An expression for a range of responses to a crisis or difficulty, from courage (Acts 4:29, 31; 2 Cor. 3:12; Eph. 3:12; Phil. 1:20; 1 Thess. 2:2) to shameless persistence (Luke 11:8). After Paul and Silas had been jailed in Philippi, they were willing to endure more persecution to preach to the Thessalonians (Acts 16:16–24; 1 Thess. 2:2). To the Philippians, the apostle reflects on his bold preaching (Phil. 1:20). The Christians’ relationship with Christ also gives them boldness to enter into God’s presence (Eph. 3:12; Heb. 4:16). The agent of Christian boldness is the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:31).

Fear, as it appears in Scripture, is a response ranging from respect and reverence to sheer panic and absolute terror.

Proper and Improper Fears

There are both proper, godly fears and improper, sinful fears. On the one hand, God has given us the ability to respond to rightly perceived fears. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he “was afraid” to go there with Mary and Jesus (Matt. 2:22), and God directed him to go to Nazareth instead. On the other hand, Scripture gives us many examples of people who were overcome by sinful fear. After Adam had sinned, he heard God coming to him in the garden, and he said, “I was afraid . . . so I hid” (Gen. 3:10). Abraham was afraid for his life, so he pretended that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20:2). King Saul disobeyed God’s explicit commands because he “was afraid of the men” (1 Sam. 15:24). Fear can be both sinful in and of itself and something that leads to other sinful responses.

God understands our struggle with sinful fear and knows that we need someone who is stronger than our fears: God himself. David says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in you” (Ps. 56:3). Ultimately, our hope is in Jesus Christ, who came to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). The author of Hebrews goes on to tell us how we are to experience this victory through Christ: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16).

Paul asks the question “Who [or, we could add, ‘what’] shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” (Rom. 8:35), and then gives his classic answer: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:38–39). The reality of a sovereign, loving God rules out any possibility that his people will ever find themselves in situations outside of his love and control. For the believer, “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (8:28).

Fear of God

There is a popular saying: “The fear of God is the one fear that removes all others.” God wants to free people from wrong fears so that they can fear the one person really worth fearing: God himself. Jesus warned, “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). Indeed, the one appropriate fear mentioned well over a hundred times in Scripture is a proper fear of God. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes concludes his wrestling to find meaning and purpose in life with these words: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (12:13).

God’s frame of reference. What can a proper fear of God do for us? The answer from the book of Proverbs is that a proper fear of God is foundational to everything else in life: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). Every area of life needs to be lived under the direction of God and for his glory, and without a proper fear of God, living a life pleasing to God becomes impossible. Having a proper fear of God involves seeing and responding to all the daily circumstances of life from God’s frame of reference. It is this proper fear of God that involves catching a glimpse of life as it truly is, and especially of God as he is in all his glory and splendor, that gives people the strength and encouragement they need to go through all the difficult experiences of life. Although there are many unanswered questions regarding the various tragedies and difficulties we experience, life does not begin to make sense until a person catches a glimpse of who God is and how he is at work behind the scenes in history and world events. No one can ever go far in a relationship with God apart from a proper fear of him. Instead, “the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27) that strengthens and sustains us.

Knowing and seeking God. What does fear of God look like? Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” places “fear” and “knowledge” in poetical parallelism. Apparently, knowing God and fearing him are really one and the same, like two sides of a coin describing the same reality. Similarly, not fearing God is simply another way of saying that a person does not know him. It is no surprise to discover that to fear God or be a “God-fearer” is one of the standard biblical descriptions for being a follower of God (Acts 10:2). In one sense, having a proper fear of God is simply one way of describing how one is in a proper relationship with God. Scripture is clear that for the ungodly, or even for the disobedient believer, there is a fear in the sense of terror or panic as one contemplates the coming judgment of God (Heb. 10:27, 31). But the believer should have confidence in God’s love and in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, so that this kind of negative fear is out of place. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is a respectful, reverential awe of God’s glory and majesty, leading inevitably to a changed life. This positive kind of fear should involve a positive seeking out of God and a new desire to please him, combined with a new dread of displeasing him. Proverbs is also very explicit about this purifying aspect of the fear of the Lord: “Through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided” (16:6).

Having a proper fear of God has an ongoing, moment-by-moment quality in much the same way that a spouse or parent naturally thinks about others in the family and wonders how they are doing. Whereas the wicked person does not seek God, and “in all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Ps. 10:4), the opposite is true of those who fear God: they regularly and inevitably find themselves thinking about God, reflecting upon him, respecting him, looking to him for his help and sustenance, valuing his view of things, and actively seeking to please and obey him in everything they do. Fearing God means that we trust him more than we trust ourselves or anyone else. Fearing God is both deciding for (Prov. 1:29 speaks of those who “did not choose to fear the Lord”) and living out an ongoing commitment of giving God the place he deserves in our lives. As Paul tells us, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). A person who has come to fear the Lord is never the same afterward.

The high priest was the leader of the Levitical clan that oversaw Israel’s sacrificial system, whether directly performing sacrifices or supervising others. As no fixed terminology was set, he could also be referred to as the anointed priest, head priest, chief priest, or simply the priest. He was considered the holiest person in Israel, his position corresponding to the most holy place in the tabernacle or temple, so that he was the only one allowed behind the veil to perform sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16).

The Role of the High Priest

Israel’s first high priest was Moses’ brother, Aaron, who was chosen by God and instructed in his duty. Many of the directions that he received were binding on every high priest who followed him. In addition to taking part in offering various types of sacrifices, he was required to enter the tabernacle twice daily to burn incense and tend the lamps (Exod. 30:7–8). An added responsibility may have been to place twelve loaves of bread on the table in the tabernacle each Sabbath (Lev. 24:5–8; Ezek. 44:16). Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place to sprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, to atone for the sins of his people.

The high priest needed to be particularly careful to maintain his holy status (Lev. 21:10–15). Like other priests, he was not allowed to touch a corpse, but he alone was forbidden to enter a house where there was a dead body. He was not permitted to become unclean after the death of his mother or father or to tear his clothes as a sign of mourning. To prevent his offspring from being defiled, he was instructed to marry only a virgin of his own people.

Like all Israelite priests, the high priest was anointed for his position. This signified that he was set aside by God and empowered for his task. The high priest was distinguished from his brothers by his special clothing (Exod. 28). In addition to the linen tunic, sash, and turban worn by all priests, the high priest normally wore a breastpiece, an ephod containing the Urim and Thummim, and a robe. The breastpiece was a pouch made of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn with thin strips of gold woven into it. Attached to the ephod by four braided gold chains, the breastpiece was set with twelve stones, each of which was engraved with the name of a tribe, so that the high priest represented all of Israel before God. The Urim and Thummim were placed in the pouch, to be used by the priest when seeking special direction from God.

The ephod, made of the same material as the breastpiece, was a sleeveless garment fastened by a belt made of the same material. Two onyx stones, each engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel, were set in gold filigree and attached to the shoulders of the ephod. The robe, made of blue cloth and reinforced at the neck, probably was worn under the ephod. Golden bells and pomegranates alternated around its hem, the bells ringing whenever the priest entered the holy place so that he would not die. To distinguish this turban from those worn by other priests, a golden plate or rosette was attached, engraved to proclaim that the high priest was “Holy to the Lord.”

Even though the high priest usually wore distinctive clothing, on the Day of Atonement, when he entered the most holy place, he wore only a tunic, sash, undergarments, and turban, all made of linen. Evidently, the special clothes were not appropriate when atoning for the nation’s sins.

The high priest held a hereditary office originally occupied by the eldest direct descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar. By the time of Eli, the priesthood had evidently passed to the descendants of Ithamar. During the reign of David, both Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, and Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar through Eli, served as priests. After David’s death, Solomon deposed Abiathar for supporting Adonijah’s attempt to become king. From this time onward, the high priesthood remained in the hands of Zadok’s descendants, until the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, who sold the high priesthood to the highest bidder, no matter what his genealogical connections.

The death of a high priest was of national significance, as it marked the beginning of the tenure of a new high priest, who received his father’s special clothing. It also gave anyone who had fled to one of the six cities of refuge for unintentionally killing someone the opportunity to return home (Num. 35:25–28). Later rabbis concluded that the high priest’s death in some way atoned for those who committed manslaughter.

The High Priest and Political Leaders

From the period of the first temple a close link was established between the high priest and the king. Both were anointed to serve respectively as Israel’s chief spiritual leader and political leader. Kings often exerted their authority over high priests. Thus, Solomon promoted Zadok and deposed Abiathar. Similarly, King Joash instructed Jehoiada to repair the temple. It was also possible for a high priest to oppose or endorse a ruler. Thus, Jehoiada both deposed Athaliah and crowned Joash as king (2 Kings 11). The chief priest Azariah drove Uzziah out of the temple when he attempted to burn incense on his own (2 Chron. 26:16–20). At the end of the kingdom period, when King Zedekiah was taken captive to Babylon, the high priest Seraiah, along with his chief associates, also were taken into exile, where they were executed (2 Kings 25:18–21).

After the exile, when Israel had no king, the high priests gained additional political significance. During the Hasmonean period, the offices of high priest and king were sometimes united in one person. Herod the Great, in Roman times, elevated and deposed high priests at will. After his death and his son’s removal from office, high priests were appointed by the Roman governors and functioned as the Jews’ main liaison with Roman officials.

The Priesthood and the Early Church

In the first century AD, the high priest was the chief social and religious leader among the Jews, presiding over the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council that tried cases concerning Jewish laws. The Greek word used in the NT for “high priest,” archiereus, often appears in the plural, “chief priests,” to include current or former high priests and members of the priestly aristocracy. Luke refers to Sceva, whose seven sons attempted to cast out demons in the way Paul did, as a high priest. Since no list of high priests contains Sceva’s name, he may have been simply a member of a priestly family or personally used the term to boost his religious standing (Acts 19:13–14). After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the office of high priest disappeared entirely.

The chief priests, in association with the Sanhedrin, scribes, and/or elders, often opposed Jesus’ ministry. The final official rejection of Jesus came when the high priest Caiaphas proclaimed that one man should die so that the nation might not perish. By this proclamation, he unwittingly “prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation” and for other children of God, thus uniting them (John 11:49–52). Caiaphas later personally interrogated Jesus about his status as the Messiah and proclaimed him guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:60–64).

After the resurrection, high priests joined the wider priestly opposition to the apostles. Thus, the high priest was present when the decision was made to silence Peter and John for proclaiming that the crippled beggar had been healed by the power of Jesus (Acts 4:1–20). He also took part in their subsequent arrest and questioning (5:17–28). The high priest questioned Stephen over charges that he blasphemed and spoke against the temple and Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Paul, before his experience of the risen Christ, received letters of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Paul later stood trial before the high priest Ananias, who also brought charges against him to Felix (24:1), and then was charged before Festus by a wider group of chief priests (25:1–3).

The Priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews

Although other NT books imply that Jesus had a priestly ministry, the book of Hebrews alone develops the idea that Jesus not only has the right to serve as priest but also is the great high priest who replaces the OT priesthood. It is therefore incumbent upon all to follow Christ, as there is no other way to be forgiven of sin and come into fellowship with the Father. The book shows this in a number of ways, chiefly in chapters 5–10. As a descendant of Judah, Jesus did not qualify to serve as a priest under the Aaronic order. Hebrews therefore demonstrates that his service as a priest in the order of Melchizedek far surpasses the Aaronic priesthood (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17). Since Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, as seen by the patriarch bringing tithes to the priest, and since Levi, as a descendant of Abraham, in effect paid tithes through his ancestor, Jesus—as a member of a greater priesthood—is greater than the Aaronic priests (7:4–10). For Jesus to serve as high priest, he had to be “like his brothers in every way” (2:17). This required that he share in their humanity by taking on flesh and blood, learning to trust God completely in life, and dying (2:14). It also meant that he would be tempted in every way humans are so that he could sympathize with them (2:18). However, since he never succumbed to temptation, he could rescue people from their sin.

Although no one chooses to become a priest, Aaron’s descendants inherited their role, whereas Jesus was designated as priest by God with an oath (Heb. 5:10; 7:21; cf. Ps. 110:4). That God did not swear that Aaron’s line would always be priests implies that a change was possible. Since Jesus received his priesthood by an oath, his priesthood is greater than the Aaronic priesthood, becomes the guarantee of the better covenant spoken of in Jer. 31, and will never be forfeited.

The OT priests presented repeated offerings, and so their work could not definitively deal with the problem of sin. The sacrifices of the Aaronic priests needed to be repeated regularly, whereas the sacrifice of Jesus did not have to be repeated. Similarly, Aaronic priests needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins before they could aid others. Since Jesus never sinned, he had no such limitation. What the priests had to do for themselves daily (Heb. 7:27), and for the nation once a year, Christ did once for all (7:27; 9:26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14, 18).

The Levitical priesthood could continue only as new priests replaced those who retired or died, but Jesus’ priesthood is eternal because of his eternal life. Melchizedek is used to illustrate how this can be. But while Melchizedek remains a priest forever simply because the Bible does not record his genealogy or his death, Jesus has a permanent priesthood because he lives forever and because of the oath quoted from Ps. 110:4: “The Lord has sworn: . . . ‘You are a priest forever’ ” (Heb. 5:6; cf. 6:20; 7:3, 17; 21).

Not only is Jesus a greater priest, but also he presented a greater sacrifice at a greater, heavenly sanctuary. The Aaronic priests served only at a copy of this true heavenly tabernacle, which was erected by God himself (Heb. 8:2). Jesus presented not the blood of animals, which needed to be offered over and over, but rather the perfect sacrifice of himself, ensuring that no other sacrifice is needed. After becoming a sacrifice, he returned to the heavenly sanctuary, where he appears forever at the right hand of God as king and mediator. Due to Christ’s work, the most holy place is no longer barred to all but the high priest once a year. Rather, the curtain has been opened so that all his people can boldly draw near to the Father. Similarly, Christ’s priestly work ensures that those who follow him can be effectively forgiven, purified, sanctified, and perfected.

Referring to sickness or weakness, the word “infirmity” occurs most often in the KJV. The term appears far more frequently in the NT than in the OT. In the Gospels, the sense of physical sickness is arguably always in view (e.g., Matt. 8:17; Luke 5:15; 8:2; 13:11–12; John 5:5), but in the Epistles, where “infirmity” occurs rarely outside the KJV, the idea of weakness is most common (e.g., Rom. 6:19; 8:26; 2 Cor. 11:30; Heb. 4:15).

Referring to sickness or weakness, the word “infirmity” occurs most often in the KJV. The term appears far more frequently in the NT than in the OT. In the Gospels, the sense of physical sickness is arguably always in view (e.g., Matt. 8:17; Luke 5:15; 8:2; 13:11–12; John 5:5), but in the Epistles, where “infirmity” occurs rarely outside the KJV, the idea of weakness is most common (e.g., Rom. 6:19; 8:26; 2 Cor. 11:30; Heb. 4:15).

The name “Jesus” comes from the Greek form of the name “Joshua.” The same Greek word (Iēsous) is therefore used to refer to both Jesus and Joshua in the NT (see esp. Heb. 4). The name “Jesus” was common among Jews in the first century. Josephus mentions nineteen different men called “Jesus.” Likewise, Luke tells of a Jewish sorcerer named “Bar-Jesus” (Acts 13:6), and Paul refers to a Jewish companion named “Jesus” (Col. 4:11). The best-known figure of this name is the predominant figure of the NT, Jesus Christ. See also Jesus, Son of Sirach; Jesus Christ; Justus.

Behind the English translation “mercy” lie diverse biblical words in Hebrew (khesed, khanan, rakham) and in Greek (charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon). These words are also translated as “love,” “compassion,” “grace,” “favor,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,” and so on, depending on context. Hence, a conceptual approach to the meaning of “mercy” is best.

God’s Mercy

Mercy as part of God’s character. Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1 Kings 8:23–24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help. Here, the rekindling of God’s mercy toward the Israelites was depicted in terms of remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. 2:23–25). Mercy is a manifestation of God’s faithfulness to his covenant. Hence, God’s mercy to his covenant people never ceases (Pss. 119:132; 103:17).

God has absolute sovereignty in electing the people to whom he wills to show mercy. A classic expression appears in Exod. 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Paul quoted this to explain God’s sovereignty in electing Jacob as the recipient of God’s mercy (Rom. 9:13–15). God’s mercy cannot be acquired by human effort or desire (Rom. 9:16). God even ordered the Israelites to show no mercy to the Canaanites because of their corruption and idolatry (Deut. 7:2).

Diverse images are used to describe God’s mercy. God is compared to a loving father who has compassion on his children (Jer. 31:20; Mal. 3:17). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:13–14). God’s compassion is also compared to that of a nursing mother who feeds her baby at her breast (Isa. 49:15). The images of the loving father and the loving mother reflect closely the heart of God’s mercy toward his chosen people. God is especially merciful to the needy, the weak, the afflicted, and the oppressed (Exod. 2:23–24; Ps. 123:2–3; Isa. 49:13; Heb. 4:16). God is called “a father to the fatherless” and “a defender of widows” (Ps. 68:5). Sinners appeal for God’s mercy when they request forgiveness (Ps. 51:1). “Have mercy on me” is a common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God for his forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is also shown in his act of salvation and blessing (Exod. 15:13; Deut. 13:17–18; Judg. 2:18; Eph. 2:4–5).

God’s mercy in redemptive history. Redemptive history is a successive demonstration of God’s mercy toward his chosen people. It was because of God’s mercy that he took the initiative to save fallen human beings (Gen. 3:15). Death was the due penalty for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17), but God preached the good news of mercy that the descendant of the woman would someday crush the head of the serpent. In Rev. 20:2 that ancient serpent in the garden of Eden is identified as “the devil, or Satan,” whose head was crushed by Jesus Christ on the cross and is bound by the coming Messiah “for a thousand years” and will be “thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:2, 10). In spite of God’s judgment on Cain, the first murderer, God showed mercy by putting a mark on him so that no one would kill him (Gen. 4:15). As the psalmist later confesses, God proves himself as the merciful God who “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10).

Noah and his family were saved from the judgment of the flood because of God’s special mercy toward them (Gen. 6:8). Immediately after God confused the languages of human beings because of their challenge to him (Gen. 11:1–9), God showed mercy on Abram, “a wandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), and designated him to be the father of his chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3). Jacob’s election originated solely from God’s mercy, as Paul pointed out by quoting Scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13). The exodus is also the clearest evidence of God’s demonstration of mercy toward his chosen people (Exod. 2:23–25). They were saved not by their own righteousness but rather by God’s mercy on the covenant people, who suffered under the bondage of Pharaoh’s slavery. God’s mercy reached its climax when he sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is because of God’s mercy that we are saved, not because of our righteousness (Titus 3:5).

Christ’s Mercy

Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

Jesus’ ministry of healing and evangelism was motivated by his deep mercy and compassion toward people in physical and spiritual need (Luke 4:16–21; cf. Isa. 61:1–2). Whenever the sick appealed to his mercy, Jesus never refused to dispense it to them (Matt. 15:22; 17:14–18). For example, he healed the two blind men who entreated his mercy (Matt. 20:30–34). When a leper, kneeling before him, entreated his mercy, Jesus touched him (risking his own uncleanness according to the law) and healed him (Matt. 8:2–3). When a centurion asked for Jesus’ mercy on his sick servant, he was willing to go and heal the sick man (Matt. 8:5–13). Jesus’ mercy was aroused especially when he saw people crying for the dead, and even he shed tears (John 11:33–35). When Jesus saw a widow crying for her dead son during a funeral procession, he comforted and had compassion on her and made her son alive (Luke 7:12–15).

According to Heb. 2:17–18, Jesus became “a merciful and faithful high priest” to make atonement for the sins of his people. He is also compared to the high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses because he “has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15). His high priestly work on earth was highlighted in terms of his ministry of mercy toward his people. Like God’s mercy, Jesus’ mercy was shown in his actions of salvation (Luke 19:10; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 1:14–16; Titus 3:4–7), of blessing (Mark 10:13–16), and of forgiveness (Mark 2:10; Luke 23:34). Paul’s personal experience led him to confess, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5). Jesus’ character of mercy was most vividly manifested on the cross when he prayed for the forgiveness of the crucifying soldiers and the cursing crowds (Luke 23:33–37).

Human Response to God’s Mercy

What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35). The central focus of this parable is on the unmerciful servant, to whom a tremendous mercy is shown by the king, but who refuses to show a little mercy to his fellow servant. The parable concludes with the king’s statement that no mercy will be shown to those who do not show mercy and forgiveness to others. Hence, a forgiving attitude is a must for believers, who have received immeasurable mercy from God when he forgave their sins at the time of repentance. The Lord’s Prayer also includes the believer’s forgiveness of others as being inseparably linked to the request for forgiveness from God (Matt. 6:12). Jesus affirms this idea in a subsequent statement: “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (6:14–15).

Mercy is one of the eight blessings in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Jesus’ response to the critical Pharisees reveals that our merciful life should precede our religious life (9:13). According to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the true neighbor is the one who shows mercy to the afflicted. Its conclusion, “Go and do likewise” (10:37), requires believers to show mercy to their suffering neighbors. At the last judgment the righteous are characterized by their lives of showing mercy to the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned (Matt. 25:37–40). In Luke 6:36, Jesus summarizes the law of mercy: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” According to James, “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful”; however, “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:12–13). And according to the prophets, a merciless life is characteristic of godless people (Isa. 13:18; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42; Amos 1:11–12).

It is by God’s mercy that believers can persevere during the time of suffering (2 Cor. 4:1). Their prayer is the channel through which they draw God’s mercy. Hence, the writer of Hebrews exhorts believers to “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy” (Heb. 4:16).

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).

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).

An occupation or profession is the usual work or business in which a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblical times, family or social standing most often determined occupation. This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such as planting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel was passed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh. 14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in the family inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihood from their family’s land, and those who did not have land hired themselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normally learned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2 Kings 4:18; Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’s service (1 Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).

Cicero, writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as tax collector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely, professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were more honorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitable profession (Off. 1.42).

Agriculture and Farming

Farming is the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first man was called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after the exile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, as did Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The opening chapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After the flood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil” (’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). King Uzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) and so employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2 Chron. 26:10).

God demonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with an incredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’s farms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit of their ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was for everyone to live “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19, the diligent farmer would have abundant food.

Jesus’ parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would have been readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where many people were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and some owned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at this time engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising (Let. Aris. 107–112).

Herding and Hunting

Herding animals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (after farming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of the most common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abel is the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2 NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herding lifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), as were Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1 Sam. 17:34), and many others in the OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages” (Ag. Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds and herdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel, whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present at Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teaching suggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf. Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).

Many people in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, or protection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “an expert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought back wild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim, included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57, reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf. 1 Kings 4:23).

Builders and Craftsmen

Cain was the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), and his descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrod built a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gathered together to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamia used baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usually preferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’s death, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, which involved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).

The role of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle was particularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilled workers and designers” empowered by God for work on the tabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds of crafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry, and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).

Kings in Israel often commissioned important building projects (1 Kings 12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2 Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2). Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2 Sam. 5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and also employed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervise the work (1 Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile, many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wall of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18). These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons, carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).

Jesus is referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn (Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter” by English versions. However, recent scholarship has demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter in the modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōn typically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer to craftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.

Musicians

The first musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father of all who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21). Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they do today. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebrate festive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen. 31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1 Sam. 16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).

Musicians played an important role in leading God’s people in worship. The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings of fifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician in Scripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms” (2 Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1 Sam. 16:18) and wrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomon was also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1 Kings 4:32). David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israel in worship (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres, harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2 Chron. 5:12).

Government, Politics, and Military

Before the monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, a group of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials, and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge the people on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). After Joshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel from foreign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time of Samuel, when Saul was made king (1 Sam. 11:15).

Kings in Israel employed various officials. In 2 Sam. 8:16–18, Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggests that the military commander was second in authority after the king. Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander in chief” (1 Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a number of key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the “confidant” of the king (cf. 2 Sam. 16:16). The OT does not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorder was among the highest governmental positions and served as a royal counselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognate noun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests that this official may have managed and preserved public records (2 Kings 18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary or scribe (sop̱er) was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2 Sam. 8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight (2 Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were well educated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2 Kings 18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of the palace and the forced labor, as well as governors who supplied provisions for the king’s household (1 Kings 4:6–7). The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in other administrations (Gen. 40:1; 1 Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). The cupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king from being poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.

In the Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1 Pet. 2:17), with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial and military authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects (governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), with tetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).

Christians in NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officer in Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemorated in an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. The proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of Herod Antipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22) were also Christian public leaders.

Trade and Economics

From earliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. When Abraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured “according to the weight current among the merchants” (Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of public trading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders of commodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes between southern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slaves along the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buy and sell goods (1 Kings 10:28).

In the first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life as landowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves. Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Luke was a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col. 4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire, commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants often formed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religious and moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen in related trades turned significant profit through their connections with the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).

Jesus frequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called “Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were a despised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantage of the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commission on taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of the talents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected (Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact that Laodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.

Servants and Slaves

In the OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whose occupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Some servants held very important positions in their master’s household (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job 7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they could take slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poor could serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along with their children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out from Egyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev. 25:39–46).

Slaves in the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed by another (Dio Chrysostom, 2 Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slavery practices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery. Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The most prominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes with his master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obey their earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6), but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus” (Rom. 1:1).

Religious Service

Most Israelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites (Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’s line (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’ direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacle and its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1 Chron. 23:32) and carrying the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 15:2). They were set apart to serve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people in worship (2 Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played an important advisory role to Israel’s kings (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Kings 4:5; 2 Kings 12:2).

In Israel, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1 Sam. 9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2 Sam. 24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets, and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group (1 Sam. 19:20; 1 Kings 22:6).

The NT references a number of ministerial offices (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid, though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive their living from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives. The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles who were with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as an apostle (Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus and others “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy and speak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or “pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, and exercise authority in the church (1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2). Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to win converts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5). Those ministers who are faithful to the gospel deserve support (3 John 8).

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin; hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, or portrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of the driving forces of the entire Bible.

Sin in the Bible

Old Testament. Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In Gen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on full display. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able to eradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humans gathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make a name for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them to scatter across the earth (11:1–9).

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke its covenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under the reign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people, including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives and concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry became rampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judah in 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised to raise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

After God’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that the great prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, were at hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remained under foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell of Solomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Before long, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning away from him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administration of the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failed to properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

New Testament. During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definition and Terminology

Definition of sin. Although no definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of the concept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conform to God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action, orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered that God’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character, so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather is a personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited to actions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen. 4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature as human beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology. The Bible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying them is not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and use of the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one of the following four categories.

1. Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’s self-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankind foolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows to humans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31). Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodliness or impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:18).

2. Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from the lawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass” picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or the crossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42; Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’s law, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45; Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violating his statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result is guilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’s law is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectively feels guilt.

3. Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what is good. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what is good (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contrasts the upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could also include here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speak of perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequent mention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievous departure from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

4. Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individual had to be in a state of purity before him. While a person could become impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating woman was impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity” clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Although it is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, in other places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Missing the mark. In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin” have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sin is reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that a person simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it is that he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9; Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional or not, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num. 15:30).

Departing from the way. Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in the wisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19). Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways, but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18). Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed by their own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery. Since God’s relationship with his people is described as a marriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32), it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness as adultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous woman vividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3). When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them of spiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52). When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate in idolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery. Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clear that Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture of its far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7; 49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to those who do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything that pleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic power that is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare (Rom. 7:7–25).

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope. The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As a result of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist human efforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under the weight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation as well (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sin affects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions, motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “total depravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful as they could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is tainted by sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as a sinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societal structures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economic markets, to name but a few.

Consequences. Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sin has consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level. Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty in God’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, and subjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20; 5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict between individuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breeds mistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closest relationships.

Conclusion

No subject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding of sin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Puritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.”

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most focused narrative of Jesus’ temptation follows his baptism, but the Gospels have not isolated Jesus’ temptations to this one event. Rather, as Mark 8:33; Luke 22:28, and other texts indicate, Jesus knew temptations throughout his ministry (cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:15). References in John’s Gospel, which has no account of Jesus’ temptation in the desert, suggest the same (John 6:15; 7:1–4).

All three Synoptic Gospels place the temptation narrative immediately following Jesus’ baptism. Discussions of whether this event was actual or merely visual, one that Jesus described to his disciples or one that they created from miscellaneous sayings after Jesus’ death to parallel Deut. 8:2, will undoubtedly continue. As the Synoptics recount the event, Mark reduces it to one verse (Mark 1:13), whereas Matthew and Luke give full accounts, delineating in three acts the struggle between Jesus and Satan. Matthew and Luke recount these acts in a different sequence, possibly due to Luke’s interest in Jerusalem and the temple or to his desire to use Ps. 106 as his outline (manna, golden calf, testing God [cf. Luke 4:1–13]). Matthew portrays a progression climaxing in a display of Satan’s true character, after which Jesus ends Satan’s attack and sends him away with a clarifying quote from Deut. 6:13: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” (Matt. 4:1–11). Opposite the first Adam, who gave in to the temptation to stop trusting God, the second Adam, Jesus, conquered his temptation with an affirmation that worship of God should remain undivided.

The placement of Jesus’ temptation at the outset of his ministry, immediately following his baptism, speaks to the significance of the event. All three Synoptics emphasize that God’s Spirit led Jesus to the desert to be tempted by the devil. There is no sharp distinction between testing and temptation; God uses Satan’s temptation to test Jesus. The desert setting as the preparatory proving ground for extraordinary usability in God’s kingdom follows the general wilderness motif that runs through Scripture (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Israel) and places Jesus squarely in the center of God’s salvation history. Jesus fulfills God’s messianic promise.

Introducing two of the three temptations by an affirmation of Jesus’ divine sonship gives the event a strong messianic character (Satan’s statements are better understood as affirmations [“Since you are the Son of God . . .”] than as questions [“If you are the Son of God . . .”]). Since Jesus knows that he is the Son of God, he is tempted to disobey for his own benefit (cf. Gen. 3:4–6).

No reader familiar with the stories of the OT can miss the way Jesus’ temptations parallel major OT events. Not only does the devil try to lure Jesus to satisfy his personal needs by a misuse of his power, as becomes obvious from Jesus’ answer quoting Deut. 8:3, but also he entices Jesus to display a power that replicates God’s manna miracle in the desert. Furthermore, the connection between this first temptation to eat what he is not supposed to eat and the original temptation to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3) seems too obvious to miss.

Jesus’ second temptation in Matthew (Luke’s third) portrays Satan bringing Jesus to the highest point of the temple to overlook Kidron Valley, where a fall meant certain death. From here, the devil quotes Ps. 91:11–12, giving scriptural basis for his trap. The symbolic character of this setting proves powerful. Satan challenges Jesus to test God’s faithfulness to his word in the context of the temple. If Jesus cannot trust God’s promise to protect his people even in the temple, then his very mission proves void. Again, the reference to the original temptation, Satan (mis)quoting God in God’s own setting, sets the stage for the portrayal of Jesus’ answer. Unlike the first Adam, Jesus unravels Satan’s scheme by exposing the mistake of confusing God’s promise to protect those who stumble and fall with a deliberate act designed to force God’s hand. Such would be to test (tempt) God, which Scripture explicitly forbids (Deut. 6:16). Whether Jesus quoting Deut. 6:16 speaks directly to his own self-understanding is uncertain but unlikely.

Matthew ends his temptation account with Jesus on a high mountain, overlooking the kingdoms of the world, where Satan offers world authority in exchange for Jesus’ worship. There is no reflection on whether these kingdoms were Satan’s to give, and no explicit naming of Jesus as God’s Son (although a subtle reference to Ps. 2 is likely to echo in the reader’s mind [see Matt. 3:17]). Matthew’s reference to a mountain (Matt. 4:8), which Luke does not mention (Luke 4:5), corresponds to his mountain motif and functions here to parallel the location of Jesus’ discipleship commission to bring God’s kingdom to all nations (Matt. 28:16–20), causing them to transfer their worship to God. Rather than worshiping Satan, Jesus conquers Satan’s temptations and, as the second Adam, brings the nations back to the worship of God (Matt. 4:10).

Access usually refers to the right of a person of lesser status to appear in the presence of one of higher status and be heard. The word is appropriate in the context of a kingly court (see Esther 1:14; Zech. 3:7). Anyone not granted such access would risk execution when approaching the king for any reason unless the king approved it (Esther 4:11). The word is also appropriate in the context of the Lord’s sanctuary, where it is closely related to approaching the Lord. In the OT, the right to approach the Lord in his sanctuary is limited. For instance, the high priest is the only person granted access to approach the Lord in the inner sanctuary, the holy of holies, and only on the Day of Atonement. Those who fail to approach the Lord properly risk death as a punishment (Lev. 10:1–3). In reality, these two contexts overlap significantly.

Access in the NT focuses on the right to approach God. Unlike the access granted in the OT, the death of Christ grants to all believers the right to approach the Father, making no distinction between Jew and Gentile, since the same Spirit indwells both (Eph. 2:18). Furthermore, Christ’s work secures access to both the kingly throne and the “true tabernacle” of God, where one finds grace and mercy in time of need (Heb. 4:16; 8:1–2; 10:19–22).

The visible and bodily ascent of Jesus from earth to heaven concluding his earthly ministry, which then continued through the promised Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost.

A detailed historical account of the ascension is given only by Luke (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:4–11 [cf. Mark 16:19, in the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel]). The event, however, was anticipated in John’s Gospel (John 6:62; 20:17).

The ascension is frequently implied throughout the NT by reference to the complex of events that began with the death of Jesus and ended with his session at the right hand of God in glory. Paul writes of the divine-human Christ’s ascent to the heavenly realms as the beginning of his supreme cosmic reign in power (Eph. 1:20–23) and as the basis for holy living (Col. 3:1–4; 1 Tim. 3:16). In Hebrews, the ascension is a crucial stage that marks off the completed work of Jesus on earth, in which he offered himself as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin (9:24–26), from his continuing work in heaven as our great high priest, which is described in terms of sympathy (4:14–16) and intercession (7:25). Peter makes the most direct reference to the ascension, explaining that Jesus, who suffered, is resurrected and “has gone into heaven” (1 Pet. 3:22). Therefore, just as Jesus, the righteous sufferer, was vindicated by God, so too will his people who suffer for doing good.

Paul understands the OT as predicting Christ’s ascension (Eph. 4:7–10; cf. Ps. 68:18) and containing incidents that in some way prefigure it (2 Kings 2:11–12).

The ascension is significant for at least three reasons. First, Christ’s death could not have full effect until he entered the heavenly sanctuary. From heaven he acts as advocate and communicates to believers through the Holy Spirit all the gifts and blessings that he died on the cross to gain (Heb. 4:14–16; 1 John 2:1). Second, glorified humanity is now in God’s presence, guaranteeing that we likewise will be raised up with body and soul to share the glory yet to be revealed (John 14:2; 17:24; Eph. 2:4–6). Third, the ascension previews the manner of Christ’s second coming (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ ascension was followed by his enthronement in heaven, where he reigns (1 Cor. 15:25) and from which he will physically return in the same glorified body as judge (Luke 21:27). See also Advent, Second; Second Coming.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the 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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

In Christian theology, the Third Person of the Trinity. The usage derives from the NT, in which the divine Spirit is treated as an independent person who is instrumental in salvation and is worthy of the praise accorded to both the Father and the Son (John 14:16–23; Rom. 8:26–27; 1 Pet. 1:2).

Old Testament

The scarcity of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the OT (only in Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11) does not imply lack of interest or importance. While it should be recognized that in the OT the person of the Holy Spirit receives nothing like the systematic reflection found in the NT, when one includes correlative terms, such as “Spirit of God,” “my Spirit,” “wind,” or “breath,” it is apparent that OT writers attributed great significance to God’s Spirit. Thus, the Spirit was at work in the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2). Adam and Eve are uniquely given life by the breath of God (Gen. 2:7). The Spirit enables the building of the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3), gives voice to the message of the prophets (Num. 11:29; cf. 2 Pet. 1:21), empowers Israel’s leaders (1 Sam. 16:13), and provides access to God’s presence (Ps. 51:11). Yet in all this, the work of the Spirit in the OT is sporadic, occasional, and localized. Thus, the prophets long for a new age when God’s people will more perfectly enjoy the Spirit’s presence (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; 61:1; Joel 2:28).

New Testament

The Spirit in the ministry of Christ. The NT views the OT prophetic hope for the Spirit as fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18–21). The unique relationship between God’s Holy Spirit and the person and work of Jesus explains the systemic reflection that the Holy Spirit receives in the NT. This is signaled at the very beginning of Jesus’ life, when the Holy Spirit “comes upon” Mary, overshadowing her with “the power of the Most High” (1:35). Similarly, at the start of Jesus’ public ministry, the Holy Spirit “descended on him” at baptism (3:22). This anointing by the Spirit initiates and empowers Jesus’ public ministry, from his preaching, to his miraculous works, to his perfect obedience (Luke 4:14–18; John 3:34; Acts 10:38). Even his sacrificial death is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14).

Significantly, just as the Holy Spirit empowered the life and death of Jesus, so too is the Spirit responsible for his resurrection and characteristic of his glorious reign. Death is not a defeat for Jesus: he is “vindicated by the Spirit” (1 Tim. 3:16), “appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4; cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). Furthermore, at his resurrection, Jesus comes into a new phase of full and perfect possession of the eternal Spirit as the reward for his obedience. So complete is this union that Paul at one point claims that “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17).

The Spirit in the church and the believer. The church and its members are the immediate beneficiaries of Christ’s spiritual fullness. Since Jesus is now a “life-giving spirit” through his resurrection and ascension (1 Cor. 15:45), he is able to fulfill the promise of Spirit baptism (Luke 3:16). This baptism takes place in the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, which marks the birth of the NT church. The apostles, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, provide true and powerful testimony about Jesus (John 16:4–15), testimony that serves as the church’s foundation and principal tradition (Eph. 2:20). The work of the Spirit continues within the church in the postapostolic age, uniting its members in Christ for God’s holy purpose (Eph. 2:22).

This same outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the salvation of individual believers. Believers receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:14). The Spirit in turn unites them to Christ and all his benefits (Gal. 3:2; Eph. 1:3), including his life (Heb. 4:15–16), suffering (Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 4:14), death (Rom. 6:3), resurrection (Rom. 6:5), justification (Rom. 4:25), and glorious reign in heaven (Phil. 3:20). These benefits, though undoubtedly perfected and consummated only at Christ’s return (Phil. 1:6), are characteristic of believers’ present experience, enjoyed now because the Spirit dwells within them as the “firstfruits” of the harvest to come (Rom. 8:23; cf. Gal. 2:19–20). This indwelling of the Spirit results in new birth and new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), a newness identified with the life that Christ received in his resurrection (Rom. 8:11).

For this reason, believers are urged to further the work of the Spirit in their lives until the bodily resurrection of all God’s people. They are to cultivate the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22), and they are correspondingly warned not to “grieve the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore, since new life is initiated by the Spirit (John 3:6–8), Christians are to remain in that Spirit, not turning aside in reliance on vain and useless principles (Gal. 3:1–5). Conversely, they are to be “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), putting off the old person and putting on the new (4:22). This filling grounds every aspect of the believer’s life, from obedience, to worship, to the hope of resurrection. The Spirit, in uniting believers to all the riches of Christ and his resurrection, is therefore central in the work of salvation. See also Spirit.

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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

The term “incarnation” refers to something being “enfleshed” (Lat., in carne). It should not be confused with, or even related to, the similar term “reincarnation,” nor does it parallel polytheistic myths about redeemer gods created by Hellenistic and gnostic cults. Rather, in the context of Christian teaching, “incarnation” expresses what happened when Jesus, who had been with God for all eternity, stepped onto the historical scene as a human being (John 1:14; Col. 1:19; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 1:1–2). The Greek NT uses en sarki (“in flesh”) repeatedly as a reference to Jesus’ human nature. Hymns such as 1 Tim. 3:16 show the confessional character of Christ’s incarnation, giving it strong theological significance (cf. the similar confessional emphasis of Phil. 2:5–11). The defining power of such confessions comes to the fore strongly in 1 John 4:3 (cf. 2 John 7), where John deems those who reject genuine incarnation to be filled with the spirit of the antichrist. Paul understands Jesus’ work on the cross in light of the incarnation (Col. 1:22; cf. 1 Pet. 4:1) and considers incarnation the reason Christ could accomplish what the law of Moses could not (Rom. 8:3; Eph. 2:15).

It follows that incarnation is central to Christian theology, an indispensable tenet that cannot be reduced to a parenthetical aside to the doctrine of the virgin birth. If anything, it is the other way around. More significant than the timing and specific circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth, which are detailed only as introductions to Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels, the incarnation speaks to the theological importance of what God did by sending his Son. Put differently, the significance of the incarnation cannot be overstated; not only is Jesus God’s perfect revelation of himself, but also the fact that he stepped into the field of matter, participating directly in the history of his own creation, has forever changed human thinking and the pursuit of knowledge.

Incarnation and Science

Athanasius, who safeguarded the incarnation of Christ by his claim that Jesus was not just born in the likeness of God but was also himself the very nature of God, saw that Christianity provided a new starting point for all human understanding of the world. This new starting point made the foundational dualism of classical rationalism impossible (sensible versus intelligible, material versus spiritual). The Christian claim of God’s actual incarnation in Christ required a complete reconsideration of the relationship between God and the world. Ultimate reality was no longer unknowable; God had expressed himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ.

From this, the fourth-century Cappadocian fathers developed four foundational principles that enabled new approaches to scientific pursuits. (1) Since the cosmos is the creation of a rational God who has also made humans in his image, it follows that the cosmos in principle is comprehensible by the human mind. (2) Since God created the cosmos as a free act of his will, and it is not simply an emanation of God, the cosmos has relative autonomy. That is, not everything that happens is the direct will of God. (3) Since God created the heavens and the earth, it follows that the “heavenly bodies” are not (as Aristotle claimed) made of a substance different from the elements that comprise the earth (interestingly, Galileo was condemned by an Aristotelian church for claiming that the moon is made of the same substance as the earth). (4) Because of the incarnation, humans may use material means for the advancement of human salvation. This allowed the church not to follow the Hebrew tradition of rejecting Greek medicine.

Incarnation and Christian Faith

The biblical emphasis on incarnation moves faith from the realm of mythology to the realm of history. In contrast to mythological affirmations, where gods play out scenarios in “the heavenlies” that have fatalistic consequences for life on earth, incarnation grounds the Christian faith in factual, historical events. God is not “out there in the unknown,” but rather chose to step into history and reveal himself in a personal manner. In mythology, talk about god turns into fatalistic assertions; in biblical faith, talk about God turns into expressions of relationship. The fullness of Christ’s incarnation protects Christian faith from turning into aloof speculations on the eternal; rather, incarnation secures the connection to the real-life issues of the human situation. More than merely sending a vision to a “prophet,” God came to show humans how to live, prioritize, act, react, and so on.

Incarnation and History

Since the incarnation anchors the Christian faith in historical reality, history itself becomes revelatory and significant for a full understanding of God. Christ came and walked among people “in time,” and Christian believers want to know what that meant and means. Different from gnostic writings, for example, where God merely sends lofty, indefinite, timeless propositions for inner meditation (cf. Gospel of Thomas), biblical faith recognizes God’s actions on the turf of human life and acts in response to these. Because God revealed himself on the field of human history, his actions can be tested and investigated. Because he chose to come at a certain time, in a certain place, Christians are interested in that time and place. God does not hide; he wills to reveal. Incarnation shields Christianity against gradually disappearing into the mix of pagan religions, where everyone can construct a god in his or her own image.

Furthermore, a proper emphasis on incarnation prevents the Christian faith from becoming indifferent to the present world. Incarnation teaches that God desires to engage his creation. He sent his Son into the world to reveal to all humans what life in God’s kingdom looks like. God’s eager participation in human life through the birth of Jesus, as announced to a group of humble shepherds near the town of Bethlehem, generates a charge for the faithful to be involved in the transformation of this world. The incarnation calls followers of Jesus to live lives that actively proclaim that God’s love is participatory love (Heb. 2:18; 4:15).

Incarnation and God’s Being

At the heart of the biblical teaching about incarnation stands a statement about the very being of Christ. The story of the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit, causing her to give birth to “the Son of the Most High,” negates any notion that Jesus was merely an extraordinarily godly person, or prophet, whom God adopted. Rather, he was concurrently 100 percent God and 100 percent human—not “just” human, not “just” God, nor 50 percent of each.

The two natures of Christ present a rational difficulty for finite minds. In terms of function, one way to think about this may be to consider everything that Jesus said, did, and thought as an expression of who God is. Or one may assert that everything Jesus said, did, and thought was exactly what God would have said, done, and thought. The struggle of both language and comprehension at this point is to find ways of expressing how duality of form and function can concur with equality of being. Everything about Jesus is an exact expression of God, yet Jesus is not the Father.

The struggle to understand the meaning and significance of the incarnation has changed over time. Opposite the early Christians, who knew Jesus as a human being and therefore struggled to comprehend his divinity, modern Christians struggle with the significance of Jesus’ humanity. Since Jesus is the object of Christian worship and the content of hymns and praise choruses, his divinity receives most of the focus. This endangers the delicate balance, or tension, revealed in the biblical teaching on incarnation. Jesus must be 100 percent God to be the true Savior, not just someone who can point to a saving God. Concurrently he must be 100 percent human to be fully acquainted with human experience and misery.

Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus: Preexistence and Historical Existence

The NT describes the process, or method, of the incarnation as virginal conception. God’s Spirit overshadowed a young Jewish virgin, Mary, who then gave birth to Jesus. Although incarnation itself does not require such a method (God could have chosen a different method to bring Jesus to earth, as with the first Adam), Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts powerfully portray how God connected eternity to history.

Christ’s eternal nature is attested throughout the NT and belongs indisputably to the very core of Christian theology and understanding. John’s Gospel portrays this robustly through his delineation of Jesus’ existence before his historical birth in Bethlehem (John 1:1–14). Given this, it proves difficult to imagine a more “natural” link between Christ’s preexistence and his historical existence than we find in Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts. The virginal conception joins the preexistent (eternal) nature of Christ to his historical (temporal) existence in a way that preserves both natures as coexistent. Without the virginal conception, there must have been a point of adoption, a specific historical time, or situation, where Jesus became “Son of God.” The problem with any adoption theory is that it ultimately makes Jesus 100 percent human and 0 percent God. Adoption does not change being. The Gospel accounts of incarnation elucidate Jesus’ being. He is not just like God in what he does; he is 100 percent like God in who he is.

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin; hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, or portrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of the driving forces of the entire Bible.

Sin in the Bible

Old Testament. Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In Gen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on full display. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able to eradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humans gathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make a name for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them to scatter across the earth (11:1–9).

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke its covenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under the reign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people, including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives and concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry became rampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judah in 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised to raise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

After God’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that the great prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, were at hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remained under foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell of Solomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Before long, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning away from him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administration of the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failed to properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

New Testament. During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definition and Terminology

Definition of sin. Although no definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of the concept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conform to God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action, orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered that God’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character, so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather is a personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited to actions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen. 4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature as human beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology. The Bible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying them is not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and use of the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one of the following four categories.

1. Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’s self-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankind foolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows to humans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31). Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodliness or impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:18).

2. Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from the lawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass” picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or the crossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42; Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’s law, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45; Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violating his statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result is guilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’s law is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectively feels guilt.

3. Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what is good. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what is good (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contrasts the upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could also include here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speak of perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequent mention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievous departure from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

4. Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individual had to be in a state of purity before him. While a person could become impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating woman was impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity” clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Although it is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, in other places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Missing the mark. In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin” have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sin is reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that a person simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it is that he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9; Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional or not, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num. 15:30).

Departing from the way. Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in the wisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19). Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways, but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18). Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed by their own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery. Since God’s relationship with his people is described as a marriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32), it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness as adultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous woman vividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3). When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them of spiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52). When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate in idolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery. Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clear that Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture of its far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7; 49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to those who do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything that pleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic power that is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare (Rom. 7:7–25).

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope. The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As a result of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist human efforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under the weight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation as well (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sin affects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions, motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “total depravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful as they could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is tainted by sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as a sinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societal structures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economic markets, to name but a few.

Consequences. Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sin has consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level. Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty in God’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, and subjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20; 5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict between individuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breeds mistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closest relationships.

Conclusion

No subject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding of sin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Puritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.”

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Rabbinic commentary on the Hebrew Bible, either the text or a biblical event. “Midrash” (pl. “midrashim”) is a noun derived from the verb darash, meaning “to seek” or “to inquire.” “Midrash” can refer to the commentary on a single passage, such as a midrash on Gen. 1, or to a whole collection of midrashim, such as Genesis Rabbah. It may also refer to the process by which ancient rabbis interpreted Scripture. Rabbinic midrash seeks theological and halakic answers to contemporary concerns; thus, it is concerned with the application of Scripture to various aspects of life.

Rabbinic Midrash

Midrash uses Scripture to interpret Scripture and uses the Bible as a whole, unified book. Although context is not ignored altogether, mid-rash juxtaposes verses from throughout the Hebrew Bible in order to illuminate a given text or illustrate a point. Verses are strung together to elucidate a theme that the text suggests either implicitly or explicitly. Within this system of Scripture interpreting Scripture, the Pentateuch holds pride of place as the center of the biblical witness. In rabbinic midrash, often the Prophets and the Writings do not have independent voices separate from the Pentateuch but serve a supporting role.

At times, the juxtaposition of verses that occur in midrash seems arbitrary, but this is not the case. A set of midrashic rules, middot, governs how the verses of Scripture are to be used and how argumentation is to be formed. Over time, the rules became more elaborate, but their earliest statement is attributed to the pre–AD 70 rabbi Hillel in the Babylonian Talmud. He lists seven rules:

1. Argument from the less significant to more significant, and vice versa.

2. Argument by analogy when Scripture uses identical expressions.

3. A statement in one verse applies to all topically related verses.

4. Same as the principle in three, but derived from two verses, not just one.

5. Argument from general to particular, and vice versa.

6. Argument from a similar expression found in another passage.

7. Argument from context.

The rabbinic rules of scriptural interpretation are similar to rules for Hellenistic rhetoric and Roman legal argument and thus reflect Hellenistic and Roman influence.

Rabbinic midrash can be characterized broadly as halakic (developing rules for Sabbath observance, ritual purity, sacrifice, etc.) and haggadic (theological, ethical, and whatever does not fall under halakic). Some bodies of rabbinic midrash explore a book of the Bible more or less verse by verse, and others are topical. Some midrashic works are homiletical in nature; they preserve sermon material from synagogue services.

Midrash in the Bible

Although the large compilations of mid-rash are rabbinic and are later than the Bible, midrashic material is also found much earlier. Midrash has its origins in the Bible. The clearest example is Chronicles, which in many respects is a midrash on Samuel and Kings. At Qumran, we find literature that can be classified as rewritten Scripture, such as the Temple Scroll, the book of Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon, which have midrashic features. The Qumran Pesharim are also midrashic, although of a less sophisticated nature than the later rabbinic midrash, and seem to employ the middot.

The NT contains examples of midrashic material. Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels includes some midrashic material. In Luke 4:16–21, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah and interprets the passage as applying to himself. Jesus is delivering a petikhah, a short exposition on a biblical text outside the main synagogue sermon. When debating with the Sadducees over the resurrection, Jesus gives midrashic comment to Exod. 3:6 (Luke 20:27–40). The apostle Paul engages in midrash even more explicitly: for example, he applies Deut. 25:4, concerning not muzzling an ox while it is threshing grain, to the idea that a minister is worthy of being paid for work (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18). Paul is arguing from the lesser to the greater in his application of Torah to his contemporary situation.

The most extended midrash in the NT is the book of Hebrews. For example, in Heb. 1–2 the writer applies numerous quotations from the Psalter to Jesus in order to show how he is greater than the angels. In Heb. 4 the writer, through an interpretation of Ps. 95:11, does a midrash on entering into God’s rest, by which he applies God’s resting from his work (Gen. 2:2) to Christians’ entering that rest because of the unbelief of Israel in the wilderness. It appears that the author is forming an argument by analogy in relating Gen. 2:2 and Ps. 95:11.

It can be demonstrated that Jews employed midrashic techniques in their interpretation of Scriptures centuries before the earliest rabbinic midrash compilations were created. We see these techniques in Qumran Pesharim, Philo’s writings, and in the NT. The rabbis made use of long-established interpretive techniques and made them more sophisticated. The difference between Qumranite, ancient Christian, and rabbinic interpretation of Scripture was one of emphasis. For the Qumranites, all Scripture had to speak of their community, which was the true, believing community in the end of days. For the Christians, all Scripture had to speak of Jesus and the salvation that he brought. For the rabbis, all Scripture upheld Torah and obedience to that Torah as the center of Jewish life.

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

An occupation or profession is the usual work or business in which a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblical times, family or social standing most often determined occupation. This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such as planting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel was passed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh. 14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in the family inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihood from their family’s land, and those who did not have land hired themselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normally learned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2 Kings 4:18; Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’s service (1 Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).

Cicero, writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as tax collector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely, professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were more honorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitable profession (Off. 1.42).

Agriculture and Farming

Farming is the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first man was called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after the exile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, as did Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The opening chapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After the flood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil” (’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). King Uzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) and so employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2 Chron. 26:10).

God demonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with an incredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’s farms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit of their ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was for everyone to live “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19, the diligent farmer would have abundant food.

Jesus’ parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would have been readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where many people were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and some owned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at this time engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising (Let. Aris. 107–112).

Herding and Hunting

Herding animals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (after farming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of the most common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abel is the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2 NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herding lifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), as were Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1 Sam. 17:34), and many others in the OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages” (Ag. Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds and herdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel, whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present at Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teaching suggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf. Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).

Many people in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, or protection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “an expert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought back wild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim, included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57, reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf. 1 Kings 4:23).

Builders and Craftsmen

Cain was the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), and his descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrod built a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gathered together to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamia used baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usually preferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’s death, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, which involved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).

The role of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle was particularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilled workers and designers” empowered by God for work on the tabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds of crafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry, and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).

Kings in Israel often commissioned important building projects (1 Kings 12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2 Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2). Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2 Sam. 5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and also employed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervise the work (1 Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile, many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wall of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18). These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons, carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).

Jesus is referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn (Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter” by English versions. However, recent scholarship has demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter in the modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōn typically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer to craftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.

Musicians

The first musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father of all who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21). Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they do today. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebrate festive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen. 31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1 Sam. 16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).

Musicians played an important role in leading God’s people in worship. The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings of fifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician in Scripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms” (2 Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1 Sam. 16:18) and wrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomon was also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1 Kings 4:32). David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israel in worship (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres, harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2 Chron. 5:12).

Government, Politics, and Military

Before the monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, a group of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials, and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge the people on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). After Joshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel from foreign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time of Samuel, when Saul was made king (1 Sam. 11:15).

Kings in Israel employed various officials. In 2 Sam. 8:16–18, Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggests that the military commander was second in authority after the king. Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander in chief” (1 Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a number of key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the “confidant” of the king (cf. 2 Sam. 16:16). The OT does not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorder was among the highest governmental positions and served as a royal counselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognate noun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests that this official may have managed and preserved public records (2 Kings 18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary or scribe (sop̱er) was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2 Sam. 8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight (2 Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were well educated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2 Kings 18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of the palace and the forced labor, as well as governors who supplied provisions for the king’s household (1 Kings 4:6–7). The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in other administrations (Gen. 40:1; 1 Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). The cupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king from being poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.

In the Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1 Pet. 2:17), with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial and military authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects (governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), with tetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).

Christians in NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officer in Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemorated in an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. The proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of Herod Antipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22) were also Christian public leaders.

Trade and Economics

From earliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. When Abraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured “according to the weight current among the merchants” (Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of public trading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders of commodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes between southern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slaves along the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buy and sell goods (1 Kings 10:28).

In the first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life as landowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves. Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Luke was a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col. 4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire, commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants often formed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religious and moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen in related trades turned significant profit through their connections with the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).

Jesus frequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called “Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were a despised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantage of the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commission on taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of the talents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected (Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact that Laodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.

Servants and Slaves

In the OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whose occupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Some servants held very important positions in their master’s household (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job 7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they could take slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poor could serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along with their children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out from Egyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev. 25:39–46).

Slaves in the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed by another (Dio Chrysostom, 2 Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slavery practices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery. Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The most prominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes with his master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obey their earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6), but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus” (Rom. 1:1).

Religious Service

Most Israelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites (Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’s line (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’ direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacle and its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1 Chron. 23:32) and carrying the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 15:2). They were set apart to serve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people in worship (2 Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played an important advisory role to Israel’s kings (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Kings 4:5; 2 Kings 12:2).

In Israel, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1 Sam. 9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2 Sam. 24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets, and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group (1 Sam. 19:20; 1 Kings 22:6).

The NT references a number of ministerial offices (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid, though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive their living from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives. The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles who were with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as an apostle (Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus and others “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy and speak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or “pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, and exercise authority in the church (1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2). Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to win converts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5). Those ministers who are faithful to the gospel deserve support (3 John 8).

An occupation or profession is the usual work or business in which a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblical times, family or social standing most often determined occupation. This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such as planting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel was passed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh. 14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in the family inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihood from their family’s land, and those who did not have land hired themselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normally learned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2 Kings 4:18; Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’s service (1 Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).

Cicero, writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as tax collector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely, professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were more honorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitable profession (Off. 1.42).

Agriculture and Farming

Farming is the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first man was called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after the exile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, as did Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The opening chapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After the flood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil” (’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). King Uzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) and so employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2 Chron. 26:10).

God demonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with an incredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’s farms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit of their ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was for everyone to live “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19, the diligent farmer would have abundant food.

Jesus’ parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would have been readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where many people were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and some owned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at this time engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising (Let. Aris. 107–112).

Herding and Hunting

Herding animals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (after farming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of the most common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abel is the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2 NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herding lifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), as were Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1 Sam. 17:34), and many others in the OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages” (Ag. Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds and herdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel, whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present at Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teaching suggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf. Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).

Many people in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, or protection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “an expert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought back wild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim, included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57, reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf. 1 Kings 4:23).

Builders and Craftsmen

Cain was the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), and his descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrod built a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gathered together to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamia used baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usually preferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’s death, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, which involved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).

The role of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle was particularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilled workers and designers” empowered by God for work on the tabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds of crafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry, and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).

Kings in Israel often commissioned important building projects (1 Kings 12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2 Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2). Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2 Sam. 5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and also employed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervise the work (1 Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile, many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wall of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18). These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons, carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).

Jesus is referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn (Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter” by English versions. However, recent scholarship has demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter in the modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōn typically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer to craftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.

Musicians

The first musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father of all who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21). Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they do today. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebrate festive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen. 31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1 Sam. 16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).

Musicians played an important role in leading God’s people in worship. The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings of fifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician in Scripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms” (2 Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1 Sam. 16:18) and wrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomon was also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1 Kings 4:32). David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israel in worship (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres, harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2 Chron. 5:12).

Government, Politics, and Military

Before the monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, a group of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials, and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge the people on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). After Joshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel from foreign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time of Samuel, when Saul was made king (1 Sam. 11:15).

Kings in Israel employed various officials. In 2 Sam. 8:16–18, Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggests that the military commander was second in authority after the king. Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander in chief” (1 Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a number of key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the “confidant” of the king (cf. 2 Sam. 16:16). The OT does not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorder was among the highest governmental positions and served as a royal counselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognate noun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests that this official may have managed and preserved public records (2 Kings 18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary or scribe (sop̱er) was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2 Sam. 8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight (2 Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were well educated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2 Kings 18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of the palace and the forced labor, as well as governors who supplied provisions for the king’s household (1 Kings 4:6–7). The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in other administrations (Gen. 40:1; 1 Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). The cupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king from being poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.

In the Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1 Pet. 2:17), with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial and military authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects (governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), with tetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).

Christians in NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officer in Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemorated in an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. The proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of Herod Antipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22) were also Christian public leaders.

Trade and Economics

From earliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. When Abraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured “according to the weight current among the merchants” (Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of public trading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders of commodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes between southern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slaves along the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buy and sell goods (1 Kings 10:28).

In the first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life as landowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves. Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Luke was a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col. 4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire, commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants often formed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religious and moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen in related trades turned significant profit through their connections with the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).

Jesus frequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called “Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were a despised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantage of the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commission on taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of the talents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected (Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact that Laodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.

Servants and Slaves

In the OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whose occupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Some servants held very important positions in their master’s household (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job 7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they could take slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poor could serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along with their children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out from Egyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev. 25:39–46).

Slaves in the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed by another (Dio Chrysostom, 2 Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slavery practices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery. Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The most prominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes with his master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obey their earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6), but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus” (Rom. 1:1).

Religious Service

Most Israelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites (Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’s line (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’ direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacle and its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1 Chron. 23:32) and carrying the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 15:2). They were set apart to serve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people in worship (2 Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played an important advisory role to Israel’s kings (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Kings 4:5; 2 Kings 12:2).

In Israel, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1 Sam. 9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2 Sam. 24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets, and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group (1 Sam. 19:20; 1 Kings 22:6).

The NT references a number of ministerial offices (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid, though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive their living from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives. The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles who were with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as an apostle (Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus and others “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy and speak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or “pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, and exercise authority in the church (1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2). Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to win converts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5). Those ministers who are faithful to the gospel deserve support (3 John 8).

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

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).

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).

Fear, as it appears in Scripture, is a response ranging from respect and reverence to sheer panic and absolute terror.

Proper and Improper Fears

There are both proper, godly fears and improper, sinful fears. On the one hand, God has given us the ability to respond to rightly perceived fears. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he “was afraid” to go there with Mary and Jesus (Matt. 2:22), and God directed him to go to Nazareth instead. On the other hand, Scripture gives us many examples of people who were overcome by sinful fear. After Adam had sinned, he heard God coming to him in the garden, and he said, “I was afraid . . . so I hid” (Gen. 3:10). Abraham was afraid for his life, so he pretended that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20:2). King Saul disobeyed God’s explicit commands because he “was afraid of the men” (1 Sam. 15:24). Fear can be both sinful in and of itself and something that leads to other sinful responses.

God understands our struggle with sinful fear and knows that we need someone who is stronger than our fears: God himself. David says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in you” (Ps. 56:3). Ultimately, our hope is in Jesus Christ, who came to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). The author of Hebrews goes on to tell us how we are to experience this victory through Christ: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16).

Paul asks the question “Who [or, we could add, ‘what’] shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” (Rom. 8:35), and then gives his classic answer: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:38–39). The reality of a sovereign, loving God rules out any possibility that his people will ever find themselves in situations outside of his love and control. For the believer, “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (8:28).

Fear of God

There is a popular saying: “The fear of God is the one fear that removes all others.” God wants to free people from wrong fears so that they can fear the one person really worth fearing: God himself. Jesus warned, “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). Indeed, the one appropriate fear mentioned well over a hundred times in Scripture is a proper fear of God. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes concludes his wrestling to find meaning and purpose in life with these words: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (12:13).

God’s frame of reference. What can a proper fear of God do for us? The answer from the book of Proverbs is that a proper fear of God is foundational to everything else in life: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). Every area of life needs to be lived under the direction of God and for his glory, and without a proper fear of God, living a life pleasing to God becomes impossible. Having a proper fear of God involves seeing and responding to all the daily circumstances of life from God’s frame of reference. It is this proper fear of God that involves catching a glimpse of life as it truly is, and especially of God as he is in all his glory and splendor, that gives people the strength and encouragement they need to go through all the difficult experiences of life. Although there are many unanswered questions regarding the various tragedies and difficulties we experience, life does not begin to make sense until a person catches a glimpse of who God is and how he is at work behind the scenes in history and world events. No one can ever go far in a relationship with God apart from a proper fear of him. Instead, “the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27) that strengthens and sustains us.

Knowing and seeking God. What does fear of God look like? Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” places “fear” and “knowledge” in poetical parallelism. Apparently, knowing God and fearing him are really one and the same, like two sides of a coin describing the same reality. Similarly, not fearing God is simply another way of saying that a person does not know him. It is no surprise to discover that to fear God or be a “God-fearer” is one of the standard biblical descriptions for being a follower of God (Acts 10:2). In one sense, having a proper fear of God is simply one way of describing how one is in a proper relationship with God. Scripture is clear that for the ungodly, or even for the disobedient believer, there is a fear in the sense of terror or panic as one contemplates the coming judgment of God (Heb. 10:27, 31). But the believer should have confidence in God’s love and in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, so that this kind of negative fear is out of place. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is a respectful, reverential awe of God’s glory and majesty, leading inevitably to a changed life. This positive kind of fear should involve a positive seeking out of God and a new desire to please him, combined with a new dread of displeasing him. Proverbs is also very explicit about this purifying aspect of the fear of the Lord: “Through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided” (16:6).

Having a proper fear of God has an ongoing, moment-by-moment quality in much the same way that a spouse or parent naturally thinks about others in the family and wonders how they are doing. Whereas the wicked person does not seek God, and “in all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Ps. 10:4), the opposite is true of those who fear God: they regularly and inevitably find themselves thinking about God, reflecting upon him, respecting him, looking to him for his help and sustenance, valuing his view of things, and actively seeking to please and obey him in everything they do. Fearing God means that we trust him more than we trust ourselves or anyone else. Fearing God is both deciding for (Prov. 1:29 speaks of those who “did not choose to fear the Lord”) and living out an ongoing commitment of giving God the place he deserves in our lives. As Paul tells us, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). A person who has come to fear the Lord is never the same afterward.

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

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

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

Trinitarian Heresies

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

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

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

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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

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.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) 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). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (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.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

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).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. 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.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing 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).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

An occupation or profession is the usual work or business in which a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblical times, family or social standing most often determined occupation. This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such as planting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel was passed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh. 14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in the family inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihood from their family’s land, and those who did not have land hired themselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normally learned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2 Kings 4:18; Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’s service (1 Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).

Cicero, writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as tax collector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely, professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were more honorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitable profession (Off. 1.42).

Agriculture and Farming

Farming is the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first man was called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after the exile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, as did Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The opening chapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After the flood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil” (’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). King Uzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) and so employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2 Chron. 26:10).

God demonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with an incredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’s farms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit of their ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was for everyone to live “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19, the diligent farmer would have abundant food.

Jesus’ parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would have been readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where many people were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and some owned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at this time engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising (Let. Aris. 107–112).

Herding and Hunting

Herding animals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (after farming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of the most common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abel is the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2 NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herding lifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), as were Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1 Sam. 17:34), and many others in the OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages” (Ag. Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds and herdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel, whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present at Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teaching suggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf. Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).

Many people in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, or protection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “an expert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought back wild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim, included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57, reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf. 1 Kings 4:23).

Builders and Craftsmen

Cain was the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), and his descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrod built a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gathered together to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamia used baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usually preferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’s death, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, which involved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).

The role of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle was particularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilled workers and designers” empowered by God for work on the tabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds of crafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry, and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).

Kings in Israel often commissioned important building projects (1 Kings 12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2 Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2). Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2 Sam. 5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and also employed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervise the work (1 Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile, many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wall of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18). These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons, carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).

Jesus is referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn (Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter” by English versions. However, recent scholarship has demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter in the modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōn typically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer to craftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.

Musicians

The first musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father of all who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21). Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they do today. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebrate festive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen. 31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1 Sam. 16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).

Musicians played an important role in leading God’s people in worship. The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings of fifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician in Scripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms” (2 Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1 Sam. 16:18) and wrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomon was also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1 Kings 4:32). David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israel in worship (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres, harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2 Chron. 5:12).

Government, Politics, and Military

Before the monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, a group of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials, and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge the people on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). After Joshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel from foreign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time of Samuel, when Saul was made king (1 Sam. 11:15).

Kings in Israel employed various officials. In 2 Sam. 8:16–18, Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggests that the military commander was second in authority after the king. Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander in chief” (1 Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a number of key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the “confidant” of the king (cf. 2 Sam. 16:16). The OT does not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorder was among the highest governmental positions and served as a royal counselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognate noun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests that this official may have managed and preserved public records (2 Kings 18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary or scribe (sop̱er) was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2 Sam. 8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight (2 Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were well educated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2 Kings 18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of the palace and the forced labor, as well as governors who supplied provisions for the king’s household (1 Kings 4:6–7). The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in other administrations (Gen. 40:1; 1 Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). The cupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king from being poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.

In the Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1 Pet. 2:17), with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial and military authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects (governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), with tetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).

Christians in NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officer in Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemorated in an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. The proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of Herod Antipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22) were also Christian public leaders.

Trade and Economics

From earliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. When Abraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured “according to the weight current among the merchants” (Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of public trading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders of commodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes between southern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slaves along the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buy and sell goods (1 Kings 10:28).

In the first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life as landowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves. Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Luke was a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col. 4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire, commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants often formed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religious and moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen in related trades turned significant profit through their connections with the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).

Jesus frequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called “Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were a despised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantage of the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commission on taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of the talents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected (Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact that Laodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.

Servants and Slaves

In the OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whose occupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Some servants held very important positions in their master’s household (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job 7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they could take slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poor could serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along with their children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out from Egyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev. 25:39–46).

Slaves in the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed by another (Dio Chrysostom, 2 Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slavery practices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery. Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The most prominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes with his master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obey their earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6), but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus” (Rom. 1:1).

Religious Service

Most Israelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites (Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’s line (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’ direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacle and its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1 Chron. 23:32) and carrying the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 15:2). They were set apart to serve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people in worship (2 Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played an important advisory role to Israel’s kings (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Kings 4:5; 2 Kings 12:2).

In Israel, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1 Sam. 9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2 Sam. 24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets, and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group (1 Sam. 19:20; 1 Kings 22:6).

The NT references a number of ministerial offices (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid, though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive their living from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives. The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles who were with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as an apostle (Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus and others “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy and speak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or “pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, and exercise authority in the church (1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2). Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to win converts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5). Those ministers who are faithful to the gospel deserve support (3 John 8).