:1–6), Corinth (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10), and Philippi (Phil. 2:19, 23). Because Timothy was by nature shy and timid, Paul had to exhort him to use his gifts and to boldly carry out his ministry (1 Cor. 16:10; 1 Tim. 4:12; 5:23; 2 Tim. 1:6–7).

Background and Occasion

During his third missionary journey, Paul warned the Ephesian church that false teachers would arise from their midst (Acts 20:30). After his first imprisonment in Rome (cf. Acts 28:16, 20, 30), the apostle accompanied Timothy to Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). They discovered that certain teachers were spreading “false doctrines” in the church. According to 1 Timothy, these false teachings included a morbid interest in myths, old wives’ tales, and genealogies. Some were promoting controversies, meaningless talk, incorrect teaching of the law, abstinence from marriage and certain foods, and ungodly gossip (1:3–7; 4:3, 7; 5:13; 6:4–5). These false teachers also attempted to secure financial gain by promoting their doctrines (6:3–5). Paul hoped to visit Ephesus again (3:14), but in the meantime he wrote this letter instructing Timothy and the church leadership to correct these problems (1:3–4; 3:15).

Paul’s instructions to Timothy were not only to defend the church from false teachers but also to give guidelines on the proper behavior for men and women in the church (2:1–15). He gave Timothy standards for selecting godly leaders (3:1–16) and practical advice on dealing with various age groups in the church (5:1–20). Throughout the book Paul exhorts his young protégé and the church to lead a holy life (1:18; 2:8–15; 4:12–16; 6:6–8, 11–14, 20).

Outline

I. Introduction (1:1–2)

II. Warning about False Teachers and Exhortation to Keep the Faith (1:3–20)

A. False teaching and false teachers of the law (1:3–11)

B. Paul, an example of God’s grace (1:12–17)

C. Exhortation to keep the faith in the midst of apostasy (1:18–20)

III. Prayer and Proper Behavior in the Church (2:1–15)

A. Prayer in the church (2:1–7)

B. Men and women in the worship service (2:8–15)

IV. Qualifications for Church Leaders (3:1–16)

A. Qualifications for elders (3:1–7)

B. Qualifications for deacons (3:8–13)

C. The purpose behind Paul’s instructions (3:14–16)

V. Correction of False Teaching (4:1–16)

A. Apostasy and false teaching (4:1–5)

B. Exhortation to confront apostasy (4:6–16)

VI. Responsibility toward Various Groups in the Church (5:1–6:19)

A. Relating to men and women in the church (5:1–2)

B. Responsibility toward widows (5:3–16)

C. Responsibilities toward elders (5:17–25)

D. Responsibility of slaves toward their masters (6:1–2)

E. Contrasting corrupt teachers with true godliness (6:3–10)

F. Pursuing the life of faith (6:11–16)

G. Instructing the wealthy (6:17–19)

VII. Closing Admonition and Benediction (6:20–21)

(1) The dregs or residue, used metaphorically to speak of people’s remaining impurities (Ezek. 24:6, 11–12). (2) An amount of money or other valuable entrusted to another (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23; 2 Tim. 1:14) or used as a down payment. In three instances in the NT the Greek word arrabōn is used to refer to the Holy Spirit as the deposit that guarantees what is still to come (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13–14). The last of these passages notes that the deposit of the Spirit in view is the redemption of God’s people, their future inheritance.

Scope and Uses of the Word “Hope”

At times simply indicating a wish (2 Cor. 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.

Those whom God has helped and delivered expect to see God’s power again when future needs arise, knowing that in God there are reasons for hope. Mere optimism assumes that bad circumstances will improve with the passing of time. In contrast, hope assumes that God is faithful and is convinced that he is able to bring about his good purpose (Isa. 44:1–8). So at its core, biblical hope is hope in God, 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 the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).

Both of the main OT words for “hope” (Heb. roots qwh and ykhl) are at times translated “wait.” By definition, hope means that God’s promised outcome has not arrived, and that some time will pass before it does. But that time is filled with a sense of waiting on God, often with a deep ache of longing for God to act (see Pss. 25:16–21; 39:4–7; Isa. 40:28–31; Lam. 3:19–24).

The inner disposition of hope may be seriously threatened by injustice and 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 a psalmist’s self-exhortation to hope amid oppressive and depressing circumstances: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, 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).

The OT usually locates individual hope within the horizon and limits of this world. One hopes for outcomes that may be realized in one’s own lifetime; indeed, when life ends, hope ends (Prov. 11:7; 24:20; Eccles. 9:4; Isa. 38:18). Proverbs that mention hope regarding someone’s character development show an underlying concern that God’s purposes be vindicated in one’s life (e.g., Prov. 19:18; 26:12). When used in conjunction with Israel as a whole, hope looks to a more distant future and coming generations.

In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2 Cor. 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 (1 John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1 Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1 Cor. 13:13).

Hope as a Biblical Theme

With the God of hope as its covenant Lord, hope is a defining reality for Israel and a persistent theme in the historical books (e.g., 2 Sam. 23:1–7; 2 Kings 25:27–30). Psalmists find hope either in continuity with present structures (Ps. 37) or in drastic change (Pss. 33; 82), such as personal or corporate restoration.

Judgment dominates the message of the preexilic prophets, although expressions of hope are also found. But Judah’s downfall in 587/586 BC marks a turning point in prophetic hope. While preexilic prophecy bases its indictment, appeal, and warning in the exodus and the covenant, Jeremiah and Ezekiel tend to redirect hope and expectation to a new work of salvation that God will accomplish through and after the 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 sin will enable obedience to God’s law, now to be found written on their hearts.

During the exile, collection of Israel’s sacred texts enabled the shattered community to sustain identity and hope. Postexilic prophecy is often “text prophecy” that arises from reflection upon and reapplication of written prophecies, psalms, and other scriptural texts. For example, the book of Zechariah (especially chaps. 9–14) alludes to many earlier writings and also moves toward apocalyptic literature, contributing dramatic new imagery of God’s conquest of evil to establish his cosmic reign and fulfill his covenant. Messianic hopes rose throughout this period, fueled by earlier prophecies (e.g., Isa. 9; 11; 65:17; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2).

If the OT gives occasional hints of an afterlife, this hope becomes manifest in the NT (2 Tim. 1:10). Jesus promises the thief on the cross fellowship after death (Luke 23:43). For Paul, “to depart and be with Christ” is such a vivid hope that “to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21–24). Such texts imply that death ushers the believer into Christ’s presence. Yet this intermediate state is not the whole picture. We are saved in hope of the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23–25)—our resurrection from the dead and entry into a new glorified, bodily existence (1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20–21).

Christ is 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 and powers arrayed against God, including sin and death (1 Cor. 15:24–26; 2 Thess. 1:5–10). Christian hope involves nothing less than the return and full revelation of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the renewal of all creation (1 Thess. 4:13–18; Rev. 21–22)—the complete vindication of God’s rule, secured already in Christ. Then God’s redeemed 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 us to press on with hope, stretching toward what is to come (Phil. 3:13–14).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1 Cor. 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 (1 Cor. 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 (1 Tim. 3:1–13).

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. 1 Pet. 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 1 Pet. 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; 1 Pet. 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; 1 Pet. 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 (1 Cor. 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 (2 Cor. 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; 1 Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 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 (1 Cor. 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; 2 Tim. 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; 1 Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1 Thess. 2:19–20).

The letters of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are referred to as the Pastoral Letters (or Pastoral Epistles). This name reflects that these letters are directed to persons serving with pastoral responsibilities. They might be better called “missionary letters,” since Timothy and Titus were serving in missionary settings. But the traditional name “Pastorals” has been used since the eighteenth century.

Authorship. Since the nineteenth century, many scholars have questioned the Pauline authorship of these letters for several reasons. First, critics of Pauline authorship stress the differences in vocabulary and style from the other Pauline Letters. Indeed, the Pastorals do include some terminology that separates them from the rest of the Paulines. However, arguments based upon vocabulary and style are somewhat subjective. Some who favor Pauline authorship suggest the possible use of a secretary as a reason for style differences in the Pastorals. Others suggest that the Pastorals are simply too short to make much of vocabulary or style studies.

A second reason for questioning Pauline authorship has to do with the fact that the letters address elements not known until the second century. Critics suggest that the heresy refuted in the letters and the organizational features of the churches associated with the Pastorals better fit the second century than a time when Paul was alive. The heresy in the Pastorals has gnostic tendencies, and gnosticism is not known to have been fully developed until the second century. Thus, some have suggested the letters were not written in the first century. However, the problems in the Pastorals may reflect elements of gnosticism without implying that the heresy was fully developed. The arguments about church organization seem to miss the emphasis of these letters. Paul did write about church offices such as deacon and elder, but his focus seems to be on the gifts and character of the individuals in leadership positions of the church rather than on describing the function of the offices. The book of Acts demonstrates that the position of elder existed in at least some of the Pauline churches (14:23; 20:17). Therefore, Pauline authorship is not ruled out by these arguments.

Scholars also question the Pauline authorship of these letters because of proposed doctrinal differences. They allege that the Pastorals do not emphasize key Pauline doctrines. Also, at times in the Pastorals the author appears to argue for an existing body of teaching to be defended (1 Tim. 4:6), which, it is argued, reflects a later time frame. However, Paul’s arguments are often driven by the context of the audience to whom he is writing, and claiming to know what Paul would have written seems highly speculative.

Finally, the events of the Pastorals do not fit with Paul’s journeys described in Acts. Opponents of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals suggest that the discrepancy is related to a second-century writer. Those who defend Pauline authorship of these letters suggest that Paul was released from the Acts 28 imprisonment and later imprisoned again in Rome. Thus, references to Paul’s travels cannot be placed within the description of Paul’s life in Acts because they happened at a later date.

Scholars who oppose Pauline authorship of these letters argue for pseudonymous authorship, normally by an associate of Paul at some point in the second century. The early church, however, typically opposed the acceptance of pseudonymous writings into the NT. One need not appeal to pseudonymity when dealing with the Pastorals if Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment and later imprisoned there again.

Audience. These letters are addressed to Paul’s companions Timothy and Titus while they were at Ephesus and Crete respectively. Paul encouraged Timothy to stop the false teaching in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3–4), and 1 Timothy is filled with encouragement for Timothy to instruct the people in Ephesus about right living and belief (3:14–15; 4:11; 6:2). The Second Letter to Timothy focuses more on Timothy and his ministry than does the first letter (2 Tim. 1:6–8, 13; 2:1; 4:1–2). Titus was written to help Paul’s companion as he appointed elders and set things right in Crete (Titus 1:5).

In each of the Pastorals, Paul encouraged and instructed his friends to be faithful in the ministry given to them.

The letters of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are referred to as the Pastoral Letters (or Pastoral Epistles). This name reflects that these letters are directed to persons serving with pastoral responsibilities. They might be better called “missionary letters,” since Timothy and Titus were serving in missionary settings. But the traditional name “Pastorals” has been used since the eighteenth century.

Authorship. Since the nineteenth century, many scholars have questioned the Pauline authorship of these letters for several reasons. First, critics of Pauline authorship stress the differences in vocabulary and style from the other Pauline Letters. Indeed, the Pastorals do include some terminology that separates them from the rest of the Paulines. However, arguments based upon vocabulary and style are somewhat subjective. Some who favor Pauline authorship suggest the possible use of a secretary as a reason for style differences in the Pastorals. Others suggest that the Pastorals are simply too short to make much of vocabulary or style studies.

A second reason for questioning Pauline authorship has to do with the fact that the letters address elements not known until the second century. Critics suggest that the heresy refuted in the letters and the organizational features of the churches associated with the Pastorals better fit the second century than a time when Paul was alive. The heresy in the Pastorals has gnostic tendencies, and gnosticism is not known to have been fully developed until the second century. Thus, some have suggested the letters were not written in the first century. However, the problems in the Pastorals may reflect elements of gnosticism without implying that the heresy was fully developed. The arguments about church organization seem to miss the emphasis of these letters. Paul did write about church offices such as deacon and elder, but his focus seems to be on the gifts and character of the individuals in leadership positions of the church rather than on describing the function of the offices. The book of Acts demonstrates that the position of elder existed in at least some of the Pauline churches (14:23; 20:17). Therefore, Pauline authorship is not ruled out by these arguments.

Scholars also question the Pauline authorship of these letters because of proposed doctrinal differences. They allege that the Pastorals do not emphasize key Pauline doctrines. Also, at times in the Pastorals the author appears to argue for an existing body of teaching to be defended (1 Tim. 4:6), which, it is argued, reflects a later time frame. However, Paul’s arguments are often driven by the context of the audience to whom he is writing, and claiming to know what Paul would have written seems highly speculative.

Finally, the events of the Pastorals do not fit with Paul’s journeys described in Acts. Opponents of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals suggest that the discrepancy is related to a second-century writer. Those who defend Pauline authorship of these letters suggest that Paul was released from the Acts 28 imprisonment and later imprisoned again in Rome. Thus, references to Paul’s travels cannot be placed within the description of Paul’s life in Acts because they happened at a later date.

Scholars who oppose Pauline authorship of these letters argue for pseudonymous authorship, normally by an associate of Paul at some point in the second century. The early church, however, typically opposed the acceptance of pseudonymous writings into the NT. One need not appeal to pseudonymity when dealing with the Pastorals if Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment and later imprisoned there again.

Audience. These letters are addressed to Paul’s companions Timothy and Titus while they were at Ephesus and Crete respectively. Paul encouraged Timothy to stop the false teaching in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3–4), and 1 Timothy is filled with encouragement for Timothy to instruct the people in Ephesus about right living and belief (3:14–15; 4:11; 6:2). The Second Letter to Timothy focuses more on Timothy and his ministry than does the first letter (2 Tim. 1:6–8, 13; 2:1; 4:1–2). Titus was written to help Paul’s companion as he appointed elders and set things right in Crete (Titus 1:5).

In each of the Pastorals, Paul encouraged and instructed his friends to be faithful in the ministry given to them.

The term “predestination” means “to determine or decide something beforehand.” Some form of the Greek verb proorizō (“to determine beforehand”) occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). It is practically synonymous with the concept of foreordination and is closely related to divine foreknowledge (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:1–2, 20). Various Scriptures indicate that God the Father is the one who predestines (John 17:6–10; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3–5; 1 Pet. 1:2).

The specific objects of predestination are humans, angels, and the Messiah. These divine predeterminations occurred before the creation of the world and were motivated by the love of God (Eph. 1:4–5). In regard to humans, this means that in eternity past, God determined that some individuals would be the recipients of his salvation. However, this determination does not rule out the necessity of human choice, responsibility, and faith. The decision to predestine some individuals for salvation was based not upon anything good or bad in the recipients, but solely on God’s good pleasure and according to his holy, wise, and eternal purpose (Isa. 46:10; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:33).

Predestination as Part of God’s Larger Plan

The scope of God’s plan. Predestination is a part of God’s all-encompassing eternal plan (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; Eph. 1:11). Several terms express God’s plan. Among these are his “decree” (Ps. 2:7), “eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11), “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23), and “will” (Eph. 1:9, 11). God’s plan involves all things that come to pass, including major and insignificant events, direct and indirect causes, things appointed and things permitted. It therefore encompasses both good and evil (Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 14:24–27; 22:11; 37:26–27; 46:9–10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).

The inclusion of evil in the plan of God does not mean that he condones, authorizes, or commits moral evil. The apostle John stresses that God is light and that there is no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5). He is absolutely holy and cannot be charged with the commission of sin (Hab. 1:13). When addressing the topic of God’s plan and purpose, the biblical authors are careful to distinguish between divine causation and human responsibility. Both fall under the purview of God’s plan. There is divine certainty about what will happen, but moral agents are never under compulsion to commit evil (see Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:11; 1 Cor. 2:7; 11:2; Heb. 2:5, 10–16; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 2 Pet. 3:17). For example, when Luke refers to the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, he indicates that it was predestined by God, but the moral turpitude of the act is attributed to “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). The dual nature of such events is aptly reflected in Joseph’s statement to his brothers who sold him into slavery: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20 NASB).

Whereas the all-encompassing plan of God relates to his sovereign control over all things, predestination appears to be restricted primarily to certain divine decisions affecting humans, angels, and the Messiah (Isa. 42:1–7; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2:4). With reference to humans, Paul states, “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). Some scholars limit predestination to those things “in him,” thus linking this work of God to his purpose in salvation. Others argue that the following phrase, “who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,” demonstrates that all things fall under the purview of God’s controlling and guiding purpose (Eph. 1:11). It seems best to see the phrase “in him” as indicating the sphere in which believers are chosen and the term “predestinated” as one crucial aspect of the greater plan of God.

Divine foreknowledge and election. Some theologians argue that election and predestination are merely based upon God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe in him. Although God surely knows all those who will believe, the term “foreknowledge” connotes much more than simply knowing ahead of time who will come to faith. It means that God has sovereignly chosen to know some individuals in such an intimate way that it moved him to predestine them to eternal life (Rom. 8:29). Whereas the term “election” refers to God’s sovereign choice of those individuals, “predestination” looks forward toward the goal of that selection. Both predestination and election occur in eternity past (Eph. 1:4–5).

The purpose of predestination. Whereas election refers to God’s choice of individuals, predestination looks toward the purpose and goal of that choice. NT believers are designated as chosen by God and appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4). The express purpose is that they be adopted as his children (Eph. 1:5) and, as beloved children, become “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). The idea is that those whom God has chosen are predestined in view of the purpose that he desires to fulfill in them, that of becoming his children who are conformed to the image of his Son. The ultimate purpose behind this plan is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5–6, 11–12).

Predestination and Reprobation

In his plan, God has chosen some individuals, nations, groups, and angels to fulfill special purposes, implying that other individuals, nations, groups, and angels have not been selected for those same purposes (2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:2). With regard to God’s choice in salvation, this has led some theologians to argue that those not chosen for salvation are by default chosen for eternal damnation. They maintain that predestination applies not only to individuals whom God plans to save, but also to those whom he does not plan to save (Prov. 16:4; Matt. 26:23–24; Rom. 9:10–13, 17–18, 21–22; 2 Tim. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:3, 9; Jude 4; Rev. 13:8; 20:15). This is sometimes called “reprobation.” The belief in the combined concepts of election and reprobation has been called “double predestination.”

While some scholars in the history of the church have argued that God is just as active in determining the reprobate as he is the elect, others have pointed out that God’s condemnation of the nonelect is based solely upon their sin and unbelief. A real distinction exists in the level of divine involvement with regard to the destiny of one class as compared with the other. God does not appear to have the same relationship to every event or thing in his creation. The degree of divine causation in each case differs. Scripture recognizes a difference between God’s direct working and his permissive will. In this view, God directly chooses some to be saved; however, he does not choose the others to be damned but rather passes them by, allowing them to continue on their own way and eventually suffer the just punishment that their sins deserve.

Whichever view one takes, it seems that the Scripture does not teach reprobation in the same way it teaches predestination leading to eternal life. Whereas the assignment to eternal death is a judicial act taking into account a person’s sin, predestination unto eternal life is purely an act of God’s sovereign grace and mercy not taking into account any actions by those chosen. Carrying the teaching of reprobation to the extreme threatens to view God as capricious, which clearly is not scriptural (1 John 1:5).

Predestination and Human Responsibility

God was in no way obligated or morally impelled to choose or predestine anyone to eternal life. His determination not to choose everyone in no way impinges upon his holy and righteous character (Rom. 9:13). On the contrary, justice would demand that all receive the punishment that they have rightly earned for their sins (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Therefore, the predestination of some to become like his Son required that God exercise grace and mercy in providing for the cleansing of their sin, which he accomplished through the sacrifice of his beloved Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23).

God’s predetermined plan does not force individuals to respond in predetermined ways, either to accept him or to reject him. In the one case, the sinner is drawn by God to himself but must also choose to place trust in Christ (John 6:37, 44). Even in the radical intervention of God in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus, where the divine call was indeed overpowering, Saul was given opportunity to respond either positively or negatively. In the case of those who are headed for eternal judgment, God’s working is not fatalistic or mechanistic in the sense that a person may want to choose God but God’s predetermined plan will not allow such a response. To the contrary, all are invited to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28; John 3:16). The apostle John clarifies, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 [cf. Matt. 11:28]). Those who do not come to God refuse to do so by their own volition (Matt. 23:37; John 5:40). They are not merely unable to come to God but unwilling to do so (John 5:40; 6:65; Rom. 3:11). The NT teaches that Christ died for their sins (John 3:16), pleadingly warns them to repent, and cites their transgressions as the reason for their condemnation (1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:21–22; Jude 8–16). When all aspects of the issue are considered, there is indeed a mystery that lies outside the boundaries of our comprehension regarding God’s sovereign working and human choice.

A literary device whereby an author writes under a name other than his or her own (a pseu-donym) or a book is deliberately assigned to a fictitious author (pseudepigraphy). In the case of ancient Jewish practice, the name borrowed was usually that of some famous worthy of the past (e.g., Enoch, Ezra), with the aim of bolstering the credentials of the book to which the name was attached. This is a common phenomenon in the Apocrypha (e.g., 2 Esdras, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah). It is even more common in the large collection of Second Temple texts now known as the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch, Odes of Solomon, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). (See also Pseudepigrapha.)

Scholars continue to debate the morality of pseudonymity and whether it is proper for a pseudonymous book to be placed within the canon of Scripture. Some excuse pseudonymity as a mere stylistic device or explain it as a culturally accepted convention. Others put a positive spin on the phenomenon, and so, for example, claim that in the Pastoral Epistles literate disciples of Paul sought to apply his ideas to newly developing situations in the years following his death. Some argue that such deception for a good cause is legitimate because it helped to gain a hearing for orthodox teaching. Others totally reject pseudepigraphy, viewing it as little better than deception and forgery and thus unworthy of literature viewed as inspired by God. The last approach seems to be most consistent with a high view of Scripture.

Over the last two hundred years a number of biblical books have been identified by some scholars as pseudonymous, notably Daniel in the OT, and in the NT six letters in the Pauline corpus—Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus)—together with 2 Peter and Jude.

Old Testament

Certainly one mark of Jewish apocalyptic works is pseudonymity, and the book of Daniel is often viewed by critical scholars as no exception to this rule. It is difficult, however, to see how the name “Daniel” would have served to give the OT book named after him the desired authority, which is a major motivation for attaching a pseudonym.

Apart from the book itself, we essentially know nothing about this Daniel, whom it describes as living in Babylonia during the exile. In the book of Ezekiel we have two references to a Daniel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In this passage the prophet says that when the land sins against God, “even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness.” There is, in addition, the further reference in Ezek. 14:16 to “these three men,” obviously referring to the same three men. Ezekiel speaks of these three men as embodiments of righteousness, but the fact that this Daniel figure is placed between two ancients (Noah and Job) suggests that he too is a figure of antiquity, not a contemporary of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 28:3 taunts the king of Tyre: “Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?” Here “Daniel” (the Hebrew text at Ezek. 28:3 actually reads “Danel”) obviously is a proverbial figure of wisdom, and this implies that he may have been well known in Tyre and therefore could well have been Syro-Phoenician. There is in fact a “Danel” figure mentioned in Ugaritic literature (before 1200 BC). On the other hand, the Daniel of the book of Daniel is not a patriarch like Enoch, Noah, and Job, nor is he a famous figure like Ezra or the assistant to a prophet, as Baruch was to Jeremiah. Daniel is known only through the book that bears his name. In other words, the usual motivation explaining the use of a pseudonym does not apply to the canonical book of Daniel.

Also, the closing up and sealing of the book (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) is no mere device necessitated by using as a pseudonym the name of a man supposedly living in the time of Cyrus. Rather, the sealing signifies that much of the content of the later chapters of the book will be understood only when the predicted events begin to take place at a future time, with the book placing Daniel (its presumed author) in the sixth century BC.

New Testament

The Pastoral Epistles. With regard to the Pastoral Epistles, all three letters claim to be authored by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1). In seeking to determine the time of composition within a chronology of Paul’s ministry, they must be dated toward the end of his life (in the case of 2 Timothy, perhaps only shortly before his death) and after the close of the book of Acts, which concludes with the apostle’s arrival in Rome (Acts 28). In his letter to the Romans, Paul anticipates a future mission to Spain (Rom. 15:23–29), but the Pastoral Epistles imply that he returned to the east. Ephesus and Crete are the presumed locations of his coworkers Timothy and Titus (see 1 Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:5). On this supposition, these letters arise from a further mission there and a second (and final) imprisonment. The fact that Acts says nothing about this is no evidence against the supposition.

It is not necessary to view the mundane ecclesiastical arrangements of the Pastoral Epistles as inconsistent with a charismatic model of leadership in other Pauline letters (note the address to “overseers and deacons” in Phil. 1:1). We know from Acts 14:23; 20:17–38 that Paul appointed elders in the churches that he founded. The theological differences between the Pastoral Epistles and earlier Pauline compositions should not be overemphasized. The stress laid upon “the faith” and “sound teaching” is exactly what might be expected if Paul anticipated his imminent removal from the scene.

The other alternative is the theory that after Paul’s death, members of a Pauline school (Timothy? Luke? Onesimus?) continued to supply letters under his name, addressing contemporary church issues in the guise of Paul, hoping to guarantee the legacy of the great apostle. Some scholars go as far as to assert that an admirer of Paul combined genuine Pauline fragments within a fictitious framework. The earliest listing of Paul’s letters is that of Marcion (c. AD 140), and he fails to mention the Pastoral Epistles. That omission may be explained in various ways. There is no evidence, however, that anyone in the early church (orthodox or heterodox) who knew of the letters doubted their authenticity.

Ephesians and Colossians. There is some textual uncertainty with regard to the words “in Ephesus” in Eph. 1:1, making it possible that the letter was originally a circular letter written by Paul to more than one church. The letter mentions no one by name except Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), who carried the letter (perhaps to different churches in turn). This is enough to explain its more general orientation than some other Pauline letters, and any supposed theological “development” is not beyond the likely boundaries of Paul’s expansive mind (e.g., his teaching on the church). The use of the “in Christ” formula in Ephesians is not substantially different from how Paul handles it elsewhere. The letter’s twofold structure of doctrinal exposition followed by practical instruction fits a common Pauline epistolary pattern. Indeed, F. F. Bruce refers to this letter as “the quintessence of Paulinism.”

In a number of ways Colossians and Ephesians share a common outlook. The Jewish Christian proto-gnostic false teaching combated in Colossians is not referred to in other Pauline letters, but it may have been a local Colossian variant. The letter is explicitly attributed to Paul, at both the beginning and the end (Col. 1:1; 4:18). Arguments about authorship based on style and unusual vocabulary are notoriously slippery and inconclusive. The high Christology of cosmic dimensions in Col. 1:15–20; 2:9–10, 15 is also present in undisputed Pauline letters (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). The obvious relationship of Colossians to the little letter to Philemon (e.g., Col. 4:9, 17; cf. Philem. 2, 12) is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Pauline authorship of the former. Any theory of pseudepigraphy turns Col. 4:7–17, with its many names, into fanciful and free invention with little real purpose. Also, we might wonder why a later author chose to write under the name of Paul to a church that Paul himself did not found.

Second Thessalonians. Some view the futuristic timetable provided in 2 Thess. 2:1–12 as moving beyond Paul, with the world’s end not yet in sight, for the writer teaches that certain things have to happen before the return of Christ, whereas in 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11 Paul has a nearer end in view. In both letters, however, the apostle is seeking to dampen the wrong kind of apocalyptic excitement. In 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that Paul knows a tradition of Jesus’ teaching about the future, such as also found in Mark 13, so that there is nothing unreasonably “late” in the views expressed.

The substantial overlap in material between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians is not evidence of the labors of a later disciple and imitator of Paul. It is highly ironic that some scholars suggest 2 Thessalonians is not a genuine letter of Paul: the letter itself condemns a fake letter supposedly from him that claims that the day of the Lord is already past (2 Thess. 2:2), and the original letter included a final greeting written in Paul’s own hand (2 Thess. 3:17).

Second Peter and Jude. As for 2 Peter, it was not as well known in the early church as 1 Peter, and some (according to Origen) were hesitant to accept it. Its author claims to be a witness to the transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16–18). Such personal allusions need not be attributed to a later writer who was trying too hard to show that he was Simon Peter. The obvious connection of 2 Pet. 1:14 to what is recorded in John 21 does not prove that the writer was dependent on that chapter.

The remarkable parallels between 2 Peter and Jude show that one is dependent upon the other, though scholars are not unanimous about which letter was prior. We cannot rule out that Peter would use and adapt the writings of a less prominent leader such as Jude. Jude makes use of apocryphal books, but neither in Jude nor in 2 Peter do arguments against the particular brand of false teaching require a second-century (postapostolic) dating.

A literary device whereby an author writes under a name other than his or her own (a pseu-donym) or a book is deliberately assigned to a fictitious author (pseudepigraphy). In the case of ancient Jewish practice, the name borrowed was usually that of some famous worthy of the past (e.g., Enoch, Ezra), with the aim of bolstering the credentials of the book to which the name was attached. This is a common phenomenon in the Apocrypha (e.g., 2 Esdras, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah). It is even more common in the large collection of Second Temple texts now known as the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch, Odes of Solomon, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). (See also Pseudepigrapha.)

Scholars continue to debate the morality of pseudonymity and whether it is proper for a pseudonymous book to be placed within the canon of Scripture. Some excuse pseudonymity as a mere stylistic device or explain it as a culturally accepted convention. Others put a positive spin on the phenomenon, and so, for example, claim that in the Pastoral Epistles literate disciples of Paul sought to apply his ideas to newly developing situations in the years following his death. Some argue that such deception for a good cause is legitimate because it helped to gain a hearing for orthodox teaching. Others totally reject pseudepigraphy, viewing it as little better than deception and forgery and thus unworthy of literature viewed as inspired by God. The last approach seems to be most consistent with a high view of Scripture.

Over the last two hundred years a number of biblical books have been identified by some scholars as pseudonymous, notably Daniel in the OT, and in the NT six letters in the Pauline corpus—Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus)—together with 2 Peter and Jude.

Old Testament

Certainly one mark of Jewish apocalyptic works is pseudonymity, and the book of Daniel is often viewed by critical scholars as no exception to this rule. It is difficult, however, to see how the name “Daniel” would have served to give the OT book named after him the desired authority, which is a major motivation for attaching a pseudonym.

Apart from the book itself, we essentially know nothing about this Daniel, whom it describes as living in Babylonia during the exile. In the book of Ezekiel we have two references to a Daniel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In this passage the prophet says that when the land sins against God, “even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness.” There is, in addition, the further reference in Ezek. 14:16 to “these three men,” obviously referring to the same three men. Ezekiel speaks of these three men as embodiments of righteousness, but the fact that this Daniel figure is placed between two ancients (Noah and Job) suggests that he too is a figure of antiquity, not a contemporary of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 28:3 taunts the king of Tyre: “Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?” Here “Daniel” (the Hebrew text at Ezek. 28:3 actually reads “Danel”) obviously is a proverbial figure of wisdom, and this implies that he may have been well known in Tyre and therefore could well have been Syro-Phoenician. There is in fact a “Danel” figure mentioned in Ugaritic literature (before 1200 BC). On the other hand, the Daniel of the book of Daniel is not a patriarch like Enoch, Noah, and Job, nor is he a famous figure like Ezra or the assistant to a prophet, as Baruch was to Jeremiah. Daniel is known only through the book that bears his name. In other words, the usual motivation explaining the use of a pseudonym does not apply to the canonical book of Daniel.

Also, the closing up and sealing of the book (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) is no mere device necessitated by using as a pseudonym the name of a man supposedly living in the time of Cyrus. Rather, the sealing signifies that much of the content of the later chapters of the book will be understood only when the predicted events begin to take place at a future time, with the book placing Daniel (its presumed author) in the sixth century BC.

New Testament

The Pastoral Epistles. With regard to the Pastoral Epistles, all three letters claim to be authored by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1). In seeking to determine the time of composition within a chronology of Paul’s ministry, they must be dated toward the end of his life (in the case of 2 Timothy, perhaps only shortly before his death) and after the close of the book of Acts, which concludes with the apostle’s arrival in Rome (Acts 28). In his letter to the Romans, Paul anticipates a future mission to Spain (Rom. 15:23–29), but the Pastoral Epistles imply that he returned to the east. Ephesus and Crete are the presumed locations of his coworkers Timothy and Titus (see 1 Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:5). On this supposition, these letters arise from a further mission there and a second (and final) imprisonment. The fact that Acts says nothing about this is no evidence against the supposition.

It is not necessary to view the mundane ecclesiastical arrangements of the Pastoral Epistles as inconsistent with a charismatic model of leadership in other Pauline letters (note the address to “overseers and deacons” in Phil. 1:1). We know from Acts 14:23; 20:17–38 that Paul appointed elders in the churches that he founded. The theological differences between the Pastoral Epistles and earlier Pauline compositions should not be overemphasized. The stress laid upon “the faith” and “sound teaching” is exactly what might be expected if Paul anticipated his imminent removal from the scene.

The other alternative is the theory that after Paul’s death, members of a Pauline school (Timothy? Luke? Onesimus?) continued to supply letters under his name, addressing contemporary church issues in the guise of Paul, hoping to guarantee the legacy of the great apostle. Some scholars go as far as to assert that an admirer of Paul combined genuine Pauline fragments within a fictitious framework. The earliest listing of Paul’s letters is that of Marcion (c. AD 140), and he fails to mention the Pastoral Epistles. That omission may be explained in various ways. There is no evidence, however, that anyone in the early church (orthodox or heterodox) who knew of the letters doubted their authenticity.

Ephesians and Colossians. There is some textual uncertainty with regard to the words “in Ephesus” in Eph. 1:1, making it possible that the letter was originally a circular letter written by Paul to more than one church. The letter mentions no one by name except Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), who carried the letter (perhaps to different churches in turn). This is enough to explain its more general orientation than some other Pauline letters, and any supposed theological “development” is not beyond the likely boundaries of Paul’s expansive mind (e.g., his teaching on the church). The use of the “in Christ” formula in Ephesians is not substantially different from how Paul handles it elsewhere. The letter’s twofold structure of doctrinal exposition followed by practical instruction fits a common Pauline epistolary pattern. Indeed, F. F. Bruce refers to this letter as “the quintessence of Paulinism.”

In a number of ways Colossians and Ephesians share a common outlook. The Jewish Christian proto-gnostic false teaching combated in Colossians is not referred to in other Pauline letters, but it may have been a local Colossian variant. The letter is explicitly attributed to Paul, at both the beginning and the end (Col. 1:1; 4:18). Arguments about authorship based on style and unusual vocabulary are notoriously slippery and inconclusive. The high Christology of cosmic dimensions in Col. 1:15–20; 2:9–10, 15 is also present in undisputed Pauline letters (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). The obvious relationship of Colossians to the little letter to Philemon (e.g., Col. 4:9, 17; cf. Philem. 2, 12) is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Pauline authorship of the former. Any theory of pseudepigraphy turns Col. 4:7–17, with its many names, into fanciful and free invention with little real purpose. Also, we might wonder why a later author chose to write under the name of Paul to a church that Paul himself did not found.

Second Thessalonians. Some view the futuristic timetable provided in 2 Thess. 2:1–12 as moving beyond Paul, with the world’s end not yet in sight, for the writer teaches that certain things have to happen before the return of Christ, whereas in 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11 Paul has a nearer end in view. In both letters, however, the apostle is seeking to dampen the wrong kind of apocalyptic excitement. In 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that Paul knows a tradition of Jesus’ teaching about the future, such as also found in Mark 13, so that there is nothing unreasonably “late” in the views expressed.

The substantial overlap in material between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians is not evidence of the labors of a later disciple and imitator of Paul. It is highly ironic that some scholars suggest 2 Thessalonians is not a genuine letter of Paul: the letter itself condemns a fake letter supposedly from him that claims that the day of the Lord is already past (2 Thess. 2:2), and the original letter included a final greeting written in Paul’s own hand (2 Thess. 3:17).

Second Peter and Jude. As for 2 Peter, it was not as well known in the early church as 1 Peter, and some (according to Origen) were hesitant to accept it. Its author claims to be a witness to the transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16–18). Such personal allusions need not be attributed to a later writer who was trying too hard to show that he was Simon Peter. The obvious connection of 2 Pet. 1:14 to what is recorded in John 21 does not prove that the writer was dependent on that chapter.

The remarkable parallels between 2 Peter and Jude show that one is dependent upon the other, though scholars are not unanimous about which letter was prior. We cannot rule out that Peter would use and adapt the writings of a less prominent leader such as Jude. Jude makes use of apocryphal books, but neither in Jude nor in 2 Peter do arguments against the particular brand of false teaching require a second-century (postapostolic) dating.

The historical origins of Christianity need to be set against Jewish history, beliefs, and culture in Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean, but they also need to be set in the context of the wider Greco-Roman world that was dominated politically and militarily by the Roman Empire.

From Republic to Empire

Rome began as a city-state but soon became a transcontinental empire reaching over parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Rome emerged as the most dominant force in the Mediterranean after it defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). Thereafter, Rome began to expand its control and power over the various Hellenistic city-states in the east, including Macedonia, Illyria, and Asia Minor. By the mid-first century AD, Rome had also conquered or annexed Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Cyrene, Gaul, Spain, North Africa, and Armenia.

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire took place under the Roman emperors beginning with Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), who, after crossing the Rubicon and defeating Pompey, was proclaimed dictator perpetuus (“dictator for life”). The period after Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 BC) was a time of political upheaval as Rome was marred by a series of civil wars. The first was between Octavius and Antony against Caesar’s assassins Brutus and Cassius. This climaxed in the Battle of Philippi (42 BC), which the former allies of Julius Caesar won. The second was between Octavius and Antony, where Antony and Cleopatra were defeated at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, leaving Octavius as the undisputed leader of Rome.

Octavius was given the honorific name “Augustus” by the senate. His reign (31 BC–AD 14) marked a period of consolidation, reorganization, and renewal of the Roman Empire. Augustus embarked on an empire-wide policy of fiscal rationalization, developed a constitutional settlement for Rome, centralized his military authority over the various provinces, and had Julius Caesar deified. Writers and artists of the era heralded Augustus’s reign as a time of unprecedented peace and security—peace from civil war and security from the Germanic tribes in the north and the Parthian Empire in the east. Worship of the emperor became more frequent especially in the Roman East, although Augustus did not permit it in Rome. What is most significant about Augustus is that it is with his reign that the Roman Empire essentially began. He was the emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1). It was under Trajan (AD 98–117), however, that the Roman Empire expanded to its largest area, encompassing parts of Britain and Persia.

Emperors (AD 14–98)

Tiberius, Augustus’s adopted heir, reigned in the years AD 14–37. He was a highly successful military general, but as emperor he was remembered as being gloomy and melancholic. Tiberius even went into a self-imposed exile for a time, leaving the praetorian prefect Sejanus in charge until Tiberius finally had him executed for treason. It was during the reign of Tiberius that Jesus conducted his ministry in Palestine.

Tiberius was succeeded by his adopted grandson Caligula, who reigned in the years AD 37–41. Caligula was the son of the popular Roman general Germanicus, who died in Antioch in AD 19. Historical sources are not favorably disposed toward Caligula, who was remembered as a malevolent tyrant given to self-aggrandizement and sexual perversity. In AD 39/40 Caligula departed from imperial policy that permitted emperor worship in the east and veneration of deceased emperors in Rome, and he often appeared dressed as a god in public and demanded worship as a living god. During this time he deposed Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, on suspicion of consorting with Parthia (Josephus, Ant. 18.7). Caligula also ordered that his statue be placed in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (Philo, Embassy 203). Petronius, the governor of Syria, knowing that such an act would lead to civil war, refused to comply and appealed to Caligula to reverse the order. In response, Caligula sent an order to Petronius that he commit suicide. Fortunately, news of Caligula’s assassination by a conspiracy involving the praetorian guard and senators reached Petronius first.

Claudius, Caligula’s uncle, reigned in the years AD 41–54, and his rule was defined by numerous public works, a reordering of the judicial system, a torrid series of marriages, the conquest of Britain, and a number of attempted coups by the Roman senate. In AD 49 he expelled the Jews from Rome because of disputes about a certain “Chrestus,” probably Christ (cf. Acts 18:2). No one is sure whether Claudius was murdered or died of old age, but he remained a sharp contrast to the brutal excesses of Caligula and Nero.

Nero, the stepson of Claudius, reigned in the years AD 54–68. The early period of his rule was marked by cultural endeavors and diplomatic efforts. The later years were, in contrast, distinguished by tyranny and self-aggrandizement. There was a Jewish revolt against Rome in Judea (AD 66–70) during Nero’s reign, and Vespasian was sent to pacify the territory. According to ancient sources, Nero accused Christians of starting the fire of Rome in AD 64 and subjected them to the cruelest of punishments, including crucifixion, being thrown to wild animals, and even being burned alive. It probably was during this time that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Nero eventually was declared a public enemy by the Roman senate, and he committed suicide before he could be captured in AD 68. There arose a “Nero redivivus” legend, whereby many hoped or feared that Nero had not died in AD 68 but had fled to Parthia and would return to Rome in order to destroy it (Sib. Or. 4.119–124; 5.137–141, 361–396), and this arguably stands behind the imagery of Rev. 13:3; 17:8–11.

The suicide of Nero left a power vacuum in Rome, and AD 69 saw no less than four emperors ascend the throne: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally Vespasian. Galba was governor of Hispania Tarraconensis and was invited to become emperor by the senate, but he was killed by the praetorian guard after they were bribed by the praetor Otho. Otho himself committed suicide after his forces were defeated by Vitellius, the commander of the legions on the Rhine. Vitellius became emperor, but he was fiscally irresponsible and murdered many of his rivals. The legions in the Danube, Egypt, Syria, and Judea had declared Vespasian emperor and marched on Rome. Vespasian controlled the grain supplies to Rome from Egypt and had a superior force. Vitellius’s forces were defeated at Bedriacum, and Vitellius went into hiding but eventually was killed in Rome. Vespasian was declared emperor by the senate, and so began the Flavian dynasty, which restored order after the chaos of civil war.

The Flavians ruled in the years AD 69–96. Vespasian (r. AD 69–79) consolidated the empire after its year of strife and instituted new taxes, such as the fiscus judaicus, a war reparation tax placed on all Jews and paid to the temple of Jupiter in lieu of the Jerusalem temple tax. Vespasian was succeeded by his sons Titus (r. AD 79–81) and Domitian (r. AD 81–96). When Vespasian sailed to Rome from Judea, Titus was left in charge of the siege of Jerusalem, which he completed and celebrated in a triumph in Rome in AD 72. This triumph is memorialized in the Arch of Titus, which depicts Roman soldiers bringing the vessels of the temple to Rome as part of the booty taken. Later Roman writers regarded Domitian as a malevolent and malicious tyrant (e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius), but this probably is an exaggeration caused partly by a desire to highlight the greatness of succeeding emperors such as Nerva and Trajan. It probably was during the reign of Domitian that some Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted for their failure to worship the emperor, as depicted in the book of Revelation.

Table 7. Roman Emperors (31 BC–AD 117)

31 BC-AD 14 – Augustus

AD 14-37 – Tiberius

AD 37-41 – Caligula

AD 41-54 – Claudius

AD 54-68 – Nero

AD 68-69 – Galba

AD 69 – Otho

AD 69 – Vitellius

AD 69-79 – Vespasian

AD 79-81 – Titus

AD 81-96 – Domitian

AD 96-98 – Nerva

AD 98-117 – Trajan

Military

Military expeditions expanded Rome’s control of foreign territories and safeguarded its borders from incursion, most threateningly from the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine River and north of the Danube River and from the Parthian (= Neo-Persian) Empire east of the Euphrates River. A Roman legion consisted of around six thousand men, including cavalry. Under Tiberius, there were twenty-five legions stationed across the empire: eight on the Rhine, three in Spain, two in Egypt, four in Syria, two in Africa, and six in the Danube region. In terms of command structures, the legions were under the control of certain regional commands by men of consular rank, including two on the Rhine, one in Spain, one in Syria, and three in the Balkans (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5). These were among the most powerful persons outside the ruling family and could be kingmakers or contenders during times of civil war. A legion was divided into ten cohorts and commanded by a legate, usually of senatorial rank. Units of one hundred were commanded by centurions, and service in the legions was set at between twenty and twenty-five years. Upon recruitment, the soldier swore an oath of loyalty to the emperor (sacramentum) that was renewed annually. During times of peace, Roman soldiers could perform a number of civil tasks relating to taxation, building projects, and policing.

Centurions are mentioned several times in the NT (e.g., Matt. 8:5; Mark 15:39; Acts 10:1; 21:32; 27:1). There is a mention of a “legion” of demons that oppressed the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:9), and Jesus refers to the possibility of the Father sending him “legions” of angels (Matt. 26:53). Military terminology is very apparent in Paul’s letters, where he refers to fighting armor (Rom. 13:11–13; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:10–18), compares commitment to Christ to military service (2 Tim. 2:4), refers to his coworkers as “soldiers” or “fellow soldiers” (Phil. 2:25; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. 2:3), and likens ministerial remuneration to a soldier being paid his salarium (1 Cor. 9:7).

Culture and Religion

One of the primary reasons for Rome’s rise and dominance, militarily and culturally, was its capacity to absorb other peoples and even other gods into its constituency and pantheon. Its constantly growing pantheon, application of the rule of law, and superior military force made Rome what it was: a melting pot of all cultures and a Romanizer of other cultures.

Roman society was heavily stratified, but social mobility, upward and downward, was possible. Wealth, marriage, education, and military exploits were the primary means to social advancement. The senatorial class represented the wealthy nobility of Rome and provided the primary cohort of civil and military administrators. The equestrian class (or “knights,” as they are sometimes called) were a larger group of less wealthy Roman citizens. Decurions were members of civil councils in provincial cities who often acted as magistrates and were leaders of local communities. The plebeians represented the general citizenry of Rome, who, until the time of Tiberius, had some power in electing officials. Finally, there were freedmen, who were ex-slaves usually in a relationship with their former master, and also slaves, who were regarded as little more than property.

The ancient Roman religions focused on the numen, the somewhat impersonal divine power associated with certain localities. From the third century BC, Greek deities were assimilated and Romanized, so that Zeus became Jupiter, and Vesta was identified as Hestia. The Capitoline Hill was crowned with a temple that was dedicated around 500 BC to Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno. These were the principal gods of Rome, although others were added to the pantheon as the Romans conquered other peoples and adopted their gods. Other gods also received greater honor, such as the goddess Pax, the personification of peace (based on the Greek goddess Eirene); Vespasian built and dedicated a temple in her honor in Rome in AD 75. The Roman emperor was the Pontifex Maximus and supreme high priest of Rome and the empire. In the mid- to late first century AD, the fastest-growing religion was the imperial cult, the worship of (usually) deceased Roman emperors. This cult became popular in the eastern Mediterranean cities, where worship of rulers was commonplace, but was regarded with indifference in Rome.

Religions and philosophies from all over the known world eventually made their way to Rome. Egyptian rites and religions gained followings, Mithraism acquired currency within the ranks of the military and among public servants, Judaism entered Rome probably with the Hasmonean delegation sent there around 139 BC, and Christianity came to Rome probably during the late 30s and early 40s of the first century AD through Jewish pilgrims visiting the east and through Judean immigration to Rome. Many Roman intellectuals lamented the fact that so many foreign superstitions had found their way to Rome, and that Roman peoples found them more attractive than their own state religion. Roman religion was largely controlled by the state through a set calendar and the appointment of priests and vestal virgins. It was practiced in public and in the home. As such, religious life was very much intertwined with social and political life. Roman religion engendered the need for its citizens to act with pietas, the honoring of one’s obligations to the gods, and with religio, which designated appropriate scruples and rites in the presence of the gods.

Summary

The birth of the church and the growth of Christianity took place within the wider social, religious, and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world. The politics and power of the Roman Empire provide the backdrop for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1), and since Rome was considered to be the center of the world, it was necessary that Paul himself testify to Jesus Christ there (Acts 19:21). The history, literature, and cultural background of Rome form an important background to the NT and should be studied along with the history and literature of Judaism during the time of Jesus and the apostles. Although the Romans were the primary threat to the survival of Christians in the ancient world, after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century AD, they became the primary means by which Christianity spread to the rest of Europe and western Asia. See also Roman Law.

Many of the letters, or epistles, in the Bible include salutations consisting of expressions of goodwill from the sender to the recipient. Salutations can be found at the beginning and end of the NT Epistles. While the salutation itself was not the invention of the authors of the NT Epistles, the form has been adapted in this literature to express explicitly Christian theological content.

The simplest form of salutation found in the NT is simply “Greetings,” which appears in James 1:1, as well as in the letter sent from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 15:23) and the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix (Acts 23:26). See also the examples of secular correspondence in Ezra 4:17; 7:12; Dan. 4:1.

Most of the letters bearing the name of Paul begin with the greeting “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7) or a slight variation thereof (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3). The salutation in Gal. 1:3–5 is a theological expansion of Paul’s standard salutation. The salutations in 1 Tim. 1:2 and 2 Tim. 1:2 include “Grace, mercy, and peace.”

The salutation of the Petrine letters is “Grace and peace be yours in abundance” (1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2). Salutations are also found in 2 John 3; Jude 2; Rev. 1:4–5. Hebrews, 1 John, and 3 John do not begin with salutations.

In a number of cases, salutatory remarks function to close the letter near its end, often in connection with individual greetings. See Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:21–24; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 6:18; Eph. 6:23–24; Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:16–18; 1 Tim. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:22; Titus 3:15; Philem. 25; 1 Pet. 5:14.

Paul’s second letter to Timothy is one of his three Pastoral Epistles (together with 1 Timothy and Titus). In this letter the apostle reminds Timothy of his call to ministry, encourages him to endure suffering for the sake of the gospel, exhorts him to pursue personal godliness, warns him of false teachers and evil persons, and urges him to give himself completely to the ministry of the word. In short, Paul exhorts his protégé to fulfill his ministry. The overall message of the book can be summed up in Paul’s call for Timothy to be a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2:3) who fights the “good fight” of faith (4:7). In the benediction, Paul’s use of the plural “Grace be with you all” indicates that the apostle’s words are directed not only to Timothy but also to the whole church (4:22).

Recipient

See Timothy, First Letter to.

Authorship and Date

The book of Acts closes with Paul experiencing house arrest in Rome around AD 62/63. By the time he wrote his first letter to Timothy, he had already been freed from that imprisonment (cf. Acts 28:30–31; 1 Tim. 3:14). However, when he wrote 2 Timothy, he was again in prison, but this time he was bound in chains, facing prosecution, and aware of his impending execution (2 Tim. 1:8, 16; 2:9; 4:6, 16). The second letter to Timothy was written during this period of his second imprisonment in Rome, just prior to his execution in about AD 67. Paul identifies himself as an apostle and the author of 2 Timothy in the first verse of the letter. (On the disputed authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, see Timothy, First Letter to.)

Background and Occasion

At the time of writing, Paul was languishing in prison. In this second letter to Timothy, he notifies the church that the preliminary phase of his trial has already taken place, and that many colleagues who have been unwilling to stand by his side have deserted him. Others apparently left him for ministry purposes. Luke alone remained with Paul, who was facing what he thought to be his imminent execution (4:6–8, 10–16).

Paul wrote this letter for the following reasons:

1. He was lonely and wanted to see Timothy (1:4; 4:9, 21).

2. During the reign of the emperor Nero, persecutions had broken out. Paul wanted to encourage Timothy and the church to remain true to Christ and be prepared to suffer for the sake of the gospel (1:8; 2:3, 11–12).

3. Paul wanted to warn Timothy and the church about false teachers and evil persons (1:14; 2:14, 16–18, 23; 3:1–9, 13; 4:3–4).

4. Paul wanted to encourage Timothy to fulfill his ministry (1:6–8, 13–14; 2:1–3, 14–15, 22–24; 3:14; 4:5).

5. Paul wanted to instruct the church through this letter to Timothy. He employs the plural form of “you” in 4:22b, indicating that his words were addressed not only to Timothy but also to the whole church.

6. Paul wanted to communicate to Timothy and the church his impending execution (4:6–8).

Outline

I. Introduction (1:1–2)

II. The Exhortation to Persevere in Ministry in Spite of Persecution (1:3–2:13)

A. Thanksgiving for Timothy and encouragement to boldly employ his gift (1:3–7)

B. Encouragement for Timothy to suffer for the gospel without shame (1:8–12)

C. Paul’s exhortation for Timothy to be faithful in his ministry (1:13–14)

D. Examples of faithfulness and desertion (1:15–18)

E. An exhortation to perseverance and promise of reward (2:1–13)

III. The Behavior Expected from a Servant of God (2:14–26)

A. A call to accurately teach the word and to avoid worldly teachings (2:14–19)

B. Exhortation to personal purity in life and ministry (2:20–22)

C. Instruction to be gentle when correcting those in error (2:23–26)

IV. Warning about the Coming Apostasy (3:1–4:5)

A. Characteristics of people in the last days (3:1–9)

B. A reminder of Paul’s example and the value of the Scriptures (3:10–16)

C. Paul’s charge to be faithful in preaching in view of the coming apostasy (4:1–5)

V. Paul’s Personal Situation (4:6–18)

A. Paul’s impending execution, his faithfulness and reward (4:6–8)

B. The faithfulness of Paul’s friends and the unfaithfulness of his enemies (4:9–16)

C. The faithfulness of the Lord (4:17–18)

VI. Closing Greetings (4:19–22)

Since the early apologists’ first attempts to defend the Christian faith against contemporary Greco-Roman philosophers, explanations of God’s sovereignty have found support from Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian categories. This unfortunate “marriage” pushed theologians to identify God’s power in static and absolute categories that explained God as unmoved and impassible. God’s sovereign will must be perfect and cannot be affected by the world or by human suffering. In his perfection, God is necessarily apatheia (Aristotle), beyond joy or sorrow (Plato). This notion led medieval and Reformation theologians to assert that Jesus suffered in his human nature, but not in his divine nature. To protect God’s integrity (incapability of corruption), the biblical emphasis on God’s passionate involvement with his creation and people (e.g., Isa. 34:2; Zeph. 3:17) was squelched.

Christian speculation on God’s sovereignty followed the Neoplatonic principle of plenitude, in which the created universe is little more than the divine being’s necessary overflow of temporal diversity. God’s perfection requires the unlimited actualization of all possibilities. For Augustine, this meant that all human experience is foreclosed in God’s eternity; for Anselm, it gave an ontological argument for God’s existence; for Abelard, it meant that God cannot do or leave undone anything other than what he has done; for Beza (Calvinism), double predestination was a given; for Schleiermacher, human self-consciousness had its roots in the divine being; for Tillich, a “God above God” was the ground of all being; and we could add many others. “Sovereignty,” in these delineations, expresses the necessary manifestation of God’s perfection and absolute power.

The biblical language of sovereignty does not parallel such logic. Broadly speaking, the Bible describes sovereignty as God’s divine authority to rule his creation in general and Israel in particular. He is the Lord of all creation and the King of Israel. He is almighty (sovereign) to accomplish his purpose, which is to restore his kingdom on earth through Christ (1 Tim. 6:14–15), to whom he now has given all authority (Matt. 28:18). Rather than an aloof divinity of perfection, God is presented in the Bible as intensely personal and superbly engaged in the affairs of his creation. He remains outside his creation as its supreme, infinite Creator (transcendence), while allowing his love to instruct both his justice and his power (immanence). He creates not because the necessity of his perfection requires it but rather out of sovereign freedom and love. He is both protective of his position as Lord of creation and concerned for his people’s welfare (Deut. 6:13–19). His sovereignty displays his moral character (Exod. 15:11–18) while demanding reciprocal love and relational obedience from his people.

As sovereign, God has power and rule that are above all other powers and rulers (Pss. 22:28; 103:19; Dan. 5:21). His providential care for all creation exhibits his loving kingship and confirms his essential goodness. God’s sovereignty affirms that human life has meaning and purpose; he does not leave us alone to create our own happiness, nor are we subject to whatever misery presses upon us (1 Chron. 29:11). Rather than an indivisible attribute, God’s power is subject to his control and expresses itself relationally. This same relationality lies behind the biblical understanding of God’s will and unchangeable character (James 1:17; cf. Ps. 102:25–27; Isa. 40:8). As a comparison of 1 Sam. 15:11 with 15:29 shows, God’s sovereignty does not militate against his freedom to change his mind. Rather, God remains unchangeably faithful and true to his character even when humans prove faithless and false (2 Tim. 2:13).

This relational quality of God’s sovereignty is rooted in his triunity. His existence is coexistence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes love the distinctive mark of his sovereignty. The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards against metaphysical understandings of God that make light of his self-revelation in Christ. Opposite the self-expanding god of philosophical speculations, the biblical God manifests his sovereignty through the self-limiting and self-denying Christ (Phil. 2:5–11), who reveals God’s absolute power as the servant of his absolute love.

Self-control involves the willingness to submit to the boundaries of nature, society, and family that God places in the world to bring about order and harmony in relationships. The self-restraint of an individual’s thoughts, words, and actions reflects the ordered discipline of God’s creation (Gen. 1–3; 8:22; Prov. 6:6–8). Discipline of the self is essential to live a productive life in community (Prov. 25:28).

“Self-control” is one of the terms that Luke uses to summarize Paul’s message to Felix (Acts 24:25). God’s people must exercise self-control (1 Thess. 5:6; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2 Pet. 1:6). Ultimately, self-control is a gift, a fruit that comes from being in submission to God’s Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) who received Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he granted authority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43; 2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as they testified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broader usage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) and Andronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of his calling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yet they also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these three persons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesus prays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heaven concerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send the Spirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will do what Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). The challenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate a doctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of which surfaces in both Testaments.

Old Testament

In the OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicit level. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8), Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as “Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son” (Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where God declares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NT evidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father” certainly appears in the OT.

Messianic texts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “child is born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of “Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowed in Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipates the appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt. 3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh says to David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly, the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh while implying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes that case, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spirit of God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1 Sam. 16:14 a contrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” that leaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” that torments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God would not take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spirit can be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy (Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek. 36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable from one to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

New Testament

The NT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” often because of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appears several times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9, 14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’ reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which he identifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10; and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (also 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in 1 Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (see also 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2–3; in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood. . . . Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “God the Father” is clear.

Biblical texts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for the second claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say as much, but one can take this case further. In context, John’s prologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims that he was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, as he declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ in John 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages that identify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, as Peter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They call out, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11 puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider “equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and the one by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19 states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlights the deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and the Lamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

The NT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personality of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Spirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speak against the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’s Gospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we also see in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke 1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18, 38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the Holy Spirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ (5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor and teacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’s instructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance of sonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). This person even knows the very thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three members of the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, the Spirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

The evidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons are called “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command in their relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of the cross to the church. This “functional subordination” of the Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from the analogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son” would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though they share a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share a common humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that they relate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22) Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by my Father” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authority to the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season) knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifies the Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please his heavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares in John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Son upon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son is said to have “offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated by theologians whether this functional subordination relates only to the period of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is an eternal subordination.

The Spirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father and the Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross and empower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends the Spirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveys what he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John 16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Trinitarian Heresies

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while being distinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these two persons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement our deliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity will respect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustrate them with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms of polytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came from Marcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father of Jesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves us with more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism and subordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons of the Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God. One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond the functionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentially subordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into this latter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but not the Creator God.

These early heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of the Trinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coined precise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so that God’s “threeness” and “oneness” are preserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the Christian God and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the Holy Spirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk. homoiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial” (Gk. homoousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in so doing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spirit was created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea also rejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promoted by endowing him with supernatural powers.

Each of these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism of Islam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claims that constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians will remember that tensions and paradoxes are not automatic contradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expressly demonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, and Christianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in this case. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, and quite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On the positive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of the church because it affects all the others, especially the entire work of redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if he is not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as our Lord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in that case, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us of what Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannot speak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives us the word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune, and sinners need him to be so.