Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed of various materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Some altars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place. They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection or false worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

Old Testament

Noah and the patriarchs. The first reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after the flood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character of the mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’s resting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of the extra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3). They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizing self-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the human race.

Abram built altars “to the Lord” at places where God appeared and spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4, 18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with these altars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments or memorials of significant events. In association with Abram’s altars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord” (12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic procedures associated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation of priests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeeding generations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob (33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience, Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’s intervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9, 13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim, to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Moses and the tabernacle. In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gave Moses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26; cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (of sun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose natural stones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones, perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making this prohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6). Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps for the priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. The requirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern (Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the number representing the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Moses for the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?) and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenant bond created (24:6–8).

For the tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” was made (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden frames sheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was a ledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hung bronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles were slipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood was smeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in the courtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle. Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altar of incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10; 37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for it stood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle, “in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenant law,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from the holy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altar every morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedure and the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishings in Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense after speaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that the incense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb. 9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near the ark.

God, through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the Promised Land they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the other paraphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Age altars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altars and a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22 the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar” by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explained to the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica of the altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering of sacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary both expressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nation at this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In later narratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17), Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said to build altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and in fact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. The established custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in the nation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’s temple and rival worship centers. In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged to the “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple was made before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22, 54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that had been in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Although many of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in the first temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar in the Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They express the psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the place where God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rival altar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). An unnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’s desecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future (1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in the northern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and the other altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13). Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and the suppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of the Lord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars (1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls that of Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusive monotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

With regard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the time of Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on the Assyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front of the temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’s religious reform included the removal of the altars at the high places that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship (2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itself in his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father had destroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thus repeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’s reform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem (2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

In Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, the sacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). The altar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and a horn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on its eastern side for the use of the priests.

The second temple. The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with the express aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that the priests did was to build “the altar on its foundation” (i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed the altar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babylonians destroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because they wanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grant them protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophet Malachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that was manifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’s altar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

New Testament

In the NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings (e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of the book of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ (in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined as one who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’s altar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which he offered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument of Hebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritual calendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was not eaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is not required, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenly sanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation (6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altar of incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecuted people, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people of the earth.

Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denying ourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and live abundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are in pain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement just when others might keep their distance. The compassionate person also turns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed in their character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love in general, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’s pain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.

Compassion Shown by God

The OT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward those who, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. In Exod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they have rebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for their deliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them of his sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy, yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deserved harm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sin and wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’s patience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to their judges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshiped them!” but God later “was moved to compassion when he heard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them” (2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies on Yahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1). In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, who complains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66 dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g., 49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).

The NT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowds who “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick and feeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The same connection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscores this attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is “full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depicts God as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution and trial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with broken sinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps. 145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for his people. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise, and even unrighteous.

Compassion Required by God

Because God loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflicted wounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parents ought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings 3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’s garment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod. 22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, God requires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt. 12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalism and genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we might have expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it is sometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13; Ps. 109:12).

The NT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is a familiar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion toward those who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the “Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is a direct command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given to us by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there is any “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), we must follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves] with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience” (Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility and compassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble” (1 Pet. 3:8).

The Bible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandable reasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. We want always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected by our own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering people are burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a ready excuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior has shown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.

An attitude of penitence. In the Bible, to be contrite means to have an attitude of being sorry for the sinful actions that one has done. The term “contrite” is relatively rare within the Bible, but expectations for this attitude are not. In Ps. 51, traditionally attributed to David when the prophet Nathan exposed his adultery with Bathsheba, David says that a contrite heart, in response to sin, is one that God will not reject. Furthermore, Ps. 51 is a great example of how a person with a contrite attitude, acknowledging personal sinfulness toward God, might speak. God says that although he lives in “a high and holy place,” he also lives with those who are “contrite and lowly in spirit” (Isa. 57:15), and that he esteems the person who is “humble and contrite in spirit” (66:2).

The second king of Israel (r. 1010–970 BC), founder of a dynasty that continued with his son Solomon (r. 970–931 BC), who ruled all of Israel; subsequently the remaining “sons of David” ruled the southern kingdom, Judah, until 586 BC.

David’s importance can be measured by the vast space devoted to the account of his life (1 Sam. 16:1–1 Kings 2:12; 1 Chron. 11:1–29:30). The titles of many psalms identify him as their author. Although there are no contemporary extrabiblical references to David due to the rarity of inscriptions in Palestine at this time, the “house of David” (or Tel Dan) inscription, dated to the eighth century BC, provides an extraordinarily early reference to his dynasty.

David and Saul

Human kingship is a late development in Israel, but a number of ancient texts anticipate the establishment of the institution (Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20) and specifically the rise of a king from Judah (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:17). Thus, it is surprising that the first king of Israel is not from Judah, but from Benjamin. When the people ask Samuel for a king, he anoints Saul (1 Sam. 8–12), who proves to be a tremendous disappointment. He forfeits the establishment of his dynasty when he shows a lack of confidence in God by rashly offering prebattle sacrifices (13:13–14). God then rejects Saul as king because he does not execute God’s full judgment against the Amalekites as he knows he should (15:23).

At this point the biblical history turns its attention to David. God commands Samuel to go to Bethlehem, specifically to the household of Jesse, to anoint one of his sons as the next king (1 Sam. 16). In contrast to Saul, who is notable because of his tall, imposing physical stature (10:23), David is the youngest and smallest of all the children of Jesse, a simple shepherd. Nonetheless, he is the chosen one because God “looks at the heart” (16:7). However, David does not immediately assume the kingship. Indeed, his anointing is kept secret.

The first two accounts of David’s initial public appearance appear in 1 Sam. 16:14–17:58. Some doubt attends the question of whether these two stories are chronologically or thematically organized, but in either case they anticipate David’s later role as psalm singer and warrior. The narrative describes David’s work in Saul’s court as a harpist whose music soothes Saul’s tormented mind (16:14–23) and tells the heroic story of David’s courageous stand against Goliath, a gigantic Philistine mercenary (1 Sam. 17).

Although David never shows any signs of subversion or disloyalty, his growing popularity increases the paranoia of Saul. However, Saul cannot simply kill off such a popular figure, even though in a fit of madness he throws a spear at him (1 Sam. 18:10–11). Saul instead settles on a plan that would lead to David’s death on the battlefield. Saul offers his daughter to David in marriage. After an abortive first attempt involving his daughter Merab, Saul invites him to marry Michal, though as a bride-price he asks through his attendants for one hundred Philistine foreskins (1 Sam. 18:25). Saul assumes that David will surely die in the attempt to obtain them, but instead David kills two hundred Philistines and marries Michal. The alliance to the royal house strengthens his later bid for the throne, but for the moment it serves the purpose of making Saul even more suspicious.

While Saul’s hostility increases toward David, Saul’s son Jonathan develops an intense personal friendship with David (1 Sam. 18:1–4). Jonathan recognizes his father’s weaknesses and understands that he will not be the next king. He helps David escape his father’s wrath, and forever afterward David is kind to the descendants of Jonathan (1 Sam. 19–20).

Eventually, Saul’s murderous intentions toward David become so intense that he must leave the court and live in the hinterlands, moving from place to place, staying one step ahead of Saul and his men. He is not alone, however. With him is an army of six hundred men, a prophet (Gad), and the high priest (Abiathar). In essence, he functions as a kingdom in exile. He saves the Judean city of Keilah from the Philistines (1 Sam. 23:1–6) and protects the flocks of Judean landowners such as the aptly named Nabal (“fool”) (1 Sam. 25). The latter is not properly grateful for the help, and David is ready to avenge himself against him. Fortunately, Nabal’s wife, Abigail, wisely intercedes with David. Nabal dies of other causes, and David marries Abigail.

David is to be the next king, but he is no usurper. Two times during this period (1 Sam. 24; 26) David’s men are in a position to dispatch the king. It may even be possible to justify such a move because Saul is pursuing David to kill him. David knows, however, that it is wrong to harm the anointed of the Lord. He is not going to manipulate the situation and grasp the kingship; he will wait on the Lord’s own timing. David continues to keep out of Saul’s way, even seeking refuge with the Philistines for a period of time.

Eventually, however, Saul’s moment of judgment comes. Saul’s final battle is against the Philistines, the major foreign force still inside the borders of the promised land. Both Saul and Jonathan meet their end on Mount Gilboa, and David sings songs that express his sadness over their deaths (1 Sam. 31–2 Sam. 1).

David’s Kingship

Even with Saul out of the way, David’s rise to kingship is not easy. He is immediately crowned king of Judah (2 Sam. 2:1–7), but the northern tribes choose to follow Ish-Bosheth, the son of Saul. War erupts between the two kingdoms. Eventually, though, the powerful general Abner abandons his support of Saul’s son, sealing the end of that dynasty. Ish-Bosheth is killed by his own men, and soon David becomes king over all Israel (5:1–5).

David’s kingship leads to significant victories that, in essence, complete the conquest of Canaan by finally subduing all the internal enemies. His men take the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and he makes it his capital (2 Sam. 5:6–16). He also defeats the Philistines, who have been a thorn in the side of Israel for years (5:17–25; for other victories, see 8:1–14). In celebration, David brings the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6).

The David narrative reaches its apex when God enters into a covenant with him that establishes his dynasty (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). After David dies, his son will succeed him, and indeed his dynasty lasts for many hundreds of years (see below).

David is a good king, but not a perfect king. A turning point in his reign comes in 2 Sam. 11. Up to this point, David has been content with what God has given him. He does not grasp for anything that does not belong to him. However, when he sees the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he sends messengers to bring her to his house, where the two have sexual intercourse and she becomes pregnant. In an attempt to conceal this sin of adultery, he orders the death of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Thus, he adds the crime of murder to that of adultery.

David thinks that the sin is secret, but nothing is hidden from God, who sends his prophet Nathan to confront David (2 Sam. 12; cf. Ps. 51). The difference between Saul and David is not that the latter is perfect but rather that David, as opposed to Saul, repents when he sins. Thus, God allows his reign to continue. Even so, David feels the consequences of his sin. First, the son that Bathsheba bears from her illicit union with David is struck with illness and dies. And ever afterward, David’s family life is troubled, with great impact on the political life of Israel. Son is pitted against son (Amnon and Absalom [2 Sam. 13]), as well as son against father (Absalom and David [2 Sam. 15–18]). Absalom temporarily deposes his father from the throne, but David eventually regains the kingship, though at the cost of the heartbreaking loss of his son.

Even at the very end, there is conflict within David’s house. When David has grown old, another son, Adonijah, attempts to take the throne, with support from powerful people such as Joab and Abiathar. At the instigation of Bathsheba and Nathan, however, David places the son of his choosing, Solomon, on the throne (1 Kings 1). David then dies after a reign of forty-one years, seven in Hebron and the rest over all Israel (1 Kings 2:10–12).

David’s Legacy

The account in Chronicles emphasizes David’s role in the preparations for the building of the temple. He had wanted to build the structure, but God says that this task is not for the one who completes the conquest of Canaan (1 Chron. 22:8), but rather for his son Solomon, who will inherit a stable nation and whose very name means “peace.”

David’s greatest legacy is the dynasty that bears his name. Beginning with Solomon, however, his successors do not continue his spiritual legacy. Although a number of kings do some good, only Hezekiah (r. 727–698 BC) and Josiah (r. 639–609 BC) are given unqualified approval. Eventually, the Davidic rule comes to an end in Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians (586 BC). But God is not done with his redemptive purposes, and his promise to David is that he will have a ruler on the throne “forever” (2 Sam. 7:16). The NT recognizes that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. He is the greater son of David, the one who is the Christ or Messiah, the anointed king. Jesus is the one who reigns forever in heaven. The life and the rule of David foreshadow the messianic rule of Jesus Christ.

For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.

Imagery of God

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

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

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

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

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

Names and Attributes of God

The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (See also Names of God.)

Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Below are further explanations of some of the representative attributes of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God of the Trinity

The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2 Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 2 Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1 Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

Although the concepts of sin and guilt often overlap, a basic distinction between the two can be established. In the biblical sense, sin is basically violation of divine stipulations (what a person does or does not do), whereas guilt is the resulting state, or one’s “legal” status (what that person has become as a result). In essence, one commits sin and becomes guilty (Hab. 1:11).

The state of being guilty is further distinguished from the punishment that it draws, because one can be pronounced guilty and still be exempted from punishment. Nor should guilt be mistaken for the emotional response of the culprits toward themselves and their victims. No matter how sincere it may be, remorse does not eliminate the guilt.

In the biblical sense, guilt is something objective and separate from the will or intention of the culprit. One can pay back debt and render the obligation fulfilled. One cannot, however, cancel one’s own guilt. In the sacrificial system of the OT, the offender must perform restitution to the victim and also give a guilt offering to God. This reflects the notion that in committing sinful acts in violation of God’s laws, the culprit has offended not only the victim but also God. This is what David means in Ps. 51:3–4 (with his sin in full display before God, David realizes that he has sinned against God and God alone).

This is why those who scoff at the guilt offering are fools (Prov. 14:9). By doing this, they insult God’s being and character. Such a biblical view of guilt implies that forgiveness and restoration should come from without, from source(s) other than the culprit and victim. The Bible affirms that the only one capable of offsetting the cost of human sin is the sinless Christ, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). His life was laid on the cross and offered as the acceptable sacrifice for the totality of guilt, and as a result it freed those who believe in him from the obligation of the guilt.

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1 Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:44–45; Heb. 12:14).

The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

Holiness may be an attribute of places marked by God’s presence (Exod. 3:5; Ps. 43:3). Likewise, particular times, especially the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8), are declared holy.

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2 Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

The prophet Zechariah envisions a time when the distinctions between holy and common will be meaningless (Zech. 14:20–21). While vestiges of the symbolic language of holiness remain in the NT (e.g., the “holy city” in Matt. 27:53), after the death and resurrection of Christ the NT no longer operates with the symbolic holiness of the OT. Rather, this language is appropriated to explain what true holiness entails in the lives of God’s people (Rom. 12:1; Eph. 2:21). All Christians are holy (“saints” [Gk. hagioi] means “holy ones” [e.g., Rom. 1:7]), including in some sense the members of a believer’s family (1 Cor. 7:14). The holiness of God’s people is both definitive, by virtue of the saving work of Christ (Heb. 13:12), and progressive, by eliciting, and empowering through his Holy Spirit, holy and righteous living (Rom. 6:19; 1 Thess. 4:7–8). Both divine initiative and human activity with regard to holiness may be seen in texts such as Lev. 20:8; Heb. 10:14. The objective of Christian discipline is that we might share God’s holiness (Heb. 12:10).

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.

The Hebrew word translated “hyssop,” ’ezob, occurs ten times in the OT, five of them in Lev. 14. Although there is some question regarding the identity of the plant, it clearly is small, in contrast to the cedar of Lebanon (1 Kings 4:33). When branches of hyssop are bundled together, the leaf structure holds liquids. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintels and doorposts of the Israelite houses (Exod. 12:22). Its use in conjunction both with sprinkling blood on persons and houses affected by infectious skin diseases and mildew (Lev. 14) and with burning the red heifer (Num. 19:1–6) suggests that its aromatic properties were also significant in countering the stench of blood and burning flesh. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the purification water from the heifer on objects and individuals that had come in contact with a corpse (Num. 19:18). The impact of these ceremonial purification rites gave hyssop symbolic significance; it represented cleansing from sin (Ps. 51:7) and humility.

The English word “hyssop” comes from the Greek word hyssōpos, itself of Semitic origin. At the crucifixion, in response to Jesus’ cry “I thirst,” a sponge soaked in vinegar was lifted on branch of hyssop to Jesus (John 19:29). If the plant is of the small herb variety, lifting the sponge on a branch of hyssop seems unlikely. Some suggest that the Greek really is a similar word that means “javelin” (hyssos). Others maintain that John, who is the only evangelist to mention the hyssop, is more interested in the symbolic aspects of hyssop and the connection to Passover with the death of Jesus, the Passover Lamb. The combination of purity and humility may be why John included it in the crucifixion scene. The author of Hebrews enhanced the description of the covenant ratification ceremony (Exod. 24:1–8) by including the ritual elements of scarlet wool and hyssop from Num. 19 and Lev. 14 along with water and the blood of sacrificial animals (Heb. 9:19).

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.”

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 collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OT period, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of different lengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributed to Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 and Ps. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millennium BC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship and private devotion.

Historical Background

Most psalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises the first verse, whereas English translations set it off before the first verse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph [Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide information about genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune (e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps. 92), and a circumstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Information in the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written and brought into a final collection.

Composition

As mentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications of authorship and occasionally name the circumstance that led to the writing of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the title states, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the events recorded in 2 Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote the song in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Although only a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it is likely that most psalms were composed in response to some specific circumstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly, though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circumstance in the psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with the situation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt toward God and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specifically about adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they are writing the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as a prayer that others who have had similar though not identical experiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a model prayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or in another way.

Most modern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance, was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe that he felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being a slave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing it as reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

The psalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appears that the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to a close at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In 1 Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the process worked. The text describes David turning a musical composition over to the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely that the priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holy place (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were the hymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporate book of prayer, though certainly they could be used in private devotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:1–10 and its relationship to Ps. 113).

Organization and Structure

The psalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of all the psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship, time of composition, or length. There is only one statement about organization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it is surprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequent sections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145). The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded the Davidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonical order was permanently closed.

A number of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure to the book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to the overall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics are obvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems to reflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Each book ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with the Pentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim to authority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’s word.

Second, within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there are psalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. The best-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134), probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up (ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religious festivals in Jerusalem.

Third, it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning and at the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion. Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader to the twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces a blessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all, are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be on the side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as one must be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the reader enters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one (messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

This leads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lament predominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymns of praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psalter mourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings the reader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader from sadness to joy.

Literary Considerations

Genre. The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems. Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of the poet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment. Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms can be recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament. The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized by the expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger, worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at times complaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10). Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while others assert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments even contain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm the psalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God or reaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reason for the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77 pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvation events in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, laments but never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet even here we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is still speaking to God.

• Thanksgiving. When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms of thanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite an earlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God for restoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after he suffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv. 6–7).

• Hymn. Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. The psalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps. 100).

• Remembrance. While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past (as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus on rehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of the most memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divine action (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea” [v. 15]) followed by a congregational response (“His love endures forever”).

• Confidence. These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even in the midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God. The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131 are good examples.

• Wisdom. Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interests similar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship. A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king as his agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps. 2).

Style. The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the use of parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable for its short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words. So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order to derive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression, parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by using other literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not only to inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate their imagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery; Poetry.)

Theological Message

Although the psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about God and their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalms is a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe who he is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examples include God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98), and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Each one of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and also the nature of our relationship with God. After all, the aforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’s people as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connection to the New Testament and Today

Jesus himself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated his coming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). The Gospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressed by Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on the cross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). The NT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant that promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne (2 Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110) often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “the anointed one”).

Today we read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work of Christ but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. The psalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similar though not identical joys and problems. The psalms should become models of our prayers.

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The term “salvation” is the broadest one used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.

Old Testament

In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).

Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2 Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1 Sam. 17:1–58).

But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

New Testament

As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2 Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2 Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins (see below).

Components

In several passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus 3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term for the totality of what God has done for his people in and through Christ. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that it takes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration” refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person from spiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7; Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of God declaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis of Christ’s sacrificial death and life of perfect obedience (Rom. 3:21–5:12; Gal. 2:14–21). “Atonement” describes Christ’s payment for sin and resulting forgiveness (Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). “Redemption” captures the reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of their slavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7; 5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardened rebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2 Cor. 5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extends that reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom he reconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom. 8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” God sets his people apart for his special purposes and progressively changes them into the image of Christ (1 Cor. 1:30 ESV, NRSV, NASB; cf. Rom. 8:29). The final component is “glorification,” when God brings to completion the work of salvation by granting his people resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death, and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).

Prepositions of Salvation

Another way that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through the various prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in the following list are among the more significant.

From. Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is not surprising that Scripture describes that from which believers are saved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all my transgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible only through Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus on the cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death of Christ believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10). At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus saved people from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result of these and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the day of Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from this corrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimony of Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and its consequences.

To/into. Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/into certain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves, believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through the cross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13). Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace into which believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’s work on their behalf (John 14:27).

By. Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to express the instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves” (1 Sam. 17:47). In the broadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by the grace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can also express the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israel was that it was saved from its enemies by God (Deut. 33:29; Isa. 45:17). The same thing is meant when Scripture speaks of God saving his people by his right hand (Ps. 17:7) or his name (Ps. 54:1).

Through. The consistent testimony of the Bible is that salvation comes through faith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have been justified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal. 3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “but that which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). The remarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have been accomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).

In. Especially in Paul’s writings the various components of salvation (see above) are modified with the phrase “in Christ” or “in him.” Believers are chosen (Eph. 1:4), redeemed (Eph. 1:7), justified (Gal. 2:17), and sanctified (1 Cor. 1:2) in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

With. Many of the components of salvation that believers experience are said to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4–11; Gal. 2:20). With Christ, believers have been made alive, raised up, and seated in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:13). Because of their union with Christ, believers share in his inheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1 Pet. 1:4). Even the very life of the believer is said to be currently “hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).

Tenses of Salvation

The Bible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses. Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believers that “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he can also speak of himself and other believers as those “who are being saved” (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15), pointing to a process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuring believers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2), he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’s wrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).

The use of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet” dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. But the final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvation must still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a new heaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).

Conclusion

Without a proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of its rebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makes little sense. Because sin is humanity’s greatest problem, salvation is humanity’s greatest need. Given the breadth, width, and depth of what God has done to save his people from their sins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrews asks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:3).

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.”

Although not a normal occurrence in Palestine, snow was common in the higher regions of the area, notably Mount Hermon and the mountains of Lebanon, which often have snow year-round. Figuratively, snow refers to purity (Ps. 51:7), divine glory (Matt. 28:3), and paleness of skin color (Exod. 4:6).

Steadfastness is the quality of firmness or stability. Paul told the Colossians that he was delighted to see their discipline and steadfastness in the faith (Col. 2:5 [KJV: “stedfastness”]). The term is also used in 2 Pet. 3:17 KJV, warning the readers not to fall away from their steadfastness. A steadfast person is firm in belief and has a solid foundation that cannot be shaken. In the NIV, “steadfast” is a quality of one’s spirit (Ps. 51:10), heart (Pss. 57:7; 108:1; 112:7), ways (Ps. 119:5; Prov. 4:26), or mind (Isa. 23:6). Peter assures his readers that God will make them “strong, firm and steadfast” (1 Pet. 5:10).

Steadfastness is the quality of firmness or stability. Paul told the Colossians that he was delighted to see their discipline and steadfastness in the faith (Col. 2:5 [KJV: “stedfastness”]). The term is also used in 2 Pet. 3:17 KJV, warning the readers not to fall away from their steadfastness. A steadfast person is firm in belief and has a solid foundation that cannot be shaken. In the NIV, “steadfast” is a quality of one’s spirit (Ps. 51:10), heart (Pss. 57:7; 108:1; 112:7), ways (Ps. 119:5; Prov. 4:26), or mind (Isa. 23:6). Peter assures his readers that God will make them “strong, firm and steadfast” (1 Pet. 5:10).

The word “tongue” has several senses in both Testaments. In the OT, lashon refers to the physical organ (Judg. 7:5; Job 20:12; 41:1), the physical tongue that creates speech (2 Sam. 23:2; Job 6:30), and the physical organ in reference to individuals as they profess before God (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11).

The word “tongue” frequently refers to language (Gen. 10:5; Neh. 13:24; Isa. 28:11; cf. 1 Cor. 14:21). Related to this, the word refers to speech as deceitful (Ps. 52:2), as speaking strife (31:20 KJV, RSV), or as that which praises God (35:28). The tongue sings (Ps. 51:14) and extols (66:17).

The tongue is able to produce very powerful speech that can bring life and death (Prov. 18:21). To guard one’s speech is to be trouble-free (21:23). Soft and forbearing speech is persuasive and wins the day rather than aggravates (25:15). Flattering speech seems favorable but will be disregarded in the end (28:23).

The speech of God is a consuming fire (Isa. 30:27). The mute will have speech when all things are set right in the eschaton (35:6).

In the OT, the word “tongue” is used in parallel with several other words. The physical organ is parallel to lips (Ps. 12:4), mouth (Job 33:2; Pss. 10:7; 50:19), or throat (Ps. 5:9, where the tongue is the source of flattery).

A similar Hebrew word, sapah, has several senses, among them “lip” (and so also often of the edge or shore of a body of water), and can refer to the language produced by lips. It is sometimes placed in parallel with lashon (Ps. 12:4).

In the NT, the word glōssa refers to the physical organ (Mark 7:33–35) and language (Acts 2:11; 1 Cor. 14:21 [heteroglōssos]) and can refer to the miraculous gift of languages (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12–14). Luke also uses the word in the unusual description of the gift of languages coming on the disciples—tongues of fire resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3).

Finally, James, writing in the style of OT wisdom literature, notes that an uncontrolled tongue—unbridled speech—is not indicative of the people of God (James 1:26–27) and is ultimately destructive (3:5–10). See also Speech Impediment.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

The phrase “book of life” occurs eight times in the Bible (Ps. 69:28; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27). The image may originate from the practice of keeping genealogical records or a registry of citizens in which the names of individuals were recorded. Some have suggested that it is a figurative record of all the living, from which the unsaved are eventually erased. But more likely the phrase metaphorically expresses the omniscience of God, who knows all those whom he has predestined to eternal life. In Ps. 69:28 being “blotted out” of the Book of Life probably refers to the fate of experiencing a premature earthly death (cf. Exod. 32:32–33). But since it applies to God’s enemies, it also carries with it the overtones of eternal damnation. The promise made to those who overcome that they will not be blotted out of the Book of Life assures them of their final victory (Rev. 3:5; cf. John 5:24–25). At the final judgment, those not found written in the Book of Life are destined to eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:12–15). The final use of the phrase in “the Lamb’s book of life” indicates that the record belongs to Christ, who purchased the redemption of all those found recorded in the book (Rev. 21:27). For similar phrases and concepts, see Pss. 9:5; 51:1; 139:16; Isa. 4:3; Dan. 7:10; 12:1; Mal. 3:16; Luke 10:20; Heb. 12:23.

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OT period, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of different lengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributed to Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 and Ps. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millennium BC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship and private devotion.

Historical Background

Most psalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises the first verse, whereas English translations set it off before the first verse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph [Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide information about genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune (e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps. 92), and a circumstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Information in the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written and brought into a final collection.

Composition

As mentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications of authorship and occasionally name the circumstance that led to the writing of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the title states, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the events recorded in 2 Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote the song in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Although only a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it is likely that most psalms were composed in response to some specific circumstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly, though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circumstance in the psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with the situation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt toward God and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specifically about adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they are writing the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as a prayer that others who have had similar though not identical experiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a model prayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or in another way.

Most modern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance, was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe that he felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being a slave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing it as reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

The psalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appears that the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to a close at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In 1 Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the process worked. The text describes David turning a musical composition over to the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely that the priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holy place (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were the hymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporate book of prayer, though certainly they could be used in private devotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:1–10 and its relationship to Ps. 113).

Organization and Structure

The psalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of all the psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship, time of composition, or length. There is only one statement about organization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it is surprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequent sections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145). The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded the Davidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonical order was permanently closed.

A number of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure to the book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to the overall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics are obvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems to reflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Each book ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with the Pentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim to authority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’s word.

Second, within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there are psalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. The best-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134), probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up (ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religious festivals in Jerusalem.

Third, it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning and at the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion. Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader to the twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces a blessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all, are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be on the side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as one must be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the reader enters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one (messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

This leads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lament predominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymns of praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psalter mourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings the reader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader from sadness to joy.

Literary Considerations

Genre. The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems. Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of the poet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment. Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms can be recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament. The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized by the expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger, worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at times complaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10). Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while others assert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments even contain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm the psalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God or reaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reason for the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77 pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvation events in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, laments but never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet even here we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is still speaking to God.

• Thanksgiving. When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms of thanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite an earlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God for restoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after he suffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv. 6–7).

• Hymn. Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. The psalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps. 100).

• Remembrance. While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past (as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus on rehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of the most memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divine action (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea” [v. 15]) followed by a congregational response (“His love endures forever”).

• Confidence. These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even in the midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God. The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131 are good examples.

• Wisdom. Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interests similar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship. A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king as his agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps. 2).

Style. The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the use of parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable for its short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words. So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order to derive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression, parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by using other literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not only to inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate their imagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery; Poetry.)

Theological Message

Although the psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about God and their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalms is a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe who he is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examples include God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98), and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Each one of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and also the nature of our relationship with God. After all, the aforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’s people as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connection to the New Testament and Today

Jesus himself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated his coming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). The Gospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressed by Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on the cross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). The NT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant that promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne (2 Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110) often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “the anointed one”).

Today we read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work of Christ but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. The psalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similar though not identical joys and problems. The psalms should become models of our prayers.

Terminology

The NT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means “gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greek the term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. In particular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of the citizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city. Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not to the citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, they were not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records three instances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

The most important background for the Christian use of the term is the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250 BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundred times, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. While qahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah, the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering, translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’s sacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, where qahal is linked with the covenant.

In the NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’s people 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although the word occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it is of special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46 times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instances in James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn from this usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and the plural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those who profess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsia designates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28; 15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23; Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).

The Nature of the Church

The nature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning of one word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a rich array of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are those metaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church, five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom of God, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and the body of Christ.

The people of God. Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in the covenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer. 7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28; Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus, the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras who responded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin rests exclusively in God’s grace.

To speak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT and the NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship between the church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize the matter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the church and Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuity between them.

Continuity between the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that the church and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuous relationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel in some sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding to Deut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in the wilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from the intimate association noted earlier existing between the words ekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified by the phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewed in some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein the prototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).

Second, Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OT names for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact. Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people” (1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “the elect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).

Discontinuity between the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totally identical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes the relationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological (end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is a progression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor. 5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced by the fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel, without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter as Gentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Although the church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be the permanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).

The kingdom of God. Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping of the two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete. The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and the second aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the age to come has broken into this age, and now the two exist simultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because the church also exists in the tension that results from the overlapping of the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as the foreshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition: first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, the church is not equal to the kingdom of God.

The church and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after the resurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about the church. However, there are early signs of the church in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general, Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in that he gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted the beginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant. More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in two passages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesus promised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition, thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of the church overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that the kingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks the intimate association between the church and the kingdom. The second passage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlike the Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.

The church and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimately related as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does not equate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christians preached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g., Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is the instrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt. 16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church become the keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.

The eschatological temple of God. Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in the future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9; 1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he was going to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John 2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of the fulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited the church, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36). Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit in the Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; see also Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). How­ever, that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in the preceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for the church to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fully accomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In the meantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform their sacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).

The bride of Christ. The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (see Isa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied to Christ and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph. 5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia the official wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9; 21:1–2).

The body of Christ. The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to the Pauline literature and constitutes one of the most significant concepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph. 4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within the church, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body of Christ is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of the end time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage of the image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that the church, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to go spiritually. It is not yet complete.

Sacraments

At the heart of the expression of the church’s faith are the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The former symbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter provides spiritual sustenance for the church.

Baptism. Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Three observations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament. First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association of repentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipated Christian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance in expectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiah would exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesus as Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may be an allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes that lead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practiced baptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 // Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34; cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor. 1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). These passages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism is intimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the person with the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates the person into the community of believers.

Lord’s Supper. The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This rite symbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as it celebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblical data concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted by Christ (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of the Passover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introduced two changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened bread with a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; he replaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood on the cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early church practiced the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunction with the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). A twofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NT authors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways: participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’s Supper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination point of the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supper involves identification with the body of Christ, the community of faith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).

Worship

The ultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). The early church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James 2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met in homes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many Jewish Christians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, the established time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday, the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). The early church most probably patterned its order of worship after the synagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess. 1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col. 1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to the needy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9; James 2:15–17).

Service and Organization

Five observations emerge from the NT regarding the service and organization of the early church. First, the ministry of the church centers on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believers by God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good of others (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believer possesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third, it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christ matures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph. 4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership in the NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called “pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13), there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy” and the “laity” in the church of the first century; rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth, spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).

Human Freedom and Divine Freedom

The concept of freedom has three aspects, the first one being legal, or forensic. We are free to watch television, visit Alabama, and collect stamps. In other words, we may do these things because no law forbids them, and no forces deter us. The second aspect is potential, by which we are free to do something if we can actually do it, apart from the question of legality. In this sense, one is free to lift ten pounds but not ten thousand pounds. The third aspect is psychological, meaning that persons are free who can make up their own minds, unaffected by forces that flatly determine what they think and desire. Most people, therefore, enjoy substantial freedom, defined in these three ways. They can and may do all sorts of things, and they are mentally stable. Nevertheless, human freedom is relative, not absolute. We are not God.

God’s freedom differs from our own at all three levels described above. First, God makes the rules (forensic). Second, he has the power to do whatever he likes (potential). He always reigns and never is subject to anyone or anything. Likewise, third, although God cannot violate his own logical principles, no external forces determine what he thinks and does (psychological). Consequently, God is absolutely free, and human beings are not. We lack God’s power and knowledge, and we must live by his rules. In fact, even our thoughts and desires are shaped by external factors, all of which trace back to God himself. He fashions us in our mother’s womb, and he sovereignly ordains our life experiences, the very ones that affect our desires and character (Ps. 139). Thus, our personality types and preferences are assigned to us by circumstance, and we act upon them in a mildly deterministic way. Of course, the biblical writers do not regard these factors as operating coercively, so that we make no actual choices in what we approve, decide, and become. Otherwise, God would not bother to reveal himself and his will for our lives. We are not rigidly preprogrammed agents; but then again, we do not have God’s own kind of liberty.

Freedom and Determinism

Some critics of biblical theism might complain that a little determinism, in this sense, goes a long way toward depersonalizing human beings. If we live in the Christian world, the concern is, we must frankly and only refer to the prior causes of our actions and ignore their supposed rationales, since those causes threaten to override all other considerations. But some kind of determinism plays a role in any worldview that allows human behavior to be even fallibly predictable. A shallow rut is still a rut that we are in, and no plausible worldview can dodge this fact of experience. Furthermore, some worldviews leave no room at all for free human choices, even in the qualified sense that Christianity implies. Materialism (or naturalism) would fit this description because it reduces all events, including mental ones, to relentless physical processes. Within that system, human beings can no more choose to act than iron chooses to rust. It is no strike against a worldview that it entails some sort of determinism; the question is, rather, whether it leaves room for anything else.

In one sense, however, the biblical writers construe all of us as slaves. We live under the immediate (not ultimate) reign of sin and death, and we have been doing so ever since the events of Gen. 3. Joshua presupposes this sort of problem in telling the Israelites, “You are not able to serve the Lord,” never mind their vows to do so (Josh. 24:19). In Ps. 51:5 David confesses, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Accordingly, Jeremiah says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). One could argue that humanity’s captivity to sin is a background theme of the entire OT, and even one of its overall lessons. The apostle Paul, however, actually uses the human institution of slavery to illustrate how desperate the sinner’s condition really is outside of Christ (Rom. 5–6). The unbeliever, though able to choose not to do evil in any particular case, cannot be righteous before God. The believer can still choose to sin—this side of glory—but will not do so habitually and unrepentantly. Using the terms introduced above, we might say that unregenerate persons lack the potential and psychological freedom to please God consistently. They will not desire to do so, and they will not succeed, whatever their transient desires are. The believer enjoys both kinds of freedom, relative to the lost person, but not absolutely. Glorification itself must and will consolidate the change.

Religious Liberty

Finally, the Christian view of salvation requires us to affirm “religious” liberty, which is a legal idea. We do not support laws that push people into churches and out of mosques and temples, because we believe that adults should make these choices voluntarily. Indeed, one cannot receive Christ in any other way, because a coerced decision involves no actual trust in him and confidence in what he promises. Moreover, the Bible says that God himself enables the believer to trust Christ, and he does so through the preaching of his word (Rom. 10:14–15; 1 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 2:1–10). Arm-twisting has no place within this framework, given its attempt to manipulate what the Holy Spirit effects. Only on the day of judgment will God impose his will on humanity coercively (Phil. 2:10–11). Thus, while every person has the duty to obey God’s laws (Rom. 1–2), and though rejecting Christ compounds the sinner’s guilt (Heb. 2:2–3), we have no biblical warrant to believe that the church has God’s blessing to evangelize with red tape and rifles.

Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed of various materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Some altars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place. They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection or false worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

Old Testament

Noah and the patriarchs. The first reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after the flood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character of the mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’s resting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of the extra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3). They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizing self-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the human race.

Abram built altars “to the Lord” at places where God appeared and spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4, 18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with these altars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments or memorials of significant events. In association with Abram’s altars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord” (12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic procedures associated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation of priests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeeding generations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob (33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience, Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’s intervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9, 13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim, to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Moses and the tabernacle. In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gave Moses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26; cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (of sun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose natural stones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones, perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making this prohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6). Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps for the priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. The requirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern (Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the number representing the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Moses for the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?) and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenant bond created (24:6–8).

For the tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” was made (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden frames sheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was a ledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hung bronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles were slipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood was smeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in the courtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle. Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altar of incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10; 37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for it stood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle, “in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenant law,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from the holy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altar every morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedure and the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishings in Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense after speaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that the incense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb. 9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near the ark.

God, through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the Promised Land they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the other paraphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Age altars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altars and a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22 the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar” by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explained to the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica of the altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering of sacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary both expressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nation at this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In later narratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17), Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said to build altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and in fact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. The established custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in the nation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’s temple and rival worship centers. In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged to the “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple was made before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22, 54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that had been in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Although many of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in the first temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar in the Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They express the psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the place where God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rival altar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). An unnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’s desecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future (1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in the northern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and the other altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13). Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and the suppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of the Lord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars (1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls that of Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusive monotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

With regard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the time of Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on the Assyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front of the temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’s religious reform included the removal of the altars at the high places that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship (2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itself in his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father had destroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thus repeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’s reform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem (2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

In Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, the sacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). The altar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and a horn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on its eastern side for the use of the priests.

The second temple. The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with the express aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that the priests did was to build “the altar on its foundation” (i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed the altar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babylonians destroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because they wanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grant them protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophet Malachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that was manifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’s altar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

New Testament

In the NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings (e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of the book of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ (in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined as one who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’s altar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which he offered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument of Hebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritual calendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was not eaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is not required, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenly sanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation (6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altar of incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecuted people, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people of the earth.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

Justification is an important topic because of its relationship to Christian salvation and sanctification. The word “justification” occurs only five times in the Bible (NIV), but related words comprise significant themes in both Testaments. Part of the difficulty in the exposition of “justification” is English terminology. English has two word groups that express the same conceptual range for single word groups in Hebrew and Greek. So in addition to words related to justification, such as “justly,” “just,” and the very important verb “to justify,” no discussion can avoid the terms “righteous” and “righteousness.” Care must also be exercised in allowing the biblical texts to determine word meaning, since both “justice” and “righteousness” terminology can have contemporary connotations foreign to the biblical texts.

Justification is often related to a legal setting in both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, with its judge, defendant, evidence, criteria for evaluating the evidence, verdicts, and the implications of verdicts. This is a good word picture for justification and is used in the Bible itself. As long as the legal picture is extended to everyday affairs, moral and ethical concerns, and different criteria for evidence evaluation, it is a fine starting point for understanding the doctrine of justification.

Common and Extraordinary Justification

The salvific importance of justification has greatly shaped the exposition that follows. Justification has been somewhat awkwardly divided into common and extraordinary justification, with the latter bearing a significant relationship to the doctrine of salvation. The former is discussed only briefly in OT and NT paragraphs. In common justification, a person’s works or deeds are judged according to a standard of righteousness. Righteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “righteous.” Unrighteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “unrighteous.” Extraordinary justification occurs when an unrighteous person or deed is judged and given the verdict “righteous” by some supernatural intervention.

Common justification in the OT may be described in various contexts: (1) in comparative or relative righteousness between humans (e.g., Gen. 38:26; Ezek. 16:51–52); (2) in specific or concrete situations with God as judge (e.g., 2 Chron. 6:23: “Judge between your servants, condemning the guilty and bringing down on their heads what they have done, and vindicating the innocent by treating them in accordance with their innocence”; (3) in specific or concrete situations with a human as judge (e.g., Deut. 25:1: “When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty”); (4) in giving justice (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:4; cf. Ps. 82:3); (5) in proving correct or right (e.g., Ps. 51:4; Isa. 43:9).

Extraordinary justification is much rarer in the OT. A possible example is Dan. 8:14, where in a vision the sanctuary is desecrated and after a time “will be reconsecrated” or, in other terms, “will be justified holy.” It seems quite unusual that the unholy “is justified” as holy. In Isa. 45:25 we find the promise that “in the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified” (ESV). Another verse declares that Yahweh’s “righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11). The need for extraordinary justification and the deficiency of ordinary justification is clear in Ps. 143:1–2: “Lord, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you” (cf. Job 4:17; 25:4). The last phrase might be translated “no person will be justified before you” and is cited by the apostle Paul in Gal. 2:16 (cf. Rom. 3:20).

In the NT, there are fewer references to common justification than in the OT and a much greater development of extraordinary justification, predominantly in the Pauline letters (for similar concepts in different terms, see, e.g., “kingdom of God” in the Synoptic Gospels or “eternal life” in the Gospel of John). Common justification in the NT may be described in various contexts: (1) in a specific situation with a human or God as judge and a person’s behavior as the object of judgment (e.g., Luke 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:3–4; perhaps Luke 10:29; 18:9–14); (2) when “wisdom is proved right,” meaning vindicated by the results (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35); (3) in the release from demands no longer binding (Rom. 6:7; cf. 1 Cor. 6:1); (4) in being proved morally right in fullness (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. Rom. 3:4).

Paul and Justification

Extraordinary justification in the NT is characteristic of the apostle Paul. Luke’s report of Paul’s synagogue sermon in Pisidian Antioch concludes with a brief overview of extraordinary justification (Acts 13:38–39). Paul proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through Jesus. Every person trusting in Jesus is being justified “from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (NKJV). The forgiveness of sins leads to the verdict “innocent” even though sinners apart from Christ are guilty before God of their unrighteous deeds.

In Gal. 2:16 the verb “justify” is used three times: (1) “a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”; (2) “we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law”; (3) “by the works of the law no one will be justified.” The statements may be paraphrased in the active voice (expressing the implied subject) as in the following: (1) God is justifying a person not by works of Mosaic law, but by trust in Jesus Christ; (2) God justified us by trust in Christ, not by works of Mosaic law; (3) God will justify no person by works of Mosaic law. In Gal. 2:16, God is the subject, the agent who justifies (cf. 3:8; Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33). The basis of justification is faith in Christ, not works of the Mosaic law. The meaning of the verb “justify” may be discerned from the context. This justification is related to the gospel (e.g., Gal. 2:14) and to receiving the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14), and the verdict of “righteous” for the person trusting in Jesus (Gal. 2:21; cf. 3:6, 11; 5:5; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Justification and righteousness are important themes in Paul’s letter to the Romans. At the beginning of the letter, Paul declares that he is not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to all who believe. In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith (Rom. 1:16–17). Paul argues in Rom. 1:18–3:20, a section abounding with righteousness language, that all humanity, Gentile and Jew, is under the power of sin (3:10), that no one is righteous (e.g., 3:10–18). All are subject to condemnation (i.e., the declaration of “guilty” and “unrighteous” [cf. 5:16]) rather than justification (i.e., the declaration of “innocent” and “righteous”). No human will be justified before God by works of the law; the law provides knowledge of sin (3:20).

The state resulting from this unrighteousness and sin is God’s wrath (e.g., Rom. 1:18). It is into this situation, this sad state of affairs where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that the righteousness of God, God’s saving activity long anticipated in the OT, is revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (3:21; 10:3). This righteousness is from God (3:22), a righteousness not related to human fulfillment of Mosaic law or righteousness of one’s own (Rom. 3:21; 9:31–32; 10:4; Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Eph. 2:8–9). This righteousness comes from God by trust in Christ (Rom. 3:22; 5:1; 9:30; 10:10; Phil. 3:9). By trust in Christ, God justifies each human in his freely given grace, whereby the human is redeemed from unrighteousness and sin (Rom. 3:24).

The death of Jesus is the sacrifice of atonement by which forgiveness of sins is accomplished and made effectual in the human when one trusts in Jesus’ sacrifice (Rom. 3:25). This sacrifice demonstrates God’s righteousness (3:26) because he justly judges human sin in Jesus. The one who had no sin of his own became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 5:6, 8; 1 Cor. 15:3). In merciful forbearance, God passes over sins previously committed, delaying the execution of his justice, that he might justify the ungodly person who trusts in Jesus’ person and work (Rom. 3:26; cf. 4:5). This justification is of a different nature than ordinary righteousness on the human level or of the kind that can be obtained by observing the Mosaic law. In this extraordinary justification, God reckons a human innocent of sin and righteous by trust and apart from works of Mosaic law (3:28). Both Jew and Gentile are reckoned righteous under the same condition: trust in Jesus (3:29–30).

Although the revelation of the person and work of Jesus the Messiah was relatively new at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Paul emphasizes in Rom. 4 that this idea of justification by trust and not by works goes back to the forefather of the Jews, Abraham. Quoting Gen. 15:6, Paul demonstrates from Scripture that trust, not works, was the basis of extraordinary justification: Abraham believes God, and it is credited to him as righteousness. God justifies Abraham (i.e., God credits righteousness to Abraham) on the basis of Abraham’s trust in God. Paul also cites most of Ps. 32:1–2, from a Davidic psalm, to further demonstrate the consistency of justification by faith with previous revelation. In this quotation the crediting of righteousness apart from works is related to the forgiveness of transgression, where the verdict of the guilty becomes “innocent.” “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Extraordinary justification of unrighteous sinners leads to the twofold verdict: innocent and righteous.

Titus 3:3–6 expresses the same doctrine of extraordinary justification. Humanity is under sin when Jesus appears. God saves in his mercy through Jesus, not on the basis of righteous human works. This saving activity is equivalent to being justified by Jesus’ grace (3:7).

James and Justification

There are three references to justification in James 2:14–26, which appear at first glance to contradict extraordinary justification as presented by Paul. In support of the claim that faith without deeds is useless (James 2:20), two questions are asked: Was not Abraham considered righteous for what he did, and was not Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did (i.e., justified by works) (2:21, 25)? James 2:24 rephrases this as a proposition: a person is justified by what he or she does, not by faith alone. The context of 2:14–26 demonstrates that although the terms “faith,” “works,” and “justification” are the same as Paul’s, they have different meanings for James. Faith appears in this passage as mere knowledge (2:19), without any implications for living (2:14–18). For Paul, faith is a radical commitment of trust that submits one’s entire life under the lordship of Christ, something much different from the mere belief portrayed as faith by James. Deeds or works in the James passage are the concrete manifestations of what one believes (2:18). Works in the Pauline justification passages are set in opposition to trust in the person and work of the Lord Jesus. Outside of the justification context, Paul is an advocate of works properly related to faith, righteousness, and holiness (e.g., Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:3; cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:1–23; 8:4; 12:1–2). Justification is also different. Pauline justification most commonly relates to the extraordinary justification of declaring unrighteous sinners “innocent” and “righteous” based on trust in Christ. Justification in James has greater ties to common justification, focusing on the righteousness of a specific act at a specific time.

Other Views on Justification

Shortly after the age of the apostles, the doctrine of justification was deemphasized in many circles of church life in favor of a more moralistic system. One group has repeatedly argued for centuries that justification infuses righteousness into the believer, and then the believer must do good works to complete justification. This conception fails to differentiate between sanctification and justification and also misrepresents justification. In justification God declares the believer innocent and righteous, forgiving sin by means of Christ’s sacrifice and imputing Christ’s righteousness to the believer. This is not “legal fiction,” since justification has past, present, and future aspects (Rom. 3:30; 8:30–34; Gal. 2:16; 5:5). Believers have been, are being, and will be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. Recently, some have claimed that justification is related exclusively to the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God without “works of the law,” racial and national identity markers (e.g., circumcision or food laws). Among the weaknesses of this view, the key one is that both Jew and Gentile are in need of extraordinary justification (Rom. 3:9, 19–20, 23–26, 30; 9:30–10:13; Gal. 2:15–3:14).

The Aramaic translation of Ps. 22:1, which Jesus cried out on the cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), meaning, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus may have continued on and quoted the rest of the psalm. The Gospel writers, in any case, pattern part of their account of the crucifixion on elements of Ps. 22.

How is it that God forsakes Jesus, or forsakes at all? Verses such as Josh. 1:5, where God promises to “never forsake,” tend to get more attention than God’s threats to abandon. Speaking through Azariah to Asa in 2 Chron. 15:2, God made his presence conditional and warned that he would forsake Asa if Asa forsook him. In Jer. 23:33 God is forthright: “I will forsake you, declares the Lord.” So, what does it mean for God to be with or to forsake someone? The promise to Joshua was that God would give him success in the task of conquering Canaan (Josh. 1:5; cf. 6:27; 14:12), and even for Joshua the promise was conditional (7:12). A principal meaning of God being with someone is that God will give that person success in a task. In the OT, when God is said to abandon an individual, it refers to a task or role, not absolute abandonment from relationship. David knew that God had abandoned King Saul (1 Sam. 15:26; 16:14, 23; 18:12; 28:16). So after his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, David pled with God, “Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me” (Ps. 51:11). His plea was that he might retain his role as king.

Psalm 22 presents a question, not a prophetic declaration, but the psalmist’s perception depends on the idea that God can forsake him. The psalm is Davidic and certainly applies to the royal line and extends to Jesus. When on the cross, Jesus had been left by God to the devices of his foes. The agonizing question and the following description of affliction as well as the confidence of being heard by God are fitting for the Davidic heir on the cross.

The Aramaic translation of Ps. 22:1, which Jesus cried out on the cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), meaning, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus may have continued on and quoted the rest of the psalm. The Gospel writers, in any case, pattern part of their account of the crucifixion on elements of Ps. 22.

How is it that God forsakes Jesus, or forsakes at all? Verses such as Josh. 1:5, where God promises to “never forsake,” tend to get more attention than God’s threats to abandon. Speaking through Azariah to Asa in 2 Chron. 15:2, God made his presence conditional and warned that he would forsake Asa if Asa forsook him. In Jer. 23:33 God is forthright: “I will forsake you, declares the Lord.” So, what does it mean for God to be with or to forsake someone? The promise to Joshua was that God would give him success in the task of conquering Canaan (Josh. 1:5; cf. 6:27; 14:12), and even for Joshua the promise was conditional (7:12). A principal meaning of God being with someone is that God will give that person success in a task. In the OT, when God is said to abandon an individual, it refers to a task or role, not absolute abandonment from relationship. David knew that God had abandoned King Saul (1 Sam. 15:26; 16:14, 23; 18:12; 28:16). So after his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, David pled with God, “Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me” (Ps. 51:11). His plea was that he might retain his role as king.

Psalm 22 presents a question, not a prophetic declaration, but the psalmist’s perception depends on the idea that God can forsake him. The psalm is Davidic and certainly applies to the royal line and extends to Jesus. When on the cross, Jesus had been left by God to the devices of his foes. The agonizing question and the following description of affliction as well as the confidence of being heard by God are fitting for the Davidic heir on the cross.

(1) The prophet Nathan was consulted by David when he contemplated building a temple to house the ark (2 Sam. 7). Without consulting God, Nathan encouraged David in this laudable project, suggesting that in the prophet’s mind the project was so obviously right (acknowledging as it did God’s supreme kingship over the nation) that there was no need to ask God. However, an unexpected divine refusal came that same night. A divine speech, long by biblical narrative standards (twelve verses), was required to explain the baffling divine refusal. The problem with the project was that the time was not ripe (2 Sam. 7:11; cf. 7:1), for David still had battles to fight.

Nathan reappears in biblical narrative in 2 Sam. 12, sent by God to rebuke David for taking Bathsheba (this confrontation is alluded to in the superscription of Ps. 51). These interventions of Nathan came at David’s high point and low point. Nathan’s parable about the “little ewe lamb” caused David to incriminate himself and pronounce his own sentence. David, on his immediate repentance, was forgiven (v. 13), but the rest of his reign was the working out of the punishment pronounced by Nathan: “The sword will never depart from your house” (v. 10). Nathan predicted the death of the son born from the illicit union (v. 14). Later, God sent word through Nathan that a second son, Solomon, was to be named “Jedidiah” (“loved by the Lord”) (v. 25; see NIV footnote). Nathan, in collusion with Bathsheba, took Solomon’s part in the competition for the throne (1 Kings 1). Nathan and the priest Zadok anointed Solomon king at Gihon (1 Kings 1:45). He also had a role in David’s ordering of the Levites (2 Chron. 29:25). Nathan is the reputed author of a book of chronicles about David’s reign (1 Chron. 29:29) and a history about Solomon’s (2 Chron. 9:29).

Presumably, the Nathan of 1 Kings 4:5 is the prophet, whose son Azariah was in charge of Solomon’s district officers. Zabud, another son, was a priest (here this refers to a chief officer) and personal adviser (cf. Hushai’s role in 2 Sam. 15:37) under Solomon. There is mention of “the house of Nathan” as still prominent in the postexilic period (Zech. 12:12).

(2) A son of David, born in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chron. 3:5; 14:4), he is in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:31). (3) The father of Igal, one of David’s thirty mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:36). (4) A Judahite, the son of Attai and father of Zabad (1 Chron. 2:36). (5) The brother of Joel, one of David’s mighty warriors (1 Chron. 11:38). (6) One of the leaders enlisted by Ezra to seek Levites willing to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:16). (7) One of the men who were guilty of taking a foreign wife during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:39).

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).

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 concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

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.

Typically associated with glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14) and purity (Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4), white is a color worn by both angels (Mark 16:2; John 20:12; Acts 1:10) and heavenly saints (Rev. 7:9). On skin, however, white is abnormal, indicating a skin disease (Exod. 4:6; Lev. 13:3–4). Snow is often used in similes or comparisons to depict the color white (Exod. 4:6; Num. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27; Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Dan. 7:9; Matt. 28:3; Rev. 1:14). See also Colors.