Sermon and Worship Resources

Galatians 4:21-31 · Hagar and Sarah

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." 31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Exit and Entrance

Galatians 4:21-31

Sermon
by Maxie Dunnam

It was in the newspaper back in the late 1950’s, at the height of the civil rights movement - an unforgettable picture which captured not only the emotion of one man, but the deep sense of freedom and joy and release and affirmation of a whole people. A black man, who must have been over 100 years old, was being carried on the shoulders of a group of young men. They were taking him up the steps of a courthouse in a Southern town to register to vote. The caption beneath the picture said he was born a slave.

To a marked degree, he had remained a slave, even after the Emancipation Proclamation. Unable to vote, subjected to the rigid discriminatory demands and tests of others, he was kept in subjection, but now he was free; and the look on his face showed his joy. He was going to express his freedom, his release from the humiliation of being a second—class citizen by registering to vote. That man could have understood Paul’s word in our scripture lesson today. In fact, he and others like him, sang often during those days: “Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty I’m free at last.”

In our scripture lesson Paul was pleading with the Galatians to accept the freedom that was theirs, and not be reshackled in the bondage of law.

Verse 1 of Chapter 5 is the text of our message today: “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

This verse is really the conclusion of the last eleven verses of chapter 4, which we read as our scripture lesson. Let’s look at those verses in order to get the full impact of our text.

To grasp allegorical meaning, we need to rehearse the story from Genesis 16, 17, and 21. Sarah and Abraham were without children. They were getting old; Sarah far too old to bear children. She did what any wife would have done in that social/cultural context. She had Abraham go to her slave girl, Hagar, in order for Hagar to bear a child for her. Hagar bore a son named Ishmael. Then the unbelievable happened. God came to Sarah and promised her a child. Though apparently impossible, Sarah, then over ninety years old, bore the promised son and he was named Isaac.

Paul emphasizes the point that Ishmael was born of the ordinary human impulses – of the flesh – while Isaac was a result of God’s intervention.

An allegory is much more than an illustration. It is a spiritual truth embodied in historical events. Paul, uses this bit of significant history to teach a great lesson. He pleads with his “dear children” to “hear the law” and let the law teach them that the true children of Abraham, the true inheritors of the Promise, are not those whose bond of union is the law, but those who have been set spiritually free by the grace of Jesus Christ.

This is the point Paul makes throughout this Galatian letter. Salvation is the Grace-Gift of God. We are not worthy of it. We cannot earn it. We’re justified with God by God’s Grace, and our faith-response to that grace. In the cross, Jesus has purchased our pardon, doing for us what we could never do ourselves.

From this point on in the Galatian letter, Paul enunciates the practical implications of the Gospel. Christian liberty is not a license to keep on sinning. To receive salvation is to begin a process of working out that salvation in our lives. Thus this pivotal verse on which we concentrate this morning:

“Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

Dramatic contrasts shine through the allegory. Hagar is a slave, Sarah is free. Two covenants flow from them. Hagar represents the Covenant of Law and corresponds to the present Jerusalem. Sarah represents the Covenant of Promise and corresponds to the Jerusalem on high.

Paul saw the present (earthly) Jerusalem as the center of a religion and of bondage where God was shut up in the Temple. Worship of God had ceased to be spiritual worship and had become scrupulous observance of legal enactments.

So, today, we look at the nature of that freedom which is given us by Christ in order to understand, appropriate, and celebrate what it is all about. Those two perspectives are “exit” and “entrance.”

Let’s look first from the perspective of exit.

If you’re taking notes, put down two words that capture what we see and experience when we look at freedom from the exit perspective: release and reconciliation.

The freedom Paul is talking about, the freedom given by Christ, is first the freedom of release. We will never understand the full impact of this meaning of Christian freedom unless we understand the encompassing nature of sin and evil. Paul knew that sin had not alone affected human nature, reducing us to slaves of our passions, but it also affected the whole universe. The whole “creation groaneth in travail”, he said the Romans (8:22). God had to do something of cosmic significance. What He did — the gift of Himself in His Son on the cross - revealed the suffering heart of God. From Adam on, sin has inflicted pain in the heart of God because sin had the whole universe in its grip.

Humans, and all creation, are in bondage to sin until God’s gift of grace, His crucified Son, is received in faith to release us.

It is expressed poignantly by Saul Kane in John Masefield’s incomparable poem, The Everlasting Mercy. The poem tells the story of Saul Kane’s conversion. Reflecting on it, Kane says,

I did not think, I did not strive
the deep peace burnt my me alive;
The bolted door had broke in,
I knew that I had done with sin.
I knew that Christ had given me birth
to brother all the souls on earth.
(John Masefield, Poems by John Masefield McMillan Company, New York, 1962, p. 118)

The freedom Paul is talking about, the freedom given by Christ is a glorious release from the enslaving power of sin, but not only the freedom of release, it is the freedom of reconciliation.

Is there a greater bondage than being shut up in one’s self, being shut off from another, or being estranged from God? Above all else, Paul sees the work of Christ as a work of reconciliation.

Do you remember that powerful word in I Corinthians 5:19? “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” That’s what we see as the core of freedom when we look from the exit perspective – reconciliation. We were made for friendship and fellowship with God. By disobedience and rebellion we ended up alienated with God. Through Christ’s death, the severed relationship between persons and God is restored.

Then we become ministers of reconciliation. What reconciliation means and how we are ministers of reconciliation is dramatically shared in a story by Don Shelby. He said it happened 25 years ago, but was as new this morning as the waves that washed the beach where he wrote about it. A young mother of two children had been shopping, and a drunken driver lost control of his car. The car jumped the curb and pinned this woman against the wall of a building, crushing her legs so completely that they finally had to be amputated. Her husband was insane with anger, and wanted, with his bare hands, to even that score with the driver who had been jailed. During those months when the driver was in jail, the young woman lay in the hospital, enduring untold suffering. When the driver was finally released from prison, he came to the hospital and asked to see the woman. Outside the door, he met the husband. Had Don Shelby, not been there, the tragedy would have been compounded.

Don was in the room with the woman when the man arrived, and they heard the encounter that was taking place outside, and knew that violence was at hand. The woman insisted that Don go and convince her husband to come in when he did, the hospitalized woman begged her husband to allow the driver to enter.

The husband finally agreed, and the man slowly approached her bed. He hesitated, but she beckoned him to come nearer. As he reached her bed, he broke down with uncontrolled sobbing: “Oh, my God, can you ever forgive me?” he cried. “Please forgive me. I would give anything to change places with you. Oh, can you forgive me?”

The woman extended her hand to touch his arm, and said, “I forgave you long ago, and one day my husband will find it in his heart to forgive you. Please don’t torture your soul. God has forgiven you. He promised us that in Jesus Christ. He will help you as He has helped me. Let’s pray together.”

Describing what happened, Don Shelby said, “A great silence followed, out of which real prayer often arises. God drew near in the choking plea of the driver, and in the loving benediction from the woman who lay without her legs in the bed. A glorious reconciliation took place – a reconciliation of an anguished soul with God – and a soul ravaged with guilt and shame with the person responsible.

Our Lord said, “Forgive and you will be forgiven.” When we forgive in that fashion, the Kingdom breaks open with a peace that passes all human understanding. That’s what reconciliation is all about. That’s the ultimate meaning of the freedom Christ gives: To be reconciled.

Listen friends, if there is anyone from whom you feel estranged, if you are burdened by the awful feeling that you are separated from God or some other person, if you are holding a grudge, or bearing a great burden of guild for some sin or failure, you have not yet claimed the full grave available to you through Christ and his cross.

Release and reconciliation is what we see from the exit perspective of freedom and that release and reconciliation can be claimed by all of you.

III

Again, if you are taking notes, put down two words that capture what we see and experience when we look at freedom from the perspective of: birthright and belonging.

Not only is Christ’s freedom that of release and reconciliation gives us a new vision. That new vision enables us to see our true birthright, and to experience belonging.

Freedom is birthright. Later on in verse 13 of the 5th chapter, Paul said, “For you have been called to liberty”. There is a freedom that belongs to all persons because they’re human beings.

The Declaration of Independence says that freedom is from God and endows us with certain inalienable rights. The United Nations has made a “declaration of human rights” that expresses a basic ideal of freedom for all people. So, there is a liberty that is our birthright, but there is also a level of freedom that is uniquely Christian – the internal freedom of the spirit that enables us to live with dignity and meaning even in the midst of suppression and oppression.

I never will forget an evening in 1979 I spent with three Christian couples, in a hotel room in China. They had not had any Christian literature or Bible for over fifteen years. The Red Guard had searched their homes and had burned their Bibles and books. Corporate worship had been outlawed, churches were turned into factories, warehouses, schools, museums and shops. The depression in the couples was obvious, but it took only minutes to realize that deep within them there flowed a quiet stream of strength. Their spirits were quickened and light and joy came into their eyes as we shared Scripture together, sang, and prayed. Tears came freely to their eyes and to ours as they shared their faith with us. I felt as though I were back in the first century. The hotel room became a catacomb for me, and I knew that these precious people, despite the bondage of their circumstance, had retained the freedom with which Christ had set them free. They knew their birthright.

Belonging is the next word, the next dimension of freedom as entrance.

Alistar MacLean tells of a lady in the West Highlands who lived a hard life, yet a life of perpetual serenity. When she was asked the secret of it, she answered: “My secret is to stay awake and always to keep my heart in port.” That’s the secret of Christian serenity and freedom, to stay aware of the fact that wherever we are, whatever circumstance, we belong to Christ. In our sea of life, we have a home port which is God’s love. And, because we belong to Christ, we belong to each other.

There are many memorable scenes in Alex Haley’s book, Roots. One of the most memorable is the night when Kunta Kinte drove his master to a ball at a big plantation house. Kunta Kinte, you will remember, was the great, great, great, great grandfather of Alex Haley who had been brought here on a slave ship. Kunta Kinte heard the music from inside the house, music from the white folk’s dance. He parked the buggy and settled down to wait out the long night of his master’s revelry. As he sat in the buggy, he heard music coming from the slave’s quarters — the little cabins behind the big house. It was a different music, a music with a different rhythm. Without thinking about what he was doing, he found himself almost running down the path toward those cabins. There he found a man playing African music, his music, which he remembered hearing in Africa as a child —the music he’d almost forgotten. Kunta Kinte found that the man was from his section of Africa. They talked excitedly, in his native language, of home and the things of home.

That night, after returning from the dance, Kunta Kinte went home changed. He lay upon the dirt floor of his little cabin and in sadness that he had almost forgotten, weeping in joy that he had at last remembered. The terrifying, degrading experience of slavery had almost obliterated his memory of who he was. But the music had helped him remember. I pray that there’s enough music left in your soul to help you remember who you are as Christians, and if you’re not a Christian, that the music will be a call to you — a call to freedom, which means release and reconciliation, which means a birthright, a birth right that can never be taken away from you a sense of belonging that will carry you through life with confidence and hope.

ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Sermons, by Maxie Dunnam

Overview and Insights · Scriptural Appeal: Children of the Free Woman (4:21–31)

Paul once again uses Scripture to counter the false gospel and persuade the Galatians. He applies the story of Abraham and his two wives, Hagar and Sarah, typologically or “figuratively” to make a spiritual point (4:24). The two women represent two covenants. The Jews were physical descen…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Galatians 4:21-31 · Hagar and Sarah

Commentary · An Allegorical Appeal

His final appeal has perplexed many commentators. The use of the historical narrative concerning Hagar and Sarah coupled with the prophetic utterance of Isaiah (Isa. 54:1) appears to make Paul guilty of some specious scriptural interpretation. This may be an instance when our lack of specific acquaintance with all the dynamics of the Galatian situation hinders our ability to understand. (Possibly Paul’s approach discredits interpretations offered by the opponents?)

The “allegory” (4:24; NIV “figuratively”) stresses the main points of Paul’s previous arguments and thus stands as a good, if somewhat ironic, summation of the opponents’ errors. Utilizing an incident revolving around Abraham (likely one of the opponents’ favorite figures because of the institution of circumcision), Paul shows that, like the covenants of law and grace, Hagar and Sarah can be compared (literally “stand in the same line”) yet have some very different characteristics:

Hagar vs. Sarah

slave woman vs. free woman

son, physically born vs. son, born according to promise

Mount Sinai (old covenant) vs. (new covenant)

present Jerusalem, enslaved vs. Jerusalem above, free

The major difference between the two is of “kind,” not circumstance. Paul appears to be relying on the Galatians’ acquaintance with the historical narrative to point out the major factors in the story. One factor, which is unstated but certainly in view, is that the Hagar incident was not a necessary part of God’s plan and had not been included in the promise to Abraham (see Genesis 16). So also, the covenantal promises to Abraham had not included the law (which he already stated to have become necessary only because of human sin; see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20). Thus, rather than being discontinuous with the promises of Abraham, the gospel of grace is fully aligned with those original promises. As if to further enhance the point, Paul recites a prophecy of Isaiah concerning Israel’s restoration from the captivity of Babylon (Isa. 54:1). While the Israelites were few in number then (as the Gentile Christians are, relative to Jewish believers, at the time of writing), miraculous, God-ordained growth was promised.

Finally, then, as in their situation, the son under slavery persecuted the son of promise (Gal. 4:29). The opponents are clearly portrayed as operating outside the covenantal promises of God. Sarah’s statement in Genesis 21:10 conveniently allows Paul to imply not only that the opponents’ position should be rejected but also that the opponents themselves should be cast out (4:30), since the enslaved cannot inherit the promises with the free. Paul indicates that rather than being seen as second-class citizens of the Mosaic covenant, the Galatian Gentile Christians have been fully accepted as children and heirs (they are Isaac; 4:28; see Gal. 3:7) of the Abrahamic covenant.

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

4:21 Paul’s tone changes somewhat at this point, turning from a personal appeal back to an argument from Scripture (cf. 3:6–9) and to teaching what he and the Galatian believers already have in Christ. Paul begins with a direct address, Tell me, you who want to be under the law. The wording of the question critiques their desire, for Paul presents the law as something under which people are held.

The passage beginning in this verse and extending to 5:1 works with several themes that have already been introduced: giving birth (3:19), slavery (3:8), freedom (3:25), Abraham (3:6–8, 16–18, 29), the promise (3:14, 18, 21–22, 29), sonship (4:5–7), a covenant (cf. 3:15), persecution of believers in Christ by Jews (1:13), and inheritance (3:18; 4:1–7).

Themes and features from Genesis 21 appear in Galatians 4:21–5:1—Abraham, Abraham’s wife, Hagar, the two sons, promise, inheritance, and the quotation from Genesis 21:10. Other themes from the Genesis text appear in the rest of the letter—circumcision, the legitimate offspring. The fact that Paul has worked indirectly with Genesis 21 throughout the letter and now deals with it head on suggests that it has been a key text for the circumcisers’ argument. The Galatians were Gentiles and so would not have known much of the Jewish writings unless they had been taught them in the context of their new religion. That Genesis 21 is so central to the letter, both implicitly and explicitly, suggests that Paul feels constrained to respond to an interpretation of it being promulgated by the rival evangelists.

The twice-repeated phrase “for it is written” (vv. 22, 27) and the question “but what does the Scripture say?” (v. 30) indicate that now Paul takes his primary task to be scriptural interpretation. He faces the challenge of undoing the rival evangelists’ interpretation of the passage, which most likely made more plain sense than the one he presents. This may be why he speaks of his interpretation as figurative (4:24). The rival evangelists could point to Genesis 21 in support of their argument that inheriting the promise of Abraham entailed circumcision. Only Isaac, the circumcised son, carries on Abraham’s line.

4:22–23 Paul launches into an interpretation of the scriptural passage that the troublemakers had been using to promote their cause. He begins by noting that Abraham had two sons and that the difference between these two sons is that one was by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. He then moves to his figurative interpretation by explaining that the son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. In the Greek the phrase “born in the ordinary way” is “born according to the flesh (sarx).” While the Genesis text does understand Isaac to be the child of God’s promise (Gen. 21:1–3) Paul’s description of Ishmael as “born according to the flesh” goes beyond contrasting Isaac’s special birth with the normal birth of Ishmael. In the context of this passage, which uses dualistic categories, Paul’s use of “flesh” puts a particular slant on the story, casting the rivalry between Sarah and Hagar and Isaac and Ishmael in terms of the enmity between the promise or the Spirit (cf. 3:14) and the flesh, which is opposed to the Spirit (see esp. 5:16–25).

Paul’s reference to “promise” alludes to a concept that he and his readers agree is a good thing. The Galatians wish to be assured of receiving the promise of Abraham, and Paul builds a case that his gospel has secured the promise.

4:24–25 Paul takes the allegory further by speaking of the two women as two covenants. This clearly goes well beyond Genesis, but Paul has admitted that he speaks figuratively. He equates Hagar with Mount Sinai. In doing so he also says that this covenant bears children who are to be slaves, emphasizing this by stating that Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land in which Ishmael, the child of the slave woman, settled (Gen. 26:18). Whereas Judaism stresses the privilege that comes from the law, Paul here uses the Jewish Scriptures to say the opposite: the Jewish covenant enslaves. Going on with his allegory, Paul states that there is a correspondence between Hagar (i.e., Mount Sinai) and the present city of Jerusalem, a city in slavery with her children. The word corresponds (systoicheō) is built on the same root as the word translated “basic principles” in 4:3 and 9. It means “stand in the same line.” Paul’s point is that the Galatian congregation chose the wrong line to stand in when they agreed to be influenced by the present Jerusalem.

In Galatians the word covenant appears only here and in Paul’s illustration in Galatians 3:15–17. The word is especially fitting in the context of dealing with the Abraham tradition, for in the Septuagint the same word appears in the story of God establishing his covenant with Abraham and requiring from Abraham circumcision (Gen. 17:7–14).

Paul’s statement concerning two covenants would have been shocking to Jewish sensibilities. First, while the Jewish tradition held that God had made several covenants with Israel, among them the covenant with Noah, the covenant with Abraham, the covenant with Moses, covenants with Josiah and Nehemiah, the covenant with David, and the promise of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31–4; see also Rom. 9:4, which has the word “covenant” in the plural), these events were understood within the broad category of the Jewish religion as a religion of the covenant. In Judaism there was one covenant, just as for Paul there was only one gospel. Second, Paul argues that there is a covenant that does not require circumcision. For Jews the word covenant was almost synonymous with circumcision (see particularly Gen. 17:10).

4:26 The name and symbol of Jerusalem appear to have had a strategic position in the rhetoric of the rival evangelists and of Paul (see esp. 1:13–2:21). The troublemakers were no doubt claiming that the authority of the Jerusalem church stood behind their gospel. Paul is willing to concede that his opponents may have the present Jerusalem on their side, but he asserts that he too can claim the backing of Jerusalem—the Jerusalem that is above, that is free, that is our mother.

Paul assures his readers that they already have all they need through faith in Christ when he supplements the metaphor of a son inheriting the father’s will with the image of the “Jerusalem above” as the mother of believers. The statement is a simple declarative one in which Paul states what he considers to be a fact: his converts have been born from the free woman, which is to say that they are the ones “born as the result of a promise” (4:23). It follows that the Galatians should stop seeking the promise through the present Jerusalem, which can offer only the inheritance of slavery (cf. 4:24–5).

4:27 Paul supports his interpretation with a quotation from the Septuagint of Isaiah 54:1. Even though in Genesis it is Hagar, not Sarah, who is unmarried, Sarah is the referent for the barren woman. The “Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” is also a reference to Sarah (v. 26).

The quotation uses the imperative mood, commanding the “barren woman” to break forth and cry aloud. As Paul has just stated that he and his converts share the Jerusalem above as their mother (4:26), he may be using this text to encourage his readers to recognize and participate in rejoicing over the miraculous birth that is theirs. The underlying theme of who is a legitimate child, which has surfaced at various places in the letter (e.g., 3:29–4:7), is again in evidence. While the agitators maybe characterizing the Galatians’ mother as unmarried and the Galatians as illegitimate children, Paul is saying that their mother has received her promise of numerous children, and they should see themselves as part of the fulfillment of that promise.

Since Paul has earlier spoken of himself as birthing the Galatians (4:19), he may be employing the quotation from Isaiah to refer also to himself. He is shouting forth that his children are the children of the promise.

4:28 Paul states his meaning plainly. The allegorical utterance of Scripture can be applied directly to the Galatians: they, like Isaac, are children of promise. Paul’s interpretive boldness in declaring that his uncircumcised converts are kin to Isaac, who was circumcised on the eight day (Gen. 21:4), is in line with his conviction that his gospel and his converts manifest the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.

4:29 Continuing to apply the scriptural story to the current situation—it is the same now—Paul makes the point that Ishmael (the son born in the ordinary way) persecuted Isaac (the son born by the power of the Spirit). The contrast of the child born in the ordinary way and the one born by the power of the Spirit resonates with the contrast Paul set up in 4:23, although there the second child was “born as the result of a promise.”

The Genesis story contains no reference to Ishmael persecuting Isaac or to the Spirit, but Paul is applying the text of Scripture to the text of life. Having identified his readers with Isaac, he maintains that they are being persecuted by Ishmael, who in Paul’s mind likely corresponds primarily to the Jewish Christian troublemakers and perhaps secondarily to Jews in general (4:24–5). As is clear from 4:17, Paul understands the influence of the rival evangelists on his converts as a form of harassment.

Paul sets up a parallelism here with the previous statement, so that “children of promise” are equated with the son born “according to the power of the Spirit.” This is typical of the correspondence Paul makes throughout the letter between the promise and the Spirit (e.g., 3:14). In the remainder of Galatians the focus will shift from the promise to an increasing attention on the Spirit.

4:30 Paul cites Sarah’s expression of distress over whether Ishmael might be included in the inheritance (Gen. 21:10). As Paul has made it plain that he is using the Scripture in direct reference to the Galatians’ own circumstances, his question what does the Scripture say? implicitly includes the words “to us.” Paul takes Sarah’s command that Hagar and Ishmael be driven out as a command on target for the Galatians. The inheritance belongs to his converts, and it shall not be shared with those who preach a different gospel.

The quotation dramatizes the choice before the Galatians. Through association with the rival evangelists Paul’s converts are identified with Hagar and Ishmael, which means they are the ones driven out and excluded from Abraham’s inheritance.

4:31 In order to be sure his readers understand, Paul declares we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. Like Isaac, the Galatians are Abraham’s heirs. The troublemakers were undoubtedly suggesting that unless Paul’s Gentile converts followed the law they were not part of the people of God, but Paul says the opposite.

5:1 The means by which the Gentile Galatians have become children of the free woman is through Christ. This is another way of saying what Paul said earlier—that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (3:13). Paul declares that the purpose of Christ’s work was for freedom. The concept of freedom, which is a basic theme of Galatians, is connected throughout Paul’s letters primarily with freedom from: freedom from the law (Rom. 7:3–4), from sin (Rom. 6:18–22), or from death (Rom. 8:2). Freedom is also equated with the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17) and is used as a way to describe the Christian life (Gal. 2:4). In an expansive command, Paul directs his readers to stand firm against the influence of the rival evangelists. Underscoring the point he has made repeatedly, Paul charges his converts not to put themselves in a position of submitting to a yoke of slavery. To such a fate, Paul warns, his readers’ attraction to the alternative gospel leads.

Throughout the letter Paul has described the adding of law to faith and the Galatians’ former life (4:8–9) as enslavement, which is why he can warn that the Galatians’ attraction to the rival evangelists’ message will mean that they are slaves once again.

Additional Notes

4:21 See A. T. Lincoln, who notes that this Scripture “is being used by [Paul’s] opponents to their own advantage” (Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought With Special Reference to His Eschatology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], p. 12). See also C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr \'7bPaul Siebeck\'7d, 1976]), pp. 1–16.

4:24 The word figuratively is the translation of the compound Greek word allēgoroumena, which means “say something else” and is often translated as “allegory.” The Greek form is participial and might best be translated “allegorical sayings.” In the Greco-Roman world a respected way to interpret sacred or ancient tradition was to regard its sayings as allegorical, that is, as referring to something not immediately evident from the text itself. Philo used allegory extensively. The following rabbinical saying describes the interpretive mind-set that employs allegory: “As the hammer causes many sparks to fly, so the word of Scripture has a manifold sense” (in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 34a; quoted from F. Büschsel, “allēgoreō,” TDNT 1:260–64, esp. p. 263). Paul demonstrates an allegorical interpretive approach elsewhere in his letters (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:8–10; 10:1–11), although nowhere else does he designate his interpretation an allegory.

4:25 The statement Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia has several variant readings in the manuscripts, among the most important being those which leave out the name “Hagar” and read simply, “For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.” The NIV’s reading is the more difficult one and so more likely original. Some scholars have attempted to explain Paul’s meaning by pointing out that the Hebrew word for Hagar has similarities to an Arabic word meaning rock and so have suggested that here Paul is saying “Hagar means mountain in Arabia.” Paul has, however, stated that he is approaching the whole issue figuratively, and so there is no need to make his interpretation more straightforward than he himself felt the need to do.

Arabia is not only the place associated in the Genesis narrative with the descendants of Ishmael (Gen. 25:18) but also the place Paul went after his call and conversion (Gal. 1:17).

The antecedent of the pronoun “her” in the phrase her children refers to Jerusalem and to Hagar, the meaning being “Jerusalem, like Hagar, is in slavery with her children” (Longenecker, Galatians, p. 213).

4:26 The concept of Jerusalem that is above was not unfamiliar to Judaism. Ezekiel is given a vision of a heavenly Jerusalem that would be the model for the new Jerusalem to be built (Ezek. 40–48). But, while there is precedence in Jewish literature for the concept of a heavenly Jerusalem, such a Jerusalem was thought to be a counterpart to the earthly Jerusalem. Paul’s contrasting of the present with the heavenly Jerusalem appears to be unique (see Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, pp. 18–22).

The Jerusalem that is above has a future and a present referent. It is to be understood within the context of hope (vv. 27–28; see W. Horbury, “Land, Sanctuary and Worship,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context [ed. J. Barclay and J. Sweet; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], pp. 207–24) and of present reality (v. 26; “she is our mother”). Paul’s claim that the heavenly Jerusalem is now present resides, as Lincoln has noted, within the apocalyptic framework. Lincoln comments, “as in the apocalyptic and Qumran references what is to be revealed at the end can be thought of as already existing” (Paradise Now and Not Yet, p. 21). Such a claim on Paul’s part corresponds to his affirmation that Christ’s death delivered believers “from the present evil age” (1:4). Paul is working with apocalyptic categories (see Isa. 65:17–25) and framing the life of believers within the birth of the new age: a moment in time in which the present and future are uniquely conjoined.

The Jewish Scriptures could refer to Jerusalem as a mother (e.g., Isa. 49:14–15; 51:18; Ps. 87:5; cf. 2 Esdras 10:7), as is demonstrated in Paul’s citation from Isaiah (54:1) in the following verse.

4:27 The Greek term barren woman in Isa. 54:1 [LXX] is found also in Gen. 11:30 [LXX], where it refers to Sarah. This particular text was used in Jewish writings that spoke of eschatological hopes (see Targum Isaiah on 54:1) for a restored Jerusalem.

4:29 While no OT Scripture describes Ishmael persecuting Isaac, the Hebrew word for “playing” in Gen. 21:9 could also denote “mocking.” On the basis of this meaning later Jewish interpretive writings contain stories of Ishmael harassing Isaac. See Longenecker (Galatians, pp. 200–206) for rabbinic references.

4:30 The words “free woman” are not found in the Septuagint version of Gen. 21:10. Paul appears to have added them so as to clarify his application of the text.

Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by L. Ann Jervis, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Abraham

Abram is a well-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen. 11:25 25:11. Abram’s name (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen. 17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of many nations.”

The narrative account in Genesis details one hundred years of Abraham’s life and moves quickly through the first seventy-five years of events. In just a few verses (11:26–31) we learn that Abram was the son of Terah, the brother of Haran and Nahor, the husband of the barren Sarai (later Sarah), and the uncle of Lot, the son of Haran, who died in Ur of the Chaldees. The plot line marks significant events in Abraham’s life chronologically. He left Harran at the age of 75 (12:4), was 86 when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16), 99 when the Lord appeared to him (17:17) and when he was circumcised (17:24), 100 when Sarah gave birth to Isaac (21:5), and 175 when he died (25:7). In summary, the biblical narrator paces the reader quickly through the story in such a way as to highlight a twenty-five-year period of Abraham’s life between the ages of 75 and 100.

The NT features Abraham in several significant ways. The intimate connection between God and Abraham is noted in the identification of God as “the God of Abraham” in Acts 7:32 (cf. Exod. 3:6). The NT also celebrates the character of Abraham as a man of faith who received the promise (Gal. 3:9; Heb. 6:15). Abraham is most importantly an example of how one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:1, 12) and an illustration of what it means to walk by faith (James 2:21, 23).

Those who exercise faith in the living God, as did Abraham, are referred to as “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Regarding the covenant promises made to Abraham in the OT, the NT writers highlight the promises of seed and blessing. According to Paul, the seed of Abraham is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those who believe in Christ are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). In a similar way, those who have Abraham-like faith are blessed (3:9). The blessing imparted to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through the redemption of Christ and is associated with the impartation of the Spirit (3:14).

Arabia

A large peninsula lying between the Red Sea on the west and the Persian Gulf on the east. In the Bible the term is actually seldom used (2 Chron. 9:14; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:24; Ezek. 27:21; 30:5; Gal. 1:17; 4:25), and when it is, it refers more to the general area than to any specific group of people or geographic location. It seems to stand as a designation for that expanse of land that lies to the south and east of Canaan and the Transjordan peoples. On several occasions the term “Arabs” is used to designate the people from those regions (2 Chron. 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7; Neh. 4:7; Acts 2:11). Elsewhere they are referred to as “eastern peoples” (Gen. 29:1; Judg. 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10) or “people of the East” (1 Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; Jer. 49:28; Ezek. 25:4, 10). In Gen. 25:6 Arabia is referred to as the “land of the east,” and in Isa. 2:6 simply as “the East” (although this may refer simply to Syria and Mesopotamia).

In the NT, Arabs were among those present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11). After his conversion Paul journeyed to Arabia (Gal. 1:17), by which is meant the Nabatean kingdom, stretching from the Transjordan southwest toward the Sinai Peninsula. Interestingly, Paul’s reference to Mount Sinai as being in Arabia (Gal. 4:25) may suggest a location other than the traditional one of the Sinai Peninsula—for example, across the Gulf of Aqaba (the eastern arm of the Red Sea) in or near Midian (see Exod. 2:11 3:3)—although there is no consensus on this matter.

Barren

A barren woman is one who is infertile and without children. The biblical world placed great value on the blessing of having children. Being without children brought despair. This can be seen in Rachel’s despondent plea (Gen. 30:1) and in the fact that wives would offer a servant in their place to bear a child (16:3; 30:3, 9).

In most of the stories about women and infertility, God reversed their circumstances: Sarah (Gen. 11:30), Rebekah (25:21), Rachel (30:22), Samson’s mother (Judg. 13:2 3), Hannah (1 Sam. 1:2), the Shunammite (2 Kings 4:16), Elizabeth (Luke 1:7). For Michal, barrenness appears as a punishment (2 Sam. 6:23).

Caring for the barren is part of God’s praiseworthy caring for the needy (Ps. 113:5–9).

Birth

Births in the ancient world were the domain of women. The women who bore children were often assisted in the birthing process by midwives (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:15 20).

Many women utilized a birthing stool (Exod. 1:16). Upon birth, the newborn often was washed with water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in cloths (Ezek. 16:4; Luke 2:7, 12). The OT required women to undergo a rite of purification following childbirth (Exod. 13:2, 20; 34:20; Lev. 12:6–8; Luke 2:22–24). This purification lasted forty days after the birth of a son and eighty days after the birth of a daughter and concluded with the sacrifice of both a burnt offering and a sin offering.

Birthing was valued, and women who were considered to be infertile often faced great shame (1 Sam. 1:10–11; Luke 1:25). Pain in childbirth was associated with the sin of Eve (Gen. 3:16), and conversely, absence of pain was interpreted as a sign that a woman was particularly righteous. According to Josephus, Moses was born with no pain to his mother, and the Protevangelium of James indicates the same about Mary’s labor with Jesus.

The Bible sometimes employs the language of birth as a spiritual metaphor. In John 3:3–6 Jesus instructs Nicodemus about the need for spiritual birth by explaining that he must be born again. In Rom. 8:22 Paul describes the whole of creation as experiencing the pain of childbirth as it awaits redemption, and in Gal. 4:19 he says that he is in labor for a second time with the Galatians as he desires the formation of Christ in them.

Bondage

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

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

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

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

Covenant

A pact/compact or an agreement (Heb. berit). The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.”

The covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships.

Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship.

The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8 9. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land.

Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally, the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath, judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

Hagar

The Egyptian maidservant whom Sarah offered to her husband, Abraham, as a solution to her own infertility (Gen. 16). When Hagar became pregnant, she treated Sarah disrespectfully, resulting in Hagar’s dismissal. On instruction from the angel of the Lord, Hagar returned and bore Ishmael when Abraham was eighty-six years old. While Hagar received God’s promise that her son would have many descendants, he was not the one through whom God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled (Gen. 12:1 3; 15:4; 17:19). Following the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, the tension between the two women resulted in Sarah sending Hagar and Ishmael off into the desert, where God reaffirmed his commitment to Ishmael (Gen. 21:9–19).

Paul uses Hagar and Sarah to represent two covenants. Hagar represents the covenant given on Mount Sinai, the law that brings slavery and characterizes the earthly Jerusalem. The child born to Sarah as a result of God’s promise represents the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, who are free (Gal. 4:22–27).

Husband

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inheritance

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1 11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

Isaac

Along with Abraham and Jacob, Isaac is a central character in the narratives of Gen. 12 35. Isaac is the offspring of Abraham and Sarah, the fulfillment of a promise from God of an heir for Abraham (15:4). The promise of offspring is one component in a set (protection and land being some of the others), the provisions of a covenant between God and the patriarchs (12:1–3; 17:1–8; 26:2–5). The name “Isaac” is associated with the verb for “laugh” (21:3–7), referring to Sarah’s reaction upon hearing the promise of a child coming well beyond her childbearing years (18:9–15). Sarah’s incredulity, and Abraham’s sympathy to it, may be witnessed by their attempt to enact fulfillment to the promise through the insemination of Hagar, Sarah’s slave (16:1–4, 16).

In the narratives of Gen. 12–35 Isaac is the least prominent of the patriarchs. The main event of his life is encapsulated in the incident known as the Akedah, the “binding” (22:1–19). Abraham demonstrates his loyalty to God by complying with a command to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. After an initial inquiry about the absence of a sacrificial beast, Isaac (apparently) passively follows Abraham’s directions in compliance with God’s will. A divine emissary, however, halts Abraham’s actions just prior to the slaying of Isaac.

The procurement of Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, by Abraham’s servant is found in Gen. 24:1–67. Like Abraham, Isaac describes his wife as a sister in order to deflect danger to his person (26:6–11; cf. 12:10–16; 20:1–18). Rebekah bears two sons to Isaac, Esau and Jacob (25:21–26). Through the instigation and cooperation of Rebekah, Jacob tricks Isaac into conferring a blessing upon him, one originally intended for Esau (27:1–30).

Jerusalem

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:1 15; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

Law

In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19 23) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Mount Sinai

The mountain where Moses met with God and received the law and instructions for building the tabernacle. It is important to note that Sinai is sometimes referred to as Horeb.

The exact location of the mountain cannot be determined with certainty. Complicating matters is the fact that the desert and the peninsula on which the mountains sit are both called “Sinai.” Furthermore, although some have speculated that the mountain must be a volcano, given the description of smoke coming from the mountain and the earthquakes (Exod. 19:16, 18), this suggestion is of little specific help because many of the mountains in this region at one time were active volcanoes. Several locations for the mountain have been suggested.

Promise

A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44 48; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.

The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.

In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1 Cor. 15:48–57; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1 John 1:9).

Scripture

The term “Scripture” (graphē) appears fifty-one times in the NT, used in reference to the OT. Sometimes the biblical writers cite a specific OT text as Scripture, while at other times they refer to Scripture in a more comprehensive manner.

Spirit

In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.

The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.

The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2 Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).

The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).

Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:28 33; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).

The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1 Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1 Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.

Woman

In the Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:26 28. God created “man” in the plural, male and female, and commanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it. Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created in the image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would be thought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the first man the image of God, but the first woman participates in the image as well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and it suggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.

Genesis records that the human race fell through the instrumentality of a man, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, not the man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying a word. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race. Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife” (Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain in childbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, but it appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership and will be perpetually frustrated.

Often in the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children. Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with her sister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb” is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is full of them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3: “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.”

In Genesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at the disposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservants became surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10). Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so she gave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finally resulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she bore to Abraham.

In the beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husband and wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man from Cain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage (Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have more than one wife, the household discontent and strife are what is highlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elder is to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1 Tim. 3:2; ESV, KJV: “the husband of one wife”), meaning monogamous.

The Torah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughters of Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so in Canaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israel daughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if there were no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num. 27:1–11).

When a man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vow was subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, but if he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she was married, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, then there was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as a man’s (Num. 30:1–16).

Sexual intercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as the act rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both must bathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrual discharge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or lay upon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She must wash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).

If a man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents provided evidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man was severely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her (otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her [Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to be put to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).

In the case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city, both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she had failed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented to sexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the man was killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, his punishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce (Deut. 22:23–29).

Numbers 5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that his wife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantal jealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.

In the Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what is expected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the only woman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to a deity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel (despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrew verb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge, however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera; Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this mission unless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that the prestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Another prominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidance when the law was rediscovered (2 Kings 22:14).

Many biblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined by two midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21). Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts her trek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth 1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bears her name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and the women there have the distinction of being the first to witness the risen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized around Mary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape the early church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, calling them “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” and possibly even “apostle.”

Scripture also at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Eve handed the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israel worshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num. 25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women, directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba was a temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marred his career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved many foreign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile, the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreign wives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).

Women and marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things. Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationship with Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to human history in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned with righteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whore Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). The consummation of the age is when one is judged and the other enters her eternal marital bliss.

The book of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolized by two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices of Woman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33) calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-blood temptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdom has her counterpart at the end of the book in the detailed description of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the woman who fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—the highest blessing of the wise.

Paul uses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of law versus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-set of slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by works of the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promised son, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, and freedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again, two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves, the other being God’s free people.

Direct Matches

Allegory

Allegory is the use of symbolism to express or represent certain truths. It can be understood in two different ways.

First, some writers intentionally express concepts that conceal behind the literal meaning of their words a more significant meaning. For example, in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Hopeful helps Christian see Christ again so that he may avoid the Wicked Gate. Similarly, the dark wood where Dante loses himself at the beginning of the Divine Comedy is intended by the author as a symbol of sin, and the three animals that he encounters there are symbols for three particular sins. In both cases, the author intentionally presents the true meaning of the story through figures or symbols. This use of allegory is sometimes described as a prolonged metaphor.

The second way allegory can be understood is as a perspective taken up by the interpreter or reader. Here the reader assumes that the text has a secondary or hidden meaning underlying the primary, literal meaning of the words. Often, but not always, this kind of allegorical interpretation ignores the literal sense of the words and at times denies the usefulness of the literal meaning all together.

Allegory in the Bible. Some passages of Scripture come very close to the first use of allegory: in Ezek. 17:2 God instructs the prophet to “set forth an allegory [NASB, NRSV: “riddle”] and tell the house of Israel a parable.” In the account that follows the prophet carefully explains each element of the story: the first eagle is Babylon, the twigs carried to a land of trade are the captive Israelites taken to Babylon, and so forth. In Ezek. 24:2–14 the prophet gives a similar account, this time pointing out Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Jesus’ parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1–9 pars.) comes very close to this kind of allegory because each feature of the story is explained by Jesus to convey his teaching regarding the kingdom (13:18–23 pars.). However, care must be taken not to confuse the literary category of parable with this type of allegory. A parable is a particular type of story that only at times bears a resemblance to an allegory.

Allegorical interpretation in the early church. The early church fathers, facing the need to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, focused on the person and work of Christ as a means of reading the Bible (one might call this “christocentric” reading). They explained that the Jews could read the OT and yet reject Jesus as the Messiah because they read according to the letter and not according to the Spirit (“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” [2 Cor. 3:6]). Therefore, the church fathers claimed that the spiritual interpretation of the Bible conveyed its true meaning—the sense that Jesus is the Son of God.

The Alexandrian fathers and allegorization. Clement, traditionally the third bishop of Rome (c. AD 96), provides a very early example of Christian allegorical interpretation. Referring to the story of Rahab and the Israelite spies in Josh. 2, he argues that the scarlet cord is symbolic of a spiritual reality: “And in addition they gave her a sign, that she should hang from her house something scarlet—making it clear that through the blood of the Lord redemption will come to all who believe and hope in God” (1 Clem. 12:7). Another classic example of allegorical interpretation of the OT is the almost universally accepted early Christian understanding of Song of Songs. According to this interpretation, the literal sense of the song (romantic love) could not be its real meaning. Rather, the text refers to the relationship between Christ and his church; thus, the woman represents the church, and the man represents Christ. The passage “He brought me to his banqueting table, and his banner over me is love” (Song 2:4 KJV) refers not to a romantic encounter between lovers but rather to Christ and his delight in the church.

Origen, an early Christian leader and influential biblical scholar from Alexandria, argued that every passage in the Bible had a threefold sense, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit: the literal, moral, and spiritual. Origen usually began with the literal sense of the words, but he insisted that one should move on to the higher sense of the text (moral and spiritual) because it leads the believer closer to Christ. The only way to grasp the spiritual sense of the text, according to Origen, is through revelation. He also was one of the first to claim that Paul himself used allegorical interpretation: in his identification of the wilderness rock with Christ (1 Cor. 10:1–4) and of Sarah and Hagar with two covenants (Gal. 4:22–26). It is debated whether these are examples of allegory or of typology; much depends on how one defines both terms. Many draw a firm distinction between allegory, which derives from a correspondence of ideas, and typology, which derives from a correspondence between historical events. Even in contemporary debate some insist that these passages rely more upon typological connections than allegorical ones.

Allegorical versus typological interpretation. In contrast to those church fathers who followed Origen and others from Alexandria, the fathers of Antioch, especially Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350–428) and John Chrysostom (c. AD 354–407), opposed finding the spiritual sense of the text by means of allegorical interpretation. Rather, these interpreters argued that the spiritual sense of the Bible is not allegorical but is to be found in the literal sense itself. Theodore, when challenged to account for the use of the term “allegory” (Gal. 4:24 KJV, RSV, NRSV), argued that Paul used it to indicate a historical correspondence; that is, Paul was interpreting the OT typologically.

Summary. Positively, allegory emphasizes that the Bible should be approached spiritually, and that it should find practical application in the life of the believer. Often allegory made it possible for the church to apply obscure passages of the Bible that otherwise might have been ignored as irrelevant. Negatively, allegory largely removes the text of the Bible from history and fosters irresponsible and fanciful interpretations. See also Typology.

Arabia

A large peninsula lying between the Red Sea on the west and the Persian Gulf on the east. In the Bible the term is actually seldom used (2 Chron. 9:14; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:24; Ezek. 27:21; 30:5; Gal. 1:17; 4:25), and when it is, it refers more to the general area than to any specific group of people or geographic location. It seems to stand as a designation for that expanse of land that lies to the south and east of Canaan and the Transjordan peoples. On several occasions the term “Arabs” is used to designate the people from those regions (2 Chron. 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7; Neh. 4:7; Acts 2:11). Elsewhere they are referred to as “eastern peoples” (Gen. 29:1; Judg. 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10) or “people of the East” (1 Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; Jer. 49:28; Ezek. 25:4; 25:10). In Gen. 25:6 Arabia is referred to as the “land of the east,” and in Isa. 2:6 simply as “the East” (although this may refer simply to Syria and Mesopotamia).

Clearly, Arabia is a presence in the Scripture, although its role is not nearly as dominant or even as clear as that of other nations or regions, whether superpowers such as Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt or lesser nations such as the Ammonites or the various Canaanite peoples. Still, the importance of Arabia should not be overlooked.

Like many other peoples in the OT, how these people are evaluated by biblical writers is diverse, which is compounded by the fact that the various referents for “Arabs” or “Arabia” can only really be determined, if at all, from a close examination of the context. Nevertheless, we see that “all the kings of Arabia and the governors of the territories” gave gifts to Solomon (2 Chron. 9:14). The Arabs are also said to bring tribute to Jehoshaphat (17:11). Elsewhere in the historical books their relationship with the Israelites is more hostile (e.g., 2 Chron. 21:16; 22:1; Neh. 4:7).

Neither do they escape the attention of the prophets. In Isa. 21:13–16 their troubles are predicted at the hands of other nations (notably the Babylonians and the Assyrians, both of whom waged battles at later points in Israel’s history). Isaiah also refers to Dedanites and Kedar, the first being an Arabian tribe and the second a home of Bedouin tribes. Both references assume their nomadic lifestyle. According to Jer. 25:24, they will be among many nations who will drink of the cup of God’s wrath. According to Ezek. 30:5, Arabia will fall by the sword (Nebuchadnezzar’s) as one of several allies of Egypt.

In the NT, Arabs were among those present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11). After his conversion Paul journeyed to Arabia (Gal. 1:17), by which is meant the Nabatean kingdom, stretching from the Transjordan southwest toward the Sinai Peninsula. Interestingly, Paul’s reference to Mount Sinai as being in Arabia (Gal. 4:25) may suggest a location other than the traditional one of the Sinai Peninsula—for example, across the Gulf of Aqaba (the eastern arm of the Red Sea) in or near Midian (see Exod. 2:11–3:3)—although there is no consensus on this matter.

Hagar

The Egyptian maidservant whom Sarah offered to her husband, Abraham, as a solution to her own infertility (Gen. 16). When Hagar became pregnant, she treated Sarah disrespectfully, resulting in Hagar’s dismissal. On instruction from the angel of the Lord, Hagar returned and bore Ishmael when Abraham was eighty-six years old. While Hagar received God’s promise that her son would have many descendants, he was not the one through whom God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:4; 17:19). Following the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, the tension between the two women resulted in Sarah sending Hagar and Ishmael off into the desert, where God reaffirmed his commitment to Ishmael (Gen. 21:9–19).

Jerusalem

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. The original meaning of the name probably is “founded by [the Canaanite god] Salem.” The Amarna letters refer to a Beth-Shalem, and its first reference in the Bible is Salem (Gen. 14:18). Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:1–15; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon Spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

Early History through the United Monarchy

The earliest occupation was near the Gihon Spring, where Chalcolithic pottery (c. 3500 BC) and structures dating to the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2800 BC) were found. The Bronze Age city is mentioned in the Ebla tablets, Execration texts, and the Amarna letters. Melchizedek, the king of Salem, received gifts from Abraham and blessed him (Gen. 14). Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on one of the mountains of Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:2), the location where Solomon later built the temple (2 Chron. 3:1). The Jebusite city of the Bronze Age extended over the lower part of the Eastern Hill for about twelve acres, with a population of about one thousand.

After Joshua made a treaty with the Gibeonites, the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek, formed a coalition of five kings to attack Gibeon. Joshua defeated this coalition and killed the kings (Josh. 10). The Canaanite inhabitants of Jerusalem are referred to as Amorites (Josh. 10:5) and as Jebusites (Judg. 1:21; 1 Chron. 11:4).

When David became king over both Israel and Judah, he made Jerusalem the political, spiritual, and administrative center of his kingdom. Jerusalem became synonymous with David and was called the “City of David.” Transferring the ark to Jerusalem made it the new religious center for the Israelites. David conquered the Jebusite stronghold through the tsinnor, possibly a water tunnel (2 Sam. 5:6–8; 1 Chron. 11:4–7). He took up residence in the city and began an extensive building program, but his vision of Jerusalem as the religious center was not fully realized until his son Solomon became king and built the temple.

Solomon greatly expanded the city by building fortifications, the temple, and the royal palace (1 Kings 7–9). This was the first initial expansion of the city as Solomon extended the city northward along the Eastern Hill, up the Ophel to the site of the present-day Temple Mount. This expanded the city to about thirty-two acres, with a population of around five thousand. During the united monarchy, Jerusalem became the center of Israelite administration and religion. All Israelites were to come to Jerusalem three times a year for religious festivals. Solomonic Jerusalem became the foundation for the imagery bestowed on the city by the psalms (e.g., Pss. 46; 48; 76; 84; 87; 122; 125; 132). Although major excavations were carried out in the 1980s in the City of David, little is known archaeologically about the city of that period.

From the Divided Monarchy to the Exile

During the divided monarchy, Jerusalem was attacked by foreign forces. Jerusalem was attacked by Shishak of Egypt at the end of the tenth century BC (1 Kings 14:25–26), by Syria and northern Israel during the ninth century BC (2 Kings 12:17; 15:37), and by Sennacherib of Assyria during the seventh century BC (2 Kings 18:13). Several Judean kings undertook building projects. Uzziah fortified Jerusalem by adding towers to the city walls (2 Chron. 26:9), and Jotham built the upper gate of the temple (2 Chron. 27:3).

Hezekiah greatly expanded Jerusalem. The city doubled in size during his reign as it extended to the Western Hill (Upper City). The city then encompassed about 125 acres, with a population of about twenty-five thousand. It had expanded due to the influx of immigrants from the north when the capital of Samaria fell to the Assyrians. Hezekiah reinforced the Millo, built and rebuilt walls, and erected towers as he extended the walls to encompass the Western Hill. In preparation for the siege by Sennacherib, he constructed an underground water system to bring water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chron. 32:2–4, 30; Isa. 22:11). Manasseh refortified Jerusalem with the construction of a new outer wall (2 Chron. 33:14). Jerusalem was invaded when Jehoiakim rebelled and was finally destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC. Prophets during the divided monarchy spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem, but also of its exaltation in later times (e.g., Isa. 2:2–4; 24:23; Jer. 7:14; Mic. 3:12).

Archaeological excavations have revealed much about Jerusalem during the time of the later Judean kings. Several walls, towers, and fortifications attributed to Hezekiah have been excavated in the Jewish Quarter. Hezekiah’s tunnel and the Siloam Inscription have been discovered, highlighting the preparations made by Hezekiah for the Assyrian siege. Several quarries and tombs have been found on the slopes of the Mount of Olives and the western slope (Ketef Hinnom) of the Hinnom Valley. In one of the Ketef Hinnom tombs, a silver amulet containing the earliest known biblical text (Num. 6:24–26) was found. Evidence of the Babylonian destruction was found in excavations of the Jewish Quarter and the City of David. A group of bullae (fired clay impressions) was found with the name of “Gemariah ben-Shaphan,” probably the scribe mentioned in Jer. 36.

From Persian to Roman Rule

After the Persian conquest of Babylon (539 BC), Cyrus II allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Judah became the Persian province Yehud, and Jerusalem was the administrative center. Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judea by Artaxerxes in 445 BC. Nehemiah undertook a hasty rebuilding project against the wishes of the local population (Neh. 2:19; 4:7). The rebuilt city was constricted to the area of the Eastern Hill, comprising some thirty acres, with a population of about forty-five hundred.

Alexander the Great captured Jerusalem in 332 BC. This victory marked the end of Persian rule. Following Alexander’s death, his empire was divided between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria. Ptolemy I captured Jerusalem in 320 BC, but the Jerusalem temple continued to be the center of local Jewish life and administration. The Seleucids defeated the Ptolemies and annexed Palestine around 201–198 BC. The city and the temple were repaired during their reign. During this period the Jews were struggling with the acceptance of Hellenistic culture. The high priest Jason favored Hellenization and transformed Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis (a Greek city-state). Jerusalem became known as Antiochia, and the city expanded to the eastern slope of the Western Hill (Upper City). Jason built a gymnasium (1 Macc. 1:11–15; 2 Macc. 4:9–17). The Maccabeans revolted, and Antiochus IV destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, erected a fortress (the Akra), and desecrated the temple. Judas Maccabeus liberated Jerusalem in 164 BC, and the temple was purified and rededicated (1 Macc. 4:36–55). Hasmonean rule lasted from 142 to 63 BC. Hasmonean Jerusalem occupied the Western and Eastern Hills. The Upper City was joined to the Temple Mount by an arched bridge across the Tyropoeon Valley (Wilson’s Arch). A fortress (the Baris) was built northwest of the temple. The Romans conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC under the rule of Pompey and ended Hasmonean rule.

The Time of Jesus and the First Century AD

Jerusalem during the time of Jesus was largely the product of Herod the Great’s policies and building programs. Herod was a Roman vassal and brought Hellenistic culture to the city. He built an amphitheater and a theater. Jerusalem became a city divided between the wealthy of the Upper City and the poor in the Lower City. Herodian Jerusalem’s population was about forty thousand, and the city extended over 230 acres, not including suburbs on the Mount of Olives and west of the city. Herod’s main building activity was the complex on the Temple Mount. Herod built a massive podium over the northern summit of the Eastern Hill. This podium stood forty-five meters high above the bottom of the Kidron Valley. This formed a rectangular platform for the temple that measured 144,000 square meters. Most of the retaining walls are visible today, and the best-known section is the Western Wall. To the south of the Temple Mount complex was the Royal Stoa, and on the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress.

Archaeological research has uncovered several components and features of NT Jerusalem. The temple rituals needed large amounts of water, and Herod built an elaborate water-delivery and storage system. Remains of both subterranean and surface aqueducts are found from the Bethlehem region to Jerusalem. Large water-storage pools are still visible today, such as the Serpent’s Pool in the Hinnom Valley, the Pool of the Towers of Amygdalon, the Sheep Pools, the Pool of Israel, as well as several other unnamed reservoirs and water-storage features. Several segments of the city fortification walls were found in various archaeological excavations, as well as remains of the Antonia Fortress and Herod’s Upper Palace with its three towers and adjacent Agora. Jewish Quarter excavations have revealed several palatial homes with various luxury goods, evidence of the wealth of the Upper City. These homes contained a courtyard surrounded by rooms and reception halls; several had private ritual baths. Excavations of the southern wall have revealed components of the Temple Mount complex, most notably the southern monumental stairway with the ritual-bath complex building and the two entrances that led up to the Temple Mount. Several tombs and cemeteries have also been excavated in the environs around the city.

Most of Jesus’ ministry was spent in Galilee. He would have come to Jerusalem at least three times each year to attend the major festivals. Of the Gospel writers, Luke most often referred to Jerusalem and the temple as he framed his account of the deeds and teachings of Jesus. Although the events of Passion Week took place in Jerusalem and its environs, the Gospels emphasize the events and teachings of Jesus, not the geography.

The early church started in Jerusalem with the events of Pentecost. Jerusalem was the origin and the center of the early church under the leadership of James. It seemed to serve as the center of the apostles’ authority, but the missionary zeal soon shifted the ministry and focus of the church to the eastern Mediterranean. Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans under the direction of Titus. Jerusalem has been a central place for the Christian faith, whose followers acknowledge the city as the place of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jerusalem played a major role throughout history and has always been a center of pilgrimage for Christians.

Mother

Although essentially characterized by bearing offspring, a mother is associated with much more in the Bible. Especially prominent are the characteristic ways in which a mother relates to her children: she tends to their needs (1 Thess. 2:7), looks after their welfare (1 Kings 3:16–27), comforts them (Ps. 131:2), and instructs them (Prov. 1:8; 31:1).

Motherhood is held in high regard. Bearing a child is an occasion for rejoicing (Gen. 4:1; Ps. 113:9). A virtuous and industrious mother is praised by her children and husband alike (Prov. 31:28). The Bible describes a mother both crowning a king (Song 3:11) and sitting beside his throne (1 Kings 2:19). The death of a mother brings extreme sorrow (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 35:14). Furthermore, God’s promises are often associated with the birth of a child (e.g., Gen. 3:15; 12:2–3; Judg. 13:3; Isa. 7:14). Mary is blessed among women as the mother of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:42–45). Finally, the Bible protects the dignity of a mother as it does that of the father. The law requires honor and reverence for both father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16) and condemns to death those who strike or curse either parent (Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9).

There is also great concern that adult children look after the welfare of their parents as a means of honoring them. David makes provisions for his parents as he flees from Saul (1 Sam. 22:3–4). Jesus condemns the Pharisees and the scribes for taking the resources due their parents and offering them as a gift to God instead (Matt. 15:4–6). Even Jesus’ final act upon the cross is to ensure the welfare of his mother by defining her relationship with the Beloved Disciple as mother and son (John 19:26–27). On the other hand, Jesus makes clear that concern for one’s family is subordinate to discipleship to him (Matt. 10:37; Mark 3:35; Luke 14:26).

The word “mother” also carries symbolic or metaphorical senses. Sometimes the “mother” is a fitting example of other things or persons like it, such as Babylon the Great as the mother of prostitutes and earthly abominations (Rev. 17:5). In the extended analogy between Hosea’s marriage and God’s relationship to Israel, the nation is called a “mother,” and its inhabitants are her “children” (Hos. 2:4; 4:5; cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 50:12). The image of a mother may also refer to a large city (2 Sam. 20:19; Gal. 4:26).

Power

A synonym of “strength.” “Power” often translates the Hebrew words koakh or ’az or the Greek word dynamis, all of which denote strength or might. The Hebrew word yad (“hand”) may also denote power when it is used to speak of the dominion of a ruler (e.g., 2 Kings 17:7 [NASB: “hand of Pharaoh”; NIV: “power of Pharaoh”]).

Although humans have a degree of power, God is omnipotent, all-powerful (Jer. 32:17). He utilized his great power in creating the world (Jer. 51:15; Rom. 1:20; Rev. 4:11). He has also displayed his power through other mighty acts, such as delivering the Israelites from Egypt (Exod. 14:31; Deut. 9:26). The wisdom literature extols God’s power (Job 9:4; Pss. 20:6; 66:3; 147:5), as do the prophets (Isa. 40:10; Jer. 27:5; Dan. 2:20; Nah. 1:3) and the letters of the NT (1 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 1:18–21; Col. 2:10). God continues to display his power through the gospel (Rom. 1:16), not only in rescuing believers from their sins (1 Cor. 1:24–25) but also in empowering them to live holy lives (2 Cor. 4:7).

The Holy Spirit has acted and continues to act as the agent of God’s power (Judg. 14:6; 1 Sam. 16:13; Acts 1:8). Just as the Holy Spirit has done many powerful signs and wonders through Jesus and the apostles (Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:18–19), he gives rebirth to each Christian through his power (Gal. 4:29). The Holy Spirit also strengthens Christians with power “so that Christ may dwell in [their] hearts through faith” (Eph. 3:17).

Scripture

The term “Scripture” ( graphē) appears fifty-one times in the NT, used in reference to the OT. Sometimes the biblical writers cite a specific OT text as Scripture, while at other times they refer to Scripture in a more comprehensive manner.

Most references occur in the Gospels, in which Jesus details the nature and the extent of Scripture. Jesus opened the Scriptures from Moses through all the prophets in order to explain everything about himself as the anticipated Messiah (Luke 24:44–45). The prophetic quality of Scripture is evidenced in OT passages that are referenced in the NT as being fulfilled in his birth, life, betrayal, death, burial, and resurrection.

Jesus characterized the Scriptures as the powerful source of eternal life (John 5:39; 7:38). They have abiding authority and cannot be broken (10:35). He highlighted the dynamic quality of the Scriptures when he said that they speak, testify, and declare.

In Acts, Scripture is the authoritative source from which the apostle Paul explains the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (17:2; 18:28). Apollos is distinguished as a man with a thorough knowledge of Scripture, and the Bereans were known for their investigative inquiry into the truthfulness of the Scriptures.

The book of Romans opens (1:2) and closes (16:25–26) with references to the gospel as Scripture. Throughout this letter Paul broadens Scripture referents beyond Christ and his redemptive work to include the themes of divine power, the nature of belief, and the prophetic ministry of Elijah. Finally, Paul characterizes Scripture as holy, prophetic, and intimately associated with the Lord himself. The Scriptures are a source not only of eternal life but also of encouragement.

In Galatians, Scripture includes the prophetic anticipation of Gentile participation in the gospel (3:8). It is a convicting authority that shows all people to be bound by sin and unbelief (3:22). The historical narrative account of Gen. 21 is also regarded as Scripture and used in an analogous typological manner (Gal. 4:21–31).

The Pastoral Letters and the book of James cite legal sections of the OT under the heading of Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18 [quoting Deut. 25:4; Lev. 19:13]; James 2:8). The most significant references to Scripture are 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Pet. 1:20–21 because they define the origin, nature, and function of Scripture. In addition, 2 Tim. 3:16 details the sufficiency of Scripture in its ability to teach, rebuke, correct, and train. In every period of history, Scripture is sufficient in extent and content to sustain people and nurture their relationship with God.

Woman

Ancient Near East

The ancient Near East was a male-dominated culture in which, therefore, women were marginalized and treated more or less as property. Note, for example, Boaz’s question “Who does that young woman belong to?” (Ruth 2:5). Women, of course, produce children, and this power was prized. Women were also fit to engage in various mundane tasks, but they were not trained for war or educated for service in the royal court. Their role in society was subordinate and secondary.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the wild and powerful Enkidu met a “wise woman” who seduced him. Thereafter, Enkidu was tamed and weakened. She made a civilized man of him. In the Ugaritic legend of Danil, Danil was unhappy because he had no sons. With the blessing of the gods, he married Hurriya, and had sons and daughters. Thus, sons fulfilled Danil as much as they fulfilled the woman.

But the power to reproduce, which resides in the woman’s womb, also was mysterious and seemed to belong in the same category as other forces of nature, such as the rebirth of life in the spring following sterile winter. Thus, the ancient world was filled with goddesses of great power. These goddesses at times also took on masculine characteristics, such as displaying great prowess in war; this is especially true of Anat of Canaanite mythology.

Throughout Israel’s sojourn in the Promised Land, there was an undercurrent of Canaanite-style goddess worship. In the period of the judges, the Israelites worshiped the goddess Asherah (Judg. 6:25). Led astray by his wives, Solomon also worshiped the goddess (1 Kings 11:1–8). The “fertility cult” included ritual sex in places of worship. This eventually took place in the temple of Yahweh. Much of this seems to have been homosexual sex (2 Kings 23:7).

Creation of Woman

In the Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:26–28. God created “man” in the plural, male and female, and commanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it. Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created in the image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would be thought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the first man the image of God, but the first woman participates in the image as well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and it suggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.

Throughout the remainder of Genesis, this judgment does not seem to unfold as expected. Instead, men are shown to desire women. Jacob was willing to work seven years to get the beautiful Rachel as his wife, and when he was fooled into marrying her sister, Leah, he was willing to work another seven years for her (Gen. 29:16–30). And women exploit men and their desire in order to get what they want, in effect mastering them. Lot’s daughters contrived to get what they wanted from him (19:30–38), and Tamar manipulated Judah’s desire (38:13–26).

Reproduction

In the Bible, women are described as having a number of different sexual relationships with men. There were wives, who enjoyed the closest relationship and had the greatest privileges. There were concubines, who were not wives but were bound to a single man. The greatest deviation from the norm of creation was the institution of the harem, whereby a king took to himself any number of consorts. The law of Moses restricted this practice (Deut. 17:17).

Legislation

Numbers 5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that his wife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantal jealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.

The Status of Women

Song of Songs

Song of Songs, while acknowledging the great power of sexuality to move people to act against their own best interests, nevertheless portrays love in a very positive light. The love between a man and a woman is shown in Song of Songs to be not primarily about generating children. Offspring are not at issue in the Bible’s great love song. Rather, relations between man and wife rest on a deeper foundation, that of sexual enjoyment and desire. In the words of Hannah’s husband, Elkanah, “Don’t I mean more to you than ten sons?” (1 Sam. 1:8).

In Gen. 3:16, God pronounces judgment on the woman that her “desire” will be for her husband, but that he will master her. The Hebrew word for “desire” occurs only once outside Genesis, in Song 7:10, where the woman says that her lover’s “desire” is for her. This seems to be a direct reference to Gen. 3:16. Thus, in Song of Songs the judgment on the woman is rolled back and reversed in love. In Song of Songs it is the king who is enthralled in love and thus subdued (7:5). He would not have it any other way!

Thus, sexuality is celebrated in Song of Songs. What proves to be such a grave temptation to men elsewhere is shown to be an essential part of God’s good creation, albeit a potent and dangerous facet of life. Women do not exist simply to produce children; they partner and revel with their lovers, together enjoying that particular part of God’s creation that requires two sexes to explore.

Imagery

Church Government

Throughout most of Christian history, women’s roles in the church have been comparable to their role in the general culture. Women participated little in the institutional life of society, and the church was no different. A number of Bible texts can be used in support of women’s marginalization as leaders. For example, in the OT, the cult was managed by the priestly caste, and no woman was ever a priest of Yahweh. In the NT, the local churches were overseen by a company of elders. Elders are described by Paul as men, the husband of one wife, who were apt to teach and who managed their own families well (1 Tim. 3:1–7). Immediately before this description, Paul notes that women were not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:9–15). Women were the “weaker partner” (1 Pet. 3:7). Thus, women’s subordinate role throughout most of church history has some biblical justification.

However, as women participate more and more in the institutional life of society, the normative value of the aforementioned texts has been questioned, and other texts have been put forward to provide an alternative biblical conception of women’s roles in the church. Perhaps 1 Tim. 2:12 is only against teaching a specific heresy, and the Greek verb translated “to assume authority over” (authenteō) may refer to a specific kind of authoritarian or domineering behavior. As noted above, in Rom. 16 Paul considers women to be leaders in the church. Since it is true that in Christ there is no male or female (Gal. 3:28), how far does this extend? Today’s challenge for churches is to decide these matters in light of the whole of Scripture rather than a few proof texts.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Galatians 4:21-31 is mentioned in the definition.

Church

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).

Citizen

To be a citizen is to possess all the rights, privileges, benefits, and responsibilities of a locale. Three types of citizenship are prominent in the Bible.

Israelite/Jewish. The existence of citizenship in Israel is clearly implied by the concern expressed for just treatment of the aliens who lived among the Israelites (Exod. 22:21–24; 23:9–12). In such a context the political and religious aspects of citizenship were so intertwined as to be inseparable.

Roman. Roman citizenship could be obtained in several ways: (1) being born to citizen parents, (2) manumission from slavery, (3) completion of military service, (4) rendering a valuable service to the Roman Empire, (5) colonization of a city, (6) payment of money. Citizenship entailed privileges such as full access to the legal system and certain protections, among them the right to appeal to Rome and the prohibition against certain punishments. Although only a small number of the early Christians were Roman citizens, Paul used his Roman citizenship at key points in his ministry (Acts 16:37; 22:25–28; 25:10–12).

Heavenly. In the NT, believers have a citizenship that extends beyond the confines of this world. The ministry and death/resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, which is not of this world (John 19:36). Believers have entered this kingdom and therefore are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26–28), who eagerly await the return of Jesus their Savior (Phil. 3:20–21). Such citizenship is available to both Jew and Gentile alike (Eph. 2:11–22) and entails a life worthy of the gospel (Phil. 1:27–30).

Central to citizenship is the expectation of loyalty, a reality that can cause tension when one’s heavenly citizenship conflicts with the expectations of human authorities. In such cases, believers should follow the examples of Jesus (John 19:11) and the apostles (Acts 4:13–22), who remained loyal to their heavenly citizenship at great cost.

Citizenship

To be a citizen is to possess all the rights, privileges, benefits, and responsibilities of a locale. Three types of citizenship are prominent in the Bible.

Desert

An arid environment challenging to life. Desert comprises about a third of the earth’s land surface, often overtaking verdant areas and squeezing human beings and animals into narrower oases. The deserts of the Bible—Negev, Sinai, Paran, and Zin—are part of the greater Saharo-Arabian desert system, the largest and driest in the world. Most of the land east (areas of present-day Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and south (Egypt) of Palestine is desert. However, the desert experience of most Israelites was not vast sands but rather arid environments that could otherwise flourish with sufficient water. In this regard, the biblical “wilderness” and “desert” semantically overlap, but they are not the same environments.

With average precipitation of ten inches or less, these regions typically have sparse vegetation and little or no agriculture (Jer. 2:2). Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79) describes the Essenes, who lived near the Dead Sea, as having only “the company of palm trees” (Nat. 5.73). Temperatures are severe, often exceeding 110°F on summer days, but also falling below freezing on winter nights. The limited winter rains provide short-lived grass for grazing (1 Sam. 17:28; Ps. 65:13; Jer. 23:10), along with thorns and briers (Judg. 8:7). Cisterns were dug to collect the precious rain (Gen. 37:22).

The severity of the environment is not conducive for animal and human life. The Bible mentions wild asses (Job 24:5; Jer. 48:6), jackals (Mal. 1:3), ostriches (Lam. 4:3), owls (Ps. 102:7), poisonous snakes (Isa. 30:6), panthers, and wolves (Hab. 1:8). The desert came to be viewed as the haunt of demons (Matt. 12:43) but also as a place for spiritual refreshment. By definition, a desert is untouched by human hands. The patterns and sounds go back to God, not the noisy neighbors of urban life. The desert therefore can facilitate communion with God because of the absence of distractions and the inevitable deepening awareness of the fragility of existence. Scarcity of resources also requires communal sharing and cooperation for survival.

Instead of in major urban centers in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine, the Bible presents God as training people in the desert by testing their faith, beginning with the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50). God redeems Israel out of Egypt into the desert (Exod. 15:22; 16:1; 17:1), leading them to Sinai (Exod. 18:5; 19:1–2) and then a forty-year sojourn (Num. 14:33; 32:13; Deut. 2:7). Following seasons of testing, concerning which the people routinely fail, God provides freshwater and manna, the “grain of heaven” (Ps. 78:24). However, except on the Sabbath, people are not allowed to store the food but must cultivate complete dependence upon God’s provision for their daily bread. Elijah flees into the wilderness and is provided for by an angel (1 Kings 19:1–8). He returns to Mount Sinai (Horeb) and experiences the immediate presence of God in a “thin silence” (1 Kings 19:8–13; NIV: “gentle whisper”).

This pattern is repeated in the NT, beginning with John the Baptist, who dresses like a desert nomad and subsists on locusts and wild honey—foods near at hand and not subject to agricultural tithing (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). After John’s baptism, Jesus departs into the wilderness, where he fasts and is tempted for forty days and nights among the wild beasts but is also provided for by angels (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.). Paul, after his experience on the road to Damascus, departs into Arabia (Nabatea, present-day Jordan), the place “where the nomads live” and the traditional site of Mount Sinai (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.72; Gal. 1:17; 4:25). (Damascus, perhaps the oldest city in the world, is an oasis bordering the Arabian Desert on a highway connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia.) The author of Revelation depicts a woman, who represents the people of God, fleeing into the wilderness to escape the red dragon, Satan (Rev. 12:1–6).

Fullness of Time

This expression appears in Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10 NRSV (although with variation in the Greek: chronos in the former, kairos in the latter). In Gal. 4 the context suggests that God sent Christ at the most opportune time. In Eph. 1 the expression is more apocalyptic and looks forward to the occasion when this fullness takes place. There it designates the entirety of the era from the coming of Christ to the final culmination of all things. In Ephesians the fullness is both already present and awaiting its ultimate arrival when Christ returns and finalizes his rule.

Two factors appear to have especially made the time of the incarnation of Christ and the subsequent commissioning of the church to proclaim the gospel “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) the most opportune time in history. First was the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world and the subsequent establishment of the Pax Romana (“peace of Rome”). As a result, travel was both very accessible and relatively safe. Second was the establishment of Greek as the common tongue. In fact, Greek-speaking Jews resided in nearly every major city of the Roman world. These two factors made the Roman world of the first century one of the most opportune places in human history for travelers such as Paul and Silas to traverse the Mediterranean region and proclaim the gospel.

Other factors further contributed to the ripeness of the era. Among them was the heavy cloud of anticipation among Jews in Palestine, awaiting a messianic deliverer who would free them from Roman oppression.

God

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

Imagery of God

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

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

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

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

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

Names and Attributes of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God of the Trinity

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

Israelites

The designation “Israelites” signifies the nation of Israel, which can be traced back to the children of Jacob (Gen. 46:8; cf. Exod. 1:9; Num. 1:45). To distinguish themselves from foreigners, Israelites called themselves ’ibrim, “Hebrews” (Gen. 43:32; Exod. 10:3). During the period of the divided kingdom, the name “Israelites” was used to refer to the Ephraimites (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11); during the Second Temple period, it took on a religious orientation (Sir. 46:10; 47:2; Jdt. 4:11; 2 Macc. 1:25–26). In the NT, true Israelites are not necessarily those descended from Israel or Abraham but rather those who trust in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (Rom. 9:4–8; Gal. 4:21–31; cf. Rev. 21:12). See also Israel, Spiritual.

New Jerusalem

Both Ezekiel and Revelation envision a new Jerusalem and use similar imagery to describe it and to emphasize God’s presence in the city (Ezek. 48:30–35; Rev. 21:1–22:5). According to Revelation, the throne of God, the Lamb, and the river of life are present in the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven, is made of gold and glass, is adorned with jewels, and is in the shape of a cube. Only those with names in the Lamb’s book of life will dwell in the city (Rev. 21:27). The city represents a new, spiritual order (Gal. 4:25–26; Heb. 12:22). See also Eschatology; Jerusalem.

New Testament Use of the Old Testament

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

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

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

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

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

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

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

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

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

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

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Only Begotten

John and the author of Hebrews call Jesus Christ the “only begotten,” as traditionally translated (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; Heb. 11:17 KJV). The epithet, which is a single word in Greek (monogenēs), signifies being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, and therefore, as we find in more recent translations, it may also be translated “one and only Son” (NIV) or “only son” (NRSV). Although the Bible claims that God has many human sons and daughters, in various senses he has but one “only begotten” Son, who must also be distinguished from the angels, who are also identified as sons of God (Heb. 1:1–14; see also Gen. 6:2, 4).

The author of Hebrews and Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, present Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son” (Heb. 11:17 KJV; Josephus, Ant. 1.222). But Abraham has two sons, the other one being Ishmael, as the biblical narrative and Paul make clear (Gen. 16:11–16; Gal. 4:22). The difference is that Isaac was the only begotten between Abraham and his wife, Sarah, and the one for whom God decided to perpetuate the covenant that he originally made with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:1–6; 17:19). Isaac is presented by early Christians as a type of Christ, and for Paul, he is a type of all the children of the new covenant (Gal. 4:21–31). Nevertheless, through Jesus’ fulfillment of God’s covenant obligations, many, including the descendants of Ishmael, will be called “sons of God” (Gen. 17:20; Hos. 1:10, cited in Rom. 9:26; Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26; 4:6).

Without compromising the uniqueness of his position, the “one and only” Son is happy to share his status before God the Father through faith, by grace, which brings the believer into union with his body, the church (Gal. 2:19–20; Eph. 2:1–10; Heb. 2:10). The conviction that Christ cannot be compared to human children or angels, parts of God’s creation, contributed to the belief of comparing Christ only with God, the uncreated.

Paul

A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel to Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9), but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed his letters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Roman citizens had three names; the last name was the family name, called the “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first and middle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus (Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name [13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name because group identity was more important in the first-century Mediterranean world than individual recognition. For example, when speaking publicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostle to the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”; instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, a student of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embedded in his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even those categories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also a Roman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimed that he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greek letters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-free gospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he? What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previous life in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he one of the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a follower of the historical Jesus?

Paul’s Life

Paul as a converted Pharisee. Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Pharisees were a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as the means of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed that they should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique was their emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended only for Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests were required to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate (Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So the Pharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to show God how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4). Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience brought God’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established many traditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance. To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of the Pharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that no one was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—a zeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obvious offenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zeal for the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only in Jerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts 8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6). Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionable about this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact, Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignore members of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts 5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps it was Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he had died a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul to imprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason, Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proof of his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).

After Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed: his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul left Pharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17). Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law was replaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumor spread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Why the sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—the glorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. The resurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing, death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ (Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-world event for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2 Cor. 5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ. Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during the Christophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpreted Christ’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as a prophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-time vision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal. 1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospel to the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24). God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul the apostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ages has come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

Paul’s ministry. By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can be divided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry (AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” as we have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about his activities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for a while and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal. 1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus, evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas brought him to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26). In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spent most of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching the gospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of the third decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel from prison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another two to three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for a brief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment in Rome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.

During his itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him to free cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth). Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunities for ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents. Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided a better chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabas covered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) and Anatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeys Paul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were small and provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of great economic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In the midst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among a variety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts had worshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrifices at many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religious festivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). After believing the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churches turned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one God quickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’s converts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings for patron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperial cult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for their newly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civic leaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41; Phil. 1:27–30; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul often was run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message that threatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24; Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activities eventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of time before his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up with him (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoner or a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until the day he died.

Paul’s Gospel

The sources of Paul’s gospel. Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literary Gospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not a disciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed his earthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paul get his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oral traditions about Jesus from other Christians (1 Cor. 15:1–7). For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper from those who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a major source of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the Holy Spirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8) and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to the Christophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations of Christ as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). This gave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospel preeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw life experiences as a resource for the gospel (2 Cor. 12:7–10). As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insights with his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me” (2 Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing the gospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1 Cor. 4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of Jesus Christ was the gospel according to Paul.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection of Jesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrection of Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed. Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vain because believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope of life after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1 Cor. 15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphors drawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’s work on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as “justification”/“righteousness,” “law,” and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners are justified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications of Christ’s death in religious terms, using words such as “sacrifice,” “sin,” “propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrifice of atonement”), and “temple,” which would make sense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from the world of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,” and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedience of Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms to describe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the “reconciliation” that came through the “victory” of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”

Paul also relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work of God in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divine status to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’s chosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were the elect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paul affirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only through the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1 Thess. 4:7–8). Paul believed that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about the end of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia (“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, the person and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paul interpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’s gospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition, and religious experience.

A way of life. For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way of life. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting his sacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant following Christ by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paul believed that he experienced the cross of Christ every time he endured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time he suffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified life that Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel was the divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is what happened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen to all his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In fact, Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that God would finish what he had started: the perfecting of his converts until the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of every believer (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts needed to imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the Holy Spirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now and then from their apostle.

Paul’s Letters

Paul sent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts of his situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and address problems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen letters of Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groups of churches (Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2 Thessalonians) and four to individuals (1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon).

Paul the apostle. In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending his apostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel. Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved to be called “apostle,” since he had not followed the historical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1 Cor. 15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decided to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, they established the following criterion: the candidate must have been a follower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22). Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying that there could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision to recognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all? Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve, but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas, James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1 Cor. 15:5–9; Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causing trouble in the churches (2 Cor. 11:13), some even carrying “letters of recommendation” (2 Cor. 3:1). But only those who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned by him to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1 Cor. 9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when the commission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’s converts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle. They were the proof of his apostleship.

Although Paul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidence of his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentile converts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom. 15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they were keeping the traditions that he had taught them (1 Cor. 11:2). Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement to keep up the good work (most of 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy are exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a more detailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters to correct major problems within his churches. For example, some of the Galatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal. 4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strange practices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Some of the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2 Thess. 3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued with all kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes, idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing false theological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theology as well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about life after death, end times, and the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13–18; 2 Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed, among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the last days (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to send his lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticated theological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not start and had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authority of his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul operated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentile members.

Church unity. Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used several metaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lord and one faith should form one church. He described the church as a temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and a body—his favorite metaphor (1 Cor. 12:12–27). He warned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoral behavior (1 Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children when they refused to obey him as their father (1 Cor. 3:14–21) or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy, Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed by prejudice and threatened by sickness (1 Cor. 11:17–34). To him, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meant that Christ was divided (1 Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic, religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differences evident in one of the most diverse collections of people in the first-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of a unified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle to the Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ was indispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering among his Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves like siblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his mission trip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospel brought down every wall that divides humanity because all people need salvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).

Conclusion

Paul was a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, a theologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, a prisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of three different men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitious writer. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He saw more of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of the longest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was a faithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressible troublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or less than the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Pauline Letters

Paul’s Life

Paul’s Gospel

Paul’s Letters

Conclusion

Showing 1 to 50 of159 results

1. The Laughter Of Faith

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

God called Sarah, too! We talk so much about God's call to Abraham that we can easily forget that God called Sarah as well. The story is told in Genesis 17. This old story begins with God's call to Abraham. It then moves to Sarah. "As for Sarah," God says, "she shall no longer be called Sarai but Sarah shall be her name." "I will bless her ..." God promises, "and she shall give rise to nations; kings of people shall come from her" (Genesis 17:16).

We can only imagine the solemnity of the moment when God made this promise to Abraham and Sarah. Abraham broke the solemnity. He fell on his face laughing at the very thought of God's promise. "Can a child be born to a man who is 100 years old?" Abraham laughed to himself. "Can Sarah, who is 90 years old, bear a child?" Abraham's laughter, it turns out, is the laughter of unbelief. He doesn't believe that God can keep this promise. The Lord has to scold Abraham a bit for his unseemly laughter. "No," God says firmly, "your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac" (Genesis 17:19). The Lord, it seems, also has a sense of humor. The name Isaac means: "he laughs."

Very soon thereafter the Lord visited Abraham in the guise of three messengers. Abraham and Sarah scurried around like mad making their home suitable for a visit from the Lord. They put on their finest spread. As the meal begins we hear that the Lord has made this appearance in order to speak with Sarah. "Where is Sarah your wife?" the Lord said to Abraham. Abraham had laughed off God's promise to Sarah. But the Lord perseveres. The Lord speaks the promise again in Sarah's hearing. "I will surely return to you in due season and your wife Sarah shall have a son" (Genesis 18:10).

This time it was Sarah who laughed. "After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?" she mused (Genesis 18:12). Sarah joined her husband in the laughter of unbelief. For the Lord, however, this was not a laughing matter. The Lord was angry with all this laughter of unbelief. "Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?" the Lord says in reprimand of Sarah's laughter. Sarah protested. "I did not laugh," she said to the Lord in fear. "Oh yes you did laugh," the Lord replied (Genesis 18:14-15).

Now a little laughter cannot dissuade the Lord. The Lord had made a promise to Sarah. The Lord kept that promise. The Lord means what the Lord says! Sarah did conceive and bear a son. What joy this son must have brought into the life of Abraham and Sarah! They named him "laughter," Isaac, as the one who promised had instructed them.

But we're not done with the laughing. Now it was Sarah's turn to laugh. "God has brought laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me," Sarah said. "Who would ever have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have born him a son in his old age" (Genesis 21:6-7). Sarah's laughter here is clearly a sign of her faith. At least that's how the author of the book of Hebrews understands the story. Sarah's laughter has turned from the laughter of unbelief to the laughter of belief. She has heard the promise. She has conceived. She has given birth. She has believed it all. And she has laughed about it all. As Sarah is our witness, what better response can be given to this promise-making, promise-keeping Lord?

2. No Imitations

Illustration

Martin Luther

The question is asked: how can justification take place without the works of the law, even though James says: "Faith without works is dead"? In answer, the apostle distinguishes between the law and faith, the letter and grace. The 'works of the law' are works done without faith and grace, by the law, which forces them to be done through fear or the enticing promise of temporal advantages. But 'works of faith' are those done in the spirit of liberty, purely out of love to God. And they can be done only by those who are justified by faith.

An ape can cleverly imitate the actions of humans. But he is not therefore a human. If he became a human, it would undoubtedly be not by vurtue of the works by which he imitated man but by virtue of something else; namely, by an act of God. Then, having been made a human, he would perform the works of humans in proper fashion.

Paul does not say that faith is without its characteristic works, but that it justifies without the works of the law. Therefore justification does not require the works of the law; but it does require a living faith, which performs its works.

3. The Covenants of the Scripture

Illustration

Merrill F. Unger

Scripture's covenants and their significance:

Eternal covenant, Hebrews 13:20 :The redemptive covenant before time began, between the Father and the Son. By this covenant we have eternal redemption, an eternal peace from the 'God of peace', through the death and resurrection of the Son.

Edenic covenant, Genesis 1:26-28: The creative covenant between the Triune God, as the first party (Genesis 1:26), and newly created man, as the second party, governing man's creation and life in Edenic innocence. It regulated man's dominion and subjugation of the earth, and presented a simple test of obedience. The penalty was death.

Adamic covenant, Genesis 3:14-19: The covenant conditioning fallen man's life on the earth. Satan's tool (the serpent) was cursed (Gen 3:14); the first promise of the Redeemer was given (3:15); women's status was altered (3:16); the earth was cursed (3:17-19); physical and spiritual death resulted (3:19).

Noahic covenant, Genesis 8:20-9:6: The covenant of human government. Man is to govern his fellowmen for God, indicated by the institution of capital punishment as the supreme judicial power of the state (Genesis 9:5-6). Other features included the promise of redemption through the line of Shem (Genesis 9:26).

Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12:1-3; confirmed 13:14-17; 15:1-7; 17:1-8: The covenant of promise. Abraham's posterity was to be made a great nation. In him (through Christ) all the families of the earth were to be blessed (Galations 3:16; John 8:56-58).

Mosaic covenant, Exodus 20:1-31:18: The legal covenant, given solely to Israel. It consisted of the commandments (Exodus 20:1-26); the judgments (social) - (Exodus 21:1; 24:11) and the ordinances (religious); (Exodus 24:12-31:18); also called the law. It was a conditional covenant of works, a ministry of 'condemnation' and 'death' (2 Corinthians 3:7-9), designed to lead the transgressor (convicted thereby as a sinner) to Christ.

Palestinian covenant, Deut 30:1-10: The covenant regulating Israel's tenure of the land of Canaan. Its prophetic features include dispersion of disobedience (Deuteronomy 30:1), future repentance while in dispersion (30:2), the Lord's return (30:3), the restoration (30:4-5, national conversion (3:6), judgment of Israel's foes (30:7), national prosperity (30:9). Its blessings are conditioned upon obedience (30:8,10), but fulfillment is guaranteed by the new covenant.

Davidic covenant, 2 Samuel 7:4-17, 1 Chr 17:4-15: The kingdom covenant regulating the temporal and eternal rule of David's posterity. It secures in perpetuity a Davidic 'house' or line, a throne, and a kingdom. It was confirmed by divine oath in Psalm 89:30-37 and renewed to Mary in Luke 1:31-33. It is fulfilled in Christ as the World's Saviour and Israel's coming King (Acts 1:6; Rev 19:16; 20:4-6).

New covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrew 8:8-12: The covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemption of Christ. It secures blessing for the church, flowing from the Abrahamic covenant (Galations 3:13-20), and secures all covenant blessings to converted Israel, including those of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, and Davidic covenants. This covenant is unconditional, final and irreversible.

4. Do Not Spit Here

Illustration

Staff

Many years ago, H.A. Ironside had a school for young Indian men and women, who came to his home in Oakland, California, from the various tribes in northern Arizona. One of these was a Navajo young man of unusually keen intelligence. One Sunday evening, he went with Ironside to the young people's meeting. They were talking about the epistle to the Galatians, and the special subject was law and grace. They were not very clear about it, and finally one turned to the Indian and said, "I wonder whether our Indian friend has anything to say about this."

He rose to his feet and said, "Well, my friends, I have been listening very carefully, because I am here to learn all I can in order to take it back to my people. I do not understand all that you are talking about, and I do not think you do yourselves. But concerning this law and grace business, let me see if I can make it clear. I think it is like this. When Mr. Ironside brought me from my home we took the longest railroad journey I ever took. We got out at Barstow, and there I saw the most beautiful railroad station and hotel I have ever seen. I walked all around and saw at one end a sign, 'Do not spit here.' I looked at that sign and then looked down at the ground and saw many had spitted there, and before I think what I am doing I have spitted myself. Isn't that strange when the sign say, 'Do not spit here'?

"I come to Oakland and go to the home of the lady who invited me to dinner today and I am in the nicest home I have been in. Such beautiful furniture and carpets, I hate to step on them. I sank into a comfortable chair, and the lady said, 'Now, John, you sit there while I go out and see whether the maid has dinner ready.' I look around at the beautiful pictures, at the grand piano, and I walk all around those rooms. I am looking for a sign; and the sign I am looking for is, 'Do not spit here,' but I look around those two beautiful drawing rooms, and cannot find a sign like this. I think 'What a pity when this is such a beautiful home to have people spitting all over it too bad they don't put up a sign!' So I look all over that carpet, but cannot find that anybody have spitted there. What a queer thing! Where the sign says, 'Do not spit,' a lot of people spitted. Where there was no sign at all, in that beautiful home, nobody spitted. Now I understand! That sign is law, but inside the home it is grace. They love their beautiful home, and they want to keep it clean. They do not need a sign to tell them so. I think that explains the law and grace business."

As he sat down, a murmur of approval went round the room and the leader exclaimed, "I think that is the best illustration of law and grace I have ever heard."

5. Ashamed To Beg

Illustration

John G. Lynn

In a large attractive office in a major city, a man worked for several months next to a small attractive woman. He had been there only a few days when he thought he'd ask her to lunch, which he did. The following day he asked her for dinner and they began a long dating relationship. They went to craft fairs together, since he liked to do that. They went to the ocean, which he also liked to do. They used to take long walks along the river.

He liked this relationship. He had lived for many years with his mother. In fact, it was only a few months after she died that he began dating his co-worker. Little by little, however, she began to dislike both the relationship and this man. She felt like she really wasn't herself when she was with him. She couldn't speak what she really felt. She rarely asserted where she wanted to go or what she wanted to do. She later said, "I just wasn't Sandra with him."

So she terminated her social, dating relationship with this man. Once she did, she began to feel like herself again. Her friends told her, "You're more like the old Sandra now."

Across the same town, in another office, a young man sat at his desk for eight years, struggling to manage his office work force. Outside he was a friendly, generous person. In the office he was the same way and his workers flattened him out, like steamrollers over an asphalt road. He worked long, long hours; he holed himself up behind his desk to keep all the records accurate; he just about wore himself out. Finally his friends told him, "Steve, you'd better get out of that job. You're not yourself anymore. Those people are eating you alive and you're not getting anywhere."

He protested, "But it's a good job. I make good money. And besides, it is what I do best. How can I even look for anything else?"

Then the company was sold. New management came in. All the supervisors were replaced and Steve found himself on the street. He was terrified. "To dig I am unable, to beg I am ashamed," he said. "What can I do?"

His friends told him they were glad he was fired. "At least you are your old self," they said. "And you'll find something. Just go for it." He did, and now he's doing better than he ever could have in the position he once felt he could never leave.

The steward in today's gospel lesson is like both Sandra and Steve. Sandra was not herself in that relationship. Steve was not himself in that job. Both were wasting away, losing that which was most precious to them both: their proper identities. Both felt they could not survive if they gave up something so close and precious as a relationship or a job.

In today's gospel lesson the steward's master calls him on the carpet. In Luke's mind, this Lord and Master is God. God always calls his stewards into question when they are wasteful of who and what they are. This steward is not just wasting his master's goods. The steward is wasting himself. Nothing is more precious in God's household than his steward's proper identity. This is God's gift to this steward, and he is wasting it. No wonder God calls him to account.

God does this to us all the time. He checks our relationships and he checks our jobs -- to help us make sure we are not wasting our identities where we are. This steward was. So God dismissed him. He had to get a new job and a new relationship. God does not tolerate our wasting who we are.

This dismissal turned the light on for the steward. "What shall I do? To dig I am unable, to beg I am ashamed." Finally he came to an assessment of who he was and what he could do. He came to value his own identity, one of his master's most precious goods.

He called in his master's creditors. "How much do you owe? One hundred barrels of oil? Take your bill and write 50." Did he cheat his master? Not at all. The commercial documents from that time indicate that 50 percent was the normal commission. He renounced what he thought he had to have to live on -- and he won friends for himself in so doing.

"How much do you owe? One hundred bushels of wheat? Take your bill and write 80." He did not cheat his master. He simply renounced his own commission. He gave up what he thought he needed to survive, and he survived much better without it. He zeroed in on his own identity, rather than on the commission he thought he had to have to survive.

Bruno Bettelheim, who has studied the survivors of the concentration camps in World War II, writes that those who survived were able to give up everything they thought they needed and, in so giving, they survived. Those who thought they would die if they had no clothing, no jewelry, no regular food, no books -- they did not make it.

Sometimes God will do to us what he did to this steward. He will strip us down to the very core of our existence to make us discover who we really are. He will bring us to a crossroad in life where we will be forced to say, "To dig I am not able, to beg I am ashamed." There God will reveal to us who we are. As we reach to him for help we will find ourselves renouncing our commissions -- whatever we think we need to survive but we really don't. God knows that.

Luther found himself in this position many times in his life. Once, as he began his study of law, he was struck down in a thunderstorm. Terrified, he cried out, "Dear Saint Ann, help me. I will become a monk." He quit his study of law and became a theologian instead -- the identity God wanted for him in the first place. He was wasting himself in law.

Later on, as a monk, he studied Paul's Epistle to the Romans. At that time in his life he felt he could not be Martin Luther unless he ended each day with a tray full of good works to present to God. In praying over Paul, he learned the difference between works righteousness and faith. He learned he was wasting God's gift of Martin Luther's identity in that daily tray full of good works.

He wrote: "Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that the just shall live by faith. Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through mercy and sheer grace God justified us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise." Martin Luther the Do-Gooder was reborn Martin Luther the Believer.

Today's gospel lesson introduces that curious term, "mammon," an Aramaic word which means: "that in which I put my trust." We are like Sandra, Steve, and this steward. How easy to put all our trust in relationships or commissions or a job. God will not let us do that forever. He will force us to give up those people and those things we feel are absolutely critical. In God's eyes they are roadblocks to the truth. He will take them away. Then we will discover our real identities as God's stewards, and him alone shall we serve. "

6. DOCTOR OF THE LAW

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Luke 5:17 - "On one of these days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem;"

Acts 5:34 - "But a Pharisee in the council, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while."

Later we will speak of the role of the lawyer in Jewish life, but here we are speaking of persons whom we might consider as being advanced beyond that specified role; men who specialized in the sacred statutes. These men concerned themselves with teaching rather than with the giving of written opinions. This is a strictly New Testament term, and the men themselves were of a type unique in history.

These men belonged to God, but not in a priestly way. They had nothing to do with worship; their dress was the same as that of the other Hebrews; they did not eat of the sacrificial meat; and, although they did make up a caste, they made no claim to belonging to the blood of Aaron nor the tribe of Levi. In the beginning they were simply the "scribes," but as they devoted themselves more and more to the study of religious questions, they began to be differentiated from the scribes; they felt themselves, and perhaps, with reason, to be an aristocracy of intellect and piety.

Although they traced their claim back to the time of Ezra, they became most prominent after the Maccabean wars, the national struggle against the Greeks. They had "built a hedge around the Law," and, by doing so, had preserved the essence of Judaism. They provided true intellectual life of the nation, and guided its thought; they controlled education, and particularly the higher education; they named the judges and fixed the jurisprudence; they uttered the commentaries on the Law in the synagogues; they had made the Great Sanhedrin not only a governing body and a supreme court; but also a theological college - in other words, they had the say in every phase of national life.

Today, we don’t have men who have powers of such broad scope and far-reaching potential, but we can perhaps compare these doctors of the law to the professors or heads of departments of our colleges and universities. And they became doctors of the law in much the same way that professors become professors. Any Hebrew at all could aspire to this position, no matter what his economic or sociological status. If a man left the vocation to devote himself to one of the most famous doctors, under whom he might study. After however long a period of time was necessary for him to have achieved a sense of readiness to teach, he was on his own, with students following him.

They more than studied the Law; they scrutinized every part of it and analyzed its application to the every day life of the Jews. To this degree, they went far beyond the modern professor, who seldom works with material of his own. Of course, these men weren’t working with extraneous material, either, but they were making individual judgments and applications that affected almost all of the people.

It was through the work of these men that was built up the Talmud - "the Instruction," or, "the Recitation." This is an extraordinary work, made up of two divisions. The first is the Mishnah, which is written in classical Hebrew; it is the basic canonical legal code, and its 63 tractates cover the whole field of human activity. The second is the Gemara, an immense commentary of the Mishnah; it was written in Aramaic, and there are two recensions, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian.

The greatest doctor of the Law of whom we know was Gamaliel, who might have been a teacher of St. Paul. We must tread warily when judging these men; there is a tendency to confuse them with the Pharisees of the worst kind which Jesus often criticized. But a doctor of the Law was not necessarily a Pharisee. They taught what they felt to be the truth, as our best professors do today, sometimes at risk.

And, as many professors have left works of inestimable value, so too the doctors of the Law left behind the Talmud, to which the expatriated Jews could cling as a symbol that the destruction of the Temple did not mean the end of their religion. We may not always agree with the opinions of our professors, but we must acknowledge the debt of their works, just as we must acknowledge the works of the doctors of the Law.

7. Love of Enemies

Illustration

Joyce Hollyday

Sarah Corson, a founder of Servant in faith and Technology (SIFAT) in Alabama, was on a mission in the South American jungles to set up an agricultural project in a village where she and her husband had earlier started a church and built a fish hatchery. She was with seventeen young people, including two of her sons. One Thursday night, around midnight, thirty soldiers rushed toward the house where they were all staying. Sarah was paralyzed with shock as the soldiers stormed over the clearing leading to the house. She remembered with fear that earlier that day, a neighbor had overheard a conversation near the military camp in which soldiers had blamed Americans for recent resistance to a military takeover of the country. The soldiers had vowed to exterminate all Americans in the region.

Sarah Corson prepared to die. But as the soldiers approached, she found herself offering them warm words of welcome. The commander shoved his rifle against her stomach and pushed her into the house. The soldiers began pulling everything off the shelves and out of drawers. Sarah calmly explained that she and the others were there only to set up projects and teach the Bible. The commander, stating that he had never read the Bible, said, 'Maybe it is a communist book, for all I know.' Sarah asked him to let her talk about it.

While he kept his gun pointed at her and the other soldiers continued ransacking the house, Sarah opened a Spanish Bible the Sermon on the Mount. She read about Jesus' command to love one's enemies.

'That's humanly impossible!' the commander shouted.

'That's true, sir,' she answered. 'It isn't humanly possible, but with God's help it is possible.' She challenged him to let her prove it by killing her slowly: 'Cut me to pieces little by little, and you will see you cannot make me hate you. I will die praying for you because God loves you.'

The commander lowered his gun and stepped back. Then he ordered everyone in the house to march to a truck. But before they reached the truck, he turned around and led the women back to the house. He told Sarah that the women would be raped repeatedly in the jungle camp, so he could not take them there. He also told her that this was the first time he had disobeyed an order from a superior officer-and that he would pay with his life if he were found out. He said as he left, 'I could have fought any mount of guns you might have had, but there is something here I cannot understand. I cannot fight it.'

The village waited in agony for word of the men who had been taken. The local people insisted that the church service not be held on Sunday, because soldiers considered any gathering a source of political agitation. But on Saturday night, a messenger arrived with word from the commander of the attack that he would be in church on Sunday. He wanted Sarah to come and get him; if she did not, he would walk the ten miles. It sounded to Sarah like a threat. She sent a message throughout the town that night. 'We will have the service after all,' she said, 'but you are not obligated to come. In fact you may lose your life by coming. No one knows what this solider will do. Do not come when the church bell rings unless you are sure God wants you to come.'

Sarah picked up the commander and his bodyguard at the military camp. Holding their rifles they marched coldly into the church and sat down. The church was packed before the first hymn was over. The people came in fear and trembling, but they came.

It was the church custom to welcome visitors by inviting them to the platform, singing a welcome song, and waving to them. Then the congregation would line up to shake the visitors' hands, embrace them, and offer a personal greeting. Sarah decided only to offer the commander and his bodyguard the song. Stunned to be invited up front, the two soldiers stood with their guns across their backs. The people sang weakly and waved timidly. But then, the first man on the front seat came forward and put out his hand. As he bent over to hug the soldiers, Sarah overheard him saying, 'Brother, we don't like what you did to our village, but this is the house of God, and God loves you, so you are welcome here.' Every person in the church followed his example, even the women whose eyes were red from weeping for their loved ones whom the commander had taken prisoner.

The commander was incredulous. He marched to the pulpit and said, 'Never have I dreamed that I could raid a town, come back, and have that town welcome me as a brother.' Pointing to Sarah, he said, 'That sister told me Thursday night that Christians love their enemies, but I did not believe her then. You have proven it to me this morning. . . I never believed there was a God before, but what I have just felt is so strong that I will never doubt the existence of God as long as I live.'

The commander stayed for lunch with the congregation and offered money from his own pocket to parishioners who had loved ones taken away. Two weeks later, all of the men who had been taken were released from the basement cell where they had been imprisoned and some had been tortured.

Sarah Corson was overcome with gratitude to God for putting divine love in her heart for a person she could not love on her own. She remembers the last words the commander said to her: 'I have fought many battles and killed many people. It was nothing to me. It was just my job to exterminate them. But I never knew them personally. This is the first time I ever knew my enemy face to face. And I believe that if we knew each other, our guns would not be necessary.'"

Note: the full story can be found here - https://sifat.org/pdfs/Welcoming_the_Enemy.pdf

8. The Story of Sarah's Sorrow

Illustration

Max Lucado

Sarah was rich. She had inherited twenty million dollars. Plus she had an additional income of one thousand dollars a day. That's a lot of money any day, but it was immense in the late 1800s.

Sarah was well known. She was the belle of New Haven, Connecticut. No social event was complete without her presence. No one hosted a party without inviting her.

Sarah was powerful. Her name and money would open almost any door in America. Colleges wanted her donations. Politicians clamored for her support. Organizations sought her endorsement.

Sarah was rich. Well known. Powerful. And miserable.

Her only daughter had died at five weeks of age. Then her husband had passed away. She was left alone with her name, her money, her memories, ... and her guilt. It was her guilt that caused her to move west. A passion for penance drove her to San Jose, California. Her yesterdays imprisoned her todays, and she yearned for freedom.

She bought an eight-room farmhouse plus one hundred sixty adjoining acres. She hired sixteen carpenters and put them to work. For the next thirty-eight years, craftsmen labored every day, twenty-four hours a day, to build a mansion. Observers were intrigued by the project. Sarah's instructions were more than eccentric ... they were eerie. The design had a macabre touch. Each window was to have thirteen panes, each wall thirteen panels, each closet thirteen hooks, and each chandelier thirteen globes.

The floor plan was ghoulish. Corridors snaked randomly, some leading nowhere. One door opened to a blank wall, another to a fifty-foot drop. One set of stairs led to a ceiling that had no door. Trap doors. Secret passageways. Tunnels. This was no retirement home for Sarah's future; it was a castle for her past.

The making of this mysterious mansion only ended when Sarah died. The completed estate sprawled over six acres and had six kitchens, thirteen bathrooms, forty stairways, forty-seven fireplaces, fifty-two skylights, four hundred sixty-seven doors, ten thousand windows, one hundred sixty rooms, and a bell tower.

Why did Sarah want such a castle? Didn't she live alone? "Well, sort of," those acquainted with her story might answer. "There were the visitors..." And the visitors came each night.

Legend has it that every evening at midnight, a servant would pass through the secret labyrinth that led to the bell tower. He would ring the bell...to summon the spirits. Sarah would then enter the "blue room," a room reserved for her and her nocturnal guests. Together they would linger until 2:00 a.m., when the bell would be rung again. Sarah would return to her quarters; the ghosts would return to their graves.

Who comprised this legion of phantoms?

Indians and soldiers killed on the U.S. frontier. They had all been killed by bullets from the most popular rifle in America the Winchester. What had brought millions of dollars to Sarah Winchester had brought death to them. So she spent her remaining years in a castle of regret, providing a home for the dead.

You can see this poltergeist place in San Jose, if you wish. You can tour its halls and see its remains. But to see what unresolved guilt can do to a human being, you don't have to go to the Winchester mansion. Lives imprisoned by yesterday's guilt are in your own city. Hearts haunted by failure are in your own neighborhood. People plagued by pitfalls are just down the street .. or just down the hall.

There is, wrote Paul, a "worldly sorrow" that "brings death." A guilt that kills. A sorrow that's fatal. A venomous regret that's deadly.

How many Sarah Winchesters do you know? How far do you have to go to find a soul haunted by ghosts of the past? Maybe not very far.

Maybe Sarah's story is your story.

9. I Choose You

Illustration

Victoria Brooks

There's an old, word-of-mouth story, which is probably aprochryphal, about Abraham Lincoln visiting a slave auction. Observing the proceedings from the rear of the crowd, his attention was caught by a strong, defiant, young slave girl with sharp, angry eyes.

Something in her manner pierced him; the sheer intensity of her gaze spoke to him of the anguish of her captivity and her longing for freedom. When it was her turn to step to the auction block, he and several others bid. With each rise in price, her hostility grew. Finally, Lincoln won, paid the money, and had her brought to him.

She came, rigid with resistance, arms tied behind her back, leg chains dragging.

“Untie her,” Lincoln said.

“Oh no, sir!” her auctioneer responded, pulling her forward with a jerk. “She be a wild one! Ain’t no end o’ trouble in her. Ya best git her home afore ya be takin’ her chains off.” With that, he secured her to the horse rail, turned, and left.

Lincoln stood quietly for a moment, looking at the young woman. “What is your name?” he asked.

She did not respond.

“What are you called?” he repeated.

Steeling herself for the inevitable blow, she set her jaw, stared at the ground, and said nothing.

Taking the bill of sale from his pocket, Lincoln read it carefully, then marked the bottom with his signature. Slowly he stooped, undid the clasp of her ankle irons, and untied the rope that had cut into her wrists.

“You’re free to go, Sara-Jane,” he said, handing her the document. “You are free to choose your own life now.”

Reaching again into his pocket, he drew out a card and several coins. “If you have any trouble,” he said, “call on me at this address and I will help you.”

As the reality of what she had heard seeped slowly through her brain and into her muscles, the young woman grew weak and unable to sustain her rage. Minutes ticked by as anger gave way to confusion, and confusion to disbelief. Like someone in the grip of a personal earthquake, shockwaves of agonizing hope rippled through the muscles of her face. As she fought for control, her jaw clenched, then settled again; her muscular shoulders convulsed, then were still. Finally, a large, work-callused hand rose to take the papers and the money. Instantly, she turned and ran.

Lincoln watched as she disappeared down the rutted road.

Taking the reins of his horse, he began to mount when he saw her suddenly stop. Some distance away, she stood totally still. More minutes passed. Then, slowly, deliberately, she made her way back. Standing in front of him, she handed him the money.

“I choose you,” she said, looking up for the first time into Lincoln’s gaunt, craggy face. “You say I choose my own life now,” she continued haltingly, “ ... that I work for who I want. You give me papers to show that I be free.” The deep sinkholes of her oval face were wet with emotion. “If that be true . . . if I be free . . . then I choose you.”

10. Historic: The Declaration of Independence

Illustration

Staff

The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Background

On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to set forth the principles upon which the Congress had acted two days earlier when it voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee's motion to declare the freedom and independence of the 13 American colonies from England. The Declaration was designed to influence public opinion and gain support both among the new states and abroad especially in France, from which the new "United States" sought military assistance.

Although Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston comprised the committee charged with drafting the Declaration, the task fell to Jefferson, regarded as the strongest and most eloquent writer. The document is mainly his work, although the committee and Congress as a whole made a total of 86 changes to Jefferson's draft.

As a scholar well-versed in the ideas and ideals of the French and English Enlightenments, Jefferson found his greatest inspiration in the language and arguments of English philosopher John Locke, who had justified England's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 on the basis of man's "natural rights." Locke's theory held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty. Jefferson's theory of "natural law" differed in that it substituted the inalienable right of "the pursuit of happiness" for "property," emphasizing that happiness is the product of civic virtue and public duty. The concept of the "pursuit of happiness" originated in the Common Sense School of Scottish philosophy, of which Lord Kames was the best-known proponent.

Jefferson emphasized the contractual justification for independence, arguing that when the tyrannical government of King George III of England repeatedly violated "natural law, " the colonists had not only the right but the duty to revolt.

The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1) a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.

11. IN THE PROVERBIAL PITS

Illustration

John H. Krahn

Most of us think we are pretty good - not worthy of going to hell. In commercials we are told to use a variety of products. Why? Because we are worth it. Commercials and best-selling books discourage us from seeing ourselves in a negative light, unable to be in control over every situation in life - even over our life beyond life.

Therefore, if someone says to you, "Go to hell," it is an affront. The person who says such a thing infers that in his opinion you are not number one but that you are the pits. We have no right to say such a thing, for it is much like the pot calling the kettle black. Yet, when Jesus Christ returns to earth at the end of time, he will have to tell billions of people to "Go to hell." Why? Because all people are sinners and cannot save themselves. Until we recognize our sinfulness, we will never desire a savior. The problem is that we all think we’re pretty good people. Compared to what? - other sinners, maybe - but not to a righteous God.

And what is the Bible’s standard for salvation? Jesus told us when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as my father in heaven is perfect." Perfection. One hundred percent is the only passing grade. God doesn’t grade on a curve. The Book of James puts it another way, "If we offend in one point we are guilty of all." If we commit just one sin, we step outside the realm of the law and become an outlaw. You don’t have to break every law in the book to be a criminal - just kill one person.

Sin is a "four-letter word" ... a dirty word, that will someday keep us out of heaven if left alone. It puts us in the proverbial pits. It is a cancer of the soul, and if left untreated, it brings everlasting death. I cannot imagine anything more awful than to stand before the Lord Jesus at the end of time, and have him say, "John, go to hell!" Satan works overtime to delude us into thinking that we are good enough to make it to heaven on our own. If we want to know how black and hideous our hearts are in the sight of God, we need only take a long look at the cross. God considered our sin so terrible and our lives so important that he sent his Son to the cross to die for us.

Heaven is a free gift and is not earned or deserved. Grace is God’s riches at Christ’s expense. People are sinners and cannot save themselves. Our sinful condition will lead to eternal death if left unchecked. If we accept God’s gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ, we can have the confidence of everlasting life in heaven.

12. The Forgiveness Business

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

I have frequently quoted Robert Capon's comments that the church is not in the morals business. The world does a pretty good job of that. What the world can't get right is the forgiveness business which is the church's proper job.

From a slightly different angle, he writes in Between Noon and Three: Morality, by its very nature, must be concerned with norms, with standards; whereas grace, by definition, is concerned with persons: it is a refusal to allow the standards to become the basis of their reconciliation or condemnation. Thus the conflict: morality tells you the standard you need to meet in order to be properly alive; grace tells you that all you ultimately need is to be dead – which is either the world's lowest standard or no standard at all.

Grace and morality, therefore, are two different kettles of fish. Morality deals with virtue and vice, with what is strengthening or weakening for human nature considered as an operational possibility. Grace, however, deals with sin, with a condition in which human nature has ceased to be an operational possibility and has ended up a lost cause. Grace is, to say it once again, about raising the dead. In the Bible the opposite of sin is not virtue; it is faith – faith in God who raises the dead.

All this talk about morality, therefore, is misleading. When we get far enough into it we begin to convince ourselves that the preaching of the moral law will, if done energetically enough, lead people to lead good lives and so make them more like what they ought to be. But that's not biblical. St. Paul says that the purpose of the law was not to do that at all, but to bring us to the awareness of sin. We sit here talking as if proper moral instruction to fifteen-year-olds will somehow keep them clear of sin. But St. Paul says that Scripture has concluded – locked up – all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. [pp. 157-8]

The goal of our preaching is not more moral behaviors, but forgiveness. I have often said that the primary purpose of sermons is absolution. While there may be instructions, and illustrations, and jokes, etc., if the forgiveness of sins through Jesus is not proclaimed in some way, I think that the sermon (and the church) has failed in its God-given purpose.

13. Where the Spirit Moves

Illustration

Donald B. Strobe

I once read something called "Deal's First Law of Sailing." It goes something like this: "The amount of wind will vary inversely with the number and experience of the people you have on board the sailboat." And the second law is like unto it: "No matter how strong the breeze when you leave the dock, once you have reached the farthest point from the port from which you started, the wind will die."

Those who have the hobby of sailing can attest to the validity of these "laws." In fact, the art of sailing is a good analogy for the receiving of God's grace. While sitting in a sailboat, have you ever tried to make the wind blow? It cannot be done. Neither can you, by your own efforts, cause God's grace to come upon you. While sailing, you are entirely at the mercy of the wind (along with your skill at capturing it). You may capture the wind in your sails for a time, but it can disappear suddenly, leaving you stranded in the middle of the lake, and, if you do not have a motor, too embarrassed to ask for a tow. Sailing is a humbling experience. You may use the wind to take you where you want to go for a time, but it can shift directions without warning. Sailing makes you aware of your dependency.

That's Jesus' message in John, Chapter Three. You cannot capture the grace of God, you can only receive it. God's Spirit moves where He wills, and the birth from above is just that: from above. It is the work of God's Spirit within us, not something we do for ourselves.

14. What Is Unique About Christianity?

Illustration

Brett Blair

The story of Jesus sitting and debating the Law with rabbis reminds me of another debate that took place in a comparative religions conference, the wise and the scholarly were in a spirited debate about what is unique about Christianity. Someone suggested what set Christianity apart from other religions was the concept of incarnation, the idea that God became incarnate in human form. But someone quickly said, "Well, actually, other faiths believe that God appears in human form." Another suggestion was offered: what about resurrection? The belief that death is not the final word. That the tomb was found empty. Someone slowly shook his head. Other religions have accounts of people returning from the dead.

Then, as the story is told, C.S. Lewis walked into the room, tweed jacket, pipe, armful of papers, a little early for his presentation. He sat down and took in the conversation, which had by now evolved into a fierce debate. Finally during a lull, he spoke saying, "what's all this rumpus about?" Everyone turned in his direction. Trying to explain themselves they said, "We're debating what's unique about Christianity." "Oh, that's easy," answered Lewis, "it is grace."

The room fell silent.

Lewis continued that Christianity uniquely claims God's love comes free of charge, no strings attached. No other religion makes that claim. After a moment someone commented that Lewis had a point, Buddhists, for example, follow an eight-fold path to enlightenment. It's not a free ride.

Hindu's believe in karma, that your actions continually affect the way the world will treat you; that there is nothing that comes to you not set in motion by your actions. Someone else observed the Jewish code of the law implies God has requirements, and Islam's code of love does the same.

At the end of the discussion everyone concluded Lewis had a point. Only Christianity dares to proclaim God's love is unconditional. An unconditional love that we call grace.

15. A List of Murphy's Laws

Illustration

Staff

If anything can go wrong, it will.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.
Everything takes longer than you expect.
If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will go wrong first will be the one that will do the most damage.
Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse.
If you play with something long enough, you will surely break it.
If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
If you see that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious.
The consumer report on the item will come out a week after you've made your purchase
Gold's Law: If the shoe fits, its ugly.
If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don't want hits the paper.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
If everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
When you dial a wrong number you never get a busy signal.
Law of Gardening: You get the most of what you need the least.
Jones's Law: Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.
Eve's Discovery: At a sale, the only suit or dress that you like and that fits is not the one on sale.
Nothing will be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.
Harris's Law. Any philosophy that can be put "in a nutshell" belongs there. Sidney J. Harris
Douglas's Law of Practical Aeronautics: When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. Donald Douglas
Unnamed Law. If it happens, it must be possible.
Wing-Walking, First Law of: Never leave hold of what you've got until you've got hold of something else.
Bucy's Law. Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man. Fred Bucy
Clopton's Law: For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.
United Law: if an organization carries the word "united" in its name, it means it isn't: e.g., United Nations, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States.
Kafka's Law: in the fight between you and the world, back the world. Franz Kafka
Ettorre's observation: The other line moves faster. This applies to all lines bank, supermarket, toll booth, customs. If you change lines, then the other line the one you were in originally will move faster.
Osborn's Law. Variables won't, constants aren't.
Never use one word when a dozen will suffice.
If it can be understood, it is not finished yet.
Never do anything for the first time.
Marshall's generalized iceberg theorem: Seven-eighths of everything can't be seen.
Runyon's Law: The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to bet.
The severity of an itch is inversely proportional to the reach.
Paige's Sixth Rule: Don't look back; something might be gaining on you. Satchel Paige
Kristol's Law: Being frustrated is disagreeable, but the real disasters in life begin when you get what you want. Irving Kristol.
Parkinson's Law: (1) Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. (2) Expenditure rises to meet income. C. Northcote Parkinson
Peer's Law: The solution to a problem changes the problem. John Peers
Corcoran's Law: All papers that you save will never be needed until such time as they are disposed of, when they become essential. John Corcoran
Darwin's Observation: Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can. Charles Darwin
Thurber's Conclusion: There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else. James Thurber, Fables for Our Time
A spilled drink flows in the direction of the most expensive object. Judye Briggs, in The New Official Rules, P. Dickson
Law of milk and other precious commodities: The less you have, the more you spill.
Law of epistolary effort: Troublesome correspondence that is postponed long enough will eventually become irrelevant.
Law or repair: Anything adjustable will sooner or later need adjustment
Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
A dog's affection increases in direct proportion to how wet and sandy he is.
When you come in late for work, everybody notices; when you work late, nobody notices.
The waitress always comes around to ask you how your food is whenever your mouth is full.
The average time between throwing something away and needing it badly is about two weeks.
Life is what happens to you while you are making other plans.
If you treat a sick child like an adult and a sick adult like a child, everything works out pretty well.
Checks are always delayed in the mail. Bills arrive on time or sooner.
If you do a job twice, it's yours.
Smith's Fourth Law of Inertia: A body at rest tends to watch television.
No matter how many show up for choir practice, you will need one more copy of the music.
The shorter the agenda the longer the meeting.
When you're right, nobody remembers; when you're wrong, nobody forgets.
O'Reilly's Law: No matter what goes wrong, there's always someone who knew it would.
Kilpatrick's Law: Interchangeable parts aren't.
Shanahan's Law: The length of the is the square of the number of people present.
Brennan's Law: Paper is always strongest at the perforations.
Dooley's Law: If something happens to you, it has previously happened to all your friends.
Never hire a plumber who wears rubber boots or an electrician with scorched eyebrows. Ashley Cooper
Thomas's Rules of the Game: a) No matter how well you do something, someone won't like it. b) No matter how trivial the assignment, it is always possible to build it up to a major issue.
Herman's Rule: if it works right the first time, you've obviously done something wrong. Pat (Mrs. Herman) Jett
Toomey's Rule: It is easy to make decisions on matters for which you have no responsibility.
Immediately after you buy an item, you find a coupon for it. Bill Copeland
The first person who gets off a crowded elevator is always standing in the back. Carl Dombeck
The last key in the bunch usually opens the lock.
The weaker the arguments, the stronger the words. Dave Gneiser.
If a problem causes many meetings, the meetings eventually become more important than the problem.

16. A Careful Separation

Illustration

Julie Riley

Many years ago, a little girl named Sarah lived in a home for unwed mothers. She was not one of the clients; her mother was the cook there. Sarah had grown up in the home, and was the special pet of all the girls who came there. One day, a new girl, young and pregnant had come to the home. As she sat on the bench, waiting for her intake interview with the director, she wept. Sarah, now about twelve or thirteen years old, had seen many girls come and go by then, and she knew most all of them had the same look of despair when they arrived. Sarah took pity on the girl, who was not far from her own age. She began talking, and as she did, the girl stopped crying. Then Sarah began to offer some advice on how to answer the standard questions, particularly the one about the father of the baby, "When she asks you who the father is, don't lie, she hates it when you lie, and, what ever you do, don't say he's dead, everyone says he's dead." The girl looked at Sarah, and much to her surprise, asked her, "So what did you say when she asked you?"

Sarah froze; she was horrified that the girl had mistaken her for one of them. She loved and cared for those girls, but in her mind there had always been a careful separation between them and her. She could love and support them, but she could not be one of them. That, I guess is the difference between God's hospitality and ours. God chose to be us. "Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness." (Phil. 2:5b-7)

17. Take the Garbage Out

Illustration

Brett Blair

The poet Shel Silverstein wrote a rather humorous poem called: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout Would Not Take The Garbage Out! Let me share it with you.

Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout
Would not take the garbage out!
She'd scour the pots and scrape the pans,
Candy the yams and spice the hams,
And though her Daddy would scream and shout
She simply would not take the garbage out.

And so it piled up to the ceilings:
Coffee grounds, potato peelings,
Brown bananas, rotten peas,
Chunks of sour cottage cheese.

It filled the can, it covered the floor,
It cracked the window and blocked the door
With bacon rinds and chicken bones,
Drippy ends of ice cream cones,

Prune pits, peach pits, orange peel,
Gloppy glumps of cold oatmeal,
Pizza crusts and withered greens,
Soggy beans and tangerines,

Crusts of black burned buttered toast,
Gristly bits of beefy roasts . ..
The garbage can rolled on down the hall,
It raised the roof, it broke the wall . . .

Greasy napkins, cookie crumbs,
Globs of gooey bubble gum,
Cellophane from green baloney,
Rubbery blubbery macaroni,

Peanut butter, caked and dry,
Curdled milk and crusts of pie,
Moldy melons, dried up mustard,
Eggshells mixed with lemon custard,

Cold french fries and rancid meat,
Yellow lumps of cream of wheat.
At last the garbage reached so high
That finally it touched the sky.

And all the neighbors moved away,
And none of her friends would come to play.
And finally Sarah Cynthia Stout
Said, "OK, I'll take the garbage out!"

But then, of course, it was too late . . .
The garbage reached across the state,
From New York to the Golden Gate.
And there, in the garbage she did hate,

Poor Sarah met an awful fate,
That I cannot right now relate
Because the hour is too late.
But children, remember Sarah Stout
And always take the garbage out!

We are all like Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout. We have not taken the garbage out. We keep our sins, as wretched as they may be, we will not get them out. The garbage of our sins, stinks up our lives. John the Baptist is our reminder: Repent and let Christ take the trash out of your life. Be baptised! Make straight paths for Him! Flee from the wrath to come! Produce fruit! This is Advent and this is its message.

18. Eighty Years and One Night

Illustration

Thomas Lindberg

According to a traditional Hebrew story, Abraham was sitting outside his tent one evening when he saw an old man, weary from age and journey, coming toward him. Abraham rushed out, greeted him, and then invited him into his tent. There he washed the old man's feet and gave him food and drink. The old man immediately began eating without saying any prayer or blessing. So Abraham asked him, "Don't you worship God?"

The old traveler replied, "I worship fire only and reverence no other god."

When he heard this, Abraham became incensed, grabbed the old man by the shoulders, and threw him out of his tent into the cold night air.

When the old man had departed, God called to his friend Abraham and asked where the stranger was. Abraham replied, "I forced him out, because he did not worship you."

God answered, "I have suffered him these eighty years although he dishonors me. Could you not endure him one night?"

19. Hanging On To Today

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

You may not know the name Sarah Winchester, but you may know about her home in San Jose, California. For 38years, 24 hours a day, workmen remodeled that house. There are 40 bedrooms in the Winchester house -- 161 rooms altogether. There are 13 bathrooms, 9 kitchens, 10,000 windows, and 40 staircases. For 38 years, one resident, Sarah Winchester, kept adding to her house. Her son had died in infancy and, fifteen years after their marriage, her husband died. Sarah, now made painfully aware of the fleetingness of life, went to a spiritualist who told her that she had to build a house and continue building and never stop because the day she stopped she would join her husband and her son.

"What bizarre behavior,” you say, and you’re right. But the problem is a common one -- trying to hold on to the present

As you move into the new year, remember -- the past is forgiven; the future is promise; so live in the present with hope.

20. Magic Words

Illustration

James W. Moore

When our grand-daughter Sarah was two years old, she was extremely active. She was always busy, always moving and always in a hurry… because at two years of age, she had already realized that there are so many exciting things to do and see and experience in this incredible world God has given us.

One day Sarah interrupted her play-time just long enough to run into the kitchen in search of a mid-afternoon snack. Hurriedly, she said to her mother: "Banana, Momma, Banana!"

Jodi, her mother, handed her a banana. Sarah quickly grabbed the banana and turned to rush back out of the kitchen. However, before she took very many steps, her mother said: "Sarah, come back. What are the magic words?" Sarah screeched to a halt, turned back around and said: "Please! Thank You! You're Welcome! God Bless You! And I Love You, Mommy!"

Now, that's gratitude. That's the healed lepers heart and her mother recognized it, and Sarah got a second banana!... And a warm hug!

21. Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day

Illustration

William H. Seward

Washington, D.C. March 30, 1863

Senator James Harlan of Iowa, whose daughter later married President Lincoln's son Robert, introduced this Resolution in the Senate on March 2, 1863. The Resolution asked President Lincoln to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting. The Resolution was adopted on March 3, and signed by Lincoln on March 30, one month before the fast day was observed.

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

22. Heirs According to the Promise

Illustration

King Duncan

There is a legend which comes from the French Revolution. King Louis XVI and his queen were condemned to death. They were escorted to the guillotine in a public square in Paris where they were beheaded. The mob was not satisfied. "Bring out the Prince," they cried. "He is next!!" The young boy was terrified. He was only six years old, but he was next in line to be King. In the mind of the crowd, he had to be eliminated.

According to the story, the young prince stood on the platform trembling in his black velvet coat. The mob screamed at him, "Down with Royalty! Eliminate all royalty! Kill the Prince!!" Suddenly a shout came from the crowd: "Don't kill him. Killing him is too good for him. It will only send him to heaven, and that is too good for royalty. I say turn him over to Meg, the Witch. She'll teach him to be a sinner, and when he dies his soul will go to hell. That's what royalty deserves."

So according to the legend, that is exactly what happened. The officials turned the young prince over to the witch. The vile woman tried to teach him foul language, but every time she prompted the Prince to be profane, he would stubbornly stamp his feet and clench his fists and shout: "I will not say it. I will not speak that way. I was born a King, and I will not speak like I live in a gutter."

This apocryphal story speaks to Paul's words: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

23. The Last Meal

Illustration

Larry Powell

Perhaps you have visited the Upper Room Chapel in Nashville, Tennessee, and had the opportunity to meditate before the marvelous wood carving and its appointments which so dramatically depict the Last Supper. One of the mysterious features of this particular carving is that no matter where you kneel before the figure of Christ, his eyes gaze strangely into yours. So it must have seemed to the disciples gathered around the table in Jerusalem on that fateful evening. How much more intense it must have been for Judas, and we can but wonder where his eyes were fixed when Jesus uttered those terrible words. "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me" (Matthew 26:23).

So far as the disciples were concerned, they had gathered, as they had done since childhood, to partake of the traditional Passover meal. The streets of Jerusalem were crowded with pious Jews who had come into the city for this express purpose. The ritual was always the same: while at the table, the story of the escape from Egypt would be recounted ... there would be special foods on the table and unleavened bread would be eaten as a reminder of the haste in which the Exodus people had been forced to flee Egypt ... it was always the same.

To the disciples’ surprise however, Jesus suddenly departed from the familiar references; "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ Likewise also the cup after supper saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’ " Jesus had dramatically transformed the Passover supper into the Lord’s Supper on the evening of his "last supper" with them (see also Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-29).

The Lord’s Supper:

1. Is a sacrament, meaning that it was instituted by Christ and commanded to be continued "till he come." In Paul’s familiar passage, used in the sacrament ritual, he adds, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

2. Symbolizes the new covenant. The Old Testament covenant of the Law was sealed with the blood of animal sacrifice. However, this covenant had failed. The prophets themselves had said, "Behold, the days will come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new convenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." The covenant of Law was being superseded by the new convenant of love, sealed by the blood of Christ.

3. Uses of common elements. In addition to using the traditional elements of the Passover, bread and wine, Jesus realized that each day when his followers partook of their meals, two things were certain to be on the table ... bread and wine. Consequently, even an ordinary meal would include reminders of the new covenant.

4. Was observed anxiously. Devout early Christians met daily to observe the sacrament in the prayerful hope that Jesus would return while they were sharing the sacred meal. In time, the early Church observed the sacrament each Sunday, a practice continued until the Reformation. Oddly enough, in Scotland, during the sixteenth century, it was observed in the country twice and in town four times a year.

5. Is called the eucharist, meaning the "thanksgiving," based on the passage, "He took a cup, and when he had given thanks...."

Perhaps John Calvin spoke for each of us when he admitted that "the matter is too sublime for me to be able to express, or even to comprehend ... I rather experience it, than understand it."

24. Understanding Joy in the Gospel

Illustration

Dean Lueking

There was an old Dutch preacher who served two congregations in Holland, one on either side of a dike. The only way he could get to both on winter Sunday mornings was to skate across the frozen body of water separating the two churches. When he asked permission of his ecclesiastical elders to skate the distance, they reluctantly agreed – but only on the stipulation that he would not enjoy doing so.

That story illustrates a much larger problem, the problem of knowing God only under the Law and never under the Gospel. Don't let that blight cripple your spirit and rob your faith of the delighting in God, the enjoyment of his grace and abundant goodness.

25. Servants of the Most High

Illustration

Brett Blair

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

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

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

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

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

26. Paid In Full

Illustration

Michael P. Green

The story is told of a man who was caught and taken to court because he had stolen a loaf of bread. When the judge investigated, he found out that the man had no job, and his family was hungry. He had tried unsuccessfully to get work and finally, to feed his family, he had stolen a loaf of bread. Although recognizing the extenuating circumstances, the judge said, “I’m sorry, but the law can make no exceptions. You stole, and therefore I have to punish you. I order you to pay a fine of ten dollars.” He then continued, “But I want to pay the fine myself.” He reached into his pocket, pulled out a ten-dollar bill, and handed it to the man.

As soon as the man took the money, the judge said, “Now I also want to remit the fine.” That is, the man could keep the money. “Furthermore, I am going to instruct the bailiff to pass around a hat to everyone in this courtroom, and I am fining everyone in this courtroom fifty cents for living in a city where a man has to steal in order to have bread to eat.” The money was collected and given to the defendant.

This is an excellent example of justice being meted out in full and paid in full—while mercy and grace were also enacted in full measure.

27. The Wild Goose

Illustration

Mickey Anders

Celtic Christians chose, not the dove, but the wild goose as a symbol representing the Holy Spirit. It sounds strange to us, but it has a long tradition in Ireland.

While the Roman Church imagined the Holy Spirit in the form of a peaceful, graceful dove, the Ancient Celts understood the Holy Spirit to be like a wild goose. When you hear of the Spirit descending like a heavenly dove on you, you hear harps and strings softly playing and get a peaceful feeling. The image of the Holy Spirit as dove has become so familiar and domesticated an image we pay little attention.

The image of a wild goose descending upon you is a different matter altogether. A wild goose is one noisy, bothersome bird. I like this image of the Holy Spirit as a wild goose because it jars us out of our complacency. We need such an image to correct our overly safe and overly sweet image of the Spirit. One preacher friend asked, "How many times can you sing 'There's a Sweet, Sweet Spirit in This Place' without your blood sugar reaching diabetic levels?"

When the Spirit comes in the Bible, it never seems to be sweet or safe. God's Spirit called the prophets to speak to Israel in words that were bold and sometimes dangerous. Ezekiel saw a vision of God's Spirit blowing through a valley of dry bones and bringing them to life. John the Baptist dressed in camel's hair and eating wild locusts proclaimed, "I baptize you with water but he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Paul gave this advice to young Timothy, "For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline" (2 Timothy 1:6-7).

Neither safe nor tame, the Spirit inspired Paul to proclaim, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

It was this wild Goose that Jesus referred to when he preached his first sermon and quoted Isaiah, saying, "For the Spirit of the Lord is upon me for he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of God's favor" (Luke 4:18).

28. A Free Gift

Illustration

Robert Farrar Capon

You're worried about permissiveness in the way the preaching of grace seems to say it's okay to do all kinds of terrible things as long as you just walk in afterward and take the free gift of God's forgiveness. While you and I may be worried about seeming to give permission, Jesus apparently wasn't. He wasn't afraid of giving the prodigal son a kiss instead of a lecture, a party instead of probation; and he proved that by bringing in the elder brother at the end of the story and having him raise pretty much the same objections you do. He's angry about the party. He complains that his father is lowering standards and ignoring virtue that music, dancing, and a fatted calf are, in effect, just so many permissions to break the law. And to that, Jesus has the father say only one thing: "Cut that out! We're not playing good boys and bad boys any more. Your brother was dead and he's alive again. The name of the game from now on is resurrection, not bookkeeping.

29. Some Rules Need to be Broken

Illustration

Larry Powell

Let us fabricate a situation in order to refer to an actual circumstance. Suppose that your family doctor spent the better part of his time enjoying the company of his cohorts, all of them healthy, sharing a common interest, and preserving the clinic by keeping it in good repair, yet never associated with persons beset by maladies. The clinic has been the medical center for as long as anyone can remember, but is used primarily for research and as a place to house medical books. The doctors are far too involved with perusing the records, studying cures, and maintaining the dignity of medicine to bother themselves with the sick and infirm. To carry this hypothetical situation further, let us say that a new doctor appears in town, totally unrelated to the time-honored clinic, independent of the guild. He seeks out the diseased, actually associates with them, and proceeds to cure their ailments. Immediately, the professional guild begins to question his credentials and stirs up public opinion against him.

Now read Mark 2:15-17. Jesus has invited certain tax collectors and "sinners" to dinner in his own home. The scribes and Pharisees, no doubt chaffed because Jesus had not invited them instead, raised a question which is, in fact, unintelligible for men of their profession: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Why was he not at the holy of holies with them observing proper rituals and diet? Why did he not take his fellowship with the saints, the "clean" and righteous? Jesus not only explained the messianic format, he also reprimanded them for their insular hypocrisy: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

The Pharisees were monitors of the Law. It is true ... there must always be individuals around us to call our attention to the rules, but it is an additional gift of grace when such persons possess at least a minimum of common sense. Some years ago, I received a telephone call from a parishioner who desperately pleaded that I come immediately to her house and rush her to the emergency room of a local hospital. Knowing that she had been experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy, I did not ask questions, but quickly ran to the car and hurried to her house. She was waiting on the front porch as I drove into the driveway. As I helped her into the car, she kept saying, "Hurry, hurry!" In a matter of moments I drove up to the entrance of the emergency room, jumped from the car and started around to open the door to assist the young lady inside. Even before I could reach the other side of the car, a man in uniform came charging from behind the sliding glass doors shouting, "You can’t park here ... this area must be kept open for emergency!" I explained to him that this was an emergency. "I can’t help that," he said, "you’ll have to move the car before you can bring her in." I had to move the car, park it at a considerable distance from the emergency room entrance and almost carry the expectant mother into the hospital. As I mentioned, there must always be individuals to remind us of the rules, but it is an additional gift of grace if they have a minimum of common sense.

The Pharisees scolded Jesus for associating with sinners (Mark 2:16), chastized him for plucking grain for nourishment on the sabbath (23-28), and rebuked him for healing a man with a withered hand on the same day (3:1-6). Jesus was threatening their security, their positions, and assuming their authority. Not surprisingly, rather than reassessing their own witness, they dug in all the more, and "stirred up the people against him."

30. Mary Had the Little Lamb

Illustration

Marv & Marbeth Rosenthal

Mary Had The Little Lamb

Mary had the little Lamb, who lived before His birth;
Self-existent Son of God, from Heaven He came to Earth.
Micah 5:2

Mary had the little Lamb; see Him in yonder stall
Virgin-born Son of God, to save man from the Fall.
Isaiah 7:14

Mary had the little Lamb, obedient Son of God;
Everywhere the Father led, His feet were sure to trod.
John 6:38

Mary had the little Lamb, crucified on the tree
The rejected Son of God, He died to set men free.
1 Peter 1:18

Mary had the little Lamb men placed Him in the grave,
Thinking they were done with Him; to death He was no slave!
Matthew 28:6

Mary had the little Lamb, ascended now is He;
All work on Earth is ended, our Advocate to be.
Hebrews 4:14-16

Mary had the little Lame mystery to behold!
From the Lamb of Calvary, a Lion will unfold.
Revelation 5: 5,6

When the Day Star comes again, of this be very sure:
It won't be Lamb-like silence, but with the Lion's roar.
Psalm 2:12
Revelation 19:11-16

31. The Law and the Gospel

Illustration

David Ernst

The primary purpose of the Law is, like a mirror, to teach man the true knowledge of his sin. We see this in the example of the publican. The publicans were tax-collectors for the Roman imperialists. They were Jews, but were not respected by their people. They were considered traitors and thieves, with some justification.

So the publican did not approach God with pride, demanding what was owed him. On the contrary, he approached the Lord with maximum humility and true repentance. Repentance is essential to receive the forgiveness of sins in Christ. That is why the Law should be preached to unrepentant sinners, but the Gospel to those who are troubled by their sins and terrified of damnation.

The Law demands, threatens and condemns; the Gospel promises, gives and confirms our forgiveness and salvation. God offers forgiveness of sins only in the Good News that we are saved because Christ fulfilled the Law, suffered, died and rose from the dead for us. So let us draw near to God in humility and repentance, of course, but also in the hope and faith that we are justified through faith, not by works, and that in Christ we are children of God.

32. Selling Yourself As A Slave

Illustration

Michael P. Green

Well before Paul was born, there had been a Roman law stating that no freeborn man could be enslaved. Therefore, a man could literally sell himself into slavery, collect the proceeds, then have a friend come and attest to his status as a freeborn man, and he would have to be released at once. This caused havoc with the Roman economy, which was well oiled by its slave labor. Therefore, just before Paul’s day, a new law was enacted whereby any man who sold himself into slavery could no longer claim free status later. The law could no longer help him. It was therefore clear to Paul’s readers in Rome that “to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slave you are.”

33. What Law is Operating Here?

Illustration

John Killinger

Note: We do not advise using this illustration in a sermon. In fact, we strongly advise against it, but we thought it a great meditation for us clergy, considering subjects of Law and Grace. Here it it:

In Mary Gordon's novel, Final Payments, a book addressing the repression of many young Catholics of the 50s and 60s, a young woman named Isabel Moore has just buried her father after several years of illness, during which she was confined to his bedside. For several months, she flounders, trying to discover what she has the aptitude to do with the remainder of her life. She finally accepts employment as a social worker, going into homes to check on the welfare of ill and elderly people kept by individuals or families under contract to the social services department. One day she is visiting a Mr. Spenser, an 83-year-old man who lives his life in a bed. As she enters his room his teeth are out, and he's reading the Memoirs of Casanova. He is very polite, and offers to put his teeth in, but she says he need not. They talk with great ease and candor, for Isabel has been accustomed to conversing for hours with her father.

Mr. Spenser says that most people are kind to the elderly only out of guilt. Isabel asks if he doesn't believe in acts of pure generosity. He responds that he finds the very concept of purity rather "jejune." Isabel says he reminds her of a friend she loves but whom she cannot have because he is married and has a daughter. Mr. Spenser talks with her about love and tells her she is a beautiful woman. She doesn't think she is, but his insistence encourages her, and she thanks him.

As she prepares to leave, he asks a favor.

"Name it," she says.

"Let me see your breasts."

At first, Isabel says she can't. He wants to know why. She says merely because they are hers. But then she thinks: What could it hurt? She remembers the woman in The Brothers Karamazov who tells a priest she cannot give up an adulterous affair because "it gives him so much pleasure and me so little pain." She locks the door, unbuttons her blouse, loosens and removes her brassiere, and stands there.

Mr. Spenser says nothing. He looks, then closes his eyes.

"You have done me a great kindness," he says. "You have given me what I wanted, not what you thought I wanted, or what you wanted me to want."

Isabel dresses. They shake hands very formally. She unlocks the door and leaves.

Some may find prurience in this passage, but I sense instead a great depth of love and mercy, a recognition of our common humanity, an act of genuine and redemptive compassion. What law is operating here? The law forbidding sexual looseness, voyeurism, and lust? Or is that transcended, in Isabel's case, by the law of kindness and generosity? The latter, I would contend. There is more of the authentic spirit of Jesus in Isabel's act than in all the railing against sensuality and pornography by the Jesse Helmses and James Wildmons, and certainly more than in the stern judgmentalism of the Puritan community that condemned Hester Prynne in Hawthorne's novel.

And it is this higher law, the law of love and understanding, that must be identified and taught from our pulpits in the coming century. The media often understand this better than our churches, and their dramas frequently turn on the contrast between the hypocrisy of "good" Christians and the genuine kindness of instinctively well-dispositioned persons in the secular culture outside the church. This is not to say that Hollywood is a better gauge of morals than the church; however, the preacher can help to dispel the confusion parishioners feel by more consistently identifying Christ's position over against that of the legalists and by saying no to the Phariseeism that continues to plague the church from generation to generation.

34. I Was Hungry

Illustration

Adrian Dieleman

I WAS HUNGRY and you circled the moon.
I WAS HUNGRY and you told me to wait.
I WAS HUNGRY and you set up a commission.
I WAS HUNGRY and you talked about bootstraps.
I WAS HUNGRY and you told me I shouldn't be.
I WAS HUNGRY and you had napalm bills to pay.
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Machines do that kind of work now."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "The poor are always with us."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Law and order comes first."
I WAS HUNGRY and you blamed it on the Communists.
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "So were my ancestors."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "We don't hire over 35."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "God helps those who help themselves."
I WAS HUNGRY and you said, "Sorry, try again tomorrow."

This was written in the 70's but I don't think things have changed all that much. The point is that those who consider themselves to be one of God's children in Christ MUST share with the needy. Those who worship God must show compassion to the hungry. This is not an option. This is a requirement from the Lord for those who are saved by grace through faith. Showing compassion is a test of the reality of our faith.

35. More Than Love

Illustration

Dave Johnson

In his profound book, The Cross of Christ, John Stott wrote about how in his death on the cross Jesus paid our sin debt in full:

“God’s love must be wonderful beyond comprehension. God could quite justly have abandoned us to our fate. He could have left us alone to reap the fruit of our wrongdoing and to perish in our sins. It is what we deserved. But he did not. Because he loved us, he came after us in Christ. He pursued us even to the desolate anguish of the cross, where he bore our sin, guilt, judgment, and death… It is more than love. Its proper name is ‘grace,’ which is love to the undeserving. (God) himself in his Son has borne the penalty for (our) law-breaking” (pp. 83 and 190).

36. It Isn't Fair! - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

One day a rich young ruler came enthusiastically running up to Jesus and asked: "What must I do to be saved?" Jesus answered: Keep the law. "This I have done from my youth up," came the reply. Yet one thing do you lack said Jesus. Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor. Then come follow me. We are told that the young man walked away sorrowfully, for he had great wealth. Concluded the Master: It will be hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

The disciples had been watching the dynamics of this happening and they were quite disturbed. Jewish tradition had always taught that God had especially blessed rich men and that is why he was rich. In their way of thinking, if a wealthy man could not receive salvation, then how could a poor man have any hope? They asked of Jesus: who then can be saved?

It reminds me of the movie Fiddler on the Roof. The poor Jewish milkman who lives in early 1900 Russia sings what he would do "if I were a rich man." His wife reminds him: money is a curse. He immediately shouts up to heaven: curse me God, curse me. Jesus has just turned away a wealthy man, and in the Jewish way of thinking it doesn't make any sense. In fact, I am not sure how many Methodist preachers would have the courage to do it. My entire ministry I have been waiting for a sugar daddy to come along.

But it was Simon Peter who drew the question even more clearly into focus for us. He asked what is on the mind of every one of us, only we are too sophisticated to ask it and too self-righteous to admit that we even think it. Peter didn't have any problem with that. He simply laid his cards out on the table. He said, "Lord, we have given up everything, riches and all, to follow you." What then shall we have?" In others words, what's in this for us Lord. How do we stand to profit? Where's the payoff?

In response to Peter's question, Jesus told a story. It was the harvest time of the year. At 7 A. M. a wealthy landowner went to the Town Square to hire laborers. In this story of hiring workers we learn:

The person who comes late is just as important as the one who comes early.
We really do not comprehend the nature of God's unmerited grace.
If there is any special payoff for being selected early to labor in the Lord's field, it is simply the inner satisfaction that we receive from being in God's employ.

37. Who Were the Pharisees?

Illustration

a) They were the strictest sect of the Jews with regard to "The Law."

b) They believed in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body and the existence of spirits.

c) They believed in punishment and rewards in the future life.

d) They believed in conformance to the law and that God's grace was only promised to the doers of the law; i.e., religion was external.

38. Risk and Reward

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Did you ever read Ann Landers? Often she went beyond the issues she was addressing to speak with profound wisdom about life itself. In a piece she entitled, “The Dilemma," she wrote:

"To laugh is to risk appearing a fool. To weep is to risk appearing sentimental. To reach out for another is to risk involvement. But risks must be taken because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing. The person who risks nothing has nothing and is nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he cannot learn, and he cannot feel, and he cannot change, and he really cannot grow. Chained by his certitudes, he is a slave."

And then Ann Landers closed with these powerful words, "Only a person who takes risks is free."

Thank you, Ann Landers. If you're holding back on an issue because the risk is too great. Take another look. It may be that only as you take the plunge will you find direction and meaning.

39. Nothing Can Separate Us from God’s Great Love

Illustration

John McCard

There dwells within all of us the capacity to do great harm to other people when we insist on getting our own way, when we place our own fulfillment first, and we desire the adoration and worship of other people.

I realize that many of us at different times in our lives fail to meet the expectations that Jesus has expressed as part of the Father's will in today's gospel. And because we fail at times to live out the vows that our lips might profess, this does not mean that God does not love us or that we are separated from the love that Christ gives us through the cross. This point must be made again and again for Christians because of our tendency to place God's law above God's grace and God's mercy. Let me say it one more time: There is nothing, nothing we can do in our lives or have done in our lives that can ever separate us from God's great love.

No, if anything, Jesus' words remind us that God wants our lives to be fulfilling and that our relationship as husbands and wives is part of the plan God has for us to share in a life of holiness and joy as part of God's creation.

40. Christ Sets Us Free of All Chains

Illustration

King Duncan

There is a story about an ancient Persian king who had injured his ankle quite severely. None of his court physicians knew how to help him. A member of his court told him about a certain slave who was said to have a great insight into matters of the body. The Persian king sent for the slave who was brought to him weighted down with chains and dressed in rags. However, the slave was indeed able to give him great assistance with his problem. The pain ceased and the ankle soon healed. The king was elated and justly grateful for the slave's help. He was so grateful that he sent the slave a gift--a new set of golden chains.

Some people shy away from religion because they are afraid that they may be trading in one set of chains for another. Religion can do that to people, but not a relationship with Christ. Christ sets us free!

41. Breaking the Rules

Illustration

Charles Swindoll

Charles Swindoll, in his book "The Grace Awakening," tells about one of his youth workers many years ago who was a member of an ethnic church. It was Scandinavian. Being a rather forward-looking and creative young man, he decided he would show the youth group a missionary film. We're talking about a simple, safe, black-and-white religious-oriented movie documentary. That film projector hadn't been off an hour before a group of the leaders in the church called him in and asked him about what he had done. They asked, "Did you show the young people a film?" In all honesty he responded, "Well, yeah, I did." "We don't like that," they replied. Without trying to be argumentative, the youth worker reasoned, "Well, I remember that at the last missionary conference, our church showed slides "

One of the church officers put his hand up signaling him to cease talking. Then, in these words, he emphatically explained the conflict: "If it's still, fine. If it moves, sin!" You can show slides, but when they start movin', you're gettin' into sin.

At first glance verse 41 seems cursory, "Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man." Why does mark mention this touch? Does he want to point out that Jesus took the risk of getting Leprosy? Does he want us to understand the depth of Christ's compassion that he would touch a leper? Is he simply trying to describe the moment? Unfortunately these are not the reasons that Mark carefully describes the touch. It is this TOUCH that gets Jesus into trouble with the religious leaders. It is this direct contact with a leper that banishes Jesus from Galilee. Mark's point is that Jesus broke the Mosaic law when he reached out and touched the man. In Leviticus the law states that a person is unclean if he has an infectious disease such as sores on the skin, and anyone who touches him becomes unclean and has sinned.

Doesn't this sound like our legalistic attitude today? If you heal a leper, fine. If you touch him, sin! You can heal all you want, but when you start touching lepers, your breaking the law and gettin' into sin. Because Jesus touched the leper he was regarded as unclean and a sinner.

Not only was the leper banished from the community but Jesus also because he chose compassion over ceremonial law they drove him out of the town because he chose to touch a man who was "unclean." Describe the sick and hurting as ceremonially unclean and you do not have to deal with them.

42. A Bent Over Woman

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

The woman with the battered face. Several years back that battered face was splashed all over the media. The woman's name was Hedda Nussbaum. She came to public attention as a dramatic witness for the prosecution in the death of her adopted daughter, Lisa.

Hedda Nussbaum was a vulnerable person already in her early years. She says that when she was a child, "I just went where I was taken." She just obeyed orders. Not surprisingly, she fell in love with a man who loved to give orders. His name was Joel Steinberg. He was an attorney. "I just loved to hear him talk," Hedda said of Joel. "Basically, I worshipped him. He was the most wonderful man I had ever met. I believed he had supernatural, godlike power." Friends of Hedda Nussbaum described her as a person in search of a god. She thought she had found a god in Joel Steinberg.

Hedda moved in with Joel! Two years later the beatings began. Joel Steinberg was an abusive person. The system that was created in the pairing of Hedda Nussbaum and Joel Steinberg was a very sick system. Hedda needed a god. Joel was a controlling and manipulative man. They chose each other. It was to be a fatal choice!

Joel Steinberg had Hedda Nussbaum totally under his control. He told her where she could go, whom she could talk to, what she should do at work and so on. He forbade her to see her parents. And, he beat her. She reported finally that he hit her violently time and time again. Her spleen was ruptured by one of his blows and she had to have it removed. Her knee was damaged, she was burned, her sexual organs were beaten with a broomstick, some of her teeth were knocked out, her hair was pulled out. A New York City doctor described Hedda's case as, "absolutely the worst case of wife battering I've ever seen. She was a slave," he said, "totally submissive to this man, with no ability or will to save her own daughter."

Hedda Nussbaum was a nobody. She was a thoroughly "bent over" woman. "I'm a piece of ----," Joel made her write over and over. She wrote it and she believed it.

The tragedy that brought Hedda Nussbaum and Joel Steinberg to the courtroom and to public knowledge was the death of their daughter, Lisa. Mr. Steinberg was going out one evening. Lisa wondered if he was going to take her with him. Hedda told her to go to the bathroom and ask him. She did. Joel Steinberg proceeded to knock her unconscious. Hedda didn't know what to do with this lifeless body. "Don't worry," Joel said, "just let her sleep. I will get her up when I get back."

Hedda waited. She was confused. She was so dependent on Joel's every command, so convinced of his healing power, that she did nothing for Lisa. She was simply paralyzed. Consequently, Lisa died three days later. Hedda could have saved her. But to act on her own would have been an act of disloyalty to Steinberg. She was not a free person. She was not free to act. She was, indeed, a "bent over" woman with not an ounce of self-esteem left in her.

And Hedda is not alone in this world. In the United States alone 1.8 million women are battered every year. Some form of violence occurs in 25 percent of all marriages. On and on the statistics roll. There are "bent over" women everywhere. Who shall stand them straight again?

43. Where's Jesus? Where Do You Look for Jesus?

Illustration

You have perhaps heard the story of an elderly man who was quite ill who said to his wife, "You know, Sarah, you've always been with me - through the good and through the bad. Like the time I lost my job - you were right there by my side. And the war came, and I enlisted - you became a nurse so you could be with me. Then I was wounded, and you were there, Sarah, right by my side. Then the Depression hit, and we had nothing - but you were there with me. When our son got into trouble and we didn't know what to do, once again you were right there by my side. And now, here I am, sick as a dog, and as always, you're right here beside me. You know, Sarah, you're bad luck!

44. Building In Bondage

Illustration

Sarah Winchester's husband had acquired a fortune by manufacturing and selling rifles. After he died of influenza in 1918, she moved to San Jose, California. Because of her grief and her long time interest in spiritism, Sarah sought out a medium to contact her dead husband. The medium told her, "As long as you keep building your home, you will never face death."

Sarah believed the spiritist, so she bought an unfinished 17-room mansion and started to expand it. The project continued until she died at the age of 85. It cost 5 million dollars at a time when workmen earned 50 cents a day. The mansion had 150 rooms, 13 bathrooms, 2,000 doors, 47 fireplaces, and 10,000 windows. And Mrs. Winchester left enough materials so that they could have continued building for another 80 years.

Today that house stands as more than a tourist attraction. It is a silent witness to the dread of death that holds millions of people in bondage.

45. The Ties That Bind

Illustration

Bruce Shelley

In modern times we define a host of relations by contracts. These are usually for goods or services and for hard cash. The contract, formal or informal, helps to specify failure in these relationships. The Lord did not establish a contract with Israel or with the church. He created a covenant. There is a difference. Contracts are broken when one of the parties fails to keep his promise. If, let us say, a patient fails to keep an appointment with a doctor, the doctor is not obligated to call the house and inquire, "Where were you? Why didn't you show up for your appointment?" He simply goes on to his next patient and has his appointment secretary take note of the patient who failed to keep the appointment. The patient may find it harder the next time to see the doctor. He broke an informal contract.

According to the Bible, however, the Lord asks: "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!" (Isaiah 49:15) The Bible indicates the covenant is more like the ties of a parent to her child than it is a doctor's appointment. If a child fails to show up for dinner, the parent's obligation, unlike the doctor's, isn't canceled. The parent finds out where the child is and makes sure he's cared for. One member's failure does not destroy the relationship. A covenant puts no conditions on faithfulness. It is the unconditional commitment to love and serve.

46. Sadness in the Heart of God

Illustration

John Claypool

There is a Jewish parable that both parallels and illumines Jesus' story, and it has helped to clarify my understanding greatly. This one is about a "farmer who lived in Poland. For generations before him, his family had been very poor. One night he was awakened by an angel of the Lord, who said: "You have found favor in the eyes of your Maker. He wants to do for you what he did for your ancestor Abraham. He wants to bless you. Therefore, make any three requests that you will of God, and he will be pleased to give them to you. There is only one condition: your neighbor will get a double portion of everything that is bequeathed to you."

The farmer was startled by this revelation and woke up his wife to tell her all about it. She suggested that they put the whole thing to a test. So they prayed. "Oh, blessed God, if we could just have a herd of a thousand cattle, that would enable us to break out of the poverty in which we have lived for generations. That would be wonderful." No sooner had they said these words than they heard the sound of animal noises outside. Lo and behold, all around the house were a thousand magnificent animals!

During the next two days, the farmer's feet hardly touched the ground. He divided his time between praising God for such great generosity and beginning to make practical provisions for his newly acquired affluence. On the third afternoon, he was up on a hill behind his house trying to decide where to build a new barn when he looked across at his neighbor's field, and there standing on the green hillside were two thousand magnificent cattle. For the first time since the angel of the Lord had appeared, the joy within him evaporated and a scowl of envy took its place. He went home that evening in a foul mood, refused to eat supper, and went to bed in an absolute rage. He could not fall asleep because every time he closed his eyes, all he could see were his neighbor's two thousand cattle.

Deep in the night, however, he remembered that the angel had said he could make three wishes. With that, he shifted his focus away from his neighbor and back to his own situation, and the old joy quickly returned. Digging deep into his own heart to find out what else he really wanted, he began to realize that in addition to some kind of material security, he always wanted descendants to carry his name into the future. So he prayed a second time: "Gracious God, if it please thee, give me a child that I may have descendants." With that, he and his wife made love, and because of his experience with the cattle, he was not too surprised shortly thereafter to learn that she was expecting.

The next months were passed in unbroken joy. The farmer was busy assimilating his newly acquired affluence and looking forward to the great grace of becoming a parent. On the night his first child was born, he was absolutely overjoyed. The next day was the Sabbath. He went to the synagogue, and at the time of the prayers of the people, he stood up and shared with the gathered community his great good fortune: now at last a child had been born into their home. He had hardly sat down, however, when his neighbor got up and said, "God has indeed been gracious to our little community. I had twin sons born last night. Thanks be to God." On hearing that, the farmer went home in an utterly different mood than the one in which he came. Instead of being joyful once again he was filled with the canker of jealousy.

This time, however, his envy did not abate. Late that evening, he made his third request of God: "Please, gouge out my right eye."

No sooner had he said these words than the angel who had initiated the whole process appeared again and asked, "Why, son of Abraham, have you turned to such vengeful desirings?" With pent-up rage, the farmer replied, "I cannot stand to see my neighbor prosper. I'll gladly sacrifice half of my vision for the satisfaction of knowing that he will never be able to look on what he has."

Those words were followed by a long silence, and as the farmer looked, he saw tears forming in the eyes of the angel. "Why, O son of Abraham, have you turned an occasion for blessing into a time of hurting? Your third request will not be granted, not because the Lord lacks integrity, but because God is full of mercy. However, know this, O foolish one, you have brought sadness not only to yourself, but to the very heart of God."

47. In the President's Pockets

Illustration

Charles Swindoll

About halfway through a PBS program on the Library of Congress, Dr. Daniel Boorstin, the Librarian of Congress, brought out a little blue box from a small closet that once held the library's rarities. The label on the box read: "Contents of the president's pockets on the night of April 14, 1865. Since that was the fateful night Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, every viewer's attention was seized. Boorstin then proceeded to remove the items in the small container and display them on camera. There were five things in the box:

A handkerchief, embroidered "A. Lincoln"
A country boy's pen knife
A spectacles case repaired with string
A purse containing a $5 bill Confederate money(!)
Some old and worn newspaper clippings

"The clippings," said Boorstin, "were concerned with the great deeds of Abraham Lincoln. And one of them actually reports a speech by John Bright which says that Abraham Lincoln is "one of the greatest men of all times." Today that's common knowledge. The world now knows that British statesman John Bright was right in his assessment of Lincoln, but in 1865 millions shared quite a contrary opinion. The President's critics were fierce and many. His was a lonely agony that reflected the suffering and turmoil of his country ripped to shreds by hatred and a cruel, costly war. There is something touchingly pathetic in the mental picture of this great leader seeking solace and self-assurance from a few old newspaper clippings as he reads them under the flickering flame of a candle all alone in the Oval Office. Remember this: Loneliness stalks where the buck stops.

48. This Tithing Business Has to Stop!

Illustration

Bob Younts

Leighton Farrell was the minister of Highland Park Church in Dallas for many years. He tells of a man in the church who once made a covenant with his pastor to tithe ten percent of their income every year. They were both young and neither of them had much money. But things changed. The layman tithed one thousand dollars the year he earned ten thousand, ten thousand dollars the year he earned one-hundred thousand, and one- hundred thousand dollars the year he earned one million. But the year he earned six million dollars he just could not bring himself to write out that check for six-hundred thousand dollars to the Church.

He telephoned the minister, long since having moved to another church, and asked to see him. Walking into the pastor's office the man begged to be let out of the covenant, saying, "This tithing business has to stop. It was fine when my tithe was one thousand dollars, but I just cannot afford six-hundred thousand dollars. You've got to do something, Reverend!" The pastor knelt on the floor and prayed silently for a long time. Eventually the man said, "What are you doing? Are you praying that God will let me out of the covenant to tithe?" "No," said the minister. "I am praying for God to reduce your income back to the level where one thousand dollars will be your tithe!"

49. Looking Down the Barrel

Illustration

In 1832, Abraham Lincoln returned from New Orleans to New Salem, Illinois. On credit, Lincoln bought an interest in a general store with William Berry. After a year or so of trying to make a go of it, they found themselves more in debt. On the front porch of his little country store in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln and Berry, his partner, stood. Business was all gone, and Berry asked, "How much longer can we keep this going?"

Lincoln answered, "It looks as if our business has just about winked out." Then he continued, "You know, I wouldn't mind so much if I could just do what I want to do. I want to study law. I wouldn't mind so much if we could sell everything we've got and pay all our bills and have just enough left over to buy one book Blackstone's Commentary on English Law, but I guess I can't." A strange-looking wagon was coming up the road. The driver angled it up close to the store porch, then looked at Lincoln and said, "I'm trying to move my family out west, and I'm out of money. I've got a good barrel here that I could sell for fifty cents." Abraham Lincoln's eyes went along the wagon and came to the wife looking at him pleadingly, face thin and emaciated. Lincoln ran his hand into his pocket and took out, according to him, "the last fifty cents I had" and said, "I reckon I could use a good barrel."

All day long the barrel sat on the porch of that store. Berry kept chiding Lincoln about it. Late in the evening Lincoln walked out and looked down into the barrel. He saw something in the bottom of it, papers that he hadn't noticed before. His long arms went down into the barrel and, as he fumbled around, he hit something solid. He pulled out a book and stood petrified: it was Blackstone's Commentary on English Law. Lincoln later wrote, "I stood there holding the book and looking up toward the heavens. There came a deep impression on me that God had something for me to do and He was showing he now that I had to get ready for it. Why this miracle otherwise?"

50. Til the Last Breath

Illustration

Major Sullivan Ballou of the Union Army wrote this letter to his wife Sarah. One week later, Major Ballou was killed at the first battle of Bull Run:

"I have no misgivings about or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged and my courage does not falter. I know how American civilization leans upon the triumph of the government. I know how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing, perfectly willing, to lay down the joys of this life to help maintain this government and to help pay that debt.

"Sarah, my love for you is deathless. It seems to bind me with many cables that nothing but Omnipotence can break. And yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly with all those chains to the battlefield. The memory of all those blissful moments I have enjoyed with you come crowding over me, and I feel most grateful to God and you that I have enjoyed them for so long. And how hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the future years, when God willing, we might have loved and lived together, and watched our boys grow up around us to honorable manhood. If I do not return my dear Sarah, never forget how much I loved you nor that when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield it will whimper your name."

Showing 1 to 50 of 159 results