Sermon and Worship Resources

John 15:1-17 · The Vine and the Branches

1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

A Mother's Love

John 15:1-17

Sermon
by King Duncan

Welcome on this Mother’s Day. For Mother’s Day I ran across a list of suggestions for improving communication in the family that I thought you might enjoy:

1. If you have tiny children who won’t give you their attention, simply place a long‑distance telephone call to somebody important, preferably their grandmother. Your toddlers will immediately climb up on your lap and become all ears.

2. If you have older children who avoid you like the plague, buy yourself some expensive bath salts, run a hot tub and settle in . . . Teenagers who haven’t talked to you since their tenth birthday will bang on the door, demanding your immediate attention.

3. Lure your husband into the bedroom and lock the door. The entire family will immediately converge in the hallway, insisting they must talk to you.

4. Get a job in an office that discourages personal phone calls. Your kids will then call you every hour on the hour.

5. Send them away to college, or let them move into an apartment. They can then be counted on . . . for long chats, during which they will expound at length on what wonderful parents you were, and what happened, because you certainly are spoiling their younger siblings rotten. (1)

Well, communication in the family is a constant challenge. And sometimes children pick up on messages we never intended to send.

Chuck Swindoll tells about a great big Mother’s Day card that looked like a third grader had printed it. On it was a little boy with a dirty face and torn pants pulling a wagon load of toys. On the front it read: “Mom, I remember the little prayer you used to say for me every day.” Inside the card was the prayer, “God help you if you ever do that again!” (2)

One woman tells about a friend of hers who has three boys. The youngest boy, Gregory, had just started school. A teacher commented to Gregory that she couldn’t believe he was already in first grade and asked what his mother did all day now that her three boys were in school.

“Cartwheels,” Gregory answered. (3) Some of you Moms understand.

In today’s lesson Jesus says, “I am the true vine and you are the branches . . .” I can’t help but think that is a good text for Mother’s Day.

We are connected to Christ in the same way a mother is connected to her children. I realize that not every mother feels this way, but most mothers would sacrifice their lives for their children in a heartbeat.

An anonymous author describes feelings that most mothers will relate to. Her words say it better than I could. Let me read them to you:

“We are sitting at lunch when my daughter casually mentions that she and her husband are thinking of ‘starting a family.’ ‘We’re taking a survey,’ she says, half‑joking. ‘Do you think I should have a baby?’

“‘It will change your life,’ I say, carefully keeping my tone neutral.

“‘I know,’ she says, ‘no more sleeping in on weekends, no more spontaneous vacations . . . .’

“But that is not what I meant at all. I look at my daughter, trying to decide what to tell her. I want her to know what she will never learn in childbirth classes. I want to tell her that the physical wounds of childbearing will heal, but that becoming a mother will leave her with an emotional wound so raw that she will forever be vulnerable.

I consider warning her that she will never again read a newspaper without asking ‘What if that had been MY child?’ That every plane crash, every house fire will haunt her. That when she sees pictures of starving children, she will wonder if anything could be worse than watching your child die.

“I look at her carefully manicured nails and stylish suit and think that no matter how sophisticated she is, becoming a mother will reduce her to the primitive level of a bear protecting her cub. That an urgent call of ‘Mom!’ will cause her to drop a souffle or her best crystal without a moment’s hesitation.

“I feel I should warn her that no matter how many years she has invested in her career, she will be professionally derailed by motherhood. She might arrange for child care, but one day she will be going into an important business meeting and she will think of her baby’s sweet smell. She will have to use every ounce of her discipline to keep from running home, just to make sure her baby is all right.

“I want my daughter to know that everyday decisions will no longer be routine. That a five year old boy’s desire to go to the men’s room rather than the women’s at McDonald’s will become a major dilemma. That right there, in the midst of clattering trays and screaming children, issues of independence and gender identity will be weighed against the prospect that a child molester may be lurking in that restroom. However decisive she may be at the office, she will second‑guess herself constantly as a mother.

“Looking at my attractive daughter, I want to assure her that eventually she will shed the pounds of pregnancy, but she will never feel the same about herself. That her life, now so important, will be of less value to her once she has a child. That she would give it up in a moment to save her offspring, but will also begin to hope for more years‑-not to accomplish her own dreams, but to watch her child accomplish theirs.

“My daughter’s relationship with her husband will change, but not in the way she thinks. I wish she could understand how much more you can love a man who is careful to powder the baby or who never hesitates to play with his child. I think she should know that she will fall in love with him again for reasons she would now find very unromantic.

“I wish my daughter could sense the bond she will feel with women throughout history who have tried to stop war, prejudice and drunk driving. I hope she will understand why I can think rationally about most issues, but become temporarily insane when I discuss the threat of nuclear war to my children’s future. I want to describe to my daughter the exhilaration of seeing your child learn to ride a bike. I want to capture for her the belly laugh of a baby who is touching the soft fur of a dog or a cat for the first time. I want her to taste the joy that is so real it actually hurts.

“My daughter’s quizzical look makes me realize that tears have formed in my eyes. ‘You’ll never regret it,’ I finally say. Then I reach across the table, squeeze my daughter’s hand and offer a silent prayer for her, and for me, and for all of the mere mortal women who stumble their way into this most wonderful of callings. This blessed gift from God . . . that of being a Mother.” (4)

That about says it all, doesn’t it? When you are a mother you are forever connected to your offspring. So, says Christ, we are forever connected to him. St. Paul expounded upon this connectedness in Romans 8: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (38-39).

We are connected to Christ like a mother is connected to her child. Or in the words of our lesson for the day, “I am the vine; you are the branches . . .”

There is something else we need to see, however. God disciplines God’s children like a loving mother disciplines her children. Jesus says, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful . . .” This is a difficult text. You can read it as a message of judgment or you can read it as a message of love, tough love. “Every branch that does bear fruit he prunes . . .”

In the book, God’s Little Devotional Book for Graduates, the author has an interesting passage on mother giraffes that might help us. The first thing to emerge at a baby giraffe’s birth, says the author, is its front hooves and head. “Minutes later, the newborn is hurled from its mother’s body, falls ten feet, and lands on its back. Within seconds, it rolls to an upright position with its legs tucked under its body. From this position, it views the world for the first time and shakes off any remaining birthing fluid.

“The mother giraffe lowers her head just long enough to take a quick look at her calf and then she does what seems to be a very unreasonable thing: she kicks her baby, sending it sprawling head over heels. If it doesn’t get up, she kicks it again and again until the calf finally stands on its wobbly legs. And then what does the mother giraffe do? She kicks it off its feet! Why? She wants it to remember how it got up.

“In the wild, baby giraffes must be able to get up as quickly as possible to stay with the herd and avoid becoming a meal for lions, hyenas, leopards, and wild hunting dogs. The best way a mother giraffe has of ensuring that her calf lives is for her to teach it to ‘get up quickly and get with it.’”

It makes me glad I’m not a giraffe. But the author’s point is, of course, that the mother giraffe is engaged in tough love. There are certain demands that every parent must make for the welfare of his or her child. There are certain rules that must be enforced. No loving parent is going to accord a child absolute freedom. Such freedom could be deadly. Every loving parent has to say “No” from time to time. It’s not easy. Sometimes it really does hurt the parent more than it does the child. But love sometimes says, “No.”

More and more, child experts are recognizing the need for discipline in child-rearing. Newsweek magazine had a cover story sometime back on the effects of overly permissive parenting. For example, they cited a survey that showed that children expect to ask their parents nine times for something new before their parents give in. And parents do eventually give in. In fact, parents are spending more and more for nonessential items for their children. Parents spent $53.8 billion in 2004, $17.6 billion more than in 1997. (6) Love sometimes says, “No.”

At other times it may say “Go.” There comes a time when children must accept responsibility for their own actions. A term has crept into our vocabulary, “helicopter parents” parents who hover over their children and never allow them to learn that actions have consequences.

I can’t say with absolute authority what Christ meant when he said that God is a gardener who prunes the branches that are unfruitful. But I do know we live in a lawful universe. You drive your car off of a cliff, don’t expect God to reach out a hand and catch you in the air. God loves you, but actions have consequences.

There is a moral law in this universe as well. You live a life of deceit and wrongdoing and sooner or later it will catch up to you. It’s a lesson we never seem to learn. God will forgive you for your sin, but God does not cancel the rule of consequences. Galatians 6:7, “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” That’s harsh, but friends, that’s the way the world works. Even secular culture has a phrase for it, “You play, you pay.” My guess is that God designed a world of consequences to help us grow up, to help us mature not only as physical beings, but as emotional and spiritual beings. Whatever the reason, you can be sure God’s motive was love, the same love that motivates the good parent.

Now, please do not misunderstand what I am saying. If you have an accident, even if you were at fault, that is not a punishment sent by God. God doesn’t reach down and punish us for our sins, just like He doesn’t reach down and pluck our car out of the air to save us. Please understand that. God does not select people and punish them. Jesus was very clear about this. God “sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). But neither does God repeal the laws that run the universe when we’ve done wrong. We have to live with the consequences of our actions, for good or for ill.

But here’s the good news for the day: even our worse actions cannot destroy the love God has for us. That’s what the cross is all about. We can take God’s own Son and nail him to a tree and God will still love us. That’s the meaning of grace. The bond between ourselves and Christ can never be broken. He is the vine, we are the branches.

Psychiatrist Ross Campbell says that the most important question on a teenager’s mind is this: “Do you love me?” In all kinds of ways, through his or her behavior the teenager is asking: “Am I lovable? Am I worthy of being loved? Am I OK?”

Jesus says to us, you never have to worry about that question with God. You are loved. The best selling book of many years ago asserted that “I’m O.K., You’re O.K.” Well, sometimes we’re not O.K., but still we are loved. God loves us unconditionally. God sent His Son to die for us and that makes us worthy of salvation. That’s the good news for the day: God’s love for us is eternal. Like a mother’s love for her child. He is the vine, we are the branches. Stay connected to Christ . . . for heaven’s sake.

1. Teresa Bloomingdale. Cited in God’s Devotional Book for Mothers (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communications Ministries, 2005, p. 92).

2. Day By Day (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2000), p. 130.

3. good-clean-fun-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

4. Dr. Mickey Anders citing a lectionary listserv.” http://www.mickeyanders.com/Sermons/Sermon20000514.htm.

5. (Tulsa, OK:Honor Books, Inc., 1995), p. 237.

6. Peg Tyre et al., “The Power of No,” Newsweek (September 13, 2004). Cited by Tommy Nelson, The 12 Essentials of Godly Success (Nashville, TN:Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), p.188.

ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc, Dynamic Preaching Second Quarter 2009, by King Duncan

Overview and Insights · Jesus is the True Vine (15:1–17)

Jesus offers an extended metaphor of the vine and the branches. Although Israel was often portrayed as the vine of God (e.g., Isa. 5:7), Jesus now presents himself as the true vine (15:1). In fact, Jesus consistently presents himself as the faithful replacement of the unfaithful nation (e.g., when he condemns the temple). The two categories of branches (alive or dead) correspond to the two types of people: believers or unbelievers…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

John 15:1-17 · The Vine and the Branches

Commentary · The Vine and the Branches

The vine metaphor (15:1–17) builds on the emphases of Jesus in chapter 14. There we saw that the answer to the disciples’ anxiety concerning Jesus’s death and departure is found in the Spirit. Christ in Spirit will indwell the believer. Jesus’s new metaphor in chapter 15 affirms this again. The verb for indwelling (Greek menō; 14:17) appears numerous times (NIV “remain,” 15:4–7, 9–10), but now it is viewed in terms of its results. Spiritual experiences must lead to fruit-bearing in the form of new obedience and love.

The vine/vineyard metaphor is used frequently in the Old Testament. Israel is often depicted as a vine transplanted from Egypt (Ps. 80:8–11) and brought to fertile soil (Ezek. 17:1–6). Enemies may trample the vineyard (Jer. 12:10–11), but God tends it carefully and looks for fruit (Isa. 5:1–7). The vineyard may be the preeminent biblical symbol of the locus of God’s activity, his nurture, and his expectations (cf. Matt. 21:33–41).

Jesus’s use of the metaphor is surprising. Rather than claiming to be the vinedresser and assuming the prerogatives of God (e.g., John 5), Jesus is the vine (which formerly stood for Israel). Union with Jesus means participation in the new Israel, the people of God (cf. Paul, who uses a similar metaphor in Rom. 11:17–24). This theological notion has appeared elsewhere, in John 10:7 (“I am the gate for the sheep”) and in 14:6 (“I am the way”). Attachment to Jesus is the only means of access to God’s household. In other words, Jesus marks the beginning of the new Israel.

Two themes dominate the section. First, the believer must have an inner apprehension of Christ (in Spirit; 14:23). Abiding or remaining (Greek menō) in Christ is a prerequisite Christian experience. Initially, Christ dwells in us (15:4–5), but this is no tribute to our merit; for our acceptability as vessels—our cleanliness—is his accomplishment (15:3). Conversely, we abide in Christ (15:4–5), and this is the origin of fruitful living. Just as branches are barren when they are not attached to the vine (15:4), the possibility of separation from the Vine is a dreadful prospect (15:2, 6).

Second, there should be outer evidence of Christ’s indwelling. Note how carefully the passage balances our mutual participation with God. Our effort is necessary. For instance, on the one hand, we must devote ourselves to Jesus’s words and be obedient (15:7, 10). But on the other hand, it is also the nurture of God that causes us to flourish and glorify him (15:8). “Apart from me you can do nothing” (15:5). Jesus describes God as a vinedresser who prunes with skill, knowing the benefits that will accrue to the branch in later seasons.

The results of this reciprocal abiding are given in 15:7–17. (1) Prayer with confidence. Jesus mentions twice the certainty that comes with prayer joined to spiritual union (15:7, 16; cf. 14:12–14). (2) Assurance. We acquire confidence in Jesus’s love for us because it is modeled on God’s love for him (15:9–10; 17:26). Assurance is closely related to our knowledge of Christ’s love (see Rom. 8:35–39). (3) Joy. This is not mere happiness but a deeper tranquility that is free from worry about the affairs of living and that knows God’s purposes are good (15:11; 16:20–24; 17:13). (4) A new community. Throughout the discourse, Jesus exhorts his followers to love one another (13:34; 15:12, 17; 17:21; see 1 John 2:7–11). As his love for us is modeled on God’s divine love for him (15:9), now our love for one another should be modeled on his love and sacrifice (15:13, 17). Christlike love should be the hallmark of the church (see esp. 17:20–26; 1 John).

The remarkable summary of Jesus’s offer and expectations appears in 15:14–17. What especially stands out is his offer of friendship. In Christ, disciples have unparalleled access to God. True friendship is always hallmarked by complete candor, honesty, and transparency between persons. Jesus has become that sort of friend because he has unveiled himself fully (15:15). Moreover, this is not a casual thing passed out indiscriminately: Christ has chosen us to be his friends (15:16)! The indwelling of Christ and his love are thoroughly individual and personal in these chapters. But Jesus’s seriousness cannot be missed. If he has offered this qualitative relationship to us, we must extend it to one another (15:17).

The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Jesus’ Love and the World’s Hatred: Just as it is possible to imagine a stage of the tradition when the only farewell discourse was 13:31–35, so it is possible to imagine a stage when the discourse extended to 14:31 but no further. There is a smooth transition from that verse’s summons to “leave” to the statement in 18:1 that Jesus “left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley.” At the end of chapter 14, the reader expects the group to leave and the discourse to end. Instead, the discourse continues, as Jesus seems to make a new beginning.

In a manner reminiscent of the public ministry, he combines a particularly vivid and concrete metaphor with an “I am” formula (cf. “I am the bread of life,” 6:35, 48; “I am the gate for the sheep,” 10:7, 9; “I am the good shepherd,” 10:11, 14). As in each previous example, the key pronouncement occurs twice: I am the true vine (v. 1) and I am the vine (v. 5). But unlike the previous examples, the pronouncements here add a second identification to each of the “I am” formulas (my Father is the gardener, v. 1; you are the branches, v. 5). The result is not a full-blown parable (both 10:1–5 and 10:12–13 are more like parables in the sense of telling a real story), but something similar to the interpretations attached in the synoptic Gospels to the parables of the sower (Mark 4:13–20 and parallels) and of the weeds in the field (Matt. 13:36–43). Jesus identifies himself in relation to the Father in verses 1–4, and in relation to the disciples in verses 5–8.

The vine or vineyard metaphor is an ancient one for describing the people of Israel under God’s care (cf. Ps. 80:14–18; Isa. 5:1–7). Though the identification with Israel remains implicit and undeveloped (cf. 1:43–51), the metaphor calls attention not only to Jesus himself but to the disciples and their relationship to him. Even in verses 1–4, where Jesus defines his identity first in relation to the Father (vv. 1–2), the disciples are quickly brought into the picture (you, vv. 3–4), whereas verses 5–8 center almost entirely on them, the branches, and how they bear fruit. Most of the other “I am” sayings in this Gospel are accompanied by an invitation to “come” to Jesus or “believe” in him (e.g., 6:35; 8:12; 10:9; 11:25–26; 14:6), but I am the vine focuses instead on those who have already come and has as its corollary the command to “remain in” (or “united to”) him in whom they have believed. The vine metaphor seems, in fact, to have been introduced at this point in the discourses primarily to dramatize the single imperative of “remaining” (Gr.: menein) spiritually united to Jesus in a life-sustaining relationship.

The first “I am” sequence (vv. 1–4) provides a kind of metaphorical history of the disciples’ experience. The care of the branches is in the hands of the Father, who cuts off (Gr.: airei) fruitless branches and prunes (Gr.: kathairei) those that are productive (v. 2). This summary of the Father’s work serves as an interpretation of chapter 13: Judas, the fruitless branch, has been “broken off” (cf. 13:21–30), while the rest of the disciples are clean (Gr.: katharoi) as a result of Jesus’ teaching (v. 3; cf. 13:10) and are ready to be even more fruitful (v. 2).

The end of the first sequence (v. 4) anticipates the second. The key to “bearing fruit” is remaining united to Jesus, the source of all life, yet this “remaining” is not a passive thing. It consists of more than simply allowing Jesus to rule in one’s heart by default. It begins to take shape in the second “I am” sequence (vv. 5–8), and it comes to concrete expression in the summons to love and mission that immediately follows (vv. 9–17). After the heading, I am the vine; you are the branches (v. 5a), the second sequence falls into a chiastic (a b b’ a’) pattern:

a If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit;

b apart from me you can do nothing (v. 5).

b’ If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are … burned (v. 6).

a’ If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples (vv. 7–8).

The point of the sentence as a whole is that when branches remain with the vine they bear fruit, and when they do not they die. Clearly, a and a’ are promises, while b and b’ are warnings or threats. In b the negative point is made briefly; in b’ it is developed at some length. Similarly, in a, the positive point is made briefly, and in a’ more elaborately. A saying about answered prayer has been woven into a’ as a specific example of fruit-bearing (v. 7; cf. 14:13–14), and at the end Jesus’ thought circles back to the Father, with the Father’s glory as the ultimate reason for bearing much fruit and so becoming disciples (v. 8).

What do these words and images mean concretely in human experience? Christian discipleship, a clear enough notion in itself, seems confusing in the present context because Jesus, instead of assuming that his disciples are disciples, speaks of the possibility of them becoming disciples (showing yourselves to be is, lit., “that you might become,” v. 8). It is helpful to remember a clue dropped much earlier when Jesus was addressing a group of “believers” who turned out not to be believers at all: “If you hold to [lit., “If you remain in”] my teaching, you are really my disciples” (8:31). The clue was that discipleship involved more than just believing (i.e., establishing a relationship to Jesus); it demanded also remaining (i.e., maintaining and nurturing that relationship). This had to be done by hearing and obeying Jesus’ “teaching” (8:31), which was exactly what the counterfeit “believers” of 8:30–59 refused to do. In the present passage, discipleship is similarly defined in terms of remaining in Jesus, and in verse 7 he significantly adds the condition that my words remain in you. It is the “teaching,” after all, that has made them clean (v. 3), and one dimension, at least, of remaining in (or united to) Jesus is remembering his teaching and continuing to obey it (cf. the many biblical injunctions to Israel to remember and obey the words of the Lord; e.g., Deut. 6:4–9).

The familiar triangular pattern of chapter 13 is reaffirmed in verses 9–17. Remaining in Jesus and reflecting on his words are first defined more precisely as remaining in his love, a command based on the Father’s love for Jesus as well as Jesus’ love for the disciples (v. 9). Remaining in Jesus’ love is equated with obeying his commands, based on the precedent of Jesus remaining in his Father’s love by obeying his Father’s commands (v. 10; cf. the references to Jesus’ obedience in 10:18; 12:49–50; and 14:31). Such a precedent proves that the obedience of which Jesus speaks is not the obedience of a slave (cf. v. 15), for its motivation is love and its purpose is joy (v. 11). Jesus’ commands come to a focus in the one great command to love each other as I have loved you (v. 12; cf. v. 17). Here the triangular pattern becomes explicit, and for the moment Jesus and his disciples are back in the world of chapter 13, especially 13:12–17. “Remaining” is at last defined concretely as “doing” something (v. 14; cf. 13:15, 17), specifically, loving one’s friends (i.e., one’s brothers and sisters in the community of disciples) and giving one’s life for them (v. 13). This is the example Jesus sets, symbolically in the footwashing and literally in his death on the cross. To remain in him is to follow his example of servanthood by loving others, even at the cost of one’s own life (cf. 1 John 3:16–18). Verses 9–17 simultaneously interpret the vine imagery of verses 1–8 and reinforce the interpretation already given of the footwashing two chapters earlier.

Here, ironically, just at the point in the Gospel where servanthood is given its most profound expression, servanthood is transcended. Jesus has referred to the disciples as his servants (12:26, 13:16), and, despite what he says in verse 15, he will do so again almost immediately (v. 20, citing 13:16 verbatim). Yet the term “servant” (Gr.: doulos, sometimes translated “slave” in NIV) has its limitations. “A slave [or servant] has no permanent place in the family,” Jesus had once said, “but a son belongs to it forever” (8:35). Though a servant might be loved by his master, Jesus selects another word, friend (Gr.: philos, vv. 13–15), to call particular attention to his love for the disciples (v. 12) and to keep that love ever before them (cf. 13:1; also 13:23, the disciple “whom Jesus loved”). But the distinction goes deeper. A master’s love for his servants does not involve telling them his business (except what they need to know to do their jobs), but shared knowledge and insight is an important part of true friendship (v. 15).

Friendship is here defined in terms of both revelation and imitation. Almost at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus had said: “Whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves [Gr.: philei] the Son and shows him all he does” (5:19b–20). Now that Jesus has told his disciples everything he has heard from the Father (v. 15b), they in turn know what Jesus is doing (v. 15a), and must do what he commands (v. 14). This means doing what Jesus himself has done, for Jesus’ commands are based on his example (love each other as I have loved you, v. 12; cf. 13:15). At this point, Jesus’ words powerfully reinforce what he had said in 13:17: “Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.” Friendship finds its realization in loving service. Friendship and servanthood are not set against each other as contradicting ideals, for the contrast is used solely to highlight the importance of revelation. The unfulfilled promise of 8:32 is at last coming true—though not for those who first heard it—“you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

In chapter 15 as in chapter 13, mutual love among Jesus’ disciples does not stay within the community of disciples but inevitably results in mission to the world (cf. 13:18–20). The brief positive glimpse of this mission in 15:16–17 serves as the transition to a longer and largely negative portrayal of its difficulties and dangers in 15:18–16:4a. Verses 16–17 are linked to what follows by the notion that the disciples are chosen for their task (vv. 16, 19; cf. 13:18), but even more closely to what precedes by a last reference to fruit-bearing (go and bear fruit, v. 16) and a last repetition of the command to love each other (v. 17). If remaining in Jesus is defined concretely as loving one another, the consequent bearing of fruit must be defined as reproducing oneself and one’s relationship to Jesus spiritually in the lives of others—that is, as what later, and more ecclesiastically minded, Christians have called evangelism (cf. 12:24: a single grain of wheat “dies” in order to produce “many seeds,” lit., “much fruit”). The evangelization of the world in this Gospel does not arise out of the disciples’ conscious love or compassion for the world itself, or the masses of people in it, but out of their “in-house,” familial love for each other. “If you have love for one another,” Jesus is still saying, “then everyone will know that you are my disciples” (cf. 13:35). The entire section from verses 9 to 17 is best understood not only as an interpretation of the vine metaphor in its immediate context, but as a crucial exposition in retrospect of Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet two chapters earlier.

The prospect that “everyone will know” Jesus’ disciples by their love for one another does not mean that everyone will believe. In the first discourse the “world” was defined as those who did not love Jesus (14:22–24). Here the indictment of the world is even sharper. If the disciples are known by their love, the world is defined by its hatred—for Jesus first and then for those who belong to him. The root of this hatred is alienation. Jesus is “from above” (3:31), and those who “are of this world” cannot begin to understand him (8:23). Because the disciples did not “come from heaven” as Jesus did (3:13; cf. 6:32–42), it might appear that they, unlike Jesus, in some sense belong to the world. But this is not the case; the fact that Jesus chose them to be his messengers alienates them from the world just as surely as if they had literally come down from above (v. 19; cf 17:14).

Building on pronouncements similar to two that he had used in connection with the footwashing (i.e., 13:16 and 20), as well as similar sayings found in the synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matt. 10:24–25, 40; Luke 10:16), Jesus predicts that the disciples will face persecution (vv. 18–21).

It is difficult to tell whether Jesus’ self-citation in verse 20 stops with no servant is greater than his master (and is therefore based entirely on 13:16a) or whether it includes the rest of verse 20 as well. His point is that if he has been hated and persecuted by his contemporaries, his followers should not be surprised that the same fate awaits them. Verse 20 is probably the citation of a saying to that effect not found verbatim in any of our Gospels but represented in variant forms in John 13:16 and in Matthew 10:24–25 (the “if” clauses with which v. 20 concludes find their parallel in Matt. 10:24b). Jesus’ point is therefore not the same as in 13:20 or in Matthew 10:40 or Luke 10:16. His mission is seen here as the historical precedent for that of his disciples, not as something identical with it or embodied in it. Though the disciples’ mission is seen as a continuation of Jesus’ own, Jesus does not blur the distinction between them or superimpose one upon the other. Instead, he focuses the disciples’ attention first on his own mission and its consequences (vv. 22–25), and then, more specifically than before, on what lies ahead for them (15:26–16:4b).

The summary of his public ministry (vv. 22–25) recalls Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees in 9:39–41. Directed not against a particular group of questioners but against the world itself, it is the universal indictment of which 9:39–41 was a particular instance. In the entire Gospel, only 1:10–11 and 3:19 are comparable in scope. The solemn verdict is formally repeated in two stanzas of parallel structure:

a if I had not come and spoken to them

a’ if I had not done among them what no one else did

b They would not be guilty of sin.

b’ They would not be guilty of sin.

c Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.

c’ But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father (v. 24).

He who hates me hates my Father as well (vv. 22–23).

In each stanza, the world’s sin is understood concretely in relation to the coming of Jesus into the world. If Jesus had not come, there would have been no sin (cf. 9:41), for sin is defined solely as hatred of Jesus and, consequently, as hatred of the Father who sent him. Drawing once more on the experience of the psalmists of Israel, Jesus adds a supporting Scripture quotation: “They hated me without reason” (Pss. 35:19; 69:5; cf. Ps. Sol. 7.1). If the one great commandment is love, the one great transgression is hatred.

Now that the precedent of hatred has been set, the disciples can be under no illusions about what their own mission entails. Whereas 13:18–20 dealt with the experience of betrayal by members of one’s own community, 15:26–16:4a alludes to a much wider range of troubles. Jesus’ disciples will be expelled from their synagogues, just as the blind man was (9:34), or even killed by religious zealots intent on murder as a sacred duty (16:2; cf. the example of Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9:1–5). Like Jesus before them, they will be mistreated by people who have not known the Father or me (16:3).

The unspoken assumption of all these prophecies is the departure of Jesus, which will be made explicit in 16:5 (cf. 13:36–14:31). Though Jesus’ coming was decisive in bringing to light the world’s sin, there is yet another “coming” that affects—even determines—the disciples’ situation in the world after he has gone: the coming of the Counselor (v. 26; cf. 14:16–17, 26). Jesus’ absence is clearly indicated by the promise that he will send the Spirit to the disciples from the Father (v. 26). Even more than in the first discourse, the Spirit’s presence with the disciples is promised especially in situations of persecution, when they would feel Jesus’ absence most keenly. To this extent the Spirit’s function is the same as it is in the synoptic Gospels: to enable the disciples to stand firm under hostile questioning and to testify faithfully about Jesus to their persecutors (vv. 26–27; cf. Mark 13:11; Matt. 10:19; Luke 12:11–12).

Though this is the main import of the promise of the Spirit in its historical and literary context, it is likely that the first readers of the Gospel (like many readers today) regarded it as the conferral of authority in a more general sense on those who had been with Jesus from the beginning (v. 27; cf. 1 John 1:1–3). Those who had witnessed his words and deeds on earth were the ones uniquely qualified to be the vehicles of the Spirit’s witness from heaven. But if Jesus, or the Gospel writer, has in mind here a justification of apostolic authority, he keeps it strictly subordinate to the more immediate purpose of encouraging Christians in the face of persecution. His primary concern, he tells the disciples, as well as the primary object of the Spirit’s ministry, is that you will not go astray (or “give up your faith”) at the prospect of expulsion from the synagogue or even death (16:1–2). The expression go astray or “give up one’s faith” (lit., “be scandalized”) was used earlier when the disciples drew back in horror at the thought of sharing in Jesus’ violent death (6:60–61). The possibility of martyrdom continued to be present through much of the Gospel (cf. 12:24–26; 13:36–38), and now Jesus refers explicitly to the danger of being killed for his sake (v. 2)—even as he had bluntly charged his enemies all along with trying to kill him (7:19; 8:37, 40). The thrust of Jesus’ prophetic vision is that all the hatred directed against him from the beginning of his ministry, expressing itself in persecution (5:16) with the intent to kill (5:18), will be redirected at his disciples after his departure. His hope is that the disciples will remember that I warned you (v. 4a) and be reassured by two things: first, by knowing why the religious authorities are persecuting them (because they have not known the Father or me, v. 3); and second, by knowing that Jesus was not taken by surprise, but saw beforehand what was in store for them as clearly as he saw his own calling and destiny (cf. 13:19; 14:29).

Additional Notes

15:6 Like a branch that is thrown away: What was stated in v. 2 as a metaphor (“He cuts off every branch in me”) appears here in the form of a simile. The description in v. 6b of the gathering and burning of the dried-up branches is not a theological statement but is drawn from observation of everyday life. But does the imagery imply that those who belong to Jesus can lose the salvation they have by virtue of their relationship to him? The answer depends on one’s assessment of the spiritual condition of Judas the betrayer. If Judas was at first a true disciple of Jesus, one may conclude that a genuine believer may in fact be like a branch that is thrown away. But if Judas was never truly a child of God, then his case is not that of a believer losing his salvation. Such terms as “a devil” (used of Judas as early as 6:70) and “the one doomed to destruction” (17:12) suggest that the latter alternative is the correct one. Judas was a “fruitless branch” because he had no life-giving connection with Jesus in the first place. His exclusion simply made visible (to the beloved disciple at least) what was already the case in his heart. It is fair to draw the tentative conclusion that the same is true of whatever other “fruitless branches” the Gospel writer may have in mind in his own congregations.

15:16 Fruit that will last: lit., “that your fruit might remain” (Gr.: menēi, the word used throughout the chapter for “remaining” in Jesus). The hope expressed is that the disciples’ converts will be firmly established in their new faith and will realize among themselves the same mutual love that Jesus desires for the first generation of believers (cf. 17:20).

Then the Father will give you whatever you ask. This expression of Jesus’ intent is probably to be taken as synonymous with the immediately preceding intent that the disciples go and bear fruit (cf. vv. 7–8). Prayer is an integral part of the disciples’ mission; they will fulfill their mission precisely by asking the Father for a rich “harvest” of new believers (cf. Matt. 9:37–38/Luke 10:2; also perhaps Ps. 2:8). The supreme example of prayer as the key to mission is Jesus’ own prayer in 17:9–23.

15:20 If they obeyed my teaching: The context (v. 21 in particular) makes it clear that Jesus is using irony here: If they obeyed my teaching—which they did not—they will obey yours also. Though some will respond positively to the disciples’ mission (cf. 17:20), Jesus is not looking at that possibility here.

15:21 Because of my name: i.e., “because of me” or “for my sake.”

15:25 Their Law: The terminology indicates that Jesus’ indictment is directed against the same Jewish religious establishment that has been persecuting him and seeking his life. See note on 8:17.

15:26 I will send: In the second discourse (here and in 16:7), Jesus is the one who sends the Spirit from the Father. Contrast the terminology of the first discourse in which the Father himself sends the Spirit, though in response to Jesus’ request (14:16, 26).

16:2 Put you out of the synagogues: Cf. 9:22; 12:42, where expulsion from the synagogue was viewed as a possibility even within Jesus’ earthly ministry. Here the experience is placed in a prophetic context, pointing to the experience of Christians in the decades after Jesus’ resurrection. At least for the last decade of the first century, there is Jewish evidence that such expulsions actually took place. See note on 9:22.

Offering a service to God: lit., “worship.” Even as good deeds such as prayer, almsgiving, and fasting were regarded by Jews after the destruction of the temple as equivalent to sacrifice, so would the “good deed” of ridding the world of heretics be counted as an act of sacred worship.

16:4a When the time comes: lit., “when their hour comes.” This could mean “when the hour comes for these things [of which Jesus had just spoken] to be fulfilled” or “when the persecutors’ hour comes” to do what they have to do. The second alternative is the more likely (see GNB, and cf. Luke 22:53b: “But this is your hour—when darkness reigns”).

Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by J. Ramsey Michaels, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Branch

Besides its normal, literal usage, “branch” is often used figuratively in the Bible to refer to descendants. The image that is created is usually that of a tree or tree stump from which new growth (“the branch”) emerges. The branch is thus both connected to the tree and yet still distinct and unique. In several OT passages the term “branch” is used to describe the coming Messiah, often stressing his descent from King David (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12 13; perhaps Isa. 4:2). Closely connected to the branch imagery of the Messiah is fruitfulness (Isa. 4:2; 11:1) and the dual concepts of justice and righteousness (Jer. 23:5; 33:15). Zechariah 6:12–13 states that “the Branch,” clothed in majesty, will rebuild the temple and take his seat on the throne to rule. In Rom. 11:17–24 Paul uses the branch/tree imagery to explain how Israel (the natural branch) and the Gentiles (the ingrafted branch) both relate to the overall plan and people of God (the tree with its roots).

Clean

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5 6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Cleanness does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (various discharges; e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Ceremonial cleansing is not just a topic in the OT; it appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

Father

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).

Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Fruit

Literally, fruit is the seed-bearing part of a plant. It constitutes an important part of the diet in the ancient Near East. Common fruits are olives, grapes, and figs, though many other varieties of fruit are also available, including apples, apricots, peaches, pomegranates, dates, and melons. Fruit trees play a prominent role as a food source in God’s creation and preparation of the garden of Eden (Gen. 1 3). The law prohibits the Israelites from cutting down their enemy’s fruit trees (Deut. 20:19). The abundance of fruit trees characterizes the land that God has prepared for Israel (Deut. 8:8; Neh. 9:25) as well as the final restoration (Ezek. 47:12; Joel 2:22; Rev. 22:2).

One aspect of fruit is that it grows from a plant. This use of the term is often extended to represent what emerges from something else. Thus, fruit may represent offspring, whether human or animal (Deut. 7:13; 28:4), one’s actions (Matt. 7:16–20), the result of one’s actions or choices (Prov. 1:31; 10:16; Jer. 17:10), or words coming from one’s mouth (Prov. 12:14; Heb. 13:15). In the NT especially, producing much fruit symbolizes performing deeds that are pleasing to God (Matt. 3:8; 13:23; Mark 4:20; John 15:16; Rom. 7:4; Col. 1:10). Those who live by the Spirit produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). The apostle Paul speaks of the first converts in a particular region as being firstfruits, probably referring to their conversion as the result of the gospel being preached in the area (Rom. 16:5; 2 Thess. 2:13).

Glory

The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1 Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 17 19). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).

In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).

I Am

The divine name, YHWH, revealed to Moses (Exod. 3:14) is related to hayah, the Hebrew verb for “to be.” The LXX renders this name with the phrase “I am” (egō eimi), which later OT writings employ as a title for God (Isa. 43:25; 51:12; 52:6).

A significant feature in the Fourth Gospel is John’s record of seven predicated “I am” statements within Jesus’ teaching: “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “I am the light of the world” (8:12); “I am the gate for the sheep” (10:7); “I am the good shepherd” (10:11); “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25); “I am the way and the truth and the life” (14:6); and “I am the true vine” (15:1). With each metaphor Jesus expresses a contrast between himself and another. For instance, Jesus’ claim to be the bread of life differentiates him from the manna that appeared in the wilderness (6:49), while his identification as the good shepherd stands in contrast to the hired hand who abandons the sheep in a time of trouble (10:12 13). In these instances “I am” is likely an intentional choice meant to echo the divine name and reveal Jesus’ relationship of unity with God the Father.

The meaning of additional unpredicated but emphatic “I am” declarations in Greek by Jesus is debated (Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke 24:39; John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5). In response to Jesus’ declaration of “I am,” the high priest accuses him of blasphemy (Mark 14:64), the Jews desire to stone him (John 8:59), and the officials who come to arrest him “[draw] back and [fall] to the ground” (John 18:6). These reactions suggest that at least some who heard Jesus utter these words interpreted them as his claim to equality with God (cf. John 5:18).

Servant

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2 Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1 Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1 11; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1 Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1 Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:10–11).

Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).

The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.

Word

“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:16 17; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).

The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.

The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).

Direct Matches

Fire

Human Uses and Metaphors

Fire is a basic necessity for various human activities such as cooking (Exod. 12:8; Isa. 44:15–16, 19; John 21:9), warming (Isa. 44:16; Jer. 36:22; John 18:18), lighting (Isa. 50:11), manufacturing (Exod. 32:24), and refining metals (Num. 31:22–23). Fire is also an important means of maintaining the purity of God’s people, used to punish sinners (the sexually immoral [Lev. 20:14; 21:9; cf. Gen. 38:24] and the disobedient [Josh. 7:25; cf. 2 Kings 23:16]) and to destroy idols (Exod. 32:20; Deut. 7:5, 25; 2 Kings 10:26), chariots (Josh. 11:6, 9), and the cities of Canaan (Josh. 6:24; 8:19; 11:11; Judg. 18:27). As an essential means of worship, fire is used to burn sacrificial animals (Gen. 8:20; Exod. 29:18; Lev. 1:9; 3:3; 9:10, 13–14, 20) and grain offerings (Lev. 2:2, 9; 9:17).

The Mosaic law has several regulations concerning fire. Regarded as work, starting a fire is forbidden on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:3). It is the responsibility of the priests to keep the fire burning on the altar (Lev. 6:9, 12–13). The use of an “unauthorized fire” for sacrifice is forbidden (note Nadab and Abihu’s death [Lev. 10:1–2; cf. Num. 3:4; 26:61; 1 Chron. 24:2]). Also, contrary to the Canaanite religious custom, burning children is forbidden (Deut. 18:10), though the Israelites failed to keep this command and elicited God’s judgment (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35; note Josiah’s ban in 2 Kings 23:10).

As a metaphor, fire also signifies human anger (Ps. 39:3), wickedness (Isa. 9:18), self-reliance (Isa. 50:11), evil planning (Hos. 7:6–7), lust (Prov. 6:27–28), evil speech or tongue (Prov. 16:27; James 3:5–6), and, paradoxically, kindness to an enemy (Prov. 25:22; Rom. 12:20).

Divine Uses and Metaphors

In the Bible, God is described as the ruler of fire (Ps. 104:4; cf. 1 Kings 18). Positively, God sends fire to signify his acceptance of worship (Lev. 9:24; Judg. 13:19–20; 1 Kings 18:38; 2 Chron. 7:1–3; cf. Luke 9:54). God also purifies his people by fire in order to provide them with abundance (Ps. 66:12), to cleanse them of their sins (Isa. 6:6–7), to refine them into the true remnant (Zech. 13:9), to restore true worship (Mal. 3:2–3), to bring forth genuine faith (1 Cor. 3:13, 15; 1 Pet. 1:7), and to give Christians a true joy of participating in Christ’s suffering (1 Pet. 4:12). God also promises to make his people like a firepot and a flaming torch that will burn the surrounding enemies (Zech. 12:6). Negatively, God uses fire to punish the wicked and disobedient (Gen. 19:24; Exod. 9:23; Num. 11:1; 16:35; 2 Kings 1:10, 12; Isa. 29:6; 34:9–10; 66:24; Ezek. 38:22; 39:6; Rev. 20:9). God is a farmer burning unfruitful trees (John 15:2, 6; cf. Matt. 3:10; 7:19; 13:40) and “thorns and briers” (Isa. 10:17). The eternal fire of hell is the place where God’s final judgment will be executed (Matt. 5:22; 25:41; Mark 9:45–49; Jude 1:7; note the “lake of fire” in Rev. 20:14–15; cf. 14:10; 21:8).

Fire is also a symbol used to image the indescribable God. It symbolizes God’s presence: a smoking firepot with a flaming torch (Gen. 15:17), the burning bush (Exod. 3:2; cf. Elijah’s expectation [1 Kings 19:12]), the pillars of fire and smoke (Exod. 13:21–22; Num. 14:14), the smoke on Mount Sinai and in the tabernacle and the temple (Exod. 19:19; Num. 9:15–16; Deut. 4:11–12; Isa. 6:4). Fire marks God’s protection: the “horses and chariots of fire” (2 Kings 6:17; cf. 2:11), the “wall of fire” (Zech. 2:5). Fire also represents God’s glory: God’s throne (Dan. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13; 10:2, 6–7), God’s form (Ezek. 1:27), the seven spirits of God before the throne (Rev. 4:5). God in his holy wrath is also likened to a burning fire (Pss. 79:5; 89:46; Isa. 5:24; 33:14; Jer. 15:14; Ezek. 21:31; 22:21; Hos. 8:5; note the expression “consuming fire” [Deut. 4:24; Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29]) and even to a fiery monster (Ps. 18:8; Isa. 30:33; 65:5; cf. Job 41:19–21). Fire is an important element in the description of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:3; cf. 2 Pet. 3:12). God’s words in the prophet’s mouth are likened to a fire (Jer. 5:14; 20:9; 23:29).

Fire is also used to speak of Jesus. John the Baptist refers to Jesus’ baptism as one with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus identifies the purpose of his coming as casting fire on earth (Luke 12:49). The returning Jesus is portrayed as coming in “blazing fire” (2 Thess. 1:7), and the eyes of the glorified Christ are likened to “blazing fire” (Rev. 1:14; 2:18; cf. “flaming torches” in Dan. 10:6). In Acts 2:3 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the “tongues of fire.”

Friend

The biblical concept of friendship involves a relationship of association that usually entails a degree of fondness and companionship. Examples of friends in the OT include David and Jonathan (1 Sam. 20) and Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:16–18; 2:11), whose relationships reflect a high degree of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy. The book of Proverbs relates these same ideals to friendship. Some examples are closeness (“there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” [18:24]), loyalty (“do not forsake your friend and a friend of your family” [27:10]), honesty (“wounds from a friend can be trusted” [27:6]), and intimacy (“a friend loves at all times” [17:17]).

The Bible sometimes uses friendship terminology to describe human relationships with God. For instance, Moses is identified as a friend of God and privileged to speak with God face-to-face (Exod. 33:11). Also, in John 15:13 Jesus says, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Then, in dramatic fashion and with great emotion, Jesus describes the disciples as his “friends” (John 15:14–16), clearly a term meant to reflect these same qualities of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy.

In the Greco-Roman world of the NT, friendship was a popular topic. In fact, most first-century philosophers and historians wrote numerous essays about friendship. The topic’s importance is reflected in Dio Chrysostom’s statement that friendships are ultimate partnerships, even more sacred than kinship (3 Regn. 113). Other first-century Greco-Roman authors who wrote extensively on the subject of friendship include Seneca, Epictetus, and Plutarch. These authors often reflect upon Hellenistic proverbs that express ideas such as “friends are one soul” and “for friends all things are common.” These phrases actually date back to the time and writing of Aristotle (384–322 BC). It is likely that Aristotle’s concept of friendship was influenced by the writings of Plato (429–347 BC), who in turn was influenced by Pythagoras (c. 580–490 BC). This confirms that the Greco-Roman concept of friendship was built upon older Greek ideals that were still embraced during the NT era.

This fact is verified by Luke’s description of the early church believers having “everything in common” (Acts 2:44) and being “one in heart and mind” (4:32). Luke is alluding to the reality that those who were part of the early church were friends. However, in Luke’s primitive church, friendship could be shared by the socially unequal and by people of different ethnicities, something that would be unusual according to first-century Greco-Roman social customs. Also, Luke’s presentation of friendship in Acts rejects the need for reciprocity between friends. In other words, Christian friends are to serve and care for one another as an act of love, without expecting anything in return. Scholars of the NT have also seen Greco-Roman friendship ideals in the writings of Paul. Key passages include Paul’s conflict resolution with the Corinthians (2 Corinthians), his reflection on the Galatians’ hospitality (Gal. 4:2–20), and the structure of his letter to the Philippians (some see this as following the model of a Greco-Roman friendship letter).

These texts confirm that friendship is an important biblical concept. The OT ideals of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy are fully realized in the NT. Here, believers in Christ are entitled to a new kind of friendship with God. In turn, this divine friendship produces a new kind of relationship with others in the church. This relationship is characterized by loving commitment to one another and a generous sharing of goods and possessions to meet one another’s needs. All of this results in a deep sense of closeness and unity (“a oneness of heart and soul”). In other words, in Christ, the church has the ability to produce the best of friends.

Fruit

Literally, fruit is the seed-bearing part of a plant. It constitutes an important part of the diet in the ancient Near East. Common fruits are olives, grapes, and figs, though many other varieties of fruit are also available, including apples, apricots, peaches, pomegranates, dates, and melons. Fruit trees play a prominent role as a food source in God’s creation and preparation of the garden of Eden (Gen. 1–3). The law prohibits the Israelites from cutting down their enemy’s fruit trees (Deut. 20:19). The abundance of fruit trees characterizes the land that God has prepared for Israel (Deut. 8:8; Neh. 9:25) as well as the final restoration (Ezek. 47:12; Joel 2:22; Rev. 22:2).

Garden

An enclosed farming area where vegetables and fruit trees are cultivated. Vineyards, orchards, and olive groves belong to a broader category of the garden. Gardens in biblical times generally were surrounded by a wall of mud-bricks or stones, along with a hedge of thorny bushes (Prov. 24:31; Song 4:12; Isa. 5:5). A booth or watchtower was set up to guard it from thieves and wild animals (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 5:2). For irrigation, water was raised from wells or brought in through a canal system connected to rivers or springs.

Since most of the land of Canaan was a hilly and arid region, a well-watered garden was highly valued. Thus Balaam blesses the tents of the Israelites to be “like gardens beside a river” (Num. 24:6–7; cf. Ps. 1:3; Jer. 17:8). Notably, in Gen. 13:10 the Plain of Jordan, in its fertility from the ample water supply, is likened to two places: “the garden of the Lord” and “the land of Egypt.” The land of Egypt had developed vegetable gardens, with an irrigation system connected to the Nile (Deut. 11:10; cf. Num. 11:5). The garden of the Lord, or the garden of Eden, was also such a place of fruitfulness, with rivers and fruit trees, especially the tree of life (Gen. 2:9–10).

The garden of Eden also carries various connotations that are developed in the rest of the Bible. It is a place secluded from the world, where nakedness is not shameful (Gen. 2:25). Song of Songs describes the garden as a place of perfect love. It is also a meeting place between God and human beings (Gen. 2:16–17; 3:8–14; cf. idolatrous gardens in Isa. 1:29–31; 65:3; 66:17). More important, God is the gardener who planted it (Gen. 2:8).

The metaphorical identification of God as the gardener is frequently developed in the OT. In Deut. 11:10–12 the land of Canaan is described as a garden that God himself will take care of. Isaiah presents Zion as the vineyard that God planted and cultivated but decided to destroy due to its unfruitfulness (Isa. 5:1–7; cf. Jer. 12:10; Ezek. 19:10; Joel 2:3); after the time of its desolation, however, God also promises to restore and care for it (Isa. 27:2–6). Restored Zion is likened to a well-watered garden and even the garden of Eden (Isa. 51:3; 58:11; 61:11; cf. Jer. 31:12; Ezek. 36:34–35; 47:12).

Descriptions of God as the gardener perhaps convey the conception of kingship. Gardens belonged to socially prestigious people, especially royalty, as indicated by the references to the king’s garden at Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:4; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Neh. 3:15) as well as the Persian palace garden (Esther 1:5; 7:7–8). But a royal garden was particularly regarded as the main achievement of a king (Eccles. 2:4–6; also note the story of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21). The allusions to the garden of Eden in the taunt songs of the kings of Tyre, Assyria, and Pharaoh (Ezek. 28:13; 31:8–9, 16, 18) also support this relationship.

Metaphorical use of the garden continues in the NT. The people of God are described as the vegetation whose fruits reveal their identities (cf. Matt. 7:16–19). The need to bear fruit is particularly emphasized in the vineyard imagery of John 15, in which God is introduced as a farmer, Jesus as the vine, and believers as its branches. Paul mentions the bearing of fruit as the goal of Christian life (Rom. 7:4–5; Phil. 1:11; Col. 1:10), which is possible through the work of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22–25). Revelation 21:1–22:5 describes the new Jerusalem as a restored garden of Eden, in the midst of which a river of life, issuing from beneath God’s throne, provides abundant water for the tree of life on both sides.

Also noteworthy is the reference in the Gospel of John to the two gardens: the garden of Jesus’ arrest (18:1–11) and the garden of Jesus’ burial (19:41). Considering their location in Jerusalem and the usage of royal gardens for burial (cf. 2 Kings 21:18), it seems that John mentions the gardens in order to underline Jesus’ kingship, which he particularly develops in John 18–19. Mary’s perception of the risen Christ as a gardener possibly supports this interpretation (John 20:15).

Husbandman

The KJV uses “husbandman” to translate Hebrew and Greek words rendered in other versions as “farmer,” “vinedresser,” or “tenant.” In an agricultural society, where crops are a stable source of income, husbandry is a common occupation. It also appears as a metaphor in Scripture. The religious leaders are identified as God-appointed tenants of his vineyard who turn against its owner, killing his son (Matt. 21:33–39). Jesus identifies himself as the vine, believers as its branches, and the Father as the vinedresser (John 15:1–7).

Obey

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

In the OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar [e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4]) God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed as listening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV, NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’s voice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaic covenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the laws set forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, God would bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, he would curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history of Israel sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen people and the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2 Kings 18:9–12; 2 Chron. 36:11–21), even though God repeatedly warned the people through his prophets that this destruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).

The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Plants

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Vine

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine. The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen. 9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’s planting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation in Egypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, the land of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine (cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the region are named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23), Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10), Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vine cultivation. Vine cultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced, stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). The walls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes, to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2). Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10). As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek. 17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear good grapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood or rocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook the vineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered in baskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are dried into raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village are allowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Since the production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites, the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace and security (cf. “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” in 1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of the harvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristic expression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signals God’s blessing (2 Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22; Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying the fruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment (Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph. 1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water into wine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’s judgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

Old Testament. The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. The fruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness or blessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wife in Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the main place of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for the woman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” is compared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine” (7:8).

The metaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’s people. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented in terms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). A similar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares the Israelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing of wild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “a corrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vine metaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4; 17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passages describe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa. 27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through the story of the restored vineyard.

New Testament. In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17 pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke 13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as the owner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev. 14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described by means of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies are trampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’s wrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphor in John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself as the “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. No longer are God’s people identified as the vine, which is expected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and the believers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branches depends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the “fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol of his atoning blood can be compared to his metaphorical self-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). See also Plants.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because John 15:1-17 is mentioned in the definition.

Agriculture

Agriculture is the practice of producing food through cultivation and harvesting. For the biblical Israelites and their ancestors, it was one of the primary expressions of subsistence in their economy and life. The priority of agricultural pursuits for Israel’s worldview is indicated in the fact that it was among the first mandates given by God to man in the garden (Gen. 1:28–29). This primacy of place in agricultural concerns meant that care and stewardship of the land was the prerogative of every member of society. In fact, individuals, the priesthood, and the monarchy could all possess and care for the land (Num. 27:1–8; 35:1–8; 1 Chron. 27:26–28).

The primary produce of the biblical farmer included cereals (wheat, barley, millet), legumes (beans, peas), olives, and grapes. Additional, less predominant crops included nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios), herbs (cumin, coriander, sesame), and vegetables (cucumbers, onions, greens). The production of the various crops was largely limited to certain geographic regions of Israel (such as the coastal plain or the plains of Moab) because much of the land was ill suited for agriculture, being rocky and arid.

The entire calendar in most ancient Near Eastern societies centered on the agricultural cycle, and many important biblical feasts included some connection with the seasonal calendar. For Israel, some of the first festivals were linked to the agricultural seasons (Exod. 23:14–16; Lev. 23). Cereals were sown at the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (late October) and harvested in middle to late spring at the Feasts of Passover (March) and Weeks/Pentecost (May). Grapes and other fruit were harvested in late summer into the fall.

The actual craft of agriculture involved the three steps of sowing, reaping, and threshing/production. The fields typically were plowed following the first autumn rains, and sowing lasted about two months. Harvest season lasted seven months in all. Cereal products went through the process of threshing, whereas fruits were immediately produced into wine or dried. The practice of threshing the grains mostly took place on threshing floors located adjacent to the fields. The threshing floors were designed as a circle, generally 25 to 40 feet in diameter. Typically animals such as donkeys or oxen were driven around the floor as the grains were fed into their paths and subsequently crushed. The resulting broken husks were then thrown into the air, allowing the wind to carry away the chaff and producing a separated grain that could then be cleaned and processed for home use.

Besides playing a significant role in the practical matters of life, agricultural practices found numerous applications in the images and ideals of the biblical writers (Judg. 8:2; 9:8–15; Ezek. 17:6–10). The medium could be used to express both blessings and curses. Several texts point to the cursing of agricultural endeavors as a punishment from God. Ceremonial defilement was a possibility if proper methodology in sowing seeds was not followed (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). Similarly, Yahweh’s assessment of Israel’s failure to uphold the covenant commitments could lead to disease, locust attacks, crop failure, and total loss of the land (Deut. 28:40; Joel 1:4; Amos 7:1). Conversely, agricultural bounty and blessings were also a part of covenant stipulations. Indeed, many of the offerings themselves were centered on agriculture (Lev. 2; Num. 18:8–32). Even the Sabbath rest itself was extended to matters of agriculture and care for the land (Lev. 25:1–7). Finally, the covenant saw some of the greatest benefits of life before Yahweh as being blessed through agricultural bounty (Deut. 28:22; Amos 9:13). In a few cases, agricultural imagery cut both ways. For instance, the vine was an image that could express judgment, care, and restoration in both Judaism and Christianity (Isa. 5:1–8; John 15:1–11). Despite the link between agricultural realities and the covenant, the Scriptures are very careful to distinguish Israel from the fertility cults of its Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 18:17–40; Hos. 2:8–9). This distinction also seems to have found expression in certain NT texts (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Beans

Beloved Disciple

Traditionally identified with John the son of Zebedee, the Gospel of John depicts him as the ideal eyewitness to Jesus and as the ideal author. He first explicitly appears in John 13–21. In representing the Beloved Disciple as the author of the Gospel of John (John 21:24–25), the author thus claims a privileged place for its revelation about Jesus, perhaps in relation to the Gospel of Mark, which many in the early church considered to have Peter as its primary source of testimony.

Bible Texts

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Bible Versions

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Book of Ezekiel

The book of Ezekiel is widely recognized as one of the most idiosyncratic of the OT prophetic books. Some rabbis prohibited anyone under the age of thirty from reading portions of the book (i.e., the visions of God’s glory in chapters 1 and 10 might lead to dangerous speculations about the mystery of God).

Authorship and Date

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, most scholars viewed the unparalleled extensive dating in the book (1:1–2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1), along with the symmetry achieved by deliberate thematic repetition (i.e., the “watchman” passages in 3:16–21; 33:1–9; Ezekiel’s message of judgment/hope addressed to the mountains of Israel respectively in chaps. 6; 36) as indisputable proof that the book was the product of a single author. Even during the first one hundred years or so of historical-critical dominance in OT research, historical-critical investigations tended to confirm the traditional views of the unity, authenticity, and date of the book of Ezekiel, although the opinions of the majority of scholars began to shift early in the twentieth century.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, issues of authorship, dating, and provenance of the prophet’s ministry dominated critical research on the book of Ezekiel. The book’s peculiarities lent themselves to various suggestions regarding the place of Ezekiel’s ministry. If, as 1:1–3 records, Ezekiel was called to prophetic ministry among the exilic community in Babylon, how does one explain Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of particular events in Jerusalem, such as the death of Pelatiah (11:13) and the various forms of idolatry taking place in and around the temple complex in chapters 8–11? Furthermore, what is one to make of Ezekiel’s words to those who remained behind in Jerusalem (5:8–17; 11:5–12; 33:23–29)?

Many of those who sought to defend a straightforward understanding of the book’s own claims looked to mysticism or psychology to explain Ezekiel’s visionary involvement in events occurring some seven hundred miles away. Explanations for the apparent idiosyncrasies of his ministry—including extremely violent and graphic language, his extended period of “muteness,” various striking sign-acts, and the extended length and emotional intensity of his visionary experiences—tended to bleed into the discussion of how to understand his visionary experience of being transported to remote locations. Earlier solutions ranged from noting the similarities between Ezekiel’s experiences and those of the mystics to characterizing Ezekiel as having a “complex personality” and as one whose life was more attuned to the realities of the supernatural world.

Geographical solutions to account for Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of events in Jerusalem include two suggestions. The first is that Ezekiel ministered only in Jerusalem. His preaching forms the core of chapters 1–39, and a later exilic redactor updated these chapters to address the concerns of an exilic audience and also added chapters 40–48. The second suggestion is that Ezekiel ministered in Jerusalem from 593 BC until the fall of Jerusalem, at which time he was taken into captivity in Babylon, where he continued his ministry among the exiles. The appeal of a dual-ministry approach is that it accounts for the double geographical focus of Ezekiel without resorting to ecstatic or supernatural flight from one city to the other or positing extensive secondhand editing of the book.

On the other hand, there is evidence from other biblical materials that ecstatic or visionary experiences of this sort were part of the prophetic tradition. Many of Ezekiel’s apparent idiosyncrasies actually resemble characteristics of the preclassical prophets. Viewing Ezekiel’s ministry as part of an accepted cultural tradition provides a more persuasive explanation for the text as it stands. For example, the evidence of continued contacts between the Jerusalem and exilic communities (Jer. 29; Ezek. 33:21) suffices to explain whatever knowledge Ezekiel possessed of events in Jerusalem. The manner of their presentation in his visions is dictated by the cultural standards and expectations of a prophet operating under the influence of the “hand of Yahweh” and by the rhetorical goals of his preaching.

It is entirely plausible to suggest that the author of Ezekiel was an Israelite who was a rough contemporary of the tragic events surrounding the dismantling of the Judahite monarchy by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Historical Background

The book of Ezekiel itself yields pertinent information about Ezekiel’s world, which, when supplemented with other biblical texts (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Habakkuk), enables us to reconstruct a working picture of the social, historical, and theological milieu in which Ezekiel lived and ministered.

In 701 BC the kingdom of Judah escaped annihilation by the Assyrians, as had befallen the northern kingdom in 722 BC, due in large part to the ministry of Isaiah and the faith of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1–20:21; Isa. 36–37), albeit at a crippling financial expense in the form of heavy tribute to Assyria. After Hezekiah’s death in 698 BC, his son Manasseh reversed his father’s religious reforms, which meant disaster spiritually (2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chron. 33:1–11) and survival politically. Judah continued to exist for most of the seventh century BC as a vassal kingdom under Assyrian domination. The spiritual decline of Judah was briefly challenged during the reign of Josiah, who ruled in the years 640–609 BC. However, Jeremiah’s strong invectives against empty religious formalism and social irresponsibility during much of Josiah’s reign suggest that Josiah’s attempts at religious reforms were only nominally successful and did not penetrate to the populace at large.

While Josiah was seeking to institute his reforms, power in the international scene was shifting. After the death of Ashurbanipal, the last great Assyrian ruler, the Assyrian Empire began to wane. The Neo-Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar (626 BC), dealt Assyria its final blow with the conquest of Nineveh (612 BC), followed by the destruction of Harran a few years later. This, coupled with the untimely death of Josiah in battle against the Egyptians at Megiddo (609 BC), spelled disaster for Judah (2 Kings 23:29–30; 2 Chron. 35:20–24). Nebuchadnezzar assumed leadership of Babylon after the death of his father (605 BC). Later that same year, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egyptian forces at Carchemish and also ordered the deportation of some of the educated young Jewish men to Babylon (Dan. 1:1–4). This was followed by a second deportation in 597 BC, which included King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and about ten thousand Jews (2 Kings 24:14). Zedekiah was placed on the Judean throne as a puppet king. His rebellion against Babylon (588 BC) led to Nebuchadnezzar’s one-and-a-half-year siege of Jerusalem before its final demise in 586 BC.

The political crisis of 597–586 BC led to a crisis of faith. The promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (2 Sam. 7:7–16; Ps. 89:3–4, 35–37) and Yahweh’s vow to set up his abode forever in the temple at Jerusalem (Pss. 68:16; 132:13–14) seemed to be failing. At the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry, the Davidic promise was already under a cloud: Jehoiachin, the rightful heir of the line of David, had been taken in captivity to Babylon, and in his place sat the puppet king Zedekiah. In addition, the land of Canaan had played a significant role in shaping the Israelites’ understanding of themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3; Deut. 4:37–38; 7:1–11). Because true worship of God was so closely aligned with the Israelites’ inheritance of the land (Deut. 12), to be outside the land immediately raised grave concern about their status before God (1 Sam. 26:19). To be outside the promised land would lead in a few short years to a questioning of whether true worship was even possible any longer (Ps. 137:4). Throughout this period, Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) consistently portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as an unwitting pagan king commissioned by Yahweh to execute the covenant curses on the recalcitrant southern kingdom.

Far from recognizing these events as such, many Israelites in the rebellion party, supported by rebellion prophets, asserted their claim to divine favor and denied the validity of prophetic indictments. They supported their claims with appeals to the miraculous deliverance from the formidable Assyrian army (701 BC), selective use of Scripture’s focus on the inviolability of Jerusalem and the temple, the unconditional promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (see above), and predictions by rebellion prophets of a quick return for the exiles (Jer. 28; 29:15–32; Ezek. 13).

From Ezekiel’s perspective, the people of Judah were making a liar out of Yahweh. Yahweh had always demanded their exclusive worship. In light of their recent history of idolatry, the only appropriate response was to execute judgment on them (Ezek. 20:4–44). By denying this, the only explanation left to the rebellion party for the destruction of Jerusalem and exile was that a mighty and wicked kingdom that they intensely hated (Ps. 137:4) had bested Yahweh.

From this historical survey one may distill the overall situation faced by Ezekiel into a set of opinions probably shared by the majority of Ezekiel’s fellow exiles. First, there was a widespread belief that it was proper to worship other deities in addition to Yahweh. Also, it was generally believed that the people of Judah were in good standing with Yahweh and were objects of his favor, and that he would shortly bring them deliverance. These beliefs combined to eliminate serious consideration of the possibility that destruction of the kingdom and exile were Yahweh’s intention. Consequently, once the kingdom was destroyed and exile had become a reality, Yahweh’s power and/or character became suspect in the minds of many. Furthermore, the perceived link between the land and the presence and blessing of Yahweh cast the exilic experience in an extremely negative light. For those gripped by these convictions, exile raised the specter of hopelessness. The sense of hopelessness was intensified by its conjunction with the belief that destruction of the kingdom and exile were undeserved. There was no way to integrate the outcome of the Babylonian crisis with their previously held beliefs about Yahweh and his purposes for Israel.

Literary Considerations

Structure and outline. There are several frameworks that can help the reader understand the “inner logic” of the book.

Tripartite structure. In chapters 1–24 the theme of God’s impending judgment on the nation of Israel for violation of the covenant laws is emphatically repeated in both word and sign-act. Chapters 25–32 serve a Janus (double) function, connecting with chapters 1–24 by continuing the theme of God’s judgment, now directed toward the foreign nations. The pronouncements of coming judgment in these chapters anticipate the last part of the book, with the message of hope for Israel that dominates chapters 33–48. The emphasis on divine judgment in the first half of the book is not a de facto statement that God is finished with Israel; rather, it is recognition that only by means of judgment (both of Israel and their neighbors) is future restoration and reconciliation possible. Many recognize a further subdivision in the third section, with chapters 33–39 focusing on the renewal of the nation and chapters 40–48 dealing with Ezekiel’s temple vision.

This yields the following outline:

I. God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

II. God’s Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25–32)

III. Hope for Israel (33–48)

A. Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B. Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

Visions. Visions open and close the book (chaps. 1–3; 40–48), with two additional visions in between: temple idolatry and the incremental departure of God’s glory as judgment is executed (chaps. 8–11), and the valley of dry bones (37:1–14).

The movement of God’s glory. Ezekiel’s sustained concern for the temple as the place where God’s glory dwells provides a unifying structure to the book as Ezekiel chronicles God’s glory coming to Babylon in his ominous inaugural vision (chaps. 1–3), the incremental departure of God’s glory from the temple and the city (chaps. 8–11), and the return of God’s glory in the vision of the new temple (chaps. 40–48).

Genre. The book of Ezekiel is considered by many to be a literary masterpiece composed of various genres, including extended visionary narrative (1–3; 8–11; 37:1–14; 40–48), allegory (16; 23), poetry (19; 26–28), parable (17; 24:3), and popular sayings (8:12; 9:9; 11:3, 15; 12:22, 27; 18:2; 33:10, 17, 20, 24, 30; 37:11). Other prophets quoted popular sayings (Isa. 40:27; Jer. 31:29; Amos 5:14; Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:2, 6–7, 12–13), but the quotations are far more frequent in Ezekiel and are couched in uniquely theocentric language. In each case it is God who informs Ezekiel what the people are saying. Ezekiel uses popular sayings of the people to establish their hostility toward God and to vindicate God by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness. The unparalleled frequency of Ezekiel’s use of popular sayings in his oracles against the Israelites and the patently theocentric garb in which his counterreplies are clothed serve to anchor both the judgment and the hope of restoration in God alone. Ezekiel’s quotations serve as a foil for a frontal attack on the entire religious enterprise of his contemporaries in Jerusalem and Babylon. By citing these popular sayings and refuting them, Ezekiel skillfully reveals both the necessity and purpose of the exilic crisis. He turns the sayings of the people against them, exposing the depths of their opposition to God and thus furthering the purpose of vindicating God.

Theological Message

The sovereignty of God. The book emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all as Ezekiel challenged the false theology of his fellow Jewish exiles, which held that Yahweh, bound by covenantal oath, could not destroy Jerusalem. The formulaic expression (with variations) “After X occurs, then you/they will know that I am the Lord/I have spoken” occurs over sixty-five times in the book to emphasize God’s intervention in human events, including the exile and restoration (e.g., 7:27; 13:23; 29:16), to uphold the covenant and establish his kingdom.

The holiness of God. Israel’s sins had obscured God’s holiness in the sight of their neighbors (20:9). God’s holiness required both punishment of Israel’s sins and the continuation of his covenantal relationship with his people. God’s purging judgment and restoration would be a fulfillment of his covenantal obligations and would display his holiness (20:40–44; 28:25; 36:16–32).

Hope in the midst of judgment. God’s covenantal faithfulness would include restoration after judgment (chaps. 33–39). The final temple vision (chaps. 40–48) gives a picture of the restoration using typological images and cultural idioms with which the people were familiar.

New Testament Connections

There are approximately sixty-five quotations and allusions to the book of Ezekiel in the NT. Echoes of Ezekiel are prevalent in John’s Gospel (John 10:1–30 [Ezek. 34]; John 15:1–8 [Ezek. 15]) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 4:6–9 [Ezek. 1]; Rev. 20–22 [Ezek. 40–48]).

Earth

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

Ethics

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to proper conduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of world he created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. It also contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both as creatures of this God and, in some instances, as the unique beneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Bible sets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasons that justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture were not moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail; nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God and Savior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore, is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitive statement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

Scripture identifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beings have the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrong that acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. The fall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and our consciences can become “seared” through chronic disobedience and doctrinal treason (1 Tim. 4:2). We do not, therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’s law—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—to eliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No one will be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who you were and no hint of what you expected of me.”

Second, as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this one being fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices. Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offers a high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its best moments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the church must do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (at least, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular content and why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvement project. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer every ethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologies and cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the first century or any previous age. But the church can be assured that a faithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace of God, please him even today, whatever our particular circumstances.

The Logic of Biblical Morality

The moral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consisting of duties and final objectives. When we obey God’s commandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives in creating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality is complete and informative compared to systems derived from other worldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we must do from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripture because its theological statements are always practically applied and never presented with merely theoretical interest.

The objectives of biblical morality. The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes: the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, two objectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipated side effect of the other.

To glorify God. The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He is maximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom, power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite of that fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sins so that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects, God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No one ever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the final objective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—to know him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actions must testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging others to do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what he abhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to live in unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior define what it means to glorify God.

To be happy in God’s presence. The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy in ways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, the Christian system of ethics differs from moral theories that either reject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or else reduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinners need our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainly desires our happiness and often presents himself as the final source of it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency follows from the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating all things. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; and because he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless rather than selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and the very best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results from our glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then, biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make human happiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable. God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringing him glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory. The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church what happiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials of this life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 12:2).

The means of biblical morality. Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—how to reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and how to value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, several major themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appear below, allowing some overlap between them.

Trusting in God’s promises. Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he has promised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and not allow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, we proclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him. Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OT history with an application to the present Christian life. The gospel is a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to our account. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandments because we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it (so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with its corresponding negative results).

Keeping holiness and impurity separated. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of the universe. All things depend on him for their existence, and he is extreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love. Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,” as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He stands alone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannot entail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this duty is to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunning all forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancient Israelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence and gave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa. 6:1–5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15–16).

In Scripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or the holy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimes pedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes one intrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone to have other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil to lie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if it expresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide. But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases, just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by God for instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evil as such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’s presence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. It is not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and permitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wear blended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed over in the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules of this kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving an objective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh on everyday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of God upon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in any case, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT as well, where it informs the question “What must I do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

Imitating God/Christ. The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation of God and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility, and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior toward people becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, for example, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear, as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one who follows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, so that we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15). They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The new commandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example, puts on display his character and their own relationship to him (13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,” just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn in Phil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humility that surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews 12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in his glory.

Living out our unique identity. Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are, because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, and lying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, most of the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that it often contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (or doing X is urgent for you), either (a) because you belong to God in a special way or (b) because he has done this special thing for you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT, the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however, the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moral exhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, a recognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

The linkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior, is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text moves from prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OT as motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X, for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, for I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In some cases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in, “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again, “You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers to the people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’s experience of God’s particular love.

In the NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appears often, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Paul and Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin must resist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the Holy Spirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him and shun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become an unleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of the old yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1 Cor. 5). The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one new humanity (1 Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tells his readers to love one another because they have been “born again” of “imperishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royal priesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, they must proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1 Pet. 2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and we are the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In all these cases, the target audience has a special relationship to God that imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that they reflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals that he has set before them.

Living in unity with one another. The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all other relationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve would live in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, God scatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9; 1 Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’s people live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OT teaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands between Yahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite and another. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinished business of the OT story.

The NT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task) of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live in unity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed, people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind of people, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,” so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that his exhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, rather than the individual. Christians must display the social virtues of love and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both of which separate believer from believer and each from the head of the church, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case for Christian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps, in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts a divisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2 Corinthians is arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church into cults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us away from one another and into competition for influence, wealth, and public honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force is centripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leading each person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christ might be built up in him.

Farm

Farmer

Farming

Fellowship

The common experience/sharing of something with someone else. In the NT, the most common Greek word group to express this idea has the root koin- (“common”), with the cognate verb koinōneō, noun koinōnia, and adjective koinos. But the concept of fellowship extends well beyond this single word family and finds expression in a variety of different contexts.

Fellowship between the Members of the Trinity

The Gospel of John makes several claims about the fellowship that the members of the Trinity have experienced with each other from all eternity. Jesus claims, “I and the Father are one” (10:30) and “It is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work” (14:10). Regarding the Holy Spirit, Jesus says, “He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine” (16:14–15). The Son has even shared in the Father’s glory from before the creation of the world (17:5). Within the unity of the Godhead, the individual members experience perfect fellowship as they share in the fullness of deity.

Fellowship between Jesus and Outcasts

During his earthly ministry, Jesus modeled God’s love for the marginalized by associating with them. Such fellowship often took the form of sharing meals with outcasts such as tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15–17; Luke 5:29–32; 7:36–50; 19:1–10), a practice that provoked sharp criticism from the Pharisees (Luke 15:1–2). In Luke 15:3–32, Jesus tells three parables in response to such criticism. These parables indicate that his fellowship with sinners demonstrates God’s love for the lost and the joy that comes from restored fellowship with God. Such table fellowship served as a foretaste of the eschatological messianic banquet, when all of God’s people (Jew and Gentile alike) will eat together in the kingdom of God as the fellowship of the forgiven (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29–30; Rev. 19:6–9).

Fellowship between Believers and God

The close and intimate fellowship that the members of the Trinity experience with one another is something that Jesus prays for his people to experience themselves (John 17:20–26). He asks that believers “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (17:21). Just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father, believers are described as being in both the Father and the Son. The stated purpose for such fellowship is twofold: that the world may know and believe that the Father has sent the Son, and that the Father loves believers even as he has loved the Son (17:21, 23). Central to this fellowship between God and believers is the sharing of the glory that the Father and the Son experience (17:22). Jesus expresses similar truths in John 15:1–11 when he speaks of himself as the true vine and his followers as the branches who must remain in him because “apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5).

Although fellowship with God is something that Christ has purchased for his people through his death and resurrection, it can be broken by sin in the believer’s life: “If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth” (1 John 1:6). When sin does break a believer’s fellowship with God, we are reassured, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). This restoration of fellowship is based on the work of Jesus to plead our case before the Father (2:1).

Paul frequently speaks of the believer’s fellowship with Christ, even though he rarely uses the word “fellowship” to speak of this reality. It is God who calls the believer into fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), but such fellowship involves both the “power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10). When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they are participating in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16–17). Far more frequently, Paul expresses the concept of fellowship with Christ by his use of the phrase “with Christ.” Believers have been crucified, buried, raised, clothed, and seated in the heavenly realms with Christ (Rom. 6:4–9; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20–21; Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:12–13; 3:1–4). They also share in the inheritance that Christ has received from the Father (Rom. 8:16–17) and one day will reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12).

Fellowship between Believers and Others

The fellowship that believers have with one another is an extension of their fellowship with God. John wrote, “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Just as walking in darkness falsifies a believer’s claim to fellowship with God, so also walking in the light is necessary for fellowship with other believers (1:6–7). Paul strikes a similar note when he says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:14–15). The point is not to avoid all contact with unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–10), but rather that the believer is so fundamentally identified with Christ that to identify with unbelievers should be avoided.

Because they are joined to Christ by faith, believers share a wide variety of experiences and blessings with each other. In the broadest sense, they share in the gospel and its blessings (1 Cor. 9:23; Phil. 1:5–7; Philem. 6; 2 Pet. 1:4), especially the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13–14; Phil. 2:1). But the most common shared experience is suffering. When believers suffer because of their identification with Christ, they are said to share in Christ’s suffering (Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). In addition to this vertical element, there is a horizontal aspect. Because believers are united in one body (1 Cor. 12:12–13; Eph. 4:4–6), when one believer suffers, the entire body shares in that suffering (2 Cor. 1:7; Heb. 10:33; Rev. 1:9).

From the earliest days of the church, believers found very tangible ways to demonstrate that their fellowship was rooted in their common faith in Jesus. Immediately after Pentecost, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. . . . All the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:42–44). This common experience led believers to voluntarily sell their possessions and share with any who had a need (2:45; 4:32). This meeting of very practical needs was motivated by a common experience of God’s abundant generosity in freely giving his Son (Rom. 8:32). The self-sacrificial sharing of resources became a staple of the early church (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 6:18) and provided an opportunity for Paul to demonstrate the unity of the church when he collected money from Gentile churches to alleviate the suffering of Jewish Christians in Judea (Rom. 15:26–27; 2 Cor. 8–9).

Conclusion

Biblical fellowship is not merely close association with other believers. The NT emphasizes what believers share in Christ rather than whom they share it with. True biblical fellowship between believers is an outworking of their fellowship with God through the gospel.

Friendship

Fuel

In biblical times, wood was the usual fuel for cooking (Ezek. 24:5) and burnt offerings (Gen. 22:3; Lev. 1:7). Wood itself was an offering after the exile (Neh. 10:34). Children gathered wood (Jer. 7:18; Lam. 5:13), as did aliens (Deut. 29:11), women (1 Kings 17:10), and in some cases men (Deut. 19:5). Gathering fuel was forbidden on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32). In general, woodcutting, like carrying water, was considered low-status work (Josh. 9:27). In wartime, wood became expensive (Lam. 5:4), and people resorted to burning excrement as fuel (Ezek. 4:12). Vines were used as fuel because they were useless as lumber (Ezek. 15:6; John 15:6). Isaiah mocks the worship of idols because the same piece of wood could yield both an idol and firewood (Isa. 44:15). Ezekiel refers to warfare as the burning of people as fuel (Ezek. 21:32) and to peace as the burning of weapons (39:9–10).

God

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).

Land

Heaven and Earth

The Theology of Land

Inheritance

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

Messianic Secret

On several occasions Jesus commanded demons or individuals to refrain from announcing his identity or making known a miracle that he performed. These commands to keep silent are found in Luke and Matthew, but more frequently in Mark (1:25, 34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30; 9:9). Since Jesus came to reveal himself as Israel’s true Messiah, these prohibitions against the public proclamation of his identity and certain miracles that he performed are puzzling. This feature in Mark’s Gospel has been called the “messianic secret.” Several examples are as follows:

Mark 1:24–25: Jesus silenced an evil spirit that identified him as the “Holy One of God.”

Mark 1:34: Jesus prohibited demons from speaking because they knew who he was (see also 3:12).

Mark 1:44: Jesus commanded a leper whom he healed not to tell anyone.

Mark 5:43: Jesus commanded those present at the healing of Jairus’s daughter not to tell anyone.

Mark 7:36: After healing a deaf and mute man, Jesus ordered those present not to tell anyone.

Mark 8:30: When Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ, Jesus commanded him not to tell anyone.

Mark 9:9: After the transfiguration, Jesus commanded Peter, James, and John not to tell anyone what they saw until after his resurrection.

Several explanations have been proposed concerning the motive behind the so-called messianic secret and the commands to keep silent. One interpretation, proposed by William Wrede in 1901 in his book The Messianic Secret, attempted to explain why Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah during his earthly ministry. Wrede argued that Jesus never conceived of himself as the Messiah. Rather, the early church designated him as such after the resurrection. Thus Mark, writing for the church, fashioned his Gospel, inserting these passages to make it appear that Jesus privately taught the disciples that he really was the Messiah, even though he prohibited this proclamation in public. Others have proposed that Mark was actually attempting to soften Jesus’ claims to be the Messiah.

There are, however, better explanations of why Jesus sometimes instructed individuals not to broadcast his identity or tell of a miracle that he performed. In each case or context the reason for silence is probably slightly different. A frequent explanation is that Jesus did not want to encourage false messianic expectations. Many Jews imagined the Messiah to be a political and/or military figure who would deliver the nation from its Gentile oppressors. Most Jews did not expect or welcome a suffering Christ. From God’s perspective, hailing him as Messiah while rejecting or being ignorant of his redemptive plans would have been counterproductive to his purpose. In light of this, some interpreters maintain that the veil of secrecy was lifted as Jesus neared Passion Week (Mark 10:47–48; 12:6–7; 14:62).

A second reason for silence, regarding those cases where demons proclaimed his identity, was that God had sovereignly chosen men and women to be his witnesses, not wicked spirits. Even in the cases where demonic announcements concerning Jesus were accurate, their advertisement surely would skew the character of the message and hinder its reception.

Third, Jesus withheld further revelation of his identity and messianic power from those who were rejecting his claims (Matt. 13:16; Mark 4:24–25).

Fourth, miracles sometimes conjured up the wrong kind of faith. Multitudes sought miracles without embracing the Messiah (Mark 1:32–38; John 6:2, 14–15, 26).

Fifth, sometimes Jesus’ prohibitions against identifying him were disobeyed, and in most cases the command to silence did not hinder the amazement and wonder at what had taken place (Mark 1:27, 45; 5:42; 7:36–37). This inability to keep quiet regarding who Jesus was and what he did reinforced the uniqueness of his identity and emphasized how remarkable the Messiah and his miracles were.

Finally, an overly zealous response to Jesus endangered his purpose of completing his earthly ministry according to God’s timetable. This is most clearly stated in John’s Gospel (2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:32; 17:1). Jesus needed to fully proclaim his message to the nation and prepare his disciples before his death (Mark 1:38). A premature arrest and trial would have defeated this purpose.

Myrtle Tree

Obedience

Perseverance

The state of remaining faithful to God in light of the revelation given to persons at their particular stage of redemptive history. Perseverance has always required a continued trust in God, obedience to his commands, and reliance upon his merciful provision.

Old Testament. In the OT, perseverance is related to the covenantal relationship that God had with his people. Abraham was the quintessential model of perseverance, as he was faithful in waiting for God to provide him with the heir that had been promised him. Israel had to persevere by remaining faithful to its covenant with God, which meant being obedient to his commandments and decrees. In the subsequent history of Israel, however, the nation lacked perseverance and fidelity and often turned away from God to worship the gods of other nations. Indeed, the sweep of Israel’s history, according to the prophets, was that Israel had failed miserably at persevering in the covenantal promises and thus had incurred God’s judgment (e.g., Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:1–39; Dan. 9:4–19).

New Testament. In the Gospels, Jesus is the ultimate example of the faithful Israelite and also provides many exhortations about perseverance in light of the dawning kingdom of God. Jesus perseveres when tested by Satan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). The parables of growth warn about those who do not persevere in their reception of the word (e.g., Luke 8:15). Endurance under the duress of eschatological trials is also the means by which one gains one’s life (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:19). In his farewell speech in the Gospel of John, Jesus exhorts his disciples to abide in him as branches stay rooted in a vine or else risk being cut off (John 15:1–11).

In the course of his letters, Paul has much to say about persevering in faith in Christ. Paul considers “endurance” (hypomonē) to be among the cardinal qualities of a believer (Rom. 5:3–4; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:4; 8:25; 1 Tim. 6:11; Titus 2:2). There is a sense in which God himself gives endurance to the believer (Rom. 15:5; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 3:5). Paul offers some stern warnings about apostasy and falling away (Rom. 11:21–22; 1 Cor. 10:1–12; Gal. 5:4), but he also adds that Christians experience a sense of assurance because God is “faithful” and will keep believers “blameless” on the day of Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:8–9; Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Paul also writes that nothing in creation can separate a believer from the love of God in Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:31–39).

The General Epistles provide further teaching about perseverance. James commends the virtue of perseverance that leads to maturity (1:3–4) and urges his audience to endure just as Job endured sufferings (5:11). Jude writes that believers should endeavor to “keep yourselves in God’s love” while also acknowledging that God himself will “keep you from falling” (vv. 21, 24). The book of Hebrews is built around the theme of perseverance and endurance, with key statements about not “drift[ing] away” (2:1) and the exhortation to “run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (12:1).

The book of Revelation focuses strongly on persevering in light of persecution and hardship. In the letters to the seven churches there is the repeated promise of the blessings that await those who “overcome,” which means enduring in the faith (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. 21:7). The churches of Asia Minor corporately are admonished to remain faithful to the point of death (2:10) and in light of the coming judgment (14:12). Three times calls for patient endurance are made (1:9; 13:10; 14:12). In Revelation, perseverance means holding to the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4).

Summary. The biblical teaching on perseverance attempts to balance divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The warnings of apostasy and the promises of assurance are interwoven in such a way so as not to compromise the grace and justice of God.

Persevere

Petition

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of the one praying.

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1 Cor. 14:15).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1 Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).

Pine Tree

Pray

Old Testament

New Testament

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Prayer

Old Testament

New Testament

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Preservation of the Saints

Security of the Believer

The safety and endurance of a Christian’s salvation. Theologians over the centuries have debated whether salvation can be lost, but several lines of argument taken from Scripture support the teaching that salvation by its very nature is eternal.

Election and Grace

Passages on divine election reveal that those who come to faith do so not merely out of personal choice, but ultimately because they have been chosen by God (Eph. 1:4). God draws those whom he chooses, and they respond to his call (John 6:37, 44, 65). If genuine believers could lose their salvation, it would imply that God’s purpose and plan in election had been ineffective, an idea that contradicts Scripture (John 6:39).

The apostle Paul maintains that salvation is bestowed by God as a gift of his grace (Rom. 3:24; 6:23; Eph. 1:7; 2:8–9). This free gift cannot be merited or earned. It is not granted or withheld on the basis of a person’s moral character, no matter how noble or wicked, and it is never merited or forfeited through anything a person does, no matter how good or evil. Rather, it is granted due to something that lies within the nature of God—his gracious character, his purpose, and his free choice. Salvation endures due to the same perfections in God that cannot change (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). Although salvation is bestowed as a matter of God’s grace, faith is the means by which it is received (Rom. 3:21–25). Yet faith is not a work and is never said to earn God’s grace (Eph. 2:8). Good works are the evidence of a life that has experienced the grace of God.

Rebirth and Eternal Life

Scripture reveals that salvation is imparted through regeneration or rebirth. Jesus describes it as being “born again” (John 3:3, 7). Paul uses a related concept when he writes that we are saved “through the washing of rebirth” (Titus 3:5). Peter teaches essentially the same thing: “He has given us new birth” (1 Pet. 1:3). The life that is imparted is “eternal” (John 3:16; 10:28; 17:2; Rom. 6:23). Paul maintains that God’s gifts and call are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). Thus, there is no notion in the Scriptures that a regenerated follower of Christ ever becomes unregenerate, nor does eternal life ever morph into something temporal. In praying to the Father, Jesus notes that believers are a gift from the Father to the Son, and that none of them would be lost (John 17:2, 12). Judas Iscariot’s perdition clearly was part of God’s sovereign plan (John 17:12; Acts 1:16).

Protection of the Believer

The Holy Spirit is said to seal or be the seal of believers. Paul writes, “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). This refers to the divine ownership and protection granted to the believer, who has been given “the Spirit as a deposit,” guaranteeing that God will finish the work that he began (2 Cor. 5:5; Phil. 1:6). Jesus taught the same truth regarding the believer’s security: “No one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28–29). Peter maintained this same confidence when he wrote that the believer is shielded through faith “by God’s power” (1 Pet. 1:5). One of the strongest arguments for the security of the believer is found in Rom. 8:38–39: “Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Something greater than God would be needed to wrestle salvation from those to whom he has granted it.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible teaches eternal security, citing passages that seem to imply that a saved individual can again become lost and suffer eternal judgment, most likely referring to the severe yet temporal discipline of God directed toward his erring children or toward those who depart from the faith because they were merely professing believers (Matt. 13:20–21, 24–30; John 15:6; 1 Cor. 11:30–32; 2 Cor. 11:13–15; 2 Tim. 4:10, 14; Heb. 6:4–9; 10:26–31; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22; 1 John 2:19; 5:16; 2 John 9; Rev. 2:5, 16). But those who defend the doctrine believe these passages do not contradict this teaching; they merely reveal that God purposes to accomplish this work with the cooperation of the believer (1 John 5:4; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).

The writer to the Hebrews, who lays down some of the most severe warnings in the NT, nevertheless maintains that God is “able for all time to save,” and that his readers did not belong to those who “shrink back and so are lost” (Heb. 7:25; 10:39 NRSV). Jude asserts that God is able to present the believer “without fault” before his presence (Jude 24). Essentially, this is what Jesus says in John 10:28–29: “They shall never perish” (cf. 17:12). The loss of one sheep would impugn the power and character of God, who not only saves by grace but also keeps us by his grace and in his grace (Rom. 5:2).

Submission

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority of another, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference, compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to. Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the terms are synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliance with directions or guidance, while “submission” describes one’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within a formalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

Scripture presents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number of specific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept, and as a general portrait of relationships—for example, patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus. Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

In the OT, the use of the word “submission” (or its derivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function of translator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’s instructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit” is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use forms of “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrew expressions meaning the following: “become a slave to” (Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2 Chron. 30:8); “have a relationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch out hands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and “give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

3. Hypotagē appears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturing toward superiors; in 2 Cor. 9:13, however, it refers to obedience to a decree, in this case confession of the gospel.

4. Hypotassō is by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times in the NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using a form of “submission” (or “to be subject to”). It is used to convey the subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to the seventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s law or righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13); believers to one another (1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves to masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, and powers to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9; James 4:7); younger men to elders (1 Pet. 5:5).

A few additional uses of “submission” in some translations have other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection” (Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and “open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vivid portraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking the specific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen. 12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29); prophets toward God (1 Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3); Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission to Jesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father (Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father (Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24; 15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1 Cor. 7:3–5; 11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

Subordination

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

Trees

Tribulation

The NT conception of tribulation is perhaps best summarized in Paul’s pastoral reminder, “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). The Greek term used here for “hardship” is thlipsis.

In the NT, thlipsis may refer generally to the sufferings and afflictions that occur in the normal course of human living (John 16:21; Acts 7:11; 1 Cor. 7:28; James 1:27). In its more common and specific usage, “tribulation” relates directly to the experience of the people of God as a consequence of their faithful proclamation of the gospel. Thus, in the parable of the sower, “tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word” (Matt. 13:21; Mark 4:17 ESV).

One of the primary aspects of the biblical view of tribulation relates to the tribulation and suffering of Christ as the pattern for the church (Rev. 1:9). That his followers would suffer tribulation was made explicit by Jesus to his followers in the Farewell Discourse (John 14–17). There he informs them, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33 ESV).

Closely related to the impending tribulation that confronts all believers is the NT affirmation that the sufferings of Christ serve as the model for the tribulation of the people of God. Jesus thus warns the disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18; cf. 15:20). Paul continues this concept in Col. 1:24 (cf. 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10–12; Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). The tribulation that the people of God experience serves to equip them in a variety of ways. Most significantly, tribulation results in the transformation of the people of God into the likeness of Christ (Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 4:8–12).

The book of Acts records the fulfillment of Jesus’ warning to his followers: it was because of persecution that the church was scattered (Acts 8:1). Later, Paul notes that he has experienced tribulation (2 Cor. 1:8), as did the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:6) and the recipients of Hebrews (Heb. 10:33). The reality of “tribulation” is seen in the exhortation of John to the church in Smyrna (Rev. 2:9).

Another important aspect of the tribulations that await the people of God in the NT era is the relationship of tribulation to the kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 24:9–14; Rev. 1:9; 7:14). Many hold to the notion that there will be an intensification of tribulation immediately prior to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:24).

The “great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14 has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Some understand this as a future event limited to seven or three and one-half years. Many others, however, associate this event with the tribulation, suffering, and affliction of the people of God throughout the entire era from the resurrection to the second coming. The expression “great tribulation” alludes to Dan. 12:1. The Danielic context incorporates a time of persecution and suffering among the people of God. The use of “tribulation” in Revelation (Rev. 1:9; 2:9–10, 22; 7:14) corresponds with the persecution of the people of God. A comparison with Matt. 24:21 confirms this conclusion. Therefore, regardless of how one reads the “great tribulation” in Rev. 7:14, as present or future reality, it appears that this tribulation refers to the suffering of God’s people and not to an exemption from it (cf. John 17:15).

Truth

While a modern understanding of the word “truth” suggests a direct correspondence to fact or reality, Scripture presents truth in broader terms.

Old Testament. The OT not only portrays truth as an honest factual account but also places it within a relationship characterized by faithfulness and reliability. The Hebrew word translated as “truth,” ’emet, also is translated as “faithfulness,” “security,” “reliability.” The word often appears juxtaposed to words that involve a relationship, including “love” (Ps. 26:3), “kindness” (Gen. 24:27), “mercy” (Ps. 40:11), “justice” (Isa. 59:14–15), and “righteousness” (Isa. 48:1). Truth is attributed primarily not to external facts, but rather to a person or community in faithfulness.

Often described as something that belongs to God (Ps. 25:5), truth is associated with his love (26:3). Yahweh is the God of truth (31:5) and is near to all who call on him in truth (145:18). God’s truth protects (140:11) and guides (43:3). Following God means walking in his truth (26:3). God speaks the truth (Isa. 45:19) and values truth (Prov. 12:22), and he expects his people to do the same (Prov. 23:23).

Often involving speech, truth is a crucial element for justice in a community, especially in a court setting. A truthful witness gives an honest testimony and brings healing, but a false witness tells lies and brings destruction (Prov. 12:17–18). Yet only the truth will endure (12:19). Truth is needed to make sound judgments (Zech. 8:16). The absence of truth in Israel’s society is denounced by the prophets, who declare truth to have stumbled (Isa. 59:14) and even to have perished (Jer. 7:28). In Jer. 5:1 it is said that God will forgive the entire city of Jerusalem if one person is found who deals honestly and seeks the truth (cf. Gen. 18:26–32). No such person is found. Nevertheless, it is God’s vision for Jerusalem to be called the “City of Truth” (Zech. 8:3 NASB, NKJV).

Several OT narratives display how truth may not be evident in every relationship. In 1 Kings 22:16 (// 2 Chron. 18:15) King Ahab makes the prophet Micaiah repeatedly swear to be telling God’s truth because he (rightly) suspects the prophet of lying. As an Egyptian ruler, Joseph requires his brothers to prove the truth of their words (Gen. 42:16), perhaps keeping in mind the history of his ancestor Abraham’s dealings with the Egyptian king (12:10–20). Sometimes the truth of one relationship holds priority over duties involved in another relationship. For example, in Exod. 1:15–21 the Hebrew midwives have a truthful relationship with (Hebrew) babies and with God even as they lie to the king of Egypt.

New Testament. In the NT, truth signifies the gospel (Eph. 1:13) as well as Jesus himself (John 14:6). Whereas Pilate asks, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), the NT answers, “Jesus!” The topic of truth is predominant in the Gospel of John. Jesus is full of grace and truth (John 1:14), tells the truth he heard from God (8:44), and in fact is the truth (5:33). Truth involves action. Whoever lives by the truth comes out of darkness into the light (3:21). Worship of God must be done in spirit and in truth (4:23–24). It is the truth that will set people free (8:32). Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the “Spirit of truth” (15:26), whose role is to guide the followers of Jesus in all truth, speaking what he hears from the Father (John 15–16).

Although the topic of truth is seldom mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, the phrase “I tell you the truth” is attributed to Jesus seventy-eight times (e.g., Matt. 5:18; 6:2; Mark 8:12; 9:41; Luke 9:27; 23:43; John 1:51; 13:21 NCV), showing it to be a major theme. The apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth that love rejoices with the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). Truth describes not only knowledge of reality (Acts 24:8) but also the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 11:10) as well as the type of life that a follower of Christ should exhibit (Gal. 2:14; Titus 1:1). Truth can be distorted (Acts 20:30), suppressed (Rom. 1:18), and rejected (Rom. 2:8). While truth can involve speech (Eph. 4:15), those who belong to the truth show it by their love (1 John 1:6; 3:18–20).

Vineyard

Well

Unlike a spring, a well allows access to subterranean water through a shaft that has been dug into the ground. Wells typically were deep and lined with stone or baked brick for stability, often capped with heavy stone to prevent exploitation. In an arid environment, wells were invaluable to the community. Here, livestock were watered and conversations were held (Gen. 24:10–27; 29:1–14; John 4:6–8). Figuratively, the well is used of a lover (Song 4:15), an adulteress (Prov. 23:27), and a city (Jer. 6:7). Wells commonly were named (Gen. 21:25–31 [Beersheba, “well of an oath”]) and often fought over (Gen. 21:25–30; 26:18).

Three kinds of “well encounters” can be seen in Scripture: (1) human being with deity (Gen. 16:7–14), (2) clan with clan (26:20), and (3) man with woman (29:1–14). The latter became highly developed as a betrothal-type scene that included standard elements: stranger’s arrival (= otherness), meeting (= bond), paternal announcement (= hospitality), and domestic invitation (= acceptance) (see Rebekah [Gen. 24]; Jacob and Rachel [Gen. 29:1–14]; Moses and Zipporah [Exod. 2:15–22]).

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1–42) draws on multiple aspects of a well encounter: divine (Jesus) with human (the woman), Jew and Samaritan, a traveler, foreign (i.e., hostile) land, refreshment, announcement, invitation, and so on. However, now Jacob’s well (4:6) hosts Jesus’ presentation of himself as the groom whom she has been seeking (4:26). The patriarch’s well becomes a symbol of salvation, just as water becomes a metaphor for transformation (4:14–15). What could have been another “well of nationality” conflict (John 4:9, 11–12 [cf. Gen. 26:20: “Esek = argument”]) was elevated to a “living water” conversion (John 4:10, 13–15 [cf. Gen. 16:14: “Beer Lahai Roi = well of the Living One who sees me”]). Her plea “Come, see a man” (John 4:29) echoes an earlier “outcast,” Hagar, who exclaimed, “I have now seen the One who sees me” (Gen. 16:13).

World

In classical Greek, “world” (kosmos) communicated the idea that the external universe is a well-ordered system. In early Greek usage, the term was used with reference to specific types of social orderings, such as the seating order of rowers (Homer, Od. 13.77), the order of soldiers (Homer, Il. 12.225), and well-ordered political states such as Sparta (Herodotus, Hist. 1.65).

Created World

In the OT, the notion of the created “world” departed from the Greek understanding specifically in that creation is never seen as an independent entity controlled by an impersonal, all-embracing order. Rather, the universe, usually described with the phrase “the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; 2:1, 4; Ps. 113:6; Jer. 10:11) or at times the “all” or “all things” (Ps. 103:19; Jer. 10:16), is always understood in its relationship to its creator: “He who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—he says: ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other’ ” (Isa. 45:18). Here, the “world” (“earth”) refers to the material elements that make up the planet (see also Jer. 32:17; Zech. 12:1) and the sum total of the entire universe (cf. Acts 17:24). Even in the account of creation in Gen. 1:1–2:4, where many of the elements of the physical world are mentioned (waters, firmament, stars, etc.), the primary intent of the account is to convey that God is Lord over everything because he is the Creator. Often these created elements that make up the world are praised not for their own inherent beauty, but as a testimony to the majesty, supremacy, and omnipotence of the Creator (Pss. 8; 19:1–6; 33:6–9). In Ps. 148:3–6 the elements within the natural order (kosmos) are instructed to praise God: “Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created, and he established them for ever and ever—he issued a decree that will never pass away.”

Though not providing a comprehensive description, the OT does at times refer to how the world is constructed as a whole. The “vault” (Gen. 1:6–20 [RSV: “firmament”]) of heaven separates the waters above from the waters below (which are restrained by God’s sovereign care [Gen. 1:7; 7:11; 49:25]), and this area or chamber rests on “pillars” (Job 26:11). At times the earth is described as a disc with the sanctuary as its center point (Judg. 9:37; Ezek. 38:12), which rests on pillars (Job 9:6). There is an underworld, from which there is no return (Job 10:21); however, the OT does not engage in the kind of speculation regarding the underworld as is evident in the Greco-Roman tradition.

Earth and Its Inhabitants

The term “world” conveys other nuances in the Bible. It often refers to the inhabitants of the earth or the place of human life: “He rules the world in righteousness and judges the peoples with equity” (Ps. 9:8 [cf. Pss. 96:13; 98:9]); or, “Come near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it!” (Isa. 34:1). Also, in the Gospels “world” is used in this way: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36). Matthew 4:8 refers to all the kingdoms of the world. Also the expressions “coming into the world” (John 1:9; 3:19), “in the world” (John 1:10; 2 Cor. 1:12), and “leave this world” (1 Cor. 5:10) can be understood as referring to the sphere of human life.

Ungodly Culture and Worldview

“World” can also refer to something more than the material world or humanity in general; it can refer to the entire cultural value system or world order that is hostile toward God. The “world” is a common biblical way of referring to the ungodly worldview and lifestyle that characterize human life in its rebellion against the Creator. The course of the world is profoundly affected by fallen humans, through whom death came into the world and rules over it (Rom. 5:12). Therefore, Paul can claim that “the whole world” has become guilty before God (Rom. 3:19), and even the created world is affected by such rebellion (8:20–22). Paul especially links “this world” with “this age” (1 Cor. 3:19; 5:10; Eph. 2:2 NET), which God has judged (Rom. 3:6). John declares that Satan is the “prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Paul refers to Satan as the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4 ESV, NRSV, NASB), who is able to blind individuals to the truth and who animates human rebellion (Eph. 2:2). In this sense, God and the world are strictly separate: “Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4). Because of this call to an exclusive relationship with God, believers are mandated to resist and even confront the world. Followers of Christ must not be taken captive by philosophy or the “elemental spiritual forces of this world” (Col. 2:8, 20), since, as Paul says, “the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).

But it is the world that designates the location and object of God’s saving activity. Indeed, God sent his Son into this world in order to reconcile it to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God, “takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Out of love for this world, God sent his Son (John 3:1), not to judge it but to save it: “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17).

Although believers live in the world (1 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:15) and must have dealings with the world, ultimately they are not of the world (John 17:14). Remaining in Christ, believers are able to demonstrate in the world the belief and practice of the new commandment to love (John 13:34; 15:9). Therefore, Christians must maintain a critical distance from the world’s system: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:15–16 [cf. James 1:27; 4:4]). Believers are to avoid the seductive power of the world and not abandon themselves to it; they are to follow their Lord in proclaiming God’s project of reconciling the world to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:18).

Showing 1 to 50 of131 results

1. Parable of a Prayer and a Bank Account

Illustration

"When are you going to get your new bike, Johnny?" said Larry.

"I don't know if I will ever get it now," said John.

"What's the matter? Won't your father give it to you?" inquired his friend.

"We're not talking to each other. I'm mad at him," said John. "I've got money in the bank, but I don't know how to get it out."

"You'd better make up with your father," said Larry. "It's foolish to be angry with him. You just can't win that way."

It is true most people have money in the spiritual bank account. A great inheritance sufficient to supply all of their needs and all of their wants.

Some don't know how to get the money out of the bank and some are too stubborn to communicate with their Heavenly Father. They are offended by their own narrowness, stubbornness, and ignorance. These are reasons why people fail to accept their religious heritage; short-changing themselves in the joys of living.

They miss out on friendships and thrilling experiences. They are never quite ready to admit that they don't know how to pray and don't know how to communicate with God. So they tell their friends they are offended with the Church, the preacher, the religion or with God and continue in their unfulfilled dreams.

It is more than a pity -- it is human tragedy to live and not live, to desire love and not obtain it and to ignore the presence of God's love, when it is the answer to human suffering.

2. PARABLE OF THE BEST CHURCH

Illustration

"Mother, isn't our Church better than the one Eddie goes to?"

"Billy, we do not talk that way about places of worship," replied the mother. "God, our Heavenly Father, is worshiped in each place."

"But he says his is better," Billy persisted, "and I say it is not. Which of us is right?"

"Perhaps his is better for him, and ours is better for us. We do have a freedom of choice in America, and that is a fine blessing," stated the mother.

"What do you mean? One has to be better than the others, doesn't it?" asked the son.

Faced with the question while shopping for clothes, the mother used the material at hand to explain her answer. She pointed out the many different pairs of trousers on the counters. There are some that fit better than others, and even with the size correct her choice of color, style and purpose, as well as cost, would determine the selection. All the trousers were made to clothe the wearer, yet some were most suitable for work or play.

"Yes, there are some who will criticize you for what you wear, and for where you worship. But, Billy, you will come to know what fits best and feels best, and suits your needs. But you may proudly wear what you have chosen," reasoned the mother.

We are all made by the same Heavenly Father and dwell within the boundaries of what God has made for man. We worship Christ in many different ways. Some honor Him as a great Teacher, as a perfect Example, as the Son of God, and as a personal Saviour.

We all may honor Him in remembrance of the Words He spoke, "In this shall ye know my disciples, that ye love one another," and "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Each disciple saw Christ from his own point of experience and belief, but all sought to follow as best he knew how. Yet they quarreled among themselves.

Through our faith in God, Human hatreds are to be overcome by Godly Love.

3. Parable of Choosing a Gift

Illustration

"May I help you, lady?" said the sales clerk.

"Well, I want to buy something for my sweetheart and I don't know what I want."

"Did you have anything in mind at all?" asked the clerk.

"I know this -- I want something that will last and something that he can take with him. It should be something useful."

"How about a watch?" said the clerk.

"No, he has a good watch and that is more than I can afford at this time anyway."

"Perhaps a key chain or key case would be good," suggested the clerk.

"Let me see what you have. At least that is the right idea. It would be useful and frequently in his hands."

The lady said to herself, "I want my love to be in his hands and my presence to be felt wherever he goes and I want it to be a useful love. That is what I want my gift to represent."

Christmas indeed, is a time when we seek to express our love even as God seeks through the gift of Jesus to express his useful love, which endures to all generations. Love cannot give a gift, which is destructive or detrimental to health or happiness. Love came down at Christmas and echoes through the loving kindness which man gives to man in his awareness of God.

The lady was choosing her gift wisely. It was not the price that mattered but the presence of love that determined the preciousness of the gift.

4. Revived Through Service

Illustration

I read about one occasion when Sadhu Sundar Singh and a companion were traveling through a pass high in the Himalayan Mountains. At one point they came across a body lying in the snow. Sundar Singh wished to stop and help the unfortunate man, but his companion refused, saying, "We shall lose our lives if we burden ourselves with him."

But Sundar Singh would not think of leaving the man to die in the ice and snow. As his companion made his farewell, Sundar Singh lifted the poor traveler onto his back. With great exertion on his part, he bore the man onward, but gradually the heat from Singh's body began to warm up the beleaguered frozen fellow, and he revived. Soon both were walking together side by side. Catching up with his former companion, they found him dead - frozen by the cold.

In the case of Sundar Singh, he was willing to lose his life on behalf of another, and in the process, found it; but in the case of his companion who sought only his own well-being, he only lost it.

5. In Communion with Christ

Illustration

James Merritt

I heard about a little five-year-old boy who fell out of bed. His cry awakened the entire household. After his mother had safely tucked him back under the covers, she said, "Why did you fall out of bed?" Between tears and sobs, he said, "Well, I guess I went to sleep too close to where I got in."

Far too many Christians make the same mistake. They fall out of the bed of life and go to heaven; yet they slept too close to where they got in. They never learned the difference between union and communion.

Jesus said in v.5, "I am the vine, you are the branches." When you trust Christ, you become a branch in His vine. That is union. But he goes on to say in v.5, "He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit." Now that is communion. Union is the basis of communion. To abide in Christ is a twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week, fifty-two week a year intimate fellowship with Him, so that you become a fruit-bearing branch.

6. Our Fuel

Illustration

C. S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis wrote, "God has designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy without bothering about religion. God cannot give us happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing."

7. The Best Connection

Illustration

Eric Ritz

You and I live in the period of history where we have access to more information than ever before. We have so much information that it produces what has been called the "Paralysis of Analysis." It was the poet T. S. Eliot who wrote:

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge.
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information.

The beauty of our faith is that God gave us more than information; he gave us Himself. He gave us more than rules and outward appearances. He gave us a relationship with him. Colossians 2:10, "In Him you have been made complete." Only he can satisfy your deepest longing and bring order to your innermost being. In Jesus Christ, God's word became flesh. He is alive!

8. What You See Is God’s Love

Illustration

Mark Trotter

Carlyle Marney told about an old man who was asked once, "Have you ever seen God?" He said, "No, but I have known a couple of Jesuses in my lifetime." That is what John is talking about. No one has ever seen God, but what you can see is God's love.

9. The Right Parts and the Right Instructions

Illustration

James W. Moore

Have you heard the story about the man who ordered a tree house over the internet? When the box arrived, it had printed on the top the words that have become every parent's nightmare: "Some assembly required."

The man began to assemble the tree house (but would you believe it?) as he laid out all the parts on the floor and began reading the instructions, he realized (to his dismay) that the instructions were indeed for a tree house? but the parts were for a sail boat!!

The next day, he sent an angry e-mail message to the company complaining about the mix-up. Back came the reply: "We are truly sorry for the error and the mix-up and the inconvenience. However, it might make you feel better to consider the fascinating possibility that somewhere today there is a man out on a lake trying to sail your tree house."

The point is clear: To put something together, you have to have the right parts and the right instructions. This is where faith comes in. The only way you can put your life together is through faith. Faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. That's what makes it work.

10. Living with the One

Illustration

James W. Moore

Max Lucado in his book, When God Whispers Your Name, puts it dramatically and graphically like this. He says: "Take a fish and place him on a beach. Watch his gills gasp and scales dry. Is he happy? No! How do you make him happy? Do you cover him with a mountain of cash? Do you get him a beach chair and sunglasses? Do you bring him a Playfish magazine and a martini? Do you wardrobe him in double-breasted fins and people-skinned shoes? Of course not! So, how do you make him happy? You put him back in his element. That's what you do. You put him back in the water. He will never be happy on the beach because he was not made for the beach.

Indeed so and the same is true for you and me. We will never be happy living apart from the One who made us and saved us. Just like a fish was made to live in water we were made to live in close fellowship with our Lord and nothing can take the place of that."

11. The Hidden Message of Jesus

Illustration

It is fascinating to me that in our Southern Protestant religious culture, such a strong emphases is place upon literal interpretation. Interestingly, Jesus so often did not speak literally, but figuratively. He spoke in allegories and images. He painted word pictures. Instead of literally coming out and saying what he meant, he so often would tell a story and let people draw their own conclusion. Indeed, these hidden messages of Jesus frequently frustrated his disciples. They wished that he would speak literally and not be quite so subtle.

This morning we take a look at one of the "I Am" sayings of Jesus. Jesus said: I am the true vine. Now, even the most ardent literalist has to agree that when Jesus spoke these words he was not speaking literally. Obviously, if we are to understand what Jesus was getting at here, we must look beyond the surface and do some exploring. We have to go beyond the actual words and discover Jesus meaning.

12. Christ-like Servants

Illustration

James W. Moore

Some years ago, I was walking up to the building where our Texas Annual Conference was being held. A young woman was just behind me. I held the door open for her. She was offended by that and she said: "You didn't have to hold the door open for me because I'm a woman." And I said: "I didn't hold the door open for you because you are a woman. I held the door open for you because you are a person. I learned in Sunday School long ago to be a courteous and polite servant to everybody. If you had been a man, I would have held the door open for you." And she said, "Cool!"

Well, it is "cool" when we stay connected to Christ's Servant Mentality when we get up in the morning and go through the day looking constantly (natural as breathing) for ways we can be Christ-like servants.

13. The Apostles as Vines

Illustration

James E. Talmage

A grander analogy is not to be found in the world's literature. Those ordained servants of the Lord were as helpless and useless without Him as is a bough severed from the tree. As the branch is made fruitful only by virtue of the nourishing sap it receives from the rooted trunk, and if cut away or broken off withers, dries, and becomes utterly worthless except as fuel for the burning, so those men, though ordained to the Holy Apostleship, would find themselves strong and fruitful in good works, only as they remained in steadfast communion with the Lord. Without Christ what were they, but unschooled Galileans, some of them fishermen, one a publican, the rest of undistinguished attainments, and all of them weak mortals? As branches of the Vine they were at that hour clean and healthful, through the instructions and authoritative ordinances with which they had been blessed, and by the reverent obedience they had manifested.

14. Give It Five Years

Illustration

K. Edward Skidmore

George Whitfield conducted outdoor evangelistic campaigns in the 1700’s during a period of revival called the “Great Awakening.” Thousands responded to his Gospel message. After one of his sermons, someone asked Whitfield how many people were converted. He replied: “We’ll know in five years.” In other words, the passing of time would show which decisions were superficial and which were genuine. Some would ABIDE, others would not. We are told to ABIDE because it is something we can do . . . or not do. We have a part to play. In practical terms, we have a daily choice to make.

15. Staying in Touch

Illustration

Joel Leyrer

Across the country grade schools, high schools and colleges are or soon will be holding their graduation ceremonies. For the graduates this is oftentimes a bittersweet occasion. What makes it a time of mixed emotions is not the accomplishment of finishing school, but the recognition that soon many of their friends will be going separate ways. And so some of the final conversations that classmates will have with each other or will put in each other's yearbooks is the desire to stay in touch, to stay connected. Because if friendships are going to last or grow stronger or develop more deeply, people have to stay connected with each other.

Jesus Christ is the best friend of every person in this world. As Christians, we know this. But like any friendship, it is a relationship that has to be cultivated. When it is, great blessings follow. If it is not, the friendship, the connection, the joy of knowing that He is genuinely interested and involved in our life can grow distant or even be lost completely.

Today Jesus talks to us about these things. He provides us with an illustration of the importance and blessing of staying connected.

16. Tyranny of the Urgent

Illustration

Joel Leyrer

Some years ago a man by the name of Charles Hummel wrote a magazine article, later put in booklet form, entitled: "The Tyranny of the Urgent." The essence of the article is the distinction he makes between the "urgent" and the "important." Let me read a couple of paragraphs:

We live in constant tension between the urgent and the important. The problem is that the important task rarely must be done today, or even this week. Extra hours of prayer and Bible study, a visit with that non-Christian friend, careful study of an important book: these projects can wait. But the urgent tasks call for instant action – endless demands pressure every hour and day.

The momentary appeal of [urgent] tasks seems irresistible and important, and they devour our energy. But in the light of time's perspective their deceptive prominence fades; with a sense of loss we recall the important tasks pushed aside. We realize we've become slaves to the tyranny of the urgent.

Insightful, wouldn't you say? How does this apply to us? In this way: There is nothing more important than our relationship with Jesus Christ as our Savior. He is the One who lived for us and died for our sins. He is the One who now, at this very moment, lovingly oversees our lives and awaits us to join Him in the heavenly mansion He has prepared for us. Until that time He asks us to forego all the urgent things in order to fulfill the one important task of "remaining in Him."

17. A Choice for Righteousness and Not Evil

Illustration

Wayne Peterson

During the Second World War Dr. Ernest Gordon, later Chaplain of Princeton University, was a prisoner of war in Thailand. In his book, Through the Valley of the Kwai, he reflects on the difference between two Christmas seasons he spent in prison. He says that in Christmas 1942 there were thousands of American soldiers in that prison who robbed the sick among them, mistreated one another, and did not care whether the other prisoners lived or died.

During the following year, a healthy American soldier began giving his food to a sick buddy to help him get well. In time the sick prisoner recovered, but the buddy who had given him food died of malnutrition. The story of the man who sacrificed his life to save a buddy made the rounds of the camp.

Some of the prisoners remarked that he was a lot like Christ. Some of the soldiers began to recall passages from the Bible they had learned years earlier under far different circumstances. One of the passages stated, "This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Some who were Christians took heart and began to witness to other men. The prisoners began to ask about Christ and to meet for Bible study. When they began to know Christ as Lord the entire atmosphere in the camp changed from despair and desperation to hope and compassion. When Christmas of 1943 arrived, Dr. Gordon said, 2000 prisoners assembled for worship. They sang carols and someone read the story of the birth of Jesus from a Gospel account. Much more was different. In spite of their hunger, prisoners who were well shared food with the sick to help them gain strength faster. They cared for one another. They agreed that the difference came about because of faith in Christ and people who lived his love in the midst of unloving circumstances. The choices they made were for righteousness and not evil.

18. Friends in Christ

Illustration

George Hermanson

The phrase "no longer servants" changes the dynamic of personal relationships. It is a concept of equality. In John's time, one was connected through kinship networks or institutional relationships like master/slave. Friendship as we know it - having the freedom to be friends across gender, class and ethnic barriers - did not exist. But the aim of God to love, the call to us to love one another, moves us into new ways of relating. It is a call to organize our world where we care for all, even those who are outside our familiar networks. It is to be friends in Christ.

The family system church identity is determined by who belongs to whom. This can be a strength, but it can also be a serious deterrent to necessary changes. The way to overcome this is to acknowledge the nature of the community, and to understand how it works in creating an identity. From there the community can begin to move to a friendship network. Even there, there is work to be done. Because we can define friends as neighbors, and since we don't want to cause dissension in the neighborhood, those who are considered to be "different" can be (and too frequently ARE) excluded.

19. The Buddy System

Illustration

Tim Hansel

In Ernest Gordon's true account of life in a World War II Japanese prison camp, Through the Valley of the Kwai, there is a story that never fails to move me. It is about a man who through giving it all away literally transformed a whole camp of soldiers. The man's name was Angus McGillivray. Angus was a Scottish prisoner in one of the camps filled with Americans, Australians, and Britons who had helped build the infamous Bridge over the River Kwai. The camp had become an ugly situation. A dog-eat-dog mentality had set in. Allies would literally steal from each other and cheat each other; men would sleep on their packs and yet have them stolen from under their heads. Survival was everything. The law of the jungle prevailed...until the news of Angus McGillivray's death spread throughout the camp. Rumors spread in the wake of his death. No one could believe big Angus had succumbed. He was strong, one of those whom they had expected to be the last to die. Actually, it wasn't the fact of his death that shocked the men, but the reason he died. Finally they pieced together the true story.

The Argylls (Scottish soldiers) took their buddy system very seriously. Their buddy was called their "mucker," and these Argylls believed that is was literally up to each of them to make sure their "mucker" survived. Angus's mucker, though, was dying, and everyone had given up on him, everyone, of course, but Angus. He had made up his mind that his friend would not die. Someone had stolen his mucker's blanket. So Angus gave him his own, telling his mucker that he had "just come across an extra one." Likewise, every mealtime, Angus would get his rations and take them to his friend, stand over him and force him to eat them, again stating that he was able to get "extra food." Angus was going to do anything and everything to see that his buddy got what he needed to recover.

But as Angus's mucker began to recover, Angus collapsed, slumped over, and died. The doctors discovered that he had died of starvation complicated by exhaustion. He had been giving his own food and shelter. He had given everything even his life. The ramifications of his acts of love and unselfishness had a startling impact on the compound.

As word circulated of the reason for Angus McGillivray's death, the feel of the camp began to change. Suddenly, men began to focus on their mates, their friends, and humanity of living beyond survival, of giving oneself away. They began to pool their talents one was a violin maker, another an orchestra leader, another a cabinet maker, another a professor. Soon the camp had an orchestra full of homemade instruments and a church called the "Church Without Walls" that was so powerful, so compelling, that even the Japanese guards attended. The men began a university, a hospital, and a library system. The place was transformed; an all but smothered love revived, all because one man named Angus gave all he had for his friend. For many of those men this turnaround meant survival. What happened is an awesome illustration of the potential unleashed when one person actually gives it all away.

20. Pruning Process

Illustration

Merrill C. Tenney

Merrill Tenney gives his observation about the work of a vinedresser and the pruning process in his commentary on John:

In pruning a vine, two principles are generally observed: first, all dead wood must be ruthlessly removed; and second, the live wood must be cut back drastically. Dead wood harbors insects and disease and may cause the vine to rot, to say nothing of being unproductive and unsightly. Live wood must be trimmed back in order to prevent such heavy growth that the life of the vine goes into the wood rather than into fruit. The vineyards in the early spring look like a collection of barren, bleeding stumps; but in the fall they are filled with luxuriant purple grapes. As the farmer wields the pruning knife on his vines, so God cuts dead wood out from among His saints, and often cuts back the living wood so far that His method seems cruel. Nevertheless, from those who have suffered the most there often comes the greatest fruitfulness.

21. From the Vine

Illustration

Gerald Whetstone

Recently we experienced severe thunderstorms with very high winds. My neighbor had a tree which the winds tore off several large limbs. Because the limbs were large it took him several days to get them cut up and removed. There was one very noticeable thing about the limbs that lie there on the ground tore from the trunk of the tree. They died. This may sound very trite and you may be saying, "well of course they did! A limb cannot live separated from the tree." I too know this fact, but seeing them lying there dying drilled home the reality, "apart from the tree the limb cannot survive." This fact of nature was used by Jesus as a metaphor for the Christian life.

I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

We cannot live the Christian life and be fruitful Christians apart from Christ any more than those limbs could live after being tore off the tree trunk. Every branch draws its identity, its sustenance, it life from the vine. No two branches are alike and yet they are all the same. Paradoxical as it is, it is true. Every Christian is unique and yet every Christian is the same. Our identity is derived from the Vine. We are known by the Vine. We receive our sustenance and life from the Vine.

22. God Tends, Mother Guides

Illustration

Machrina L. Blasdell

Today is Mother's Day. Many of us are mothers. Many of us have mothers. Any understanding of motherhood includes cajoling, guiding, and giving – as well as taking away, in the form of grounding, being put on "time out," or being sent to our room. Isn't this a bit like God's role as the Vinedresser? God tends, mother guides. God counsels, mother teaches. God prunes, mother takes away, or puts on "time out," or in some way lets us know that we will behave!

In both cases, the aim is to grow good fruit. For Mother, we are to become strong and wise and educated and courageous and ethical and use very good table manners. For God, well, for God we are to abide in God. Abide. Find our home in. Stake our claim in.

23. Anyone Can Have a Fruitful Ministry

Illustration

Our Daily Bread

John Warr, an 18th-century apprentice shoemaker, was determined to be a faithful witness for Christ. Another apprentice by the name of William was hired, and John repeatedly talked to him about spiritual things, but the new worker didn't want to be bothered. Then one day he was caught exchanging a counterfeit shilling for a good one. In his guilt and humiliation he asked John for help and prayer. Through the faithful witness of John Warr, that man put his faith in Christ and developed into a committed disciple.

The young apprentice was William Carey, who later became a remarkably fruitful missionary to India. Carey's life and ministry had a tremendous influence on the cause of worldwide gospel outreach in modern times.

Jesus said in John 15:8, "By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit." This could be discouraging to Christians who can't preach, sing, teach, or go to the mission field. They might see themselves as stuck in a situation that makes fruitful service impossible.

If that's how you feel, then take courage from the example of John Warr. His impact on a co-worker brought glory to God and untold blessing to multitudes of people around the world.

24. Relationship with Christ

Illustration

Staff

Marion Anderson, perhaps the greatest contralto who ever lived had such a wonderful relationship with her mother. It was said of Mrs. Anderson's life: her music could bring one to tears; her life could bring one to their knees. She was once being interviewed and she was asked the most wonderful moment in her most impressive career. She could have mentioned that time when the great Arturo Toscanini told her that hers was the greatest voice of the century. She could have mentioned that time when she sang before the Roosevelt's and the King and Queen of England. She could have said it was winning a coveted award for the person who had done the most for her hometown of Philadelphia. There was also the time when she sang before a crowd of 75,000 on Easter Sunday beneath the Lincoln statue. Which of these high moments would she chose? None of them. My greatest moment, she said, is when I went home to my mother and said: Mom, you'll never have to take in washing again. If this relationship can exist between a mother and a daughter, then how much more can be our relationship with Jesus Christ? I am the true vine he said. As the father has loved me, so I love you. And what happens when we abide in him and he abides in us? Our joy will be made full. Amen.

25. An Arm Around the Shoulder

Illustration

Brett Blair

You will remember Jackie Robinson as the first black man to play Major League baseball. In his first season with the Brooklyn Dodgers, Robinson faced venom nearly everywhere he traveled. Pitchers threw fastballs at his head. Runners spiked him on the bases, brutal epithets were written on cards and spoken from the opposing dugouts. Even the home crowds in Brooklyn saw him as an object of reproach. During one game in Boston, the taunts and racial slurs seemed to reach a peak. To make matters worse Robinson committed an error and stood at second base humiliated while the fans hurled insults at him. Another Dodger, a Southern white man by the name Pee Wee Reese, called timeout. He walked from his position at shortstop toward Robinson at second base, and with the crowds looking on, he put his arm around Robinson's shoulder. The fans grew quiet. Robinson later said that arm around his shoulder saved his career.

26. I Am the True Vine - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

It is fascinating to me that in our Protestant religious culture, such a strong emphases is placed upon literal interpretation. Interestingly, Jesus so often did not speak literally, but figuratively. He spoke in allegories and images. He painted word pictures. Instead of literally coming out and saying what he meant, he so often would tell a story and let people draw their own conclusion. Indeed, these hidden messages of Jesus frequently frustrated his disciples. They wished that he would speak literally and not be quite so subtle.

This morning we take a look at one of the "I Am" sayings of Jesus. Jesus said: I am the true vine. Now, even the most ardent fundamentalist has to agree that when Jesus spoke these words he was not speaking literally. Obviously, if we are to understand what Jesus was getting at here, we must look beyond the surface and do some exploring. We have to go beyond the actual words and discover Jesus' meaning.

When Jesus spoke about vineyards, the people of Judea knew what he was talking about. It was an industry that had been carefully cultivated throughout the country for centuries. It was crucial because it was a cash crop as opposed to grain, which was raised purely for consumption. In early America the essential crop was corn, but the cash crop was tobacco. It was, therefore, vital to the economy of the land.

Quite frankly I must admit that I know very little about the particulars of the wine industry. In preparation for this sermon I did some reading in this area and it was really quite fascinating. The vines are a very rugged crop in a way and in another sense it is a very delicate fruit and requires being treated with kid gloves. A young vine is not permitted to bear fruit for the first three years. It is therefore drastically pruned in December and January to preserve its energy. The particular branches that do not bear fruit are cut out to further conserve the energy of the plant. If this constant cutting back was not done, the result would be a crop that was not up to its full potential.

So when Jesus spoke about vineyards certainly the people could identify with that metaphor, even as a person in Iowa would know about corn, or in Mississippi about cotton. It didn't make any difference whether or not you were in that business. You had grown up around it enough that you would still be familiar with it.

But there is something else that these listeners would most certainly know. A vineyard was the symbol of the nation. In America we might think of amber waves of grain, but in Judea they thought of their nation as a vineyard. It was a kind of national identity. Over and over again in the Old Testament, Israel is pictured as the vine or the vineyard of God.

Isaiah the prophet pictured Israel as the vineyard of God. He said: The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel. In Jeremiah, we read God referring to his chosen people in this way: I planted you as a choice vine. Hosea spoke a word of judgment when he said: Israel has become an empty vine. In the Psalms we read that God compares Israel to a vine that came out of Egypt. Josephus, the Roman historian, informs us that over the Temple in Jerusalem was carved an exquisite, gold leaf grapevine. It stood as a symbol of national unity. Israel itself was, in the eyes of its people, the true vine, whose roots ran all the way back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In Jesus analogy, he likened himself to a vine, while the fruit bearing branches here are the disciples. God the farmer is depicted as the one who cultivates the vineyard. He waters and tends the soil, so that the vine is properly nourished. He takes pride in his crop. But this means that he also prunes the vines and removes the dead wood. The grapes hang on to the branches. What Jesus is saying is clear. The disciples should receive their strength from Jesus. He is the true vine. If they break away from him, they will be like unproductive branches and die and bear no fruit. They then will have to be pruned out.

What can we make of this analogy in terms of our daily life? What does it mean to be God's vineyard?

First, it means we must bear fruit for the Kingdom of God.
Secondly, it means there is such a thing as an unproductive life.
Third, it means we must cultivate a relationship with Jesus Christ.

27. I Am Sayings

Illustration

Brett Blair

There are seven "I Am" sayings in the gospel of John. I Am the true vine is the last of these sayings.

I am the bread of life - 6:35
I am the light of the world - 8:12 & 9:5
I am the gate for the sheep - 10:7,9
I am the good shepherd - 10:11,14
I am the resurrection and the life - 11:25
I am the way and the truth and the life - 14:6
I am the true vine - 15:1,5

28. Source of Our Power

Illustration

Brett Blair

There's an old story told of a native from a remote mountain village who had the opportunity to visit a large modern city for the first time. He could not bring much home with him, and he had little money. But he was amazed at the electric lights which he saw everywhere.

So he bought a sack full of electric lights bulbs and sockets with switches so he could turn them off and on.

Arriving home he hung the light bulbs in front of his home and on his and his neighbor's trees. Everyone watched him with curiosity and asked him what he was doing, but he just smiled and said, "Just wait until dark you'll see."

When night came he turned on the switches, but nothing happened.

No one had told him about electricity. He did not know the light bulbs were useless unless connected to the source of their power.

Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing." There are many people who do not know that the way they are living their lives is useless. They got the education; they got the job; they made the family; and bought the home but when the sunsets and night comes and they reach for the switch nothing happens. They do not know that there is a source, which makes all these things light up!

29. Neglecting the Source of Our Strength

Illustration

Brett Blair

Many years ago at the Tournament of Roses parade the Standard Oil Company, now known as Chevron, had a beautiful float. In the middle of the parade the oil company's float came to a grinding halt and the rest of the parade with it. What had happened? It had run out of gas.

The directors of the Chevron float had done everything well but they neglected to avail themselves of their companies vast resources of oil. The parade waited while someone ran to get a gallon of gas.

Too often, I see this happen among us, Christians and churches breakdown right in the middle of the parade. And, while I know it's impossible for the entire Kingdom of God to be held up while some deacon goes to fetch a gallon of gospel, I fear sometimes its possible and I wonder what God must think when we neglect the source of our strength and power. When we fail to abide in Christ and render our selves ineffective.

30. Servants of the Most High

Illustration

Brett Blair

In Letters to Scattered Pilgrims, by Elizabeth O'Conner, envisions that Christians can transform the world. Listen to her vision: "If we are each obedient to our visions the cities would have green spaces, birds in their trees, and architecture to quicken the awareness of the divine life throbbing in the whole of the world. And the towns? the towns would have galleries to hold the works of their artists; theaters for the performing arts would spring up in their squares; scientists and poets would confer with each other; students would gather for debate and reflection, children would want to continue in life, and church congregations everywhere would be struggling 'to make serious use of the wings the creator had given.' Everyone would know what it meant to be the servant of the Most High."

Okay. Now, when I hear words like this, I want to respond with, "I am the Walrus, goo goo g'joob." Beatles fans will understand.

This kind of Utopian Christianity is only possible in a perfect world. It is even said that John Lennon later disavowed his secular version of this starry eyed optimism, his song Imagine. Even as the best of Christians, we struggle with sin: revenge, hatred, lying, sexual desires. Paul understood the struggle. What he wanted to do, he did not do. What he did not want to do, he did. The great Apostle lived with the same tensions as you and me.

Now I'm going to say something controversial. Here it is: When we become Christians we do not lose our sinful nature. That's what I hear Paul saying in Romans 7. So, where do we find the freedom our hearts so desperately need? Paul pivots in chapter 8 and answers his own dilemma: There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus I have been freed from the law of sin and death.

You hear that? Forgiveness. That's the victory. And, that's our freedom.

31. Care of Vines

Illustration

Michael P. Green

The usual practice in viticulture, the care of vines, is for the branches to be pruned back each year in order to cleanse them. A vine produces certain shoots called “sucker shoots,” which start to grow where a branch joins the stem. If allowed to continue to grow, they would dissipate the life of the vine through so many branches that the vine would produce little or no fruit and would produce mainly leaves instead. Every vinedresser knows it is important to prune away these little sucker shoots to ensure plentiful fruit. Since the shoots grow right where the branch joins the stem, creating a tight cluster where dirt, leaves, and other debris collect, the pruning is basically a cleansing process.

The Father’s work in our lives is to find a branch that is beginning to bear fruit, beginning to produce the likeness of Christ, and then to cut it back. He trims off the troublesome shoots, so that we may bear more fruit.

32. We Are Never Alone

Illustration

King Duncan

Columnist Sheila Graham had a compelling interview with Ruby Bridges Hall sometime back. Maybe that name doesn't strike a bell. It will for some of you if I describe what Ruby went through as a child.

Ruby looked like a typical first-grader. With a big bow in her hair and lunch box in hand, she climbed the steps of William Frantz Elementary School for the first day of school. But little else was typical about that day in November 1960. Though she wasn't aware of it, Ruby had been chosen to be the first African-American child to integrate this particular New Orleans grade school. Every day on her way to school, escorted by armed federal marshals, she braved angry whites shouting at her as she entered an empty classroom. White parents had moved their children to other schools. Ruby did not realize until later, when a little boy told her why he couldn't play with her, that she was the reason for all the commotion.

In her interview Sheila Graham noted that even in this stressful situation of having mobs scream at her, little Ruby prayed every day, before and after school, for those who were verbally abusing her. Ruby Bridges Hall explained it this way: "One thing my mother always said to me was that when she couldn't be with me, if I was ever afraid, I should say my prayers . . . Even at night, if I would wake up from a nightmare and want to get up and go to her room, she would immediately ask, Did you say your prayers?' That's where that came from and it sort of stuck with me."

Ruby's mother wanted her to know that no matter the situation she was never alone. She was connected. To be connected is to have power. It is to have an eternal presence in your life. It is to know Someone cares about you.

33. Being Connected

Illustration

King Duncan

A newspaper reporter went to interview a successful entrepreneur. "How did you do it?" he asked. "How did you make all this money?"

"I'm glad you asked," the entrepreneur replied. "Actually, it's a rather wonderful story. You see, when my wife and I married, we started out with a roof over our heads, some food in our pantry, and five cents between us. I took that nickel, went down to the grocery store, bought an apple, and shined it up. Then I sold it for ten cents."

"What did you do then?" the reporter asked.

"Well," he said, "then I bought two more apples, shined them up, and sold them for twenty cents." The reporter thought this would be a great human interest story.

"Then what?" the reporter asked excitedly. "Then my father-in-law died and left us $20 million," the businessman said. That man prospered not because of his own ingenuity, but because he was connected.

34. Friendship

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Dionne Warwick’s hit song “That’s What Friends Are For” and Stevie Wonder’s “I Just Called To Say I Love You” are but a few of the songs reflecting a big issue in our culture. The issue is friendship. Television has popularized friends in all combinations: former buddies on “The A-Team,” high school friends who end up single parents in “Kate and Allie,” the close friendship of Cagney and Lacey and their counterparts on “Miami Vice,” and the popular show simply entitled “Friends.” These were among the most popular on TV for a reason. They were about people who had something Americans want and need -- friendship.

The increasing need for friendship is closely associated with the increasing divorce rate, says Dr. Walsh of the University of Chicago. Friendship. If that’s the need, what are you doing about it? Do you need a friend? Who can you be a friend to?

It’s interesting that Jesus said, “No longer do I call you servants, I call you friends.”

35. Love: The Common Denominator

Illustration

Merlin Shorb

We are familiar with this phrase from our classes in arithmetic. When we are shown a random group of fractions, we must first find the divisor that is common to all of them. Once we have figured out that divisor, the common denominator, we can convert all our fractions to the same divisor. This will enable us to add and subtract the fractions. As long as we maintain the same ratio between numerator and denominator, the fractions are not changed in value. Reading our text, we find that the common denominator that underlies the whole of life is love. Whenever we are motivated by love, all else in life falls into line. The unique feature of Jesus of Nazareth is that love for his Father was his prime mover. He was thereby empowered to follow his Father’s wishes to the letter. We might say that for Jesus love was the lowest common denominator around which all the random "fractions" of life could come together.

36. Thinking Metaphorically

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

Do you remember the 60's song by Simon and Garfunkel song which had the line, "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson? Joltin' Joe has left and gone away." Originally it was part of the soundtrack for the film The Graduate, the song "Mrs. Robinson" has became one of the 1960s' best-known, iconic ballads.

But in a 60 Minutes interview Paul Simon mentioned that some time after the song was released, he received a letter from Joe DiMaggio in which DiMaggio expressed his befuddlement at what in the world that song could mean. DiMaggio wrote, "What do you mean 'Where have I gone?' I haven't gone anywhere! I'm still around I'm selling Mr. Coffee." Then Mr. Simon smiled wryly at Mike Wallace and remarked, "Obviously Mr. DiMaggio is not accustomed to thinking of himself as a metaphor!"

But then, who is? Most, if not all, of us see ourselves as real people with literal, descriptive identities. For instance, I am a pastor, a husband, a father, a committee member, a volunteer, a son these are all straightforward descriptions of who I am in relation to the people around me in life. Like most people, I cannot readily conceive of myself as a symbol for something, as a kind of metaphor that represents something beyond myself.

Indeed, if someone came up to you at a party and said, "You are my shelter from the storms of life," well, you'd be taken aback. Then again, if you met someone who constantly spouted self-referential metaphors, you'd have to wonder about him or her. We expect people to denote themselves by saying things like, "I am a plumber" or "I'm a stay-at-home Dad." But our eyes would widen if someone said, "I am the oil that lubes my company's machine" or "I am the antibody that shields my family from the virus of secularism."

This is not a terribly typical mode of discourse. Yet Jesus, with some frequency, did refer to himself in a metaphorical mode, starting with John 6:35 when Jesus said, "I am the Bread of life."

37. When a Grain of Wheat Falls - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Years ago, when the Betty Crocker Company first began selling their cake mixes, they offered a product which only needed water. All you had to do was add water to the mix which came in the box, and you would get a perfect, delicious cake every time.

It bombed. No one bought it and the company couldn't understand why, so they commissioned a study which brought back a surprising answer. It seemed that people weren't buying the cake mix because it was too easy. They didn't want to be totally excluded from the work of preparing a cake; they wanted to feel that they were contributing something to it. So, Betty Crocker changed the formula and required the customer to add an egg in addition to water. Immediately, the new cake mix was a huge success. Unfortunately, many people make the same mistake when it comes to "packaging" or presenting the Christian religion. They try to make the call of Jesus Christ as easy as possible because they're afraid people won't "buy it" if it seems too hard.

Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies it bears much fruit. Jesus then explained what he meant. He said, "The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it." It's true in life isn't it? If we are going to get anything out of it we have to invest ourselves in it. Do you remember the second to last album by the Beatles? It was called "Abbey Road" and for my money it was their best. The last song is a little musical reprise called "The End." It's the last lyrical statement the Beatles make on the album. And it went, "And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."

The truth of this is written in creation. It is evident for everyone to see. It even is found in something as small as grain of wheat, a seed. Jesus said,

First, when a grain of wheat falls it dies.
Second, when a grain of wheat falls it bears much fruit.
Finally, Christ is the grain of wheat that dies and bears much fruit.

38. A New Command on Mother's Day

Illustration

On this day when we're trying to show our loving appreciation for all that love we've received from the special person called "Mom," it is so fitting that we hear Jesus say what he said here in our text: "A new command I give you: Love one another." Actually, Jesus' command to love one another is appropriate for any day of the year, but it does take on special meaning on a day like today since included in that command to love, are those special ladies who brought us into this world and loved us in a way that only a mother can.

39. THE VINEDRESSER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Isaiah 5:4 - "What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?"

Matthew 21:28 - "Aman had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ "

Fossilized grape leaves, stem pieces and seeds unearthed from prehistoric deposits indicate the long existence and wide distribution of the grape vine. We know, for example, that it was grown in ancient Egypt and in Canaan prior to the time of Abraham. Viticulture (the tending of vines) also dates far back. Seeds found in the remains of the Swiss lake dwellings of the Bronze period (@3500 B.C.-1900 B.C.), and entombed with mummies in Egypt closely resemble seeds of the oldest and most extensively cultivated species of today. Viticulture’s tradition is almost as old as man; details for grape and wine production figured in the mosaics of the 4th (2400 B.C.), 17th and 18th dynasties of Egypt. According to the Bible, Noah planted a vineyard. In Homer’s time wine was a regular commodity among the Greeks. Pliny described 91 varieties of grapes, distinguished fifty kinds of wines, described vine-training methods.

Viticulture probably had its beginnings in the area around the Caspian Sea; from there grape growing in the old world spread to Asia Minor. The mountain regions of Judea and Samaria, largely unsuited for cereals, were well adapted for wine growing. Even the poorest country family would have a few vines, so that they could have a few grapes, and there were some to be found in the towns, growing in courtyards. But there were also real vineyards, worked in a big way, in the same way that industrial growers today have extensive cultivated areas. Of course, today we have large vineyards from which grapes are gathered for uses other than the making of wine; for example, the making of grape juices and jellies, among others. But the basic method of growing remains virtually the same.

The vine branches were usually allowed to lie along the ground, or to fall over the terraces, but sometimes they were raised above the ground with sticks or supported on poles to form a bower, in much the same way that we see in the fertile vineyards of California, for example. In the Old Testament times, no other seeds were allowed to be planted in the vineyard, but this apparantly had been allowed to lapse by the later time, because we read of the man who had a fig tree in his vineyard.

Vines required constant care to keep them productive, even though the climate and the soil of Palestine were excellent for their growth. Hence they were pruned every spring, and the ground was ploughed and kept free of weeds. Pruned branches were gathered and burned.

A part of every vineyard was the tower for the watchman, a winepress hollowed out of a flat rock, and a vat into which the wine flowed from the press. During the harvest season watchmen were stationed in the towers, and sometimes the whole family of the owner took their residence in booths as a protection against thieves. The harvest season was always one of special happiness. The grape gatherers, armed with little hooked knives, cut the full bunches, which were thrown into the vat and trodden by the barefoot workers to the sound of songs and clapping.

As was required by Mosaic law, the gleanings were left to the poor, and every seventh year the vines were allowed to lie fallow. As the vat filled, the wine was poured for storage into new goatskin bags or into large pottery containers.

The vine and vineyard are among the most frequently used similes in biblical literature. The biblical expression, for instance, "to be under the vine and the fig tree" meant the delight of doing nothing whatever, surely a marvelous concept for a people whose whole lives were spent in wearisome toil.

40. The Strongest Connection

Illustration

King Duncan

The popular radio Bible teacher J. Vernon McGee once told about a little piece of wood that he kept on his desk. He explained that he took this small piece of wood from a vineyard in the San Joaquin Valley. The small piece of wood consisted of a section of a grapevine out of which grew a branch. The owner of the vineyard told McGee that if two people were to have a tug of war with this section of vine, it would break. However, it would never break where the vine and branch are joined together. The place on a grapevine where the vine and the branch are joined together is the vine's strongest point.

"Now if you pull on a branch that goes into a tree," the owner explained, "it will always break at the trunk of the tree - in a tree that is the weakest place. But in a grapevine that is the strongest point."

No wonder Christ used the analogy of the vine and its branches to explain his relationship with us, his followers. The strongest place on a grapevine is where the branches attach to the vine. In other words, we don't need to worry that our connection to Christ will be broken at least not from Christ's side. That connection is a powerful one.

41. Master of My Fate; Captain of My Soul

Illustration

Years ago this country witnessed the execution of Timothy McVeigh, the man responsible for the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. A USA Today poll taken in April showed that 81 percent of Americans wanted McVeigh to be executed -- and 28 percent of that support was from people who are normally against the death penalty. No matter where you stand on the issue of capital punishment, this particular execution has forced itself on our consciousness. One thing that particularly caught my attention was that in lieu of any verbal comment, McVeigh gave a handwritten statement to the warden, quoting a section of the poem "Invictus," which is Latin for "unconquered." That poem, by 19th-century British poet William Ernest Henley (1849-1903), reads in part "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." In case you haven't heard the poem, it goes like this:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

From what we've learned of McVeigh's attitudes and opinions, those lines probably come as close as any to a philosophy of life for him. Even to the point of ending the appeals process, McVeigh sought to be the master of his fate. But of course he's not. And in a letter written just a day before his death, he demonstrated how little he understood that. He wrote that if it turned out that there was an afterlife, he would "improvise, adapt and overcome." As if he or any of us will have the ability to affect our environment after arrival in the world to come! Once we are at the judgment seat of God, none of us is any longer master of our fate.

It's worth noting that when the poet Henley wrote those words, he was not thinking of setting his own standard of morality, as McVeigh appears to have done. Far from claiming the right to be judge, jury and executioner of others, Henley was vocalizing his attitude toward the hurts and setbacks of life. At the age of 12, he developed tubercular arthritis, and his left foot was amputated in his teens. He had other health problems later on, and actually wrote "Invictus" while once again in the hospital, too ill to work. He was, as his poem says, "bloody, but unbowed." For Henley, "Invictus" was an expression of courage in the face of life's difficulties, not a license to kill.

McVeigh sounds an awful lot like the attitude of the legion of demons. The demons knew, once they saw Jesus’ boat land near their home town, that their days were numbered. So, they start bartering with Jesus. What are you doing here? What do you want with us? Please, don’t torture us. (There’s a hypocritical request if I ever heard one. They had been torturing this poor man for years and now they are begging for mercy.) Finally, knowing that they would have to leave their host they asked to be sent into a heard of nearby pigs. When this happens the pigs become disoriented and throw themselves along with the demons over the cliff and into the sea where they drown. McVeigh perhaps felt he could master his own fate even the fate that befalls us in the afterlife. Perhaps he will find what he is looking for but the demons did not; they bartered, got what they wanted, and lost!

The full sermon can be found on Sermons.com by doing a Scripture search for Luke 12, the sermon titled, "God, The Enemy."

42. I AM THE CHURCH

Illustration

John H. Krahn

I am the Church. Most of you associate me with steeples and stained glass windows. And in one sense, you are right. One of the ways I can be described is by my individual architectural style. I am usually constructed with the finest materials, and my cost per square foot is often quite high. I think this is appropriate because I make a visible statement to the world about the feelings of my members towards the Lord. I am a visible witness to the community. When I am allowed to look run-down, my appearance reflects how you feel about me.

Although many folks see me mainly as a building, this is only a small part of my personality. For the most part, I am people, people like you who are reading this message. I am the people of God who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are baptized. Each believer is part of me ... a little me, a little church. In the same way that the building part of me gives an image to the community, the people part of who I am makes a statement to the community also. We reflect God’s importance and love to the community we serve.

Because of the inability to understand clearly what God teaches in the Bible about what we should believe and how we should be in ministry, there are many denominations that make me up. This hurts me. It hurts me because God wants us all to be one. It hurts me because the non-believing world looks at our division and finds fault with us. This makes it harder for them to become one of us. It hurts me because we are also weakened through division. I am the Church, and for my sake, I hope each of you will pray that there will be greater understanding, acceptance, working together, and unity among all Christians.

There is another most important thing that I want to talk about. My cornerstone must always be the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to the apostle Peter that his confession of faith in him was the strong foundation upon which the church must be built. When it is built on Jesus, not even the gates of hell can destroy it. Don’t forget your cornerstone. This is another way of my telling you not to forget your central purpose for being the church. I am the Church and my central, most important function is to share with my members and the world that God is in love with all people and desires their salvation. This can only happen when people recognize their sinfulness, repent, and receive Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of their personal lives. When this happens, God looks at them and no longer sees their sin but rather sees his Son, their Savior.

I challenge each of you to seek the help of God to expand in your love for him and for one another. I challenge you to expand in your willingness to listen to one another, to accept one another, to forgive one another. I challenge you to expand your involvement with other churches and the world-wide ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, I challenge you to expand your efforts in sharing with each other and with your community the message of God’s love through Jesus Christ. This message is the Rock upon which I am built.

43. The Planted Seed

Illustration

Robert Noblett

Kids are our planted seeds. For nine months a mom and dad wait for an embryo to grow into a person; for the next year or so they wait for the child to speak and walk; then they wait for the child to master the skills necessary to begin a program of formal education that might last up through graduate school; during the years of adolescence they simply "wait out" the youngster; and then they wait for the young adult to get up and running economically, so they can recall the credit card.

Then in time, the planted seed that became the buried seed becomes the fruitful seed; it bears much fruit. The child becomes a contributing adult; the visionary idea becomes a full-fledged program; the trainee becomes trained; the tune becomes a symphony. And so the process goes.

This is the kingdom of God. Jesus sees himself as the planted and buried seed that will eventually bear much fruit.

44. Faithful Fruit

Illustration

Charles Ryrie

Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation. Having said that, some caveats are in order.

ONE, this does not mean that a believer will always be fruitful. Certainly we can admit that if there can be hours and days when a believer can be unfruitful, then why may there not also be months and even years when he can be in that same condition? Paul exhorted believers to engage in good works so they would not be unfruitful (Titus 3:14). Peter also exhorted believers to add the qualities of Christian character to their faith lest they be unfruitful (2 Peter 1:8). Obviously, both of those passages indicate that a true believer might be unfruitful. And the simple fact that both Paul and Peter exhort believers to be fruitful shows that believers are not always fruitful.

TWO, this does not mean that a certain person's fruit will necessarily be outwardly evident. Even if I know the person and have some regular contact with him, I still may not see his fruit. Indeed, I might even have legitimate grounds for wondering if he is a believer because I have not seen fruit. His fruit may be very private or erratic, but the fact that I do not see it does not mean it is not there.

THREE, my understanding of what fruit is and therefore what I expect others to bear may be faulty and/or incomplete. It is all too easy to have a mental list of spiritual fruits and to conclude if someone does not produce what is on my list that he or she is not a believer. But the reality is that most lists that we humans devise are too short, too selective, too prejudiced, and often extra-biblical. God likely has a much more accurate and longer list than most of us do. Nevertheless, every Christian will bear fruit; otherwise he or she is not a true believer. In speaking about the Judgment Seat of Christ, Paul says unequivocally that every believer will have praise come to him from God (1 Corinthians 4:5).

45. Growing In Grace

Illustration

James Packer

I am the least of the apostles. 1 Cor 15:9

I am the very least of all the saints. Eph 3:8

I am the foremost of sinners. 1 Tim 1:15

Humility and a passion for praise are a pair of characteristics which together indicate growth in grace. The Bible is full of self-humbling (man bowing down before God) and doxology (man giving praise to God). The healthy heart is one that bows down in humility and rises in praise and adoration. The Psalms strike both these notes again and again. So too, Paul in his letters both articulates humility and breaks into doxology. Look at his three descriptions of himself quoted above, dating respectively from around A.D. 59, 63, and 64. As the years pass he goes lower; he grows downward! And as his self-esteem sinks, so his rapture of praise and adoration for the God who so wonderfully saved him rises.

Undoubtedly, learning to praise God at all times for all that is good is a mark that we are growing in grace. One of my predecessors in my first parochial appointment died exceedingly painfully of cancer. But between fearful bouts of agony, in which he had to stuff his mouth with bedclothes to avoid biting his tongue, he would say aloud over and over again: "I will bless the Lord at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth" (Ps. 34:1). That was a passion for praise asserting itself in the most poignant extremity imaginable.

Cultivate humility and a passion for praise if you want to grow in grace.

46. The Most Powerful Word

Illustration

Margaret Guenther

Love is the most powerful of the potent four-letter words hate, fear, work, life. And maybe love is the hardest of all to understand. Jesus says, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another." This is absurd, if not impossible: how can anyone command love? I can hear my grandmother's voice enjoining my big brother the only person I have ever bitten (but he had it coming!) and me to love each other because God had given us to each other as brother and sister. We glared at each other and marveled at her naiveté. The idea of loving somebody because we were supposed to boggled our minds.

We have cheapened love by using the word carelessly. We have confused the sentimentality of the Hallmark card with the deep, dark mystery of love that is manifested for us in the incarnate Christ. Yes, love can be warm, enfolding and sheltering. Yes, love can feel good. But love can also be strong and difficult. It can be an impossible challenge.

47. The Gate of Hell

Illustration

Dante Alighieri

Dante's Inscription above the Gate of Hell:

I am the way into the city of woe.
I am the way to a forsaken people.
I am the way to eternal sorrow.

Sacred justice moved my architect.
I was raised here by divine omnipotence,
Primordial love and ultimate intelligence.

Only those elements time cannot wear
Were made before me, and beyond time I stand.
Abandon all hope ye who enter here.

Note: "Sacred justice moved my architect." means: He who built me was motivated by a love of justice.

48. The Well Filled Bow Low

Illustration

Michael P. Green

The story is told of two brothers who grew up on a farm. One went away to college, earned a law degree, and became a partner in a prominent law firm in the state capital. The other brother stayed on the family farm. One day the lawyer came and visited his brother, the farmer. He asked, “Why don’t you go out and make a name for yourself and hold your head up high in the world like me?” The brother pointed and said, “See that field of wheat over there? Look closely. Only the empty heads stand up. Those that are well filled always bow low.”

Said differently, “The branch that bears the most fruit is bent the lowest to the ground.”

49. Service Is the Way to Honor

Illustration

Jon L. Joyce

Once a clergyman wrote an article for a magazine that attracted considerable attention. It was titled "Why I Do Not Want My Son to Become a Minister." In the article he stressed how many are the demands made upon a minister and stated that he wanted his son spared these irritating requests for help. Another minister commended that the title of the article should have been "Why I Want My Son to be Ministered Unto, Not to Minister." In the Scriptures Christ himself is pictured as a servant. He stated, furthermore, that the degree to which his followers would be honored by the heavenly Father depended on how much they, too, were committed to being servants of the Lord. In John Wolman’s Diary we read how that great man was severely disturbed on a visit to the various societies of Friends in North Carolina. The cause of his distress was the constant entry in the minutes of their meetings of the phrase: "No business that required entry." This moved him to comment, "In God’s name, why was there not some business that required entry and strong action? With the sin of slavery and its cruelties all around them, and the sin of war impending, how could they say, ‘No business that required entry’?" For the Christian, the business of service in Christ’s name is always at hand.

50. What is the Penalty?

Illustration

Charles Spurgeon

"Those who choose evil shall have their choice. Men who hate divine mercy shall not have it forced upon them, but (unless sovereign grace interpose) shall be left to themselves to aggravate their guilt and ensure their doom.

"They have loved darkness rather than light, and in darkness they shall abide. Eyes which see no beauty in the Lord Jesus, but flash wrath upon Him, may well grow yet more dim, till death which is spiritual leads to death which is eternal.

"What can be too severe a penalty for those who reject the incarnate God, and refuse to obey the commands of His mercy? They deserve to be flooded with wrath, and they shall be; for upon all who rebel against the Savior, 'wrath has come upon them to the uttermost' (I Thessalonians 2:16).

"God's indignation is no trifle. The anger of a holy, just, omnipotent, and infinite Being, is above all things to be dreaded; even a drop of it consumes, but to have it poured upon us is inconceivably dreadful."

Showing 1 to 50 of 131 results