Sermon and Worship Resources

Romans 4:1-25 · Abraham Justified by Faith

1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old--and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23 The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

For Example

Romans 4:1-5, 13-17

Sermon
by David O. Bales

If you're going to study a subject or learn a profession, a good strategy is to investigate one of the earliest theoreticians or practitioners. If you study physics, you might start with Albert Einstein. There were others, but he's a good beginning. If you're interested in drama, you could turn to William Shakespeare. Other playwrights are around, but he'll give you a good start. If you're considering nursing, you could read up on Florence Nightingale. The work of other early nurses would benefit you, but she's a helpful start.

If you want to be a medical missionary, David Livingstone is an excellent example in the nineteenth century. He shared some values of his day that seem strange to modern people, but you'll find that he was in many ways far advanced in his own time. He was instrumental in ending slavery in the world, which took our United States quite a while to get around to doing. In reading about David Livingstone, you'll discover a great deal about the Christian faith. You'll learn that Livingstone set out from Britain to Africa clutching only the promise that the risen Christ would never leave him or forsake him. He trusted the risen Jesus who promised that he was with his followers always, to the end of the world.

Livingstone is an example of Christian faith. We see him walking across Africa, struggling over the years and through hardships and tragedies, yet he trusted God's promise. David Livingstone is a modern version of Abraham, living 4,000 years ago, whom Paul, writing a mere 2,000 years ago, holds up as the supreme example of faith.

In our text, the apostle Paul instructs a congregation in Rome that he's never visited. He's explaining faith as the basis of our relationship with God. An example always helps; so, Paul turns to Abraham, father of the Jewish faith, who lived around 2000 BC. Abraham is so important here in Paul's letter that you can consider Abraham as Paul's sermon text. Paul clarifies for Christian converts that faith in Christ sets us right with God. He reaches way back to show that being set right with God by faith isn't something new. It's as ancient as father Abraham.

Step back 2,000 years before Christ and you learn that Abraham, 100 years old, and Sarah his wife, 90, receive God's promise that they'll have a child. In case you don't remember the chronology of scientific progress, they didn't yet practice in vitro fertilization or procedures that would allow a mother to carry the fertilized egg of her daughter and thus to give birth to her own grandchild. The promise to Abraham and Sarah is outside the realm of the possible. Sarah laughs at the idea. One writer called it history's first recorded joke. Abraham has times of serious wondering about this laughable promise, but he trusts God.

Faith in the Bible isn't any old belief in trivial things — like believing there's a planet, Pluto, or a dwarf planet, Pluto. So what? Will trust in a big rock in space change your life? Faith is trusting that God cares about you, when at least some evidence indicates otherwise. Faith is clinging to God's personal pledge to be with you no matter what you experience as success or endure as failure. Abraham isn't a tired gambler who says, "I'm desperate. I'll put all my chips on this ‘God number' and just hope I win." Instead, Abraham throws his life into God's arms and trusts God will catch him. That's what God asks of us, for which Abraham is our example, the father of our faith.

People view examples as differently as they view heroes. One person's hero is another's bum. A recitation by name of our last dozen US presidents and the yeas and boos elicited among us would make such differences obvious. People, likewise, interpret examples differently, especially in sermons. Truth is, people usually remember a sermon's examples (and certainly the jokes) and forget why they're told. So people can disagree on the meaning of Abraham's example.

The majority of Jews in Paul's time considered Abraham an example of obedience. Paul sweeps aside the rabbis' traditional understanding of the Old Testament and points to the Bible's record. Genesis chapter 15 states that Abraham was considered righteous for trusting God. This is nine chapters before the Bible mentions God's pleasure in Abraham's obeying God. Trusting God is central to our living with God.

Faith is a right-now relationship with God. It's a lot like getting married. We promise one another to be faithful and then we trust one another. So it was with Abraham and God. So it is with all who trust that we're now set right with God through Jesus. We trust God's promise that Jesus is the way to forgiveness and to eternal life. People can try to divert or subvert that central understanding, but Paul for one will always bring us back to a relationship with Christ built on promise and trust.

Twice in my ministry, I've had men phone me, anonymously, and say something like, "I've heard you know a lot about the Bible." After a couple responses, their request has come down to, "Would you tell my wife she's supposed to obey me?" Such conversations put me instantly into the serious mode. I stifle my reaction toward humor, even though I could think of a dozen hilarious things to say about such a predicament. Both of these men were in serious trouble in their marriages. The proof was that they thought that they could just command their spouse, in God's name of course, to obey. After each of them had thrown their little tantrums on the phone about their right to be the head of their families, neither of them exhibited an ounce of understanding when I pointed out that Jesus sacrificed himself as the head of the church. I doubt that anything I said helped, but I suggested that if they wanted to consider the Bible as a mere rule book for marriage, they should at least read Ephesians chapter 5 very carefully.

I asked if they'd stay in touch with me, which they didn't. Probably for the best, because my motives were selfish. If they could settle their marriage problems by ordering their wives, I wanted to know so I could submit their marriage for validation in the next edition of The Guinness Book of World Records.

You can't generate love and reconciliation, trust and affection through the principle of law. It's not as though wives won't obey when their husbands order them to do something they don't want to do. I've known women who thought it their Christian duty to live as did all women — pagan, Jewish, and Christian — in the first century AD, which meant as legal property of their husband. It's not whether a wife obeys her husband against her will. It can happen. It's whether a wife will obey her husband and then not find a way to pay him back for it. Relating to one another through means of law doesn't lend itself to love and affection. When do married people relate to one another through the law? When they're getting a divorce. If you think that God relates to us only by our obeying the law, how tiny do you think God is? Do parents relate that way to their children? How sub-human do you think God is? Trying to be right with God on the basis of law is as doomed as basing a marriage on obedience.

Paul writes, "the law brings wrath." You can't argue, scare, or threaten someone into a loving relationship. "The law brings wrath." If you want a relationship on a legal, you-obey-me basis, you won't have a marriage. "The law brings wrath." So also with God; God wants us in a loving, trusting relationship. We might want some law to put us right with God, but Paul says that the awareness of law can actually tempt people to sin. A wise, old woman said, "You shouldn't harp too much on the Ten Commandments or pretty soon the children will start trying them out."

Our relationship with God isn't settled on the basis of wages or payment. We don't agree to a trade with God: our good works for God's blessings. Business transactions and laws are for less than intimate relationships. Who'd ever say, "I love you and want to marry you; let's decide on the terms"?

At one time or the other we've all tried to bargain with God this way. "I'll pay you my good deeds and you reward me." Usually we do that when we're younger, but in a crisis the urge to bargain with God pops up like mushrooms after a summer rain. It doesn't get us anywhere, except maybe our offering great terms to God earns God's pity. After all, how good do we think we are? We'd do best to drop our attempts to be right with God by good works and to accept God's terms of a loving, trusting relationship. You want terms? Those are good terms!

If we're trying to get into God's good graces with our excellent deeds, it means we're in control. God, however, wants to be in control, and when you're God you get to be in control. God tells us that if we're trying to secure heaven's attention by keeping the rules, we failed. We tried playing the game by rules that guaranteed we'd lose. God, instead, says, "Forget trying to win the game." God sweeps all the pieces off the game board and says, "Faith is a different game with rules of promise and principles of love. Trust me on this." If you want a deal, this is such a deal! Paul calls this relationship "grace." It is the same way God treated Abraham. Abraham didn't earn it, he just trusted it.

If you must use legal categories to conceive of your relationship with God, then God will just have to surprise you, take you to court, and, despite the stacks of evidence against you, acquit you. That's what Paul says in verse 5, "But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness." "To justify the ungodly" means to acquit the guilty. God chooses, because of our trusting the promise of forgiveness, to acquit us of our guilt and sin. It sounds unjust for a judge to acquit the guilty. But we are guilty and God's forgiving us is unjust.

What an upside-down way to turn us, finally, right side up. Having been acquitted we're going to work for God, but now it's family work. Didn't you work for your family? Did you always get paid? You're not paid to be a husband or wife or child, but you work for one another. It's a relationship that has a different basis than, as Paul would call it, "law." You work for one another in trust, gratitude, and love. So with God. You don't calculate how much excellent activity you must complete in order to buy a ticket into heaven. You trust that God loves you because of what God did for you in Jesus. And then you work, gladly.

Lent isn't a time to work our way into God's good graces, but a time to concentrate on God's good grace working itself out through us. We have Paul's example of Abraham, as he trusted God's grace; or we could focus on the nearer past and remember David Livingstone. Livingstone trusted the promise-maker to be with him always. Then, he lived in such a way that God's grace passed through his life and work to others, thousands of others, by his immediate medical attention and Christian teaching, and millions of Africans who benefit today — without knowing him — because of the end of the slave trade.

Livingstone's faith took him on a pilgrimage to portions of Africa least explored by Europeans, to people who most needed to experience the grace of our Lord Jesus through a Christian doctor with modern medicine. God's grace took Livingstone from the northern to the southern hemisphere and then helped him crisscross a giant continent. Livingstone discovered in his own life what Abraham had been promised four millennia before, that through him all the families of the world would be blessed.

The goal of our life with God is others being blessed by our faith. That's Abraham's example in the Old Testament. David Livingstone demonstrated a faith that blessed others in his mission to Africa. It's the central message Paul writes as he instructs new Christians in Rome. Faith, character-transforming, life-centering, gratitude-producing faith is what scripture commends to us today.

Let's give thanks to God for the grace of our Lord Jesus. Let's place our faith in God's promises. Let's now live as those bound to show our gratitude. Amen.

CSS Publishing, Inc., Sermons for Sundays in Lent and Easter: Toward Easter And Beyond, by David O. Bales

Overview and Insights · Abraham: Old Testament Illustration (4:1–25)

To show that the gospel is not a recent invention, Paul introduces Abraham, the faithful patriarch of all Jews, and David, Israel’s greatest king. Abraham wasn’t justified by works but trusted God, who credited his faith as righteousness (4:1–5; Gen. 15:6). Although we can never earn God’s righteousness like we earn a wage, we can receive it by faith as a free gift. Paul also cites David as an example of someone who is counted righteous before God apart from works (4:6–8). In 4:9–12…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Romans 4:1-25 · Abraham Justified by Faith

7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Commentary · Abraham Justified by Faith

Paul links his rejection of boasting (3:27–31) with Abraham, whom he describes as the fundamental paradigm for God’s people, the prototype of justification for both Gentiles and Jews. Paul argues in 4:1–16 that Abraham was justified by God not on the basis of works but on the basis of faith. Abraham was regarded as the first converted Gentile (from Ur of the Chaldeans, Gen. 15:7) and as the first Jew who was circumcised and received God’s covenant (Genesis 15; 17). Contrary to the traditional Jewish understanding of Abraham, Paul argues that Abraham, as the Jews’ ancestor according to the flesh (4:1; NIV “our forefather”), discovered that he was not justified on the basis of his works. His works provided him with claims for boasting before human beings “but not before God” (4:2).

Paul reestablishes the sequence of faith  justification  obedience for Abraham, reading Genesis 15:6 (quoted in 4:3) in the light of Genesis 12:1–4 (and not in the light of Genesis 17 and 22, where he proves his obedience by “works”). When Abraham was justified, he was an ungodly idolater who had no “works” God could reward (4:4–5). God justified the Abraham who believed, not the Abraham who “worked.” This is also true with regard to David, whose sins were forgiven and who was reckoned by God as righteous apart from works (4:6–8, quoting Ps. 32:1–2). The blessing of justification God pronounces on sinners such as David is valid not only for Jews such as David but also for Gentiles such as Abraham before his circumcision (4:9–12). Abraham’s circumcision was the “seal of the righteousness” God granted him on account of his faith in God’s promises (4:11a). Abraham is thus the ancestor of the new people of God: the ancestor of the uncircumcised Gentiles who have come to faith and who are graciously granted righteousness by God on the basis of this faith (4:11b), and the ancestor of the circumcised Jews who have come to faith (in God’s saving revelation in Jesus Christ; cf. 4:21–22). In verses 13–15 Paul explains that God’s promise to Abraham regarding his blessing for the families of the earth—he was promised that he would be “heir of the world” (4:13; cf. Gen. 12:3)—was not fulfilled through the law. When Israel had the law, the promise that the nations would be blessed was not fulfilled. If the law encounters sinners, it can only bring God’s wrath, which is particularly true for Gentiles, who do not have the law.

In 4:16–25 Paul provides a profile for the authentic faith of the people who belong to God’s (new) covenant, using Abraham the converted Gentile as the prototype of all his offspring (4:16). Abraham is the father of all who have faith, whether we are Jews (“those who are of the law”) or Gentiles (“not only”). Authentic faith trusts in God’s promise (4:16, 21) and in God’s power to create life out of nothing (4:17), defying human expectations (4:18), overcoming temptation to resort to human efforts (4:19) in the face of human impossibilities, growing by standing the test of unbelief (4:20), giving all glory to God. Paul concludes in 4:24–25 by linking saving faith with the almighty God, who raised Jesus from the dead, and with the work of Jesus the Lord, who died to accomplish the forgiveness of sins and who was raised from the dead in order to make the justification of sinners possible.

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

Big Idea: Unlike the Mosaic covenant, based on obeying the Torah, the Abrahamic covenant is based on faith. Abraham becomes Paul’s star witness that justification is by faith alone. Paul marshals five arguments to refute the commonly held view that Abraham was justified by his good works: theological (4:1–5), hermeneutical (4:6–8), historical (4:9–12), logical (4:13–17a), and experiential (4:17b–25).

Understanding the Text

The general context of Romans 4 is that it continues the discussion of 3:27–31: the latter states that justification is by faith, while the former illustrates that principle from the life of Abraham. We may correlate these two passages in this way:

1. Justification is by faith (3:27–28; 4:1–8)

2. Justification by faith is for Jews and Gentiles (3:29–30; 4:9–17)

More specifically, Romans 4:1–8 unfolds the first two of Paul’s arguments that Abraham was accepted by God by faith:

1. Theological argument (4:1–5)

a. Negatively, Abraham had no merit before God (4:1–2)

b. Positively, Abraham was reckoned righteous by God’s grace (4:3–5)

2. Hermeneutical argument—gezerah shawah (4:6–8)

a. Genesis 15:6 (4:6 [cf. 4:3, 5])

b. Psalm 32:1–2 (4:7–8)

Historical and Cultural Background

Two key items inform Romans 4: the high estimation of Abraham in the Old Testament and in Second Temple Judaism, and Rabbi Hillel’s rules for interpreting the Scriptures.

1. Three points about Abraham are indispensable for interpreting Romans 4. (a) Abraham was revered by Jews as the father of the Jewish people (Gen. 12–22; Ps. 105:6; Isa. 41:8). (b) Abraham was thought to have obeyed the Torah in advance and thereby to have been justified by his good works (e.g., Sir. 44:19–20; 1 Macc. 2:52; Jub. 19.8–9; 23.9–10; CD 3.2–4). (c) In a number of ancient Jewish texts, Genesis 15:6 (Abraham believed God’s promise to give him innumerable seed, and therefore God reckoned that Abraham was righteous) was interpreted through the lens of Genesis 17 (Abraham’s institution of circumcision as an act of obedience to God) or Genesis 22 (Abraham’s offering of Isaac) to show that Abraham was declared righteous because he obeyed the Torah in advance.1In Romans 4 Paul begs to differ with the second and third points. Thus, Paul denies that Abraham was justified by his works, and he gives priority to Genesis 15:6 over both Genesis 17 and Genesis 22.

2. Rabbis such as Paul were taught seven rules developed by Hillel, a leading rabbi of the first century BC, for interpreting the Scriptures (see sidebar). In Romans Paul uses two of these rules: qal wahomer (what applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more important case) and gezerah shawah (where the same words are applied to two separate cases, it follows that the same considerations apply to both).

Interpretive Insights

4:1–2 If . . . Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. Romans 4:1–8 presents the first two arguments of Paul’s five in chapter 4 that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works. Verses 1–5 contain the theological argument, while verses 6–8 develop the hermeneutical argument. Regarding the theological argument, there are two competing views as to what Paul is decrying in 4:1–5, especially concerning the phrase “justified by works.”

The traditional view is that Paul is stating, in contrast to the prevailing view in Second Temple Judaism, that God’s declaration of Abraham as righteous was not based on the patriarch’s good works. In other words, the apostle is taking issue with individual legalism as the means of acceptance before God, even as he did in 3:27–31. But the New Perspective on Paul argues to the contrary that “works” in 4:2 are Israel’s covenant markers that manifest an exclusivity toward Gentiles. This school of thought bases its case on two points: (1) since Paul is talking about Abraham in 4:1–23, beginning with 4:1–8, he must be attacking Jewish nationalism, not individual legalism; (2) Paul’s discussion of circumcision in 4:9–17 indicates that the works are neither good works in general nor the entirety of the Torah but rather the three covenant markers of circumcision, Sabbath, and diet.2

The traditional perspective counters these two arguments as follows. First, in 4:1–5 Paul is not so much popping the balloon of Jewish pride in Abraham as the source of their superiority over the Gentiles but rather jettisoning individual merit on the part of Abraham before God. And if Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, cannot be justified by works, then neither can his descendants. Both can be accepted by God only on the basis of his grace and the sinner’s faith. Second, the works in 4:2, and for that matter throughout Romans 4, have nothing to do with the Torah. The issue of works instead pertains to Abraham, who lived four hundred years before the giving of the Torah (compare 4:1–5 with 4:9–17), and to David’s confession of his sin (lack of works [4:6–8]). Moreover, only circumcision is mentioned in Romans 4 and not Sabbath keeping or dietary laws. Therefore, I believe that the traditional view here is correct. To recap 4:1–2: on the negative side, Abraham had no merit before God.

4:3–5 “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Here we have the positive side of Paul’s theological argument regarding Abraham: he was justified before God by faith. In other words, Abraham could not save himself (4:1–2), but God could save him (4:3–5). Verse 3 quotes Genesis 15:6, a text drawn on thereafter in every section of Romans 4 (vv. 3–8, 9–12, 13–23). The Greek word logizomai is also pervasive in Romans 4 (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24). That term (variously translated in Rom. 4 as “credited,” “reckoned,” “counted,” “imputed,” “declared,” all of which are essentially the same) was used in commercial language to refer to payment to a person for service rendered (e.g., Thucydides, 2.40.4; 4 Ezra 8.31–36). Paul’s point in 4:4, then, is that if Abraham had performed exemplary religious service to God, then God would be obligated to remunerate him by saving him. But quite to the contrary, says Paul, Abraham performed no such service; rather, he was reckoned to be righteous simply by believing God’s promise to make of him a great nation (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3).

In 4:5 Paul amplifies the theological argument of 4:1–4 (no one, not even Abraham, has lived a good enough life to obligate God to save them) by stating what was unthinkable to the Jewish mind: God justifies the ungodly (for the canon of Jewish justice that God does not justify the ungodly, see Exod. 23:7; Prov. 17:15; 24:24; Isa. 5:23; Sir. 42:2; CD 1.19; for the Old Testament conviction that sinners are outside the covenant with God, see Pss. 1:1, 5; 36:34 LXX [37:34 ET]; Prov. 11:31; 12:12–13; Ezek. 33:8–11; cf. Sir. 7:16–17; 9:11–12; 41:5–8).3And, if Paul’s audacious assertion that God justifies the ungodly by faith was not revolting enough, the apostle goes on to indicate that Abraham himself was ungodly and thus had no hope of obligating God to save him; his only hope was to be reckoned by God to be righteous by faith.4Thus, Paul’s theological point in 4:1–5 is that Abraham was a sinner, and so God was not obliged to justify him; instead, God saved the father of the Jewish people solely because of divine grace, which Abraham received by faith apart from any good work.

4:6–8 “Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” In 4:6–8 Paul the rabbi utilizes Rabbi Hillel’s hermeneutical rule known as gezerah shawah to make the controversial point that Abraham was a sinner and therefore could be justified before God only by faith. According to gezerah shawah, if the same key word occurs in two Old Testament texts, even if far removed from each other contextually (often the particular word occurred in the Pentateuch and in the Writings, as is the case here in Rom. 4:6–8 [Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1–2]), then those two texts should be read as mutually interpretive:

Genesis 15:6 LXX: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited [logizomai] to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:6 [cf. 4:3, 5])

Psalm 31:1–2 LXX (32:1–2 ET): “Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count [logizomai] against him” (Rom. 4:7–8)

Since the key word, logizomai, occurs in both Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1–2, Paul, using the principle of gezerah shawah, interprets Genesis 15:6 through the lens of Psalm 32:1–2 thus: Abraham being credited/counted righteous before God (Gen. 15:6) means that God did not credit/count against Abraham his sin (Ps. 32:1–2, referring to God’s forgiveness of David’s sins of adultery and murder [see 2 Sam. 11]). All this to say that Abraham was justified before God by faith, not by works. Indeed, Abraham was a sinner whose only hope was God’s grace received through faith. Thus, Paul’s hermeneutical argument in 4:6–8 reinforces his theological argument in 4:1–5.

Theological Insights

Several theological insights jump out at the reader of Romans 4:1–8. First, God is no one’s debtor. In other words, no one can live a life exemplary enough to force God’s hand to save them: not Abraham, not David, not Paul, not anyone. Rather, God offers his salvation in Christ freely to all who will receive it as a gift. Second, related to the previous point, faith is not a work. It is, rather, receiving God’s righteousness as an unearned gift. Third, Paul’s term logizomai indicates that God declares, not makes, a person righteous who receives Christ as Savior. Technically speaking, justification is God crediting to the “account” of the sinner the righteousness of Christ; it is not yet sanctification, whereby God makes the sinner righteous through the lifelong process of spiritual transformation (Rom. 6:1–8:16 discusses sanctification, as we will see later). Fourth, except for the sin of rejecting Christ, there is no sin that God cannot forgive through Christ, not even adultery and murder, as David testifies to in Psalm 32:1–2.

Teaching the Text

Two sermon ideas impress me from Romans 4:1–8. “No One’s Debtor” (based on 4:1–5) could make the powerful, but elusive, point that salvation is based not on human works, but solely on the grace of God received by faith. Surveys have been taken in which passersby are asked if they know that they are going to heaven and why. The results usually are discouraging; many answer by listing their religious works as the basis for salvation. Another sermon that could be delivered from Romans 4:1–8 is “No Sin Too Great: Romans 4:6–8,” with reference to God forgiving David his detestable acts of adultery and murder. David, of course, still had to pay the consequences of his sins (loss of a baby, rebellion and death of another son, rebellion in his kingdom), yet God forgave David, whom God saw as “a man after his own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14).

Illustrating the Text

Like Abraham, we receive God’s righteousness as an unearned gift through faith.

Lyrics: Both the children’s song “Father Abraham” and the great hymn “My Faith Has Found a Resting Place” illustrate the theme of justification by faith and could be used to reach all elements of the congregation. Particularly appropriate is the first verse of the hymn: “My faith has found a resting place, / not in device nor creed. / I trust the ever-living One, / his wounds for me shall plead.”

Biography: Scottish writer J. M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan, told a story about another Scottish writer, Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Treasure Island. When Stevenson moved to the island of Samoa toward the end of his life, he built a small hut before he moved into a larger house. On the first night he spent at the larger house, he was feeling very tired and regretful that he had not had the forethought to ask his servant to bring him coffee and tobacco. At about that time, the servant came in with a tray carrying the coffee and tobacco. Stevenson said to him in his native language, “Great is your forethought.” The boy corrected him, “Great is the love.”5

There is no sin that God cannot forgive through Christ.

Film: The Silence of the Lambs; No Country for Old Men; The Dark Knight. It seems useful, in the interest of freshness, to illustrate this point by describing the lead characters in these well-known films (or others like them) and then ask the audience if they think that Christ could forgive a cannibal (The Silence of the Lambs [1991]), a psychopathic killer (No Country for Old Men [2007]), a human being relentlessly bent on destruction (The Dark Knight [2008]). In these films (widely viewed by young people, especially The Dark Knight) the lead characters are purely evil. The much earlier one, The Silence of the Lambs, is included because of the public’s widespread knowledge of the gruesome character Hannibal Lecter. Too often films like these get caricatured or treated too lightly. In fact, college students have had look-alike contests in which an award is given for the best Dark Knight costume. It would be good to arouse thoughtfulness about the reality of human evil and Christ’s ability to forgive.

The Abrahamic Covenant versus the Mosaic Covenant

Big Idea: Paul’s historical argument: Abraham was reckoned righteous before his circumcision (which in Judaism became the sign of the Mosaic law), so he is the father of all believers, apart from the law. Paul’s logical argument: The means for actualizing God’s promise to Abraham are based not on the law but solely on faith. The Abrahamic covenant is therefore superior to the Mosaic covenant.

Understanding the Text

In general, Romans 4:9–17a continues Paul’s argumentation that Abraham was justified by faith, adding two more pieces of evidence: the historical argument (vv. 9–12) and the logical argument (vv. 13–17a). The flip side is that Romans 4 offers four contrasts between the covenant with Abraham and its counterpart, the covenant with Moses, as seen in table 1.

More specifically, Romans 4:9–17a provides historical and logical arguments that Abraham was justified by faith. The historical argument (4:9–12) can be outlined thus:

1. The biblical basis (4:9)

2. The historical priority (4:10–11a)

3. The spiritual principle (4:11b–12)

The logical argument (4:13–17a) can be outlined thus:

1. The promise to Abraham defined (4:13a)

2. The promise to Abraham was not by the law (4:13b–15)

3. The promise to Abraham was by faith (4:16–17a)

Historical and Cultural Background

1. The traditional view (especially in the Pentateuch and in Second Temple Judaism) was that Abraham was the father of those committed to the Torah; that is, Abraham kept the Torah in advance by obediently submitting to the divine command to be circumcised (Gen. 17), and so should all Jews.1Moreover, Judaism could readily embrace the thought of Abraham as the father of Gentiles if they became proselytes by being circumcised.2All of this carried into the future restoration of Israel. With the Old Testament prophets, however, a new view of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants began to emerge: the latter coming to signify Israel’s sin and exile, the former being recognized as the ground for Israel’s hope for restoration and the attendant conversion of the Gentiles (see, e.g., 2 Kings 13:23; Dan. 7–9, where Daniel portrays the sin-exile-restoration of Israel in terms of the cosmic story of the nations to the effect that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise will be carried out by the new Adam, the heavenly Son of Man).3Paul aligns himself with the prophets.

2. Paul’s statement of the promise that Abraham would be the heir of the world (in Rom. 4:13) conflates three guarantees God gave to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3: his descendants would be a great nation; they would inherit the land (of Israel); and Abraham would be a blessing to all peoples. Later in the Old Testament it is indicated that Israel will inherit not only its own land but also the world (e.g., Isa. 55:3–5). This was seen in ancient Judaism as the fulfillment of Genesis 1:26–28 and God’s command to Adam to subdue the earth.4

Interpretive Insights

4:9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised . . . ? In 4:9–12 Paul presents the historical argument that Abraham was justified by faith. The argument consists of three parts (as outlined above): the biblical basis (v. 9), the historical priority (vv. 10–11a), and the spiritual principle (vv. 11b–12). Verse 9a piggybacks on 4:6–8 and David’s statement quoted there that God forgives sins. One rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 32:1–2 was that such forgiveness applied only to Israel (Pesiq. Rab. 45.185b), a view probably held in Paul’s day.5But 4:9b refers back to Genesis 15:6, reminding the reader that Abraham was reckoned righteous by faith. Romans 4:9, then, is the second half of Paul’s usage of gezerah shawah, with Genesis 15:6 casting light on Psalm 32:1–2, even as Psalm 32:1–2 in Romans 4:6–8 cast light on Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3, 5, 6. Thus, Psalm 32:1–2 and the blessedness of forgiveness (4:9a) are interpreted through the lens of Genesis 15:6 (4:9b) to say that the blessedness of being credited righteous by faith (= forgiveness of sin) applies to both Jew and Gentile (like Abraham’s faith [Rom. 4:10–12] and against the rabbinic restriction of that faith to Jews).

4:10–11a was it credited . . . after he was circumcised, or before? Romans 4:10–11a is the heart of Paul’s historical argument that Abraham was justified by faith and not by the works of the law. Verse 10 makes it clear that Abraham was reckoned righteous by faith (Gen. 15:6) before (twenty-nine years before, on Jewish reckoning) the giving of the rite of circumcision (Gen. 17; later recognized as the sign of the Mosaic covenant, a connection made in 1–2 Macc.).6 For Paul, circumcision is a sign that Abraham earlier had been justified by faith, not a sign that he kept the Torah (4:11a). Paul thus introduces a discontinuity between faith and circumcision (in the sense that circumcision was not the basis of faith but rather the later sign that faith had already occurred and that before circumcision), the likes of which was known only by the Old Testament prophets (see Jer. 4:4; 9:25; cf. already in Deut.10:16; 30:6). All other expressions of Judaism maintained continuity between Abraham’s faith and circumcision, between the covenants of Abraham and Moses, beginning with Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6. But Paul asserts in 4:10–11a that the chronological priority of faith over circumcision dismisses the notion that Abraham kept the Torah in advance by submitting to circumcision. In other words, the apostle to the Gentiles continues the prophetic tradition of pitting the Abrahamic covenant against the Mosaic covenant.

4:11b–12 he is the father of all who believe. Paul spells out in 4:11b–12 the spiritual principle driving the story of Abraham: faith, not the works of the law. Because Abraham was credited as righteous before God by faith alone, all people who have faith (in Christ), Jew and Gentile alike, are the children of Abraham. Note the parallel between 4:11b and 4:12: both the uncircumcised/Gentile Christians and the circumcised/Jewish Christians are children of Abraham by faith, meaning that righteousness is credited to them by faith.7

4:13a the promise that he would be heir of the world. Romans 4:13–17a provides the logical argument for Paul’s case that Abraham was justified by faith. Verse 13a defines the promise God gave to Abraham: God was going to make Abraham the heir of the world. The noun “promise” (epangelia) occurs four times in 4:13–22 (vv. 13, 14, 16, 20; cf. v. 21), signaling the main theme of those verses. As we noted earlier, the promise that Abraham would be the heir of the world is a conflation of the foundational guarantees that God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3. Moreover, Genesis 12 implies that Adam’s dominion over the world has now devolved onto Abraham. Paul interprets this to mean that Abraham is the father of those who have faith in Christ; that is, Christians, both Jews and Gentiles all across the world, are Abraham’s descendants. Moreover, the physical land of Israel is replaced by the kingdom of God in the hearts of his people (see Rom. 14:17). Not Jews ruling Gentiles, but the two together reigning in Christ, fulfill God’s promise to Abraham that he would inherit the earth.

4:13b–15 if those who depend on the law are heirs, . . . the promise is worthless. The negative aspect of Paul’s logical argument appears here. If righteousness is by the works of the law, then righteousness by faith is made of no effect, and the promise is rendered null because the law stirs up wrath and therefore transgression. The word that Paul uses here of making void (NIV: “worthless”) the promise (covenant of Abraham) is katarge?, which, I suggested earlier, Paul applies to the old covenant in Romans 3:31. Here Paul implies that the new covenant would be rendered void by the law of Moses, if it were indeed the way of salvation. Surely it is wrong to interpret these verses as no more than Paul’s criticism of Jewish nationalism.8True, Paul is against the Jewish exclusion of Gentiles from the Abrahamic covenant, but Jews exclude Gentiles precisely because they demand adherence to the entire Torah. Thus, Paul is decrying both exclusivism and legalism (cf. 3:27–31).

4:16–17a Therefore, the promise comes by faith. Paul here presents the positive aspect of his logical argument. Since the promise to Abraham is based on faith and grace, both Jew and Gentile can have the righteousness of God. Though this is debated, the words “not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham” probably mean that the seed of Abraham is not merely the Jew (“not only to those who are of the law”) but the Jew whose faith is in Christ (“but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham”; cf. 4:12). Furthermore, the words “faith of Abraham . . . father of us all” certainly include Christian Gentiles as Abraham’s spiritual offspring (cf. 4:11). Simply put, God’s promise to make Abraham a father of many nations (Rom. 4:17a; Gen. 17:5) has failed if it is rooted in the law of Moses, since no one can obey the Torah; indeed, the law stirs the heart to disobedience. Therefore, the promise has failed and is totally illogical. But if the promise to Abraham is based on faith, then all can participate in it. This is only logical.

Theological Insights

At least two powerful truths are embedded in Romans 4:9–17a. First, for Paul the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic covenant, contains the most realistic hope for the restoration of Israel and the conversion of the Gentiles. This is because the divine promise to Abraham is based on faith, not works, and therefore is the legitimate foreshadowing of the new covenant. Second, Romans 4:9–17a (cf. Gal. 3:6–29) reveals that the gospel of Christ was anticipated in God’s covenant with Abraham in that it is based on faith and is inclusive. This is in contrast to the Mosaic covenant, which is legalistic and exclusivistic. If the Abrahamic covenant conveys God’s promise of grace to both Jew and Gentile, what, then, is the purpose of the Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant? The law of Moses was given by God to convict humankind of its sin and thereby drive people to the gospel of God’s grace in Christ. The Reformer Martin Luther recognized this long ago.

Teaching the Text

A couple of sermons come to mind for Romans 4:9–17a. The first, based on 4:9–12, could cover the historical argument. It would follow the outline above for that section: the biblical basis (v. 9), the historical priority (vv. 10–11a), and the spiritual principle (vv. 11b–12). The first point finishes Paul’s connection of Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1–2 and shows that Jew and Gentile are saved by faith. The second point calculates that salvation by faith came twenty-nine years before circumcision. The third point demonstrates that people of faith are the true children of Abraham.

Second, a sermon based on Romans 4:13–17 could cover the three points of the outline followed above: the promise to Abraham defined (v. 13a); the promise to Abraham was not by the law (vv. 13b–15); the promise to Abraham was by faith (vv. 16–17a). The message might be entitled “Give Me That Old-Time Religion.” The first point suggests that Christians—those whose faith is in Christ alone for salvation—are the fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham. And yet, nowhere is the church more divided than on Sunday morning. Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians meet in separate locations, as do whites and people of color, not to mention the wealthy and the poor. Christians of every race, background, and status need to actualize God’s fulfilled promise to Abraham by uniting in their worship. The second and third points combine to make it clear that not only is nationalism out of place in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, but so also is legalism. Abraham’s faith preceded the law and therefore trumps it in the plan of God. It is important for Jewish believers in particular to be vigilant regarding their own venerable religious heritage. They rightfully remain Jewish and may well celebrate, for example, the Old Testament feasts of the Lord such as Passover, but from a perspective of faith in Christ as the fulfillment of the Torah. Moreover, Jewish believers will want to be sensitive to their Gentile siblings in the faith and careful not to impose on them Jewish culture.

Illustrating the Text

Many religions say Abraham is their father, but only Christians are his true seed.

News Story: Ann Holmes Redding, ordained as an Episcopal priest in 1984, made a profession of faith in Islam in 2006, and she claims to be both a Christian and a Muslim. Because of her decision, she was deposed as a priest in 2009. She says, “I look through Jesus and I see Allah.” How might this compare or contrast with Romans 4:9–17a?

No physical ceremony can produce the spiritual change that comes through grace.

Spiritual Autobiography: The Journal of John Wesley, by John Wesley. In this journal Wesley (1703–91), who was influenced by Martin Luther, gives an account of his coming to understand that only grace would change his behavior. This is in spite of the fact that he performed increasingly greater works of self-denial and charity (entering holy orders, shaking off “trifling acquaintances,” studying harder, visiting the poor and infirm, getting rid of “all superfluities,” and losing “no occasion of doing good” only to be counseled that “outward works are nothing”). What he realized was that he had been intent on his own righteousness, “zealously inculcated by the Mystic writers,” “beating the air” as it were.9

Biography/Film: In the accounts of Martin Luther’s life, he is seen as doing heavy penance, undergoing self-scourging, and lying on stone floors to achieve holiness. None of these acts bring him peace, which he finds only in being justified through faith. In the 1953 film biography Martin Luther (see the “Illustrating the Text” section for Rom. 1:16–17), starring Niall McGinnis, there is a scene that depicts Luther’s misery and self-castigation.

Faith, Abraham, and the Christian

Big Idea: Abraham and the Christian experience justification before God in the same way: faith in God’s promise, apart from works. For Abraham, it was faith in God and the promise that he would be the father of many nations. For the Christian, it is faith in God and in the promise that Jesus’ death and resurrection atone for our sins, reckoning us righteous before God.

Understanding the Text

In Romans 4, Paul puts forth five arguments that Abraham was justified by faith. He has developed the theological (4:1–5), hermeneutical (4:6–8), historical (4:9–12), and logical (4:13–17a) arguments and now moves on to the experiential argument (4:17b–22). The apostle makes the point that both Abraham (4:17b–22) and the Christian (4:23–25) experience justification before God in the same way: by faith, apart from works.

1. Abraham’s faith in God’s promise that he would be the father of many nations (4:17b–22)

a. The object of Abraham’s faith: The God of the impossible (4:17b–19)

i. Resurrection: Life out of death (4:17b)

ii. Creation: Something out of nothing (4:17b)

iii. Procreation: A child from an aged couple (4:18–19)

b. The source of Abraham’s faith: The promise of God (4:20–21)

c. The result of Abraham’s faith: Justification apart from human works to the glory of God (4:22)

2. The Christian’s faith in God’s promise that justification is based on Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection (4:23–25)

a. The object of the Christian’s faith: The God of the impossible, who raised Jesus from the dead (4:24b)

b. The source of the Christian’s faith: The promise of God that Jesus’ death and resurrection atone for our sins (4:25)

c. The result of the Christian’s faith: Justification apart from human works to the glory of God (4:23–24a, 25b)

Historical and Cultural Background

1. God’s power to raise the dead to life (see Rom. 4:17b) was a cherished belief of most ancient Jews (see Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Tob. 13:2; Wis. 16:13; cf. Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:22, 36, 45).

2. Creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), a doctrine held in ancient Judaism (see Philo, Spec. Laws 4.187; 2 Macc. 7:28; 2 Bar. 21.4; 48.8; Mek. Exod. 18.3; 21.37; 22.22; cf. Heb. 11:3), is probably alluded to in Romans 4:17b. Those who do not see an allusion here argue that the words “as though they were” (h?s onta) express the hypothetical (God’s summoning of that which does not yet exist—the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham was still future for him), not the actual (the world that God has already brought into existence). But the words h?s onta can be used of an actual quality or reality (see BDAG, III.1).

Interpretive Insights

4:17b–19 the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. Romans 4:17b–22 begins Paul’s experiential argument in 4:17b–25 to the effect that Abraham (vv. 17b–22) and Christians (vv. 23–25) experience acceptance before God in the same way: by faith, apart from works. The same outline also pertains to Abraham and the Christian in this passage: both have the same object of faith, source of faith, and result of faith. The difference between the two is that God’s promise to Abraham was that he would be the father of many nations, while God’s promise to Christians is that they are reckoned righteous before him based on the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Romans 4:17b–19 presents the object of Abraham’s faith: the God of the impossible. Abraham believed in the God associated with three miraculous feats: physical resurrection (v. 17b), which speaks life into death; the creation of the world out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) (v. 17b; see “Historical and Cultural Background,” above); and procreation on behalf of an aged couple in Abraham and Sarah (vv. 18–19).

The key to understanding 4:18–19 is to note that the opening paradoxical statement, “against all hope, Abraham in hope believed,” governs verses 18–19. “Against all hope” refers to the mere human perspective, which told Abraham that the divine promise that he was about to have a child and would be the ancestor of many nations (note “So shall your offspring be” in Gen. 15:5 [cf. 17:5]) was ludicrous because he and Sarah were too old to have children (see Gen. 17:17). In terms of procreation, their bodies were as good as dead. But despite insuperable odds, Abraham “in hope believed” in the God of the impossible. This was the divine perspective that guided Abraham. Abraham’s faith in God’s promise never wavered.2

4:20–21 he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God. In 4:20–21 Paul wants to make the point that God’s promise to Abraham generated or created the faith of Abraham. Two matters indicate this. First, the words “promise” (epangelia [v. 20]) and “promised” (perfect tense of epangellomai [v. 21]) form an inclusio around verse 20b, “Abraham was strengthened in his faith.” This structure appears to signal that Abraham’s faith was generated by God’s promise, with the outer two points shedding light on the middle point. Second, the verb enedynam?th? (“was strengthened” [v. 20]) is most likely a divine passive, meaning that the passive voice indicates God is the author of the action. If so, then the translation “was strengthened in his faith” implies that God’s promise created and strengthened Abraham’s faith.3This, together with the next consideration, in 4:22, thereby rules out that Abraham’s faith was in any way meritorious. Thus, the source of Abraham’s faith was the divine promise and the power to deliver on that promise.

4:22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” This verse spells out the result of Abraham’s faith: he was reckoned as righteous before God (again cf. Gen. 15:6). This in turn glorified God’s grace (compare 4:20 with 4:16). One can see in this the first half of Paul’s experiential argument: Abraham’s faith in the God of the impossible (4:17b–19) was born out of the divine promise (4:20–21), not out of Abraham’s merit or work. Therefore, Abraham’s experience of justification shows that God’s grace alone should be glorified and not human works (4:22).

4:23–25 for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. The Christian experiences justification before God in the same way: by faith, apart from works. In that regard, the three-point outline in 4:17b–22 applying to Abraham (see “The Text in Context,” above) pertains to the Christian in 4:23–25. Thus, according to 4:24b, the object of the Christian’s faith is the God of the impossible—in this case, the God who raised Jesus the Lord from the dead (cf. 1:3–4). And according to 4:25, the source of the Christian’s faith is the (implied) promise of God that whoever believes in Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection will be justified by God.4The former, Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection, generates or creates the latter, the believer’s faith in God. Finally, 4:23–24a, 25b spell out the result of the Christian’s faith: the Christian is reckoned as righteous before God based on the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus. In this lies the second half of Paul’s experiential argument: as with Abraham, the Christian’s belief in the God of the impossible (4:24b) was born out of God’s promise (4:25) and therefore not out of human merit or works (4:23–24a, 25b). Thus, the Christian’s salvation is based on the grace of God alone. In other words, God alone should be glorified for our justification because it is based on his grace (cf. 5:1–3, where the words “justification,” “grace,” and “glory” combine to express the same sentiment).5

Theological Insights

At least three theological insights emerge in Romans 4:17b–25. First, the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant (even in the Old Testament) were based on faith, as opposed to the Mosaic covenant, which, if not initially, certainly in time became viewed legalistically by the Jews (against the New Perspective on Paul). The gospel of Jesus Christ too is rooted in faith. To put it another way, Paul’s message in Romans 4 is that faith as the means of salvation is not new with his message of justification; it was already so with Abraham and with the prophets’ longing for a new covenant. Second, related to the previous remark, faith is not a work; faith is the gift of God to humans so that they can respond to the gospel call (compare Rom. 4:17b–25 with Eph. 2:8–9). Third, and related to the previous two points, the word “call” (kale?) in 4:17b is thought by Calvinists to involve the “effectual call” / “irresistible grace” of God whereby God’s invitation to, even summoning of, a person to participate in salvation cannot be resisted. This in turn is connected to divine sovereignty and election, a topic that we will meet head-on in Romans 9.

Teaching the Text

For Romans 4:17b–25, “The God of the Impossible” is a sermon/lesson that could develop the four impossibilities that God performed: creation, procreation, resurrection, and justification. The first of these four miracles God did out of nothing. When it comes to the origin of the universe, there really are only two possibilities: either matter is eternal or God is eternal. While in the past some scientists and philosophers argued for the former, these days the Big Bang theory is hospitable to the claim that the universe indeed had a beginning. And such an argument bodes well for those of us who believe that God created the cosmos. Simply put, God’s calling the universe into being out of nothing is a miracle, a human impossibility, that the Judaic-Christian tradition cherishes, and for good reason.

The second miracle God did on behalf of Abraham and Sarah. To help people appreciate the faith of Abraham and Sarah in God’s promise of procreation, one preacher put it this way: it would be like if today a hundred-year-old husband and his ninety-year-old wife were so confident that God was going to give them a natural-born son that they bought a home beside an elementary school to prepare for his arrival.

The third miracle, resurrection, God did for Jesus. His body was dead and buried, but God spoke the word and raised his Son to life. Recently, some scientists claimed to have solved the mystery of the Shroud of Turin, the supposed burial cloth of Jesus. After months of reexamining the shroud, they concluded that it portrayed the resurrected face of Jesus, but as superimposed over the crucified face of the historical Jesus. Should these scientists prove to be correct, for the first time we humans would now see how the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith meet: at the intersection of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The fourth miracle is justification, whereby God calls righteousness out of nothing on behalf of the sinner whose faith is in Christ.

Illustrating the Text

God does the impossible: creation, procreation, resurrection, and justification.

Hymn Text: “All Creatures of Our God and King,” by Francis of Assisi. Francis (1181/82–1226), a devout Italian monk, wrote the text for this great hymn. The music was added much later. The hymn echoes Francis’s love for God’s created world; it notes that all of creation get its life from God and should live in dependence, giving glory to God. “Let all things their Creator bless / and worship him in humbleness.”

Poetry: “The Creation,” by James Weldon Johnson. Johnson’s short retelling of God’s work in the Genesis creation story is full of energy and delight. It is intended to be poetical, not theological, but certainly it is usable. Audiences love it.

The relationship between faith and fact is complementary.

Bible: Compare the faith of Abraham and Sarah as described in Hebrews 11:8–19 with Paul’s description in Romans 4:17b–25.

Spiritual Autobiography: See the conversion stories of well-known individuals who once were atheists or agnostics but who were converted to theism and even Christianity. There is a range of possibilities here. Here are some examples: Augustine, Confessions; C. S. Lewis (professor, apologist, writer), Surprised by Joy; Malcolm Muggeridge (journalist), Jesus Rediscovered; Josh McDowell (Christian apologist), From Skepticism to Faith; Anthony Flew (philosopher), There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind; Lee Strobbel (journalist), The Case for Christ.

Quote: John Calvin.

Let us also remember, that the condition of us all is the same with that of Abraham. All things around us are in opposition to the promises of God: He promises immortality; we are surrounded with mortality and corruption: He declares that he counts us just; we are covered with sins: He testifies that he is propitious and kind to us; outward judgments threaten His wrath. What then is to be done? We must with closed eyes pass by ourselves, and all things connected with us, that nothing may hinder or prevent us from believing that God is true.6

Teaching the Text by C. Marvin Pate, 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).

Barrenness

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).

Circumcision

The custom of cutting the foreskin of the male genitalia as a religious rite. Egyptians practiced circumcision, as did the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, and nomadic Arabians (Jer. 9:25 26). Philistines, Assyrians, and Gentiles in general were uncircumcised (Judg. 14:3; Ezek. 32:17–32; Eph. 2:11).

Circumcision is first mentioned in the Bible as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:10). God commanded that every male be circumcised at eight days old (Gen. 17:12; cf. 21:4; Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21). Circumcision was required for a male to participate in the Passover (Exod. 12:48) or worship in the temple (Ezek. 44:9; cf. Acts 21:28–29).

Metaphorically, circumcision goes beyond the physical sign (Rom. 2:28). Ultimately, the enemies of God, whether circumcised or not, will be slain and laid in the grave with the uncircumcised (Ezek. 32:32). Physical circumcision is of no avail if the heart remains “uncircumcised” (Jer. 9:25–26; cf. Rom. 2:25). Circumcision of the heart is accomplished when one loves God completely (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29), but uncircumcised ears are disobedient (Acts 7:51). The circumcision accomplished by Christ occurs when the sinful nature is rejected (Col. 2:11). In him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value; what counts “is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6).

Controversy began in the NT church over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised (Acts 15:1–12). Evidently, a group existed that demanded circumcision (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:10). Paul argued that circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship (Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:11).

David

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith

Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28 29).

In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).

Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (2:8).

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the Letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

In 1 Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1:21), whereas in 2 Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2 Pet. 1:1). In the Letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, . . . you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Father

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glory

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

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

Grace

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

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

Hope

At times simply indicating a wish (2 Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:5 8; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).

In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2 Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1 John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1 Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1 Cor. 13:13).

Impute

In the NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’s writings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1 2, he asserts that God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom. 4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt were imputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’s obedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Imputation makes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is only on the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can be justified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstract theological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believer relates to God.

Justification

The word “justification” occurs only five times in the Bible (NIV), but related words comprise significant themes in both Testaments. Justification is often related to a legal setting in both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, with its judge, defendant, evidence, criteria for evaluating the evidence, verdicts, and the implications of verdicts. This is a good word picture for justification and is used in the Bible itself. As long as the legal picture is extended to everyday affairs, moral and ethical concerns, and different criteria for evidence evaluation, it is a fine starting point for understanding the doctrine of justification.

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

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

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

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.

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).

Righteousness

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation.

Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this.

Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5 7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

Sarah

The wife of Abraham, the father of Israel and God’s chosen people. Thus, Sarah is a matriarch (mother) of Israel along with Rebekah and Rachel.

According to Gen. 11:29 30, Sarai was married to Abram before they entered the promised land. The passage also announces that she was barren. Since an essential part of the divine promises to Abram is that he will be father to a great nation, the lack of offspring is a considerable problem and propels much of the plot of the narrative (esp. Gen. 12–26).

In brief, Sarai’s inability to conceive is an obstacle to the fulfillment of the promise and is a threat to Abram’s faith. Thus, when a famine forces them to go to Egypt to survive, he tells his wife to lie about her status by saying that she is his sister. Although it is true that she is his half sister, the statement is a lie because he hides the most relevant part of his relationship with her and puts the matriarch in danger (Gen. 12:10–20; 20:12). Abraham’s faith (the narrative does not reveal Sarah’s thinking except perhaps in Gen. 18:10–15, when she laughs at the thought of giving birth in her old age) in God’s ability to fulfill the promise fluctuates, and he certainly has not come to a consistent position of trust even just before the birth of Isaac (Gen. 20). As a matter of fact, acting on fear and trying to produce an heir, Abraham takes a concubine, Hagar, who gives birth to Ishmael. Sarah’s relationship with Hagar is troubled (Gen. 16), and Sarah treats her harshly and eventually has Hagar and Ishmael expelled from their camp (21:8–21).

Eventually, in advanced old age, Sarah gives birth to Isaac, the child of the promise (Gen. 21:1–7). Sarah is not mentioned in the story of the “binding of Isaac,” the focus again being on Abraham’s faith.

Later OT literature often looks back on Abraham as patriarch, but only Isa. 51:2 explicitly mentions Sarah in the role of cofounder of the people of God. She is mentioned also in the NT, along with Abraham, as the one through whom God brings the promise of a son to fulfillment (Rom. 4:19; 9:9; Heb. 11:11). In 1 Pet. 3:6 Sarah is put forward as a model of wifely submission because she obeys Abraham and refers to him as her lord (likely a reference to the Greek version of Gen. 18:12).

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.

Seal

In the biblical world, documents were sealed with clay or wax (1 Kings 21:8; Job 38:14; Neh. 9:38; Jer. 32:10; Rev. 5:1). The integrity of the seal was assured by impressing an image into the soft substance, which would then harden and retain the unique image of the sender’s seal. The archaeological record attests this practice in the form of bullae (the impressions themselves, which survive long after the documents have disintegrated) as well as a large number of seals, which often were carved (Exod. 28:11; 39:6; Sir. 38:27; 45:11) into semiprecious stones or stone cylinders.

A person’s unique seal was closely identified with the owner and could be worn as a ring or pendant (see Gen. 38:18; Esther 8:8; Song 8:6). Besides documents, we have rec-ords of the sealing of caves (Matt. 27:66; cf. Dan. 6:17; 2 Macc. 2:5) and bags (Job 14:17; Tob. 9:5). In apocalyptic literature, seals are used to conceal prophecies of the future (Dan. 12:4) and to mark humans as belonging to God (Rev. 7:3 8).

Sign

Signs are visible, typically being an object, a mark, an event, or a custom. In addition, signs are symbolic, pointing to things not seen. Signs often reveal or share some quality with the unseen reality to which they point, and so they are a token of that reality. In the Bible, signs typically are caused or instituted by God, and in many cases they are miraculous. However, in a few cases signs are set forth as the work of other gods (as in Deut. 13:1 2) or as being instituted by merely human design (as in Num. 2:2). In summary, a sign may be defined as something seen that points to something unseen, and that is instituted or created to do so by someone’s intention.

Several examples support this definition. Keeping the Sabbath is a sign of God’s rest after creating the world (Exod. 31:15); the Sabbath rest itself imitates God’s rest. Circumcision is a sign of God’s promise to both Abraham and his descendants; circumcision is also a physical mark that is related to human fertility (Gen. 17:11). The rainbow is a sign of God’s promise not to destroy the world by water and rain; rainbows appear only with rain (Gen. 9:13). (In the original Hebrew text, both the custom of circumcision and the rainbow that appears after the great flood are called “signs.”) The early Passover plagues both bring and warn of judgment, while the healing miracles of Jesus both bring and promise blessing. While signs point to unseen realities, these realities do not diminish the value or importance of the visible world. Instead, the unseen realities themselves are ultimately expressed in the visible world.

Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works

The Bible has much to say about works, and an understanding of the topic is important because works play a role in most religions. In the most generic sense, “works” refers to the products or activities of human moral agents in the context of religious discussion. God’s works are frequently mentioned in Scripture, and they are always good. His works include creation (Gen. 2:2 3; Isa. 40:28; 42:5), sustenance of the earth (Ps. 104; Heb. 1:3), and redemption (Exod. 6:6; Ps. 111:9; Rom. 8:23). Human works, therefore, should be in alignment with God’s works, though obviously of a different sort. Works in the Bible usually reflect a moral polarity: good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, just or unjust. The context of the passage often determines the moral character of the works (e.g., Isa. 3:10–11; 2 Cor. 11:15).

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

Wrath

The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).

Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.

On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:5 6). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).

In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.

Direct Matches

Abraham

Abram, eventually named “Abraham,” is a well-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen. 11:25–25:11. The patriarchal name “Abram” is used exclusively in Genesis, 1 Chron. 1:27, and Neh. 9:7. Abram’s name (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen. 17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of many nations.” His prominence as a biblical character is evidenced in the 254 references to him documented in both Testaments.

The historical reliability of the account of Abraham is vigorously debated by scholars, although the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) is the generally accepted time period of Abraham’s life. The narrative of his life is a selective account of key events that serves the theme and purpose of the larger biblical narrative.

The Abraham narrative in Genesis is a story intentionally structured around the familiar details of life and death, uprooting and resettling, faith and doubt, and dysfunctional relationships. It is distinguished with illustrations of divine activity in family and political relationships. God is speaking (12:1, 7; 15:5, 7, 9), revealing (12:7; 17:1; 18:1), rescuing, judging, and fulfilling words of promise (18:19; 21:1). God’s fingerprint is clearly noted with the summary statements of the Lord’s blessing (24:1) and wealth (24:35).

The covenant that God made with Abraham is a key element in the overall story and foundational for the theology of both Testaments. This divine arrangement is introduced in Gen. 12:1–3 and progressively unfolded with increased detail in Gen. 15; 17. It is structured so that the obligations are borne by the Lord himself. The covenant promises land, seed, and blessing to Abraham and his descendants. In Gen. 15 the Lord officially cut the covenant with Abraham, thereby guaranteeing his commitment to his word. The halving of animals and the walking between the cut pieces by God symbolized by the torch constituted an ancient covenantal ritual affirming God’s responsibility for the covenant particulars.

The promise of land made to Abraham is referenced specifically in Acts (7:5, 16) and Hebrews (11:8, 11), where his obedient faith is featured and the land is discussed in connection with the historical context of his life. See also Abram.

Believe

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he 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). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1 Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

In 1 Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1 Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2 Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2 Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, . . . you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1 Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2 Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1 Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

Faith

Old Testament

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

Faith and the Church

Faithfulness

Old Testament

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

Faith and the Church

Heir

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

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).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Hope

Scope and Uses of the Word “Hope”

At times simply indicating a wish (2 Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes.

Those whom God has helped and delivered expect to see God’s power again when future needs arise, knowing that in God there are reasons for hope. Mere optimism assumes that bad circumstances will improve with the passing of time. In contrast, hope assumes that God is faithful and is convinced that he is able to bring about his good purpose (Isa. 44:1–8). So at its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:5–8; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).

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

The inner disposition of hope may be seriously threatened by injustice and other devastating life experiences, as reflected in Job 6:8–13; 14:19; 19:10. The refrain of Pss. 42:5–6, 11; 43:5 is a psalmist’s self-exhortation to hope amid oppressive and depressing circumstances: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.” Words for “hope” function similarly in other psalms of lament (Pss. 9:18; 31:24; 71:5, 14; cf. Mic. 7:7).

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

Hope as a Biblical Theme

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

Judgment dominates the message of the preexilic prophets, although expressions of hope are also found. But Judah’s downfall in 587/586 BC marks a turning point in prophetic hope. While preexilic prophecy bases its indictment, appeal, and warning in the exodus and the covenant, Jeremiah and Ezekiel tend to redirect hope and expectation to a new work of salvation that God will accomplish through and after the judgment of exile (e.g., Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 11:16–21; cf. Isa. 43:18–19). In the wake of Judah’s destruction, these prophets grasp a remarkable new vision of grace and promise. Restoration will be personal as well as national; forgiveness of sin will enable obedience to God’s law, now to be found written on their hearts.

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

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

Christ is judge as well as savior (Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:16), and the NT anticipates final judgment of all persons and powers arrayed against God, including sin and death (1 Cor. 15:24–26; 2 Thess. 1:5–10). Christian hope involves nothing less than the return and full revelation of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the renewal of all creation (1 Thess. 4:13–18; Rev. 21–22)—the complete vindication of God’s rule, secured already in Christ. Then God’s redeemed people will see his face and live in his presence forever (Matt. 5:8; Jude 24; Rev. 22:4). A vision of this future enables us to press on with hope, stretching toward what is to come (Phil. 3:13–14).

Imputation

The word “impute” means “to think of, regard, reckon, or credit something to someone that comes from another.” The language comes from the business world, where records are kept indicating credits and debits to a person’s account. This nontheological sense of imputation is found in Philem. 18–19, where Paul tells Philemon that if his slave Onesimus, who apparently had stolen from his master before running away, owes Philemon anything, “Charge it to me.” But the dominant use of imputation in the Bible is with reference to sin and righteousness.

Although imputation is most clearly taught in the NT, it is present in the OT as well. A prime example is the Day of Atonement ritual, in which Aaron lays his hands on the scapegoat and confesses the sins of the people before releasing it into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20–22). The act of laying his hands on the scapegoat imputes the sins of the people onto the goat.

In the NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’s writings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1–2, he asserts that God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom. 4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt were imputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’s obedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Paul summarizes the same idea elsewhere as follows: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). The believer’s sin is credited to Jesus, while Jesus’ righteousness is credited to the believer. In the account ledgers that determine a person’s standing in God’s court of law, God transfers to the believer the complete obedient righteousness of Jesus while at the same time transferring to Jesus the sinful rebellion of the believer. Imputation even extends beyond righteousness: Jesus “has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

Imputation makes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is only on the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can be justified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstract theological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believer relates to God.

Impute

Inherit

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Inheritance

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Iniquity

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

Sin in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

Definition and Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metaphors

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

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

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

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

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

Scope and Consequences

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Justification

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

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

Common and Extraordinary Justification

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

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

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

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

Paul and Justification

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

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

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

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

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

James and Justification

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

Other Views on Justification

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

Nations

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

Promise

Old Testament

The promises in the OT are closely related to the history of salvation. At each stage of redemptive history, God delivered a new message about redemption, usually in the form of a covenant. Immediately after the fall of humankind, God first revealed his plan of salvation: the promise that the seed of the woman would ultimately crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17).

At Mount Sinai, God made another covenant with the Israelites. In this covenant, God promised that they would be his “treasured possession” among the nations if they would obey him and keep his covenant (Exod. 19:5). God’s special blessings were pronounced for them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). For this purpose, God gave them the Ten Commandments, which became the religious and ethical standard for his covenant people (20:1–17). In the book of Deuteronomy, moreover, God’s promises were made in the form of blessings to the obedient and of curses to the disobedient (Deut. 28). Later these became the criteria by which the kings of Israel were judged to determine whether they had lived an obedient life.

According to 2 Sam. 7:11–16, God made an eternal covenant with David, promising the permanence of David’s house, kingdom, and throne. In this covenant it was also promised that his offspring would build the house of the Lord. The Davidic covenant was partially fulfilled at the time of Solomon, who as king built the house of the Lord, the first temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:15–25). Later, in the period of the classical prophets, when the hope for the Davidic throne was endangered, the permanence of the Davidic throne and kingdom reappeared in the form of messianic prophecy (Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:24–28). This promise was ultimately fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

The history of Israel shows that although the nation repeatedly broke God’s covenants, he remained faithful to them. According to Num. 23:19, God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” The trustworthiness of God’s promises results from his unchanging character (Ps. 110:4; Mal. 3:6–7). The almighty God has the power to fulfill his promises (Isa. 55:11). When Joshua finished conquering the land of Canaan, he confessed that God was faithful in keeping all his promises to his ancestors (Josh. 21:45; 23:14–15). Joshua himself witnessed that trusting God’s promises is a life-and-death issue. Those who had not trusted his promise to give them the land of Canaan perished in the wilderness, but those who had trusted his promise were allowed to enter it (Num. 14:1–35).

New Testament

In the book of Hebrews, the concept of promise plays an important role. In Heb. 6 Abraham is presented as the exemplary man who trusted in God’s promise. The author exhorts the Hebrew Christians to follow Abraham’s model of trust in God’s promise (6:12–20). The author also asserts that Jesus’ new covenant is superior to the old one because his ministry “is established on better promises” (8:6). In Heb. 11 the faith of the great OT saints is acclaimed in terms of their faith in God’s promises.

Human Promises

The Scriptures contain many cases of people making promises to other people. For example, Abraham made promises to the king of Sodom and to Abimelek (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:22–24). The Israelite spies made a promise to Rahab (Josh. 2:12–21). People also make promises to God: Jacob, Jephthah, Hannah, and the returning exiles (Gen. 28:20–21; Judg. 11:29–40; 1 Sam. 1:11–20; Neh. 10:28–29). Human promises usually are accompanied by the taking of an oath (Gen. 14:22; 21:24; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 2:12–14) or the declaration of a curse in case of its breach (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 14:24; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23). It is imperative to keep the promise that one makes to a human being or to God (Num. 30:1–2; Ps. 50:14). In Mal. 2:14–16, divorce is regarded as a breaking of the oath between husband and wife. In OT times, people were afraid of curses falling upon them when they broke a promise. The Bible warns of the danger of making false promises, as doing so will bring about sin and judgment (Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21; Zech. 8:17). It is an axiom of the wisdom literature that one should not make promises rashly or lightly (Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:1–7), and Jesus prohibits the taking of any oath because of the possibility of its breach (Matt. 5:33–37).

Righteousness

Old Testament

Divine righteousness. Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightness in his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts are righteous (Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgments are righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness (Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked to God’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71) and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader than deliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous), though it does include it.

Human righteousness. Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

It seems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was more concrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of most contemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understanding righteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous person is sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness in the OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7), there are many more references to a righteousness grounded in particular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10). Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpful distinction between “ordinary” and “absolute” righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind of righteousness that we intend when making comments such as “my wife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broad perspective, that her life is characterized predominantly by righteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness, absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparative righteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1 Sam. 24:17; Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is the extraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work of God; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.

Noncanonical Jewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varying greatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of human and divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often is associated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poor and is contrasted with wickedness.

In Greco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtues and thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Roman righteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind of external norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact that righteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Roman literature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often were embedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not only violated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, but also impacted humans.

New Testament

Ordinary human righteousness. Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

Divine righteousness. The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

“The righteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness. There is a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness and his faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66). Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’s saving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g., Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness of God,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22 [2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousness of God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God” could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness from God (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to his righteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms), or some combination of these.

The righteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “the righteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from the Mosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarified in that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews and Gentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguished from righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26). In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a character quality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness of God” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).

In Rom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “the righteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their own righteousness because they are not submitting to “the righteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’s righteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectations of his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness of God” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus (e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key to understanding “the righteousness of God” in the other texts also.

In Rom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5, 16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust in Jesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25) enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). In Jesus we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). The righteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealed and manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous in Christ.

Sarah

The wife of Abraham, the father of Israel and God’s chosen people. Thus, Sarah is a matriarch (mother) of Israel along with Rebekah and Rachel. When first introduced, her name is given as “Sarai,” but God changes it to “Sarah” (at the same time Abram’s name is changed to “Abraham” [Gen. 17:15–16]). Both names mean “princess.” The significance of the change may be subtle, since “Sarai” is an East Semitic version of West Semitic “Sarah,” indicating her transition from Mesopotamia to the promised land.

According to Gen. 11:29–30, Sarai was married to Abram before they entered the promised land. The passage also announces that she was barren. Since an essential part of the divine promises to Abram is that he will be father to a great nation, the lack of offspring is a considerable problem and propels much of the plot of the narrative (esp. Gen. 12–26).

Sarah predeceases Abraham, and he buys a field from Ephron the Hittite in order to bury her (Gen. 23), the first part of the promised land owned by the people of promise. This location near Hebron became the burial spot of Abraham and other patriarchs.

Sin

Sin in the Bible

Definition and Terminology

Metaphors

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

Scope and Consequences

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

Conclusion

Transgression

The violation of a law or code. The Hebrew word translated “transgression” in the NIV can also mean “revolt” or “rebellion.” Various Greek words are translated “transgression(s)” in the NIV, all of which denote a deliberate violation of the law (Rom. 4:7, 15; 11:11–12; Gal. 3:19; Eph. 2:1, 5). See also Sin.

Trust

Old Testament

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

Faith and the Church

Wages

Payment for the hire of one’s labor, often disbursed daily. The Bible refers to wages in connection with various occupations, including agricultural worker (Gen. 29:15; 30:27–29; Zech. 11:12; Matt. 20:1–16; John 4:36), artisan (1 Kings 5:6; Isa. 46:6), soldier (2 Chron. 25:6; Ezek. 29:18–19; 1 Cor. 9:7), prostitute (Hos. 9:1; Mic. 1:7), priest (Judg. 18:4; Num. 18:31), nurse (Exod. 2:9), and even the beast of burden (Exod. 22:15; Zech. 8:10; 1 Tim. 5:18). Prophets were paid for their work (Amos 7:12), though a late OT and Second Temple period tradition regarded the sin of Balaam as prophecy for hire (Deut. 23:4; Neh. 6:12–13; 13:2; 2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11). In the NT, the concept of wage labor is extended to the church leader and the apostle (Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 3:8; 1 Tim. 5:18).

Behind many references in the NT to wages lies the Latin term denarius (Gk. dēnarion) a small silver coin equivalent to a day’s wages (as in Matt. 20:2). Thus, in Mark 6:37 “more than half a year’s wages” (NIV) translates what in Greek is “two hundred denarii” (NRSV) (see also Mark 14:5), and the commodity prices in Rev. 6:6 show massive inflation relative to the day’s wage or denarius. In addition to the payment of wages with money, the Bible attests the payment of wages in kind, including wives (Gen. 29:17), livestock (Gen. 30:32), food (Num. 18:31; 1 Sam. 2:5), and, in the case of soldiers, plunder (Ezek. 29:19).

Several texts regard the fair payment of wages as a basic element of social justice and, conversely, the withholding of wages as an evil. Deuteronomy 24:15 commands the employer to pay workers wages “each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it” (cf. Lev. 19:13; Job 7:2). Likewise, Mal. 3:5 denounces those who defraud workers of wages (cf. Gen. 31:2), a stance continued in the NT (Rom. 4:4; James 5:4).

The reward of righteousness and the punishment of wickedness are described as a wage, as in Rom. 6:23: “The wages of sin is death.” Proverbs 10:16 says, “The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death” (cf. Prov. 11:18; Isa. 65:7; 2 Pet. 2:13).

Works

The Bible has much to say about works, and an understanding of the topic is important because works play a role in most religions. In the most generic sense, “works” refers to the products or activities of human moral agents in the context of religious discussion. God’s works are frequently mentioned in Scripture, and they are always good. His works include creation (Gen. 2:2–3; Isa. 40:28; 42:5), sustenance of the earth (Ps. 104; Heb. 1:3), and redemption (Exod. 6:6; Ps. 111:9; Rom. 8:23). Human works, therefore, should be in alignment with God’s works, though obviously of a different sort. Works in the Bible usually reflect a moral polarity: good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, just or unjust. The context of the passage often determines the moral character of the works (e.g., Isa. 3:10–11; 2 Cor. 11:15).

Wrath of God

Despite tendencies to downplay the reality of God’s anger (God is classically described as “without passions”), if we are to do justice to both Testaments, we must allow the language of Scripture to stand, where God often is said to be angry with individuals or nations, including Israel. Although God is changeless (Mal. 3:6), he interacts in a personal way with a time-bound world. The Bible writers intend us to understand that there is something in God’s anger to which human anger is analogous, though God’s anger is not identical to ours (Hos. 11:9). God’s anger is not an automatic response; he can restrain it (Ps. 78:38). God is said to be characteristically slow to become angry; that is, his anger is a deliberate response (Exod. 34:6, a text with numerous echoes) and may also be short-lived (Ps. 30:5; Mic. 7:18).

God’s anger against Israel in the wilderness is noteworthy (Heb. 3:10, 17). The apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32:10–12), the complaining (Num. 11:1, 33), and the failure to enter the promised land following the report of the spies (Num. 32:10–11) all provoke God to anger. Failure to heed God’s word (Zech. 7:12) or that of his prophets (2 Chron. 36:16), neglect of his worship (2 Chron. 29:6–8), and intermarriage with idolaters (Ezra 9:14) are behaviors that incur the wrath of God.

God’s anger is directed against individuals, particularly for failures of leadership, as with Moses (Exod. 4:14; Deut. 1:37) and Solomon (1 Kings 11:9–11). God’s anger often is directed against the Israelite and Judean kings, not just those who committed idolatry (2 Chron. 25:15), but even those who are faithful in most respects, for their failure to remove the idolatrous high places (2 Kings 23:19).

Picking up on the warning that God’s anger will be directed against those who do not pay homage to God’s appointed king (Ps. 2:5, 12), Jesus declares that disobedience to God’s Son brings upon one the wrath of God (John 3:36), which evidently is not incompatible with his love for the world (3:16). According to Rom. 4:15, God’s wrath is a consequence of the law; that is, the law, giving concrete expression to the character of God, brings culpability for transgression. God’s wrath is revealed against all forms of ungodliness and its tendency to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18). Those who demonstrate their disobedience to God or his truth will be subjected to his anger (Rom. 2:8; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6).

A pervasive metaphor for anger is that of a burning fire (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 89:46; Isa. 66:15) along with associated images of smoke (Ps. 18:8) and smelting metal (Ezek. 22:20, 22). Other images are the winepress (Isa. 63:3; Rev. 14:19), drinking from a vessel (Isa. 51:22; Rev. 14:10), and a tempest (Ezek. 13:13).

The judgment that follows as a consequence of God’s anger being aroused takes the form of the withholding of God’s covenant favor (Ps. 95:11; Isa. 54:8) or the implementation of his covenant curses (Deut. 29:27), specifically through drought (Deut. 11:17), plague (Ps. 78:50), the sword (Ps. 78:62), and deliverance into the hands of enemies (2 Kings 13:3), leading to exile (2 Chron. 6:36). God’s anger can be depicted in various forms of cosmic upheaval or the undoing of creation (2 Sam. 22:8–16; Ps. 18:7; Jer. 4:26). God’s anger is beyond human ability to endure (Ps. 76:7), such that hiding in Sheol is considered preferable (Job 14:13).

God’s wrath becomes particularly associated with a coming day of wrath at the end of the age, when God’s justice will be powerfully displayed (Dan. 8:19; Zeph. 2:3; Luke 21:23; Rom. 2:5; Rev. 6:17).

Subjection to God’s anger may evoke the cry “How long?” (Pss. 79:5; 80:4). While God’s mercy cannot be taken for granted, since his anger against some may be final as an expression of his justice (Jer. 30:24; Rom. 12:19), God’s anger may be assuaged or averted through humbling oneself (2 Chron. 12:7) and an appeal to God for mercy (Ps. 106:23; Hab. 3:2), by repentance (2 Chron. 29:10; Ezra 10:14; Jon. 3:9), by zealous action to root out evil (Num. 25:11), and by the faithful ministry of God’s appointed servants (Num. 1:53; 18:5).

The NT brings to fulfillment these forms of mediation in presenting the ultimate remedy for God’s wrath in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9). The use of “propitiation” language (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2), though its significance is disputed, is classically understood in terms of the need for God’s wrath to be satisfied. In that case, it is specifically the cross of Christ that ultimately deals with God’s righteous anger against sinners.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Romans 4:1-25 is mentioned in the definition.

Atonement

The English word “atonement” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”; thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In some ways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliation than our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness” as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity is achieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongs done. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achieved this “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

The need for atonement comes from the separation that has come about between God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there is the understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatures on account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effect reconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’s holiness and justice.

Old Testament

In the OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins were atoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, and an amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrifice was reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given them the blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basic operating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of the blood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer. However, there have been significant scholarly debates regarding whether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understanding of atonement.

The meaning of “to atone.” First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popular suggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease, to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert. Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little or nothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purify the tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impurities that attach to them on account of the community’s sin. This theory, though most probably correct in what it affirms, unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacle and furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mention atonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev. 8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts in Leviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sin for the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning of kapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meanings overlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in some passages, and another one in others.

There has also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying a hand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2). This has traditionally been understood as an identification of the offerer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’s sins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and the argument made instead that it only signifies that the animal does indeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offer it. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seen as complementary to what has traditionally been understood by this gesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when the priest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sin and wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on the goat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm the correctness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thus best seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; it dies in his stead.

The relationship between God and the offerer. Second, granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins, the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on the relationship between God and the offerer. The question here is whether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offering expiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does it propitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does it appease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath is removed? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seems logical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On the other hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possibly be a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there are certainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passages where something like “appease” or “pacify” appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30; Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect of atonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

In conjunction with this last point, it is also important to note that there are a number of places where it is said that God does the kapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8 calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept this atonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 God will “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3 (ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions” (ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord, who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV), God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity. Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for your name’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as “ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egypt for your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will “make atonement” for all the sins that Israel has committed. It may be that in most of these passages “atone” is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However, as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages, the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or is taking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins of the people. It is important to remember God’s declaration in Lev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of the sacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, no matter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that God graciously grants to his covenant people.

That leads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa. 52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my [the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who “took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,” and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB: “guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issues with regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song” (as it is often called), one of them being whether the term translated “guilt offering” should really be thought of along the lines of the guilt offering described in the book of Leviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditional Christian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here a picture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning for the sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on his servant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to be God’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

New Testament

The relationship between the Testaments. When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should be made.

First, God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NT consideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinful and unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is the means of averting this wrath.

Second, salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in Christ Jesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the same time, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who “justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom. 3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless his own justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God is both just and justifier.

Third, as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, so also in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement. It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. If Jesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it is God himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not an unwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing of atonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth, the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately, the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessary atonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayals of Christ’s work of atonement. It has become common of late to refer to the different “images” or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. This is understandable on one level, but on another level there is something misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authors speak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear that they intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christ really is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins, and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placed on the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection to the OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.” The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery. In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective, Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice in the OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the different portrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some of these may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while others perhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a “window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted that the individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in some cases they overlap.

• Ransom. Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransom paid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in these passages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption” in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same word are also translated “redeem” or “redemption” in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used in Rev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased” people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that of slaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slave market. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic” view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for the purchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense of Christ’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom the ransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those who are ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to the law.

• Curse bearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the picture of Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. The language is especially striking because rather than saying that Christ bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.” This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully took into his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penalty bearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayal depicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of our sins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, because Christ has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous and no longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much of the argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it also intersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of this picture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understood by Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “the just for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as well as in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sin for us” so that we might become the “righteousness of God.”

• Propitiation. There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or “atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greek verb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. This is the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrew verb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about the precise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, as to whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”) or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avert wrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of “propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is implied in expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account of our sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although the specific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in those passages where it is said either that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or that his blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover. In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has not traditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though many scholars would argue that it was), at the very least we should recognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use of the Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. The Gospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in the Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account of Jesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion was precisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John 19:14).

• Sacrifice. This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above, but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept in the NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ is portrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers the sacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). He came, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of the sacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, final sacrifice” within that system, “that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Of course, it is not just the death of Christ that secures our redemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection and heavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regard to the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life, his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him to be the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “was raised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it was particularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

Belief

Old Testament

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

Faith and the Church

Chosen People

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

On occasion, the language of being “elect” is used as a description of Christ, or perhaps even a title. Isaiah, in one of his Servant Songs, gives a description that is probably best taken as a veiled reference to Christ in his unique relationship with the Father: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [or ‘elect’] one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1). There is similar usage in the NT, where Jesus is described in 1 Pet. 2:6 (using a quotation from Isa. 28:16): “For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen [or ‘elect’] and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ ”

Many times the word “elect” is used in Scripture as a synonym for believers. For example, Jesus speaks of the future time when “he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Similarly, Peter addresses his first letter “to God’s elect” (1 Pet. 1:1). John does something similar in his second letter, addressed to “the lady chosen by God [KJV, RSV: “elect lady”] and to her children, whom I love in the truth” (2 John 1).

Election and Salvation

There is more to this terminology, though, than simply a descriptive name for Christ or God’s people. Other passages are more explanatory in nature and imply a definite and active place for God’s involvement in the salvation process. For example, Peter continues on in his introduction to his first letter with a description of the elect as those “who have been chosen [KJV: ‘elect’] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here there is the key question of how we should understand the role of God’s foreknowledge in the expression “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Some argue that this is simply telling us that God is able to look forward and know ahead of time who will exercise faith and be saved, so salvation is simply based on a purely human decision after all.

However, Rom. 9 suggests otherwise. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, sheds light on God’s election of his people. Paul is in the process of explaining how God’s plan of redemption (which he has been developing in Rom. 1–8) applies to his own Jewish people. If the gospel is really as powerful as Paul claims, why has it produced so little fruit among God’s own covenant people, the Jews? Paul answers, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). Then, in the following verses, Paul explains what he means by “not all Israel are Israel.” Not every child of Abraham is a child of faith (9:7–13). The promise has come only through Isaac, and not through Abraham’s other sons, Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah (see Gen. 25:1). Similarly, the line of promise and blessing does not involve all of Isaac and Rebekah’s children either, but only Jacob and not Esau (9:10–13). Here Paul explains, “Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (9:11–12). In support of this conclusion, Paul quotes from Mal. 1:2–3: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (9:13). The bottom line, according to Paul, is not one’s ancestry at all, but God’s own choice. God tells Moses in Exod. 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (quoted in Rom. 9:15). Paul gives his summary of election: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). He rests his case with the classic OT illustration of God’s hardening of Pharaoh (9:17) before concluding, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

Romans 9 is not an isolated passage of Scripture. The apostle John says much the same of Jesus’ ministry, and how salvation is specifically to all “those who believed in his name”; to them “he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12–13). The last part of this passage is key: salvation ultimately depends not upon “natural descent” or one’s human ancestry (including whether one is Jewish or not), nor upon “human decision” (including any and all acts of the human will), nor upon a “husband’s will” (a more difficult expression that probably refers to the decisions of others in the family), but solely and ultimately only on being “born of God.”

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Certainly, there is a mystery in all of this. There is no easy way to understand the negative process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or to explain the mechanics of the positive process of election. Scripture often describes God himself as the one who has hardened the hearts of various individuals. In Exod. 4:21, for example, God says to Moses, “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, Scripture is less clear and simply tells us that “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” (Exod. 7:13). Then there are still other times when Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process of hardening his own heart, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 8:15). Undoubtedly, the best way to understand this is to see a negative response such as the hardening of a person’s heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. In a similar way, both salvation and spiritual growth are other spiritual realities that also involve the mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response. Paul captures this tension in Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

There is also the question of the nonelect, sometimes put in terms of “reprobation” or “double predestination.” If God is actively involved in the positive act of bringing human beings into a proper relationship with himself in salvation, is he actively involved equally in choosing those who will never respond in faith and will suffer an eternity of judgment apart from him? Again, Christians are divided, and simplistic overgeneralizations do little to advance our understanding of this topic. Those who give precedence to God’s sovereignty in their understanding of the process of salvation usually see a greater involvement of God in the decisions of those who do not respond in faith; those who emphasize human involvement in salvation will also emphasize human decision in those who do not respond.

Those who emphasize God’s sovereignty in this mystery of the faith lean toward the Calvinistic or Reformed end of the scale. They tend also to emphasize the total depravity of humanity: the notion not that people are as bad as they can possibly be, but simply that sin has tainted every area of the mind, will, and emotions, making a positive turning to God, apart from God’s grace, humanly impossible. They also emphasize the definite atonement, the doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect. On the other hand, those who emphasize human involvement, often called “Arminians,” tend to emphasize the importance of human free will in order to create a sense of responsibility for one’s decisions. They also emphasize an unlimited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died potentially for anyone and everyone.

Summary

The proper balance in Scripture seems to involve both God’s sovereignty and human involvement. Peter captures some of this need for balance: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Election is ultimately God’s work, but at the same time there is a human involvement in it. Charles Spurgeon’s illustration seems appropriate here. Human will and predestination are like the two rails on a railroad track: everywhere we look they are separate and distinct and thus irreconcilable; yet it is only off in the distance (really in the mind of God himself) that these two complementary truths come together in their perfect resolution. There is no question that “elect” and “election” are biblical terms; the key question is how to understand this difficult topic and to work out all the logical implications in terms of sharing the gospel with others in a meaningful and appropriate manner.

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).

Earth

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

Heaven and Earth

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

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

The Theology of Land

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

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

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

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

Inheritance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elect

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

Election and Salvation

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Summary

Election

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

Election and Salvation

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Summary

Ethics

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

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

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

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

The Logic of Biblical Morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gentiles

Old Testament

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Heathen

Old Testament

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Holy Spirit

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

Old Testament

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

Innocence

Freedom from sin, guilt, impurity, blame, guile, or harm. This broad semantic range includes several Hebrew and Greek words. In the OT, one root, tsdq, which suggests “righteousness,” is used in a forensic sense (e.g., Gen. 44:16; Job 9:15), and another, nqh, which means “free from, clean,” appears in cultic contexts (e.g., Pss. 19:13; 26:6). However, because God is the ultimate judge, these spheres often overlap (e.g., 1 Kings 8:32; Jer. 2:35). Other words suggest a lack of guile (2 Sam. 15:11) or of impurity (Prov. 16:2; 21:8). The common phrase “innocent blood” (e.g., Deut. 19:10; Ps. 106:38) indicates that a victim of murder is undeserving of this fate. God warns Israel not to shed innocent blood (Deut. 27:25; Jer. 22:3). Innocence and guilt are calculated in the ultimate sense before God, who is “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25). This is why the psalmist desires to be forgiven or declared innocent of hidden faults and kept from committing willful sins (Ps. 19:12–13).

In the NT, references to innocence are relatively rare, yet the range of meanings spans the forensic (Matt. 27:19) to the cultic (Matt. 12:5, 7), including the connotations of a lack of guile (Matt. 10:16; Rom. 16:19) or of impurity (Acts 20:26). The phrase “innocent blood” reappears, now applied to Jesus (Matt. 27:4; cf. 27:24), and the joining of the forensic and the cultic meanings of innocence in God’s judgment is explicitly stated (1 Cor. 4:4).

In Jesus’ trial and death, his innocence is clearly shown even though he is condemned as guilty. Judas acknowledges that he has betrayed innocent blood (Matt. 27:4), Pilate announces that he finds no basis for a charge against Jesus (John 19:4), and a centurion declares that Jesus is “righteous” (NIV) or “innocent” (NASB) (Luke 23:47, translating dikaios). God now “justifies the wicked” by faith in Jesus (Rom. 4:5).

Jesus Christ

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). 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 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. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

Land

Heaven and Earth

The Theology of Land

Inheritance

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

Letter of James

The Letter of James has been hailed as possibly the earliest, most Jewish, and most practical of all NT letters. James 3:13 aptly communicates the book’s theme: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in humility that comes from wisdom.” The terms “wise” and “wisdom” occur five times in the book (1:5; 3:13 [2×], 15, 17). Hence, the author instructed his readers on leading a life of faith that was characterized by a wisdom expressed through speech and actions (2:12).

Literary Features

The author’s employment of picturesque, concrete language has close affinities to OT wisdom literature and reflects Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.

James 1:2 – Matthew 5:10-12

James 1:4 – Matthew 5:48

James 1:5; 5:15 – Matthew 7:7-12

James 1:9 – Matthew 5:3

James 1:20 – Matthew 5:22

James 1:22 – Matthew 7:21

James 2:5 – Matthew 5:3

James 2:13 – Matthew 5:7; 6:14-15

James 2:14-16 – Matthew 7:21-23

James 3:12 – Matthew 7:16

James 3:17-18 – Matthew 5:9

James 4:4 – Matthew 6:24

James 4:10 – Matthew 5:3-4

James 4:11 – Matthew 7:1-2

James 5:2 – Matthew 6:19

James 5:10 – Matthew 5:12

James 5:12 – Matthew 5:33-37

Like the OT wisdom literature, the teaching in James has a strongly practical orientation. Although the book contains some lengthier paragraphs, much of it consists of sequential admonishments and ethical maxims that in some cases are only loosely related to one another. The sentences generally are short and direct. There are fifty-four verbs in the imperative. Connection between sentences is sometimes created through repeated words. Yet the overall topic of practical faith and wisdom links these exhortations together.

Background and Occasion

After the death of Stephen, many disciples were scattered into the regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 7:54–8:3). In Acts 11:19 the narrator notes, “Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.” James may have written this letter to instruct and comfort those scattered believers, as he addressed his letter to “the twelve tribes dispersed abroad” (1:1 NET). These Jewish Christians no longer had direct contact with the apostles in Jerusalem and needed to be instructed and admonished in their tribulations. Apparently, the rich were taking advantage of them (2:6; 5:1–6), and their trials had led to worldliness, rash words, and strained relationships (2:1; 4:1, 11; 5:9). In view of persecution, some may have been tempted to hide their faith (5:10–11). James exhorted them to demonstrate a lifestyle that would reflect their faith.

James’s View on Works and Salvation

Some readers of this letter have observed a seeming contradiction between James’s call for good works and Paul’s insistence on salvation by grace through faith apart from works (cf. James 2:14–26 with Eph. 2:8–10). The discussion is complicated by James’s argument that a faith without works cannot “save” and by his observation that Abraham was justified by what he did, not by faith alone (James 2:14, 20–24). Paul, by contrast, maintains that Abraham was justified exclusively by faith (Rom. 4:1–3).

Referring rhetorically to people who claim to have faith but have no deeds, James asks, “Can such faith save them?” (2:14). That is, can the kind of faith that results in no works be genuine? The expected answer is no. The kind of faith that produces no works cannot be genuine faith; rather, it is “dead” (2:17, 26) and “useless” (2:20). This kind of faith is “by itself,” meaning that it produces no lasting fruit (2:17). James’s point is that genuine faith will produce good works in the believer’s life. By way of contrast, a mere profession is not necessarily an indication of genuine faith. Even demons believe in God, but they are not saved; the kind of belief that they exhibit is merely an acknowledgment of God’s existence (2:19).

According to James, Abraham was justified not in the sense of first being declared righteous, but rather in the sense that his faith was demonstrated as genuine when he offered up Isaac (2:21). Paul, on the other hand, argues that salvation is obtained not through works but rather by faith alone. He quotes Gen. 15:6 to show that Abraham trusted God and was declared righteous several years before he offered up Isaac (Rom. 4:3).

According to Paul, Abraham was justified (declared righteous) before God when he believed God’s promise (Gen. 15:6), but for James, he was justified in the sense of giving observable proof of salvation through his obedience to God. Whereas Paul refers to the point and means of positional salvation, James refers to a subsequent event that confirmed that Abraham was justified.

I. Faith

A. Paul (Romans 4:1-3):

1. Is personal trust in God

2. Justifies one before God

3. Is not proof of Salvation

B. James (2:14-26)

1. Is a mere claim if there is no resulting fruit

II. Works

A. Paul (Romans 4:1-3):

1. Precede salvation

2. Attempt to merit salvation

3. Cannot justify before God

B. James (2:14-26)

1. Follow conversion

2. Are evidence of salvation

3. Confirm one’s salvation

It is important to keep in mind that each author wrote with a different purpose. Paul wrote against Judaizers, who taught that a man had to be circumcised and keep the OT law to be saved. James was warning against a mere profession of faith that leads to self-deception (1:22). John Calvin correctly expressed the biblical teaching that faith alone saves, but that kind of faith does not remain alone; it produces good works (cf. Rom. 3:21–6:14; Eph. 2:8–10; Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7).

Authorship

The author identifies himself as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). The NT mentions five persons having the name “James”: (1) James the son of Zebedee and the brother of John (Matt. 4:21); (2) James the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3); (3) James “the younger” (Mark 15:40); (4) James the father of the apostle Judas (not Judas Iscariot; Luke 6:16); and (5) James the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).

James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa I, who died in AD 44 (Acts 12:2). Since the Letter of James probably was written after this date, the brother of John could not have written it. Neither James the son of Alphaeus, James the younger, nor James the father of Judas was as prominent in the early church as the writer of this letter, who simply identified himself and assumed that his readers would know him (1:1). James the son of Alphaeus is mentioned for the last time in Acts 1:13, and nothing is known of James the father of Judas apart from the listing of his name in Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. (It is uncertain whether James the younger should be identified with one of the other four or is a separate figure.) Thus, it is unlikely that any of them wrote the book. James the brother of Jesus is most likely the author of this letter.

James the Brother of the Lord

At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, James, as well as his brothers Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:5). However, they came to believe in him after the resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 15:7). Paul called James, along with Peter and John, the “pillars” of the church (Gal. 2:9). James does not claim to be an apostle in this letter; however, he is identified as one in Gal. 1:19. But there the term “apostle” probably refers to a group of leading disciples outside the Twelve (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 2:9). Since the author of this letter employed many imperatives, his readers clearly accepted his authority. James, the brother of Jesus, who also became a key leader of the church in Jerusalem, possessed such authority (Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18; Gal. 1:18–19; 2:9).

Date

Some scholars hold that the Letter of James was written around AD 62, while others argue that James wrote this letter sometime in AD 45–50. Those who favor the earlier dates point out that the Jewish character of this letter fits with this period when the church was mainly Jewish, based on the following criteria: (1) There is no mention of Gentile Christians in the letter. (2) The author does not refer to the teachings of the Judaizers. If the letter had been written at a later date, we would expect the author to address the issue of circumcision among Christians. (3) The mention of “teachers” (3:1) and “elders” (5:14) as the leaders in the church reflects the structure of the primitive church. (4) The word “meeting” in 2:2 is the same Greek word as for “synagogue.” It describes the gathering place of the early church. This implies a time when the congregation was still primarily Jewish (Acts 1–7).

Outline

I. Introduction (1:1)

II. The Wise Christian Is Patient in Trials (1:2–18)

A. How the Christian should face trials (1:2–12)

B. The source of temptations (1:13–18)

III. The Wise Christian Is a Practical Doer of the Word (1:19–2:26)

A. Hearers and doers of the word (1:19–25)

B. True religion (1:26–27)

C. Prejudice in the church (2:1–13)

D. Faith that works (2:14–26)

IV. The Wise Christian Masters the Tongue (3:1–18)

A. The power of the tongue (3:1–12)

B. The wisdom from above (3:13–18)

V. The Wise Christian Seeks Peace in Relationships (4:1–17)

A. The cause of quarrels (4:1–3)

B. Warning against worldliness (4:4–10)

C. Warning against slander (4:11–12)

D. Warning against boasting and self-sufficiency (4:13–17)

VI. The Wise Christian Is Patient and Prays When Facing Difficulties (5:1–20)

A. Warning to the rich (5:1–6)

B. Exhortation to patience (5:7–12)

C. The power of prayer (5:13–18)

D. The benefit of correcting those in error (5:19–20)

Letter to the Romans

Romans is a letter sent by Paul from Corinth to the house churches in Rome. The letter is unique in several ways. It is the longest of all Pauline letters, which explains why it appears first in the NT canon (Paul’s letters are arranged in length from longest to shortest and divided into two groups: to churches and to individuals). Romans is one of the last letters Paul wrote while he was a free man. Shortly after sending it, Paul traveled to Jerusalem, where he was arrested, and subsequently spent several years in prison in Caesarea and Rome. Romans is one of two letters Paul sent to churches that he had never visited (the other is Colossians, a church started by Paul through one of his missionary associates, Epaphras). But what sets Romans apart from the rest of his letters is this: it is the only letter Paul sent to establish contact with a church that he did not start. Since letter production was so expensive, why did Paul send this, his lengthiest letter, to a group of people he did not know? It seems perfectly reasonable for Paul to send letters to straighten out problems among his own converts while he was absent, but it seems odd that he would send a very long, sophisticated theological argument (with several warnings) to a group of house churches that did not know him, much less ask for his advice. Why did he do it?

Paul’s Purpose

Rome and Spain. Paul states his purpose for sending Romans at the beginning and toward the end of the letter. At first, he explains why he had not visited Rome, even though he wanted to come in order to “impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong” and “that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles” (1:11–13). Paul’s intentions are revealing. He believes that since God has called him to be the apostle to the Gentiles (1:1), it is his duty to impart spiritual gifts to churches with Gentile members as well as add to their number by converting Gentiles in their region. In other words, although Paul had never visited Rome or had a hand in starting or guiding the Roman church to this point, he believes that he is responsible for it by virtue of his calling. Therefore, since he has been unable to do the work of an apostle by coming to them, he sends the Roman house churches a letter (15:14–16). But this is not the only reason for Romans. At the end of the letter Paul asks the Roman Christians to support his upcoming mission to Spain (15:22–29) and to pray that God will protect him during his visit to Jerusalem, for he expects trouble when he arrives there (15:30–32).

Paul’s request for financial support is a little unusual. Only a few churches helped him financially (Philippi and probably Antioch), and as far as we know, he did not ask for this assistance (Phil. 4:15–17; 2 Cor. 11:9). He preferred to support himself by working (1 Cor. 9:6–18; 2 Thess. 3:7–10). In Paul’s day, money came with strings attached; clients were obligated to “obey” their patrons—an arrangement that Paul would find intolerable. So, in light of Paul’s practice of self-support, why did he ask the Roman house churches for assistance with his planned mission to Spain? And if that were his primary purpose in writing, why did he send such a lengthy letter containing arguments that seem to have little to do with his request? A simple letter asking for help would have sufficed. Besides breaking from his usual practice of self-support, why would he ask the Roman church for help? Why not send a letter to churches that he himself had started and ask for their help? Paul had recently finished collecting a relief offering from his churches to help the poor in Jerusalem. Why did he not collect additional funds (or use part of the money) to expand his missionary efforts to Spain? If he was willing to be indebted to someone, why not let it be his own converts (especially the Philippians)? Indeed, there seems to be more to Paul’s letter than a request for financial aid. Apparently, Paul’s reasons for writing Romans go beyond his stated purposes.

The Roman churches. Paul’s relationship with the Roman house churches may have been more involved than what might be presumed. At the end of the letter Paul greets at least five house churches, naming several individuals (16:5, 10–11, 14–15). It is a long list of names, especially compared to other Pauline letters. These are persons Paul knew very well, not only Prisca and Aquila (cf. Acts 18:2; 1 Cor. 16:19), but also Epenetus, Ampliatus, and Stachys, whom Paul calls “my dear friend” (16:5–9) as well as Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion, who are called “my relatives” (16:7, 11; NIV: “my fellow Jews”). He even referred to a member of the church as “a mother to me” (16:13). Paul also knew about the problems in Rome (14:1–15:13) and felt obliged to clear up what others were saying about him in Rome (3:8). In other words, Paul and the Roman church were not strangers. He did not send the Roman letter to introduce himself in order to ask for help. Even though the apostle to the Gentiles had never visited Rome, Paul and the Roman church knew each other. He obviously had many friends among their number; several were key leaders (a group to which Paul was trying to add Phoebe [16:1–2]). Perhaps Paul’s influence in the church was so significant that he was compelled to send the Roman letter for the same reason he sent other letters: they needed his help in straightening out their problems. In particular, Jewish Christians were not getting along with Gentile Christians—a situation that Paul had faced several times before—which the apostle addresses in the last half of the letter (9:1–15:13). But if that is the main reason for Romans, what is the purpose of the first half of the letter—a lengthy, sophisticated theological argument concerning the righteousness of God that seems to have little to do with ethnic divisions among Roman Christians?

Theology. Since Romans contains the clearest and most substantive theological argument of all of Paul’s letters, scholars wonder why he wrote it. Some have thought that Paul was trying to get his beliefs down on paper before facing perilous times in Jerusalem. Others have argued, based on Paul’s appeal for financial support, that Romans is a condensed version of his gospel—a “this is what I preach so you can support me” letter. Recently, scholars have been emphasizing the correlation between chapters 1–8 and 9–16. That is to say, the first half of Romans is the theological foundation upon which Paul builds his argument for a unified church threatened by ethnic, social, and economic divisions. But what is the evidence of ethnic strife in the Roman letter? First of all, when Paul greets certain house churches, the grouping of names reveals that “birds of a feather flocked together.” Persons with Jewish names appear together (16:1–7), separated from those with slave names (16:8–10a), and distinguished from those with high-status Greek names (16:14–15). This conforms to the demographics of the first-century city, where Jews were segregated from their neighbors and the poor lived together in the least desirable part of Rome. The contentious debate over food and calendar between the “weak” and the “strong” reveals fault lines that conform to ethnic and social divisions within the church: weak = Jews, strong = Gentiles (14:1–15:13). At one point, Paul even singles out his Gentile readers by issuing a specific warning about ignoring the Jewish roots of their faith (11:13–24). With these issues in mind, scholars see how Paul front-loaded his warnings about ethnic strife with the theological argument of 1:1–8:39. Indeed, Romans is a pastoral letter with theological purpose.

Outline

I. Introduction (1:1–17)

A. Greeting (1:1–7)

B. Thanksgiving and prayer (1:8–15)

C. Thesis: the righteousness of God by faith (1:16–17)

II. The Righteousness of God by Faith (1:18–8:39)

A. Judgment of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20)

B. Righteousness of God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11)

C. Questions regarding the righ-teous-ness of God in Christ by faith (5:12–8:39)

III. Living Righteously by Faith (9:1–15:13)

A. What about Israel? (9:1–11:36)

B. Present the body as a sacrifice (12:1–21)

C. Submit to God (13:1–14)

D. Accept one another (14:1–15:13)

IV. Conclusion (15:14–16:27)

A. Paul’s purpose (15:14–33)

B. Final greetings (16:1–27)

Paul’s Argument

The main point of Paul’s letter to the Romans is that the righteousness of God has been fully revealed in Christ Jesus. According to Paul, this is “good news” (gospel) for Jews and Gentiles. In fact, the entire letter is Paul’s explanation of why he believes that this new revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ is good news for all people, even his own kin. But what does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God”? Is he talking about how God makes individuals right by faith in Christ? Or is he defending God’s way of saving the world, saying that God is right to bring salvation to all people through the gospel? Does the phrase “righteousness of God” mean “personal justification that comes from God” or “the justice of God”? What makes Paul’s meaning even more confusing for speakers of English is that one Greek word (dikaiosynē) can be translated three ways: “righteousness,” “justice,” or “justification.” Thus, there are those who argue that Paul emphasizes personal righteousness—that is, how a person can have right standing with God. Others, however, maintain that Paul is arguing for his gospel as an undeniable demonstration of God’s justice—that is, how God’s character as a just God is revealed through the salvation of the world through Christ (not only sons of Abraham, not only sons of Adam, but all creation). The different emphases have significant implications for Paul’s argument.

Judgment of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20). Take, for example, Paul’s view of the law and how it functions in the first part of Romans (1:18–3:20). Some take 3:20 as the climax of this part of the argument, where Paul assigns one purpose to the law: to define sin. So according to this line of interpretation, Paul believes that God gave the law in order to show humanity’s need of Christ. Since no one is able to keep the whole law, especially those to whom it has been given, the Jews, then “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). The implication, of course, is that God gave the law in order to reveal to people Israel’s failure so that Israel would recognize their need for a righteousness that depends not on obedience but on God’s free gift through Christ. But there are two problems with this approach: Paul is offended by the idea that God gave the law to the Israelites in order to cause them to “stumble so as to fall” (11:11–12), and he also maintains that there were some who kept the law (Gentiles!), proving that “doers of the law will be justified” (2:13–14 NASB, NKJV). In other words, the law is God’s gift to Israel that is supposed to give it an advantage when it comes to righteousness (3:1–2). But the Jews disobeyed God (2:17–24), incurring his wrath ( just like the Gentiles [1:18–32]). So Paul makes the argument that God is right to punish Israelites (as well as the Gentiles) for their disobedience (2:1–12): “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (2:9). In other words, 1:18–3:20 is not only an argument for the universality of sin (which neither Jew nor Gentile would deny) but also a justification of the revelation of God’s righteous wrath against all ungodliness and disobedience, even for the Jewish people. Paul is pointing out the justice of God by emphasizing his impartial punishment of sin.

But this is where an interlocutor (a hypothetical opponent of Paul) could raise an objection: “But we Jews have the covenant with God, consisting of laws and promises from God. God promised to bless the sons of Abraham and gave us the law—with all the prescriptions for sacrifices and atonement—to deal with sin. We will escape God’s wrath because God is faithful even though we are not.” Even though Paul’s interlocutor does not use these words, this is the basis of the argument that Paul puts into the mouth of his imaginary opponent in 3:1–8. The interlocutor essentially says, “If our sin reveals the righteous wrath of God, then Paul is saying that our disobedience serves his purpose. Why should we be judged as sinners?” In other words, what is the point of the covenant if God’s chosen people are no better off than pagans on the day of judgment? But this is the very point that Paul will contend with on two counts. First, who says that God’s chosen people do not have an advantage in preparing for the day of judgment (an argument that he will come back to in 9:1–11:32)? Second, who says that the law is God’s only requirement of the covenant (a question that he answers in 3:21–5:21)? Throughout the entire Roman letter Paul holds two seemingly contradictory ideas in tension: the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Abraham is not contingent upon Israel’s obedience (God is faithful), and not every descendant of Abraham will realize the covenant promises of God (only those who have faith like Abraham). The reason for the tension is that a new kind of righteousness has been revealed apart from the law (although predicted by the Law and the Prophets), fulfilling the salient requirement of the covenant. Those who believe that the righteousness of God is found in Christ will inherit the promises of God to Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile. Therefore, Christ’s followers are the sons of Abraham, the children of the covenant, justified by faith, not by law. All of this is by divine design—what Paul calls “predestination.”

Righteousness of God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11). According to Paul, sacrifices prescribed by the law only deferred the wrath of God. “In his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” (3:25). On the other hand, Jesus’ sacrificial death, a public display of God’s righteousness, atones for the sins of Jews and Gentiles “at the present time” (3:25–30). To describe the justification of Christ’s death as an act of redemption, Paul uses a technical word, “propitiation” (v. 25 [NIV: “sacrifice of atonement”]), which has two meanings: either God’s righteous requirement was “satisfied” by the blood of Christ, or God’s wrath was “appeased” by the blood of Christ. Either way, at this point we might have expected Paul to explain how Christ’s death satisfied the requirements of the law by offering the perfect sacrifice (much like the argument of Hebrews). Instead, he emphasizes the role of faith in this new revelation of God’s righteousness: both the faith(fulness) of Jesus and the faith of those who believe in him (the phrase often translated “faith in Jesus Christ” might also mean “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” [3:22, 26]). This does two things at once: it makes the righteousness of God available to Gentiles as well as Jews because it is based on faith (“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” [3:29]), and it elevates the role of faith above works of the law in the story of God’s covenant with Israel (“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” [3:28]). In other words, by privileging faith over works of law, Paul has made a way for Gentiles to realize the promises God made to Abraham and has established the supreme requirement of the Abrahamic covenant for Jews. This is why scholars say that 4:1–25 (Paul’s interpretation of God’s covenant with Abraham) is crucial to his argument for the righteousness of God in Christ.

Abraham was God’s first Gentile convert. That is to say, Abraham was an uncircumcised Chaldean when God established his covenant with the father of Israel. For Paul, the sequence of the story is pivotal to his argument. In 4:3 he quotes Gen. 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and points out that God’s righteousness was “credited” or “reckoned” to the patriarch because of his faith while he was still uncircumcised (Rom. 4:10–12). Abraham believed God’s promise of making him the father of many nations even though he had no son. Faith in God’s promise is what made this uncircumcised man righteous. Furthermore, because of his faith, the promise of God was fulfilled: Abraham not only became the father of Israel; he became the father of all nations (Gentiles) who have faith like Abraham. And what kind of faith is that? It is a resurrection faith—one who believes that God gives life to the dead, not only dead loins and a dead womb, but also a dead man (4:16–25). So the righteousness of God is “reckoned” for “us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (4:24–25). Faith in the promise of God is the requisite of covenant blessing. For if the covenant were based on works of law, then Israel would be the only beneficiary of God’s grace, and the promises God made to Abraham—that he would be the father of many nations—would be made void (4:13–15). “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (4:16).

The death and resurrection of Jesus changed everything. It turned God’s enemies into friends. It brought peace to those who deserved God’s wrath. In Christ’s death, God loves the ungodly. In Christ’s resurrection, hope befriends the helpless. When Paul spells out the advantages of the righteousness of God in Christ in 5:1–11, it reads like a condensed version of all that is right with the gospel according to Paul. His favorite triad is there: faith, hope, love. He employs his favorite metaphors to explain the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ: justification and reconciliation. He writes of salvation in every tense: past, present, and future. In fact, the rest of the argument in 5:12–8:39 is Paul’s explanation of what he means in these few verses, gathering up issues raised at the beginning of the letter—the problem of sin, the law, and the righteousness of God.

Questions regarding the righteousness of God in Christ by faith (5:12–8:39). Paul once again begins with the human condition: the law of sin and death reigns in the world because of Adam. But where the first Adam failed, the second Adam (Christ) has succeeded: because of his obedience, grace reigns eternally through his righteousness (5:12–21). How does this righteousness apply to Christ believers, especially Gentiles without law? Sin was crucified with Christ so that believers can be slaves of righteousness, freed from the bondage of sin (6:1–23). Furthermore, believers have been freed from the law, a spiritual and holy gift that sin used to arouse the flesh, effecting death (7:1–25). What the law could not do (bring life) because of the weakness of the flesh, God did by sending his Son in human flesh in order to condemn sin, bring about justice/righteousness required by the law, and provide his Spirit to enable believers to have resurrection life (8:1–27). This has been God’s plan from the beginning (predestination): he will have a people (election) like Jesus Christ ( justification), who will share in his resurrection (glorification). And what God starts, he finishes. Nothing can frustrate the plans of God. His love is too great; his power is irrepressible (8:28–39). Since God is the one who justifies the “elect,” no charge can be brought against them (8:33).

Paul’s Advice

The conclusion to Paul’s argument—believers in Christ can do nothing to jeopardize God’s love for them as his “elect”—brings to mind the problem of Israel’s rejection of the gospel (9:1–11:32). If Paul believes that God’s promises are irrevocable, should not the same apply to Israel? If the righteousness of God is found in Christ, what does this mean for Jews who do not believe in Jesus? Does their unbelief undermine God’s faithfulness? This was more than a theological problem for Paul. Ethnic issues threatened to divide the church in Rome. Evidently, Gentile believers were displaying an arrogant attitude toward Jewish members of the church (11:13–24), contemptuous of their dietary restrictions and Sabbath observances (14:3–6). Perhaps Paul’s notorious reputation as a lawbreaker (3:8) added fuel to the fire of ethnic strife and emboldened Gentile believers to disregard Jewish sensibilities with smug confidence, especially in a place such as Rome, where tensions between Jews and Gentiles were prevalent. Or, maybe Paul had nothing to do with it; Gentile contempt for Jewish people and their ways was an unfortunate by-product of the argument for Gentile inclusion: the law no longer defined righteousness (“Who needs the Jews and their law?”). Whatever the cause, Israel’s rejection of the gospel coupled with the historical problem of Jew versus Gentile was a delicate issue that required a carefully nuanced answer from Paul (9:1–11:32), setting up his advice for house churches that needed to learn how to get along with one another (12:1–15:13).

What about Israel? (9:1–11:36). Paul uses Isaiah’s idea of a faithful remnant to explain how God’s promises to Abraham are fulfilled despite Israel’s disobedience (9:27–11:10). In this case, the disobedient of Israel are made evident by their refusal to believe in the gospel according to Paul (10:5–21). Because they prefer a righteousness of their own (a Jewish kind of righteousness), zeal for the law has made them ignorant of the righteousness of God in Christ (9:30–10:4). But does Jewish unbelief compromise God’s faithfulness, jeopardizing God’s promise to Abraham? No, for according to Paul, not every descendant of Abraham inherits the covenant blessings (e.g., Ishmael and Esau [9:6–26]). So, if Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Abraham’s descendants by faith, and Jews who deny the righteousness of God in Christ are branches broken off the tree of promise, does this mean that God has given up on Israel (11:11–24)? No, because Paul believes that “Israel has experienced a hardening in part” (11:25). Eventually, the hearts of the Jews will soften to the gospel, because they will be jealous of God’s covenant blessing extended to Gentile believers, and “all Israel will be saved” in the end; the natural branches cut off from the olive tree will be grafted back into Abraham’s family tree (11:11–15, 24–32). Here Paul inverts the Jewish eschatological expectation that Gentiles will be saved before the end of the world because of their jealousy of God’s blessings for his people, Israel (Isa. 19:23–25; 49:6–7). In the end, then, God’s mercy triumphs over all disobedience (whether Jewish or Gentile) because “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).

Present the body as a sacrifice (12:1–21) and submit to God (13:1–14). Because of God’s mercies for Jews and Gentiles, Paul appeals to the house churches in Rome to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Christ (12:1–2). What does a life of surrender look like? It means keeping overinflated self-esteem in check (12:3) and affirming the diversity of the body of Christ, meeting the needs of all members, and overcoming evil with good by avoiding revenge, helping enemies, and submitting to Roman law (12:4–13:7). Love is the key to this life of sacrifice, in which the believer wears the Lord Jesus Christ like an armor of righteousness, knowing that the day of salvation draws near (13:8–14). In the meantime, believers must accept one another “just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (15:7). Indeed, for Paul, Christ is the supreme example of sacrifice because he “did not please himself” but rather took on the sins of the circumcised and the uncircumcised (15:3–9).

Accept one another (14:1–15:13). Thus, since Christ was a servant to Jews and Gentiles, how much more Jewish and Gentile Christ believers should serve one another. Jewish members of the Roman church should quit judging believers who eat meat, drink wine, and recognize every day as a holy day (14:1–12). Gentile members should stop parading their freedom to eat and drink whatever they want (14:13–23): “If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died” (14:15). Regarding these gray areas, each person should operate according to his or her own conviction before God (14:22–23). But when it comes to the bonds of fellowship, Paul encourages them to have “the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had” (15:5). So Paul’s innocuous request of the segregated house churches may reveal a unifying strategy: “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (16:16).

Nativity of Christ

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Jesus’ Life

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

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

People of God

The concept of a people of God in the Bible may be traced to its origins in Gen. 12. Following the dispersion of humanity by divine design in the previous chapter, God elects Abraham as ancestor of a nation. God grants to Abraham promises of protection, growth in the number of offspring, and a homeland for his descendants and envisions a flow of blessing to the nations through the seed of Abraham.

The promise of numerous offspring comes to fruition in Exod. 1, to the point that the Israelites are perceived to be a threat by the Egyptians. In Exodus, God begins to refer to the descendants of Abraham as his people (3:7; 6:7; 7:16; 18:1). They are to be a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation” (19:5–6), set apart from other nations. The gathering of the people at Sinai, in the view of Moses, is an important moment in the establishment of the community, a moment marked by the conclusion of a covenant (Deut. 5:2; 9:10–11).

The Former Prophets, however, tell a story of deterioration in the relationship. Israel and its kings consistently turn to the worship of other deities (Judg. 2:11–23; 1 Kings 11:1–8), rejecting God as king and overlord (1 Sam. 8:19). After the reign of Solomon and because of Solomon’s acts of idolatry, the nation is torn in two (1 Kings 11:1–13). Ultimately, both political entities, because of their persistence in apostasy, suffer demise (2 Kings 23:24–27).

In response to Israel’s apostasy, the Latter Prophets envision a distinction between the national entity that is Israel and a “true people of God,” one abiding in covenantal faithfulness (e.g., Isa. 11:11, 16; Amos 5:15; Hos. 1:10–11). The prophets, therefore, see within the nation a remnant that receives forgiveness and becomes the object of national restoration in the postexilic period (Hag. 1:2–15; Zech. 8:1–23). The covenantal faithfulness of the remnant is marked by a passion for righteousness and justice for the poor and oppressed (Isa. 11:1–5; Amos 5:11–15).

The spirit of restoration and redemption carries over into the NT (Rom. 11:1–10). The Gospels present Jesus as one gathering a lost people (Matt. 15:24; Luke 2:25; John 1:31), redirecting them in the correct way (1 Pet. 2:10). Employing a series of metaphors (the body of Christ, a bride, the house of God, God’s flock) to describe God’s people, the church, the concept of a faithful remnant (the true Israel) persists. Thus, Paul speaks of a “circumcision of the heart” (not just of the flesh) that marks one as a true descendant of Abraham (Rom. 2:25–29; 4:1–25). Similar to how the remnant is understood in the Latter Prophets, the church of Jesus Christ will be characterized by its concern for covenantal faithfulness (Heb. 8:7–13), righteousness, and the pursuit of justice for the poor (James 2:1–7).

Property

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Salvation

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

New Testament

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

Components

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

Prepositions of Salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tenses of Salvation

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

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

Conclusion

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

Sarai

Suffering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing 1 to 50 of533 results

1. 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.

2. 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. "

3. THE ONLY WAY OUT

Illustration

John H. Krahn

You are because I am. I was there from the beginning. My Father, God, and I fashioned the world that you enjoy. We hung the stars in the sky, scooped out the lakes, formed the mountains. But our genius was no more evident than when we made you. You are so magnificent. Consider yourself - your ability to think and reason. Do you realize how special you are? We had such a great thing going in the garden.

Unfortunately, the devil talked your forebears into trying to be like God, and they both fell for it. My Father and I had no choice but to show them the exit from Eden. Because of their sin, we had to face the decision whether or not to save what we created or to destroy it all. Save it, we decided. Later, in response to a promise made to your father Abraham, I, the son of God, was implanted by the Holy Spirit in a young virgin’s womb. They called me Jesus, for I had come to save you and all humankind from the consequences of your sins.

The plan of salvation was not complicated, although it was generous perhaps to a fault. You had sinned and continue to sin. It is your nature from the time of the Fall. Therefore, you cannot save yourself. Although some of you sin less than others, none of you is perfect. My Father demands perfection - he will not stand for any imperfection in eternity. Fortunately for you, my Father is also compassionate, and his love goes beyond human love. He wanted to reclaim you as his own, therefore, he decided to be inflicted with suffering and death. To accomplish this, he sent me - part of himself - to become a person like you and to receive punishment and death in your place.

Some of you only see me as an Alka Seltzer for an occasional headache, rather than a Savior for a whole new life. You call upon me and my Father for help only when all else seems to fail. Voices we haven’t heard in years make their way heavenward in dying breaths. Others make a puzzle out of our plan for your salvation. You continue to believe that you must add some of your goodness and righteousness (which is really in short supply by heaven’s standards) to my sacrificial death on the cross. Friends, I paid the price - one hundred percent at Calvary.

Can you imagine how I feel as your God, having humbled myself by becoming a human being, giving up heaven for a stinking stable, being misunderstood, mocked, tortured, spit upon, and hung, all because of you and your wretched sinfulness ... and then to have you believe that this was not enough. To have you, in your pride, believe that some goodness of yours would need to be added in order for the Father to receive you into heaven angers and disappoints me. You can do nothing to save yourself; I did it all because I love you. Please get it into your head, once and for all, I am your only way out of the pits of hell. As I said while I was with you on earth, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me!" May the Holy Spirit convince your hearts of my love, and may you understand that believing in me is the only way to be saved; sufficient in itself, needing absolutely no human works, no false pride, no human righteousness, nothing ... nothing ... nothing at all to be added to it. I died to purchase a place for you in heaven which I offer to you as a gift which you must receive totally and exclusively by faith.

4. 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?

5. Back To Basics: The Three R's of Baptism - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Baptism is a powerful force in the life of a Christian for two reasons. It is something we share in common. Christians all over the world can say that they were baptized in Christ. You met a Catholic in Ireland. He was baptized. You met a Pentecostal in Nigeria. She was baptized. The second reason Baptism is a powerful force is that baptism takes us back to the basics. Now let me set these two ideas up for you with a couple of stories.

You perhaps at one time or another have seen on TV the old black and white video footage of the civil rights marches in the sixties. Martin Luther King often at the front received his share of stinging high-pressured water hoses. Rev. King once remarked that he and the other marchers had a common strength. He put it this way, as "we went before the fire hoses; we had known water. If we were a Baptist or some other denomination, we had been immersed. If we were Methodist, and some others, we had been sprinkled, but we knew water."

You and I know the water. All of God's children know the water. We share by our faith this common symbol, this initiation, this rite, this power of God over the deep and often raging chaos of life. We know water! All over the world Baptism unites us.

It also brings us back to the basics. Perhaps in our lifetime the most public statement of repentance was that of President Bill Clinton's. The one he made before a Prayer Breakfast on September 10, 1998. He summed up the task perfectly when he said, "I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned." Then he quoted from a book given him by a Jewish friend in Florida. The book is called "Gates of Repentance."

Clinton read this passage from the book: "Now is the time for turning. The leaves are beginning to turn from green to red to orange. The birds are beginning to turn and are heading once more toward the south. The animals are beginning to turn to storing their food for the winter. For leaves, birds and animals, turning comes instinctively. But for us, turning does not come so easily. It takes an act of will for us to make a turn. It means breaking old habits. It means admitting that we have been wrong, and this is never easy. It means losing face. It means starting all over again. And this is always painful. It means saying I am sorry. It means recognizing that we have the ability to change. These things are terribly hard to do. But unless we turn, we will be trapped forever in yesterday's ways."

Clinton's quote ended with this prayer: "Lord help us to turn, from callousness to sensitivity, from hostility to love, from pettiness to purpose, from envy to contentment, from carelessness to discipline, from fear to faith. Turn us around, O Lord, and bring us back toward you. Revive our lives as at the beginning and turn us toward each other, Lord, for in isolation there is no life."

What ever you might think of Clinton and his sincerity, he understood that he needed to do something very basic before the nation. He needed to repent. It's amazing isn't it? Not even a president can escape the basic truths of life. It's like in elementary school. Our parents and teachers understand the importance of building a strong foundation for a child's future. So, we were taught the basics, the three R's: Reading, writing, and arithmetic. Ever notice that only one of those begins with an R. I always thought the fellow that came up with that one needed to go back to school.

As parents and teachers and leaders today we would do well to remember that life is still composed of basics. That is why, when Mark chose to open his Gospel, he did so with the Baptism of Jesus at the Jordan. Baptism reminds us of the three R's of the soul: Repentance, righteousness, and revelation. So, don't be amazed when a president of the United States repents before the nation for even Christ himself, as we have just read, began his ministry identifying with the basics: repentance, righteousness, and revelation. Christ submitted himself to the basics. You ask me, Pastor, why should I be baptized? My answer is, Christ himself was baptized, so should you. Baptism begins the most basic elements of the Christian walk: Repentance from sin, a life of righteousness, and an understanding that God has reveled himself in Christ.

Let's take a look at our Lord's Baptism and what it tells us about the three spiritual R's:

1. The first R is Repentance.
2. The second R is Righteousness.
3. The third R is Revelation.

6. Sheep + Me = Righteousness

Illustration

Michael P. Green

The Chinese character for “righteousness” is most interesting. It is composed of two separate characters—one standing for a lamb, the other for me. When “sheep” is placed directly above “me,” a new character—“righteousness” is formed. This is a helpful picture of the grace of God. Between me, the sinner, and God, the Holy One, there is interposed by faith the Lamb of God. By virtue of his sacrifice, he has received me on the ground of faith, and I have become righteous in his sight.

7. Blasphemy Against the Spirit

Illustration

Staff

This statement (Matt 12:32, par Mk. 3:29, Luke 12:10) has been the subject of much questioning. Obviously the reference here is not to the naming of the Holy Spirit in a blasphemous utterance, for in Matt. 12:32 even blasphemy against the Son of man can be forgiven. Among the many attempts at exegesis, the most convincing is the suggestion that the man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who has recognized that God is working through the Holy Spirit in the actions of Jesus, and who quite consciously "misrepresent faith in God as faith in the devil. This saying is an extremely serious warning against the demonic and scarcely conceivable potential in man: To declare war on God. This is not done in weakness and doubt, but by one who has been overcome by the Holy Spirit and who knows very well on whom he is declaring war" (E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, 1971, 87; cf. H.W. Beyer, TDNT I:624; O.E. Evans, "The Unforgivable Sin", ExpT 68, 1956-57, 240-44). This is the blasphemer who does it deliberately, after encounter with the God of grace, as the context shows. For Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. "Therefore he who blasphemes the Spirit is no longer speaking against a God who is distant, about whom he entertains mere foolish thoughts, but against the one who makes evident to him his gracious work, and confirms it with his manifest, divine seal. He is a man who ought to give thanks, not to blaspheme" (A. Schlatter, on Matt. 12:32).

W.L. Lane draws attention to Sifre on Deut. 32:38 (end): "The Holy One, blessed be he, pardons everything else, but on profanation of the Name [i.e. blasphemy] he takes vengeance immediately" (The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 145) Lane goes on to comment: "This is the danger to which the scribes exposed themselves when they attributed to the agency of Satan the redemption brought by Jesus. The expulsion of demons was a sign of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God. Yet the scribal accusations against Jesus amount to a denial of the power and greatness of the Spirit of God. By assigning the action of Jesus to a demonic origin the scribes betray a perversion of spirit which, in defiance of the truth, chooses to call light darkness. In this historical context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes the conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God released through Jesus' work and act" (ibid). Thus blasphemy here is much more serious than the taking of the divine name in vain which a believer may have done before coming to repentance and faith.

It may be said to those who have been tormented by fear that they have committed the unforgivable sin that their concern is itself a sign that they have not committed the sin envisaged in Jesus' teaching here. Lane's interpretation also helps to explain the distinction drawn between blasphemy against the Son of man and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The distinction suggests that "while an attack on Jesus' own person, as son of Man and therefore 'hidden', is pardonable, any speaking against the power by which he works (i.e. the divine endowment for his messianic ministry) will not be pardoned" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 318). For such an action would be deliberately to attribute to Satan the action of God himself. (NIDNTT, v. 3, pp. 343-344)

What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Though many suggestions have been offered, I think the answer lies in the context here (Luke 12:7-12) and in the context of redemptive history. Remember that the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, and it is the Spirit who causes men to recognize who Jesus is. Hebrews 6 and 10 contain discussions of unforgivable sins, but the distinction between blasphemy against Christ and the Spirit has disappeared. Jesus seemed to be saying this: Because the Holy spirit has not yet been poured out in fullness, the Jews will be forgiven for blaspheming the Son of Man. They will be given a second chance to repent, as we see in the book of Acts. If, however, they continue to blaspheme after the Spirit has come, they will not be forgiven. But what is the sin, specifically? Since it is blasphemy, we must see it essentially as a verbal sin. In context it is the sin of saying that Jesus Christ is of the devil. Jesus was willing to excuse this blasphemy before Pentecost; but, in the new covenant era it is not longer excusable. If a person curses Jesus, but does not really know who Jesus is, that sin is forgivable. But if the Holy Spirit has borne witness to a person that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that person curses Him, it cannot be forgiven.

8. Battle Hymn of the Reformation

Illustration

Brett Blair

Martin Luther, believed in demons but he believed in God more. In that great Hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" he writes:

And though this world, with devils filled,
should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us:

The Prince of Darkness grim,
we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That hymn, first published in 1529, has been called "the greatest hymn of the greatest man of the greatest period of German history." It has also been dubbed the "Battle Hymn of the Reformation" and with good reason. The Reformation touched off one of the most influential movements in world history. But before this famous Battle Hymn could be written Luther had to battle his personal demons and exorcize them from his own life. Luther felt utterly worthless and incapable of carrying the burdens of priesthood. On occasion Luther even flogged himself in an attempt to keep himself from sin.

He was often, he felt, pursued and tormented by Satan and his cohorts. Until one day, while reading Paul's letter to the Romans, he suddenly understood the meaning of God's grace and how it is appropriated by faith. In that moment he came to understand that he was justified before God through faith and not by his works.

You might say that after this experience Luther was no longer possessed by his demons, he was sitting upright, dressed, and in his right mind.

9. A Reflection of Righteousness

Illustration

Martin Luther

He who would gain righteousness by faith and works is as the dog who runs along a stream with a piece of meat in his mouth, and, deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it, and so loses both the meat and the reflection.

10. DOING CHRISTIANITY

Illustration

John H. Krahn

Let your actions praise the Lord. Praise is something you do more than something you say. It is an act of kindness which demonstrates that you are a child of God. You can worship God better with your life than with your words. The New Testament book of James says we will be judged at the end of time on whether or not we are doing what Christ wants us to do.

Faith without works is dead. Sure we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, but true faith produces good works. To say, "Jesus, I love you," and then go through life without showing it, helps absolutely no one. When we stand before the Lord on Judgment Day, he’ll ask us, "What have you done? What do you have to show for your life? How have you served me and my church?" And if we respond, "Well Lord, I was planning on it, but you know how busy I was all week, and the weekend was about the only time I had for myself. I enjoyed church when I went, and I tried to lead a good life. Lord, I didn’t ask for the heart attack ... I really didn’t expect to die so soon." Then the Lord is going to say, "I’m sorry. You didn’t have time for me and my work in your life now I don’t have time for you in death."

Albert Schweitzer once said, "If there is something you own that you can’t give away, then you don’t own it, it owns you." What owns you? What makes you tick? What is important enough in life to keep us awake at night thinking about it? If we call Jesus Christ our Lord and really mean it, he must be number one in our life. God’s revealed truth in Christ must be the one thing that owns us. We must constantly desire to get really close to Jesus. And in our quest, our Bible must wind up with fingerprints all over it. Our presence in church must be weekly, and our contribution to God’s work must be felt and known because it’s so evident.

Let us begin each day with the words, "Lord what will you have me do today? Fill my mind with your mind." Only then can we go about our day giving praise to him, especially in our doing.

11. Not Through Us, but Through God

Illustration

Dennis Kastens

Shakespeare, in King John, correctly said, "to guild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet, to smooth the ice, or add another hue onto the rainbow ... is wasteful and ridiculous excess." So it is today, if we wish to improve upon God's plan of salvation by our own good deeds, our own righteousness, our own goodness. Then we are trying to add purity to the pearl, luster to its moonlight whiteness. Then we are trying to polish it with our clumsy, uneven, and rough grinding stone. With St. Paul we need to say, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

12. 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.

13. God's Instant Recipe

Illustration

Instant cake mix at first was a big flop. The instructions said all you had to do was add water and bake. The company couldn't understand why it didn't sell until their research discovered that the buying public felt uneasy about a mix that required only water. Apparently people thought it was too easy. So the company altered the formula and changed the directions to call for adding an egg to the mix in addition to the water. The idea worked and sales jumped dramatically.

That's how some people react to the plan of salvation. To them it sounds too easy and simple to be true, even though the Bible says, "By grace you have been saved through faith...; it is the gift of God, not of works" (Eph. 2:8-9). They feel that there is something more they must do, something they must add to God's "recipe" for salvation. They think they must perform good works to gain God's favor and earn eternal life. But the Bible is clear we are saved, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). Unlike the cake-mix manufacturer, God has not changed His "formula" to make salvation more marketable. The gospel we proclaim must be free of works, even though it may sound too easy.

14. Jesus the Sin Stealer

Illustration

Michael L. Cobbler

The primary emphasis of John's declaration is to say who Jesus is (the Lamb of God) and also to say what Jesus does (takes away the sin of the world). This is all well and good, but the old Adam in me gets nervous when I have an encounter with a "sin stealer." I want to be as graphic and as plain as I can be about this Jesus is the ultimate sin stealer, and that troubles me. You can certainly use language that describes this reality in different terms, like "Jesus removes our sins," or "Jesus washed my sins away," but Jesus "rips us off" as far as our corporate and personal sins are concerned. I am a witness to this, because I was reared by a sin stealer, my mother. Now Daddy was a "sin reactor and responder," and I was the not always grateful recipient of his reactions and responses, but Mama was the sin stealer, the one who had the spiritual discernment and psychology to see that I would live in the benefits of John's declaration and Jesus' action.

This sin stealing was shown most clearly on an early spring day long ago, when my mother had made my favorite lunch for school. It was a small container of chocolate milk, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies. I went off to Public School 129, but a block and a half away, eager for the morning to pass so I could sink my teeth into one of those delicious cookies, but as I turned from Stuyvesant Ave on to Quincy Street I was face to face with Junebug, the bully of the block.

"Gimmie that lunch, punk!" he said.

"But, Junebug, that's my lunch."

"You better gimmie that lunch!"

"But it's mine. My Mom made it for me, and she made me my favorite ."

Junebug's right uppercut sent me and the lunch to the ground. He picked up the lunch and said, "That's what you get for not listening to me!" and went off to school. I also went off to school with no lunch and lots of anger.

At home that late afternoon I was very silent. Mama, knowing something was up, said, "What happened at school today?"

"I'm gonna kill him!"

"What?"

"I'm gonna kill him!"

"And who do you plan to kill?"

"Junebug. He beat me up, he stole my lunch, and I'm gonna kill him!"

Mama thought for awhile and then said, "Here, have some food. Don't start your homework right away there is something we need to do together, but you must do it as I say."

The next morning I saw Junebug in front of the school. He pointed to me and said, "Here is that punk who I stole cookies from yesterday!"

I walked up to him, handed him a bag and said, "Junebug, here are some cookies. They're for you. I and my mother made them."

"Whatta you mean, punk? Giving me cookies? I can take them from you anytime I want!"

"But we made them for you take them."

"Are they poison?"

"No, they're okay take them."

He took the bag from me and handed it to one of his buddies. "Hey, Bootsie, you try them."

"But they just may be poison," said Bootsie.

"Try them anyway, already! They just may be good!"

After one bite, and Bootsie still standing, Junebug passed out the cookies to his buddies, saying, "The punk has brought me, Junebug, some cookies! Isn't that great!"

The next day, I saw Junebug during recess. I walked up to him, gave him a bag and said, "Junebug, here are some more cookies. Take them, they're free."

"Are you messing with me, man? Are you messing with me? These are the ones that are poison! Yesterday was just to set me up!"

"Don't worry, Junebug. They're just fine." He took the bag and backed away from me with a terrified look on his face.

The following day, I saw Junebug in the cafeteria. I said, "Junebug, here are some more cookies. Enjoy them!"

"How can I enjoy cookies if you keep on giving them to me! Now cut it out, man! I didn't even finish yesterday's cookies! No more cookies! (He took the bag anyway.)

On the next day, I saw Junebug at the end of school. I walked up to him and said, "Junebug, here are...." He took one look at that bag of cookies and turned running and screaming all the way down Quincy Street. I haven't even had the notion of taking someone's life ever since. Because Jesus is a sin stealer, My mom stole my intention to sin.

15. PREACHER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Mark 1:14 - "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God,"

Preaching, the proclamation of a divine message, and the regular instruction of the converted in the doctrines and duties of the faith, is as old as the human family. Noah is referred to as "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5). This is not a distinctly Judaistic or Christian concept; the Mohammedans practice it freely, and it is not unknown among the Buddhists. It has its roots in the activity of the Hebrew prophets and scribes, the former representing the broader appeal, the latter the edification of the faithful, and in the ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles, where again we have both the evangelical invitation and the teaching of truth and duty. Whichever is emphasized in preaching, the preacher is one who believes himself to be the ambassador of God, charged with a message which it is his duty to deliver.

From the Acts of the Apostles we gather something of the methods adopted by St. Peter and St. Paul, and these we may believe were more or less general for the preachers of the Primitive Church. The Apostles who had known the Lord would naturally recall the facts of his life, and the story of his words and works would form a great deal of their preaching. It is not until we come to Origen (d. 254) that we find preaching as an explanation and application of definite texts, a usage that Christianity adopted from Greek rhetoricians.

The New Testament writers drew a definite distinction between preaching and teaching. Preaching is the proclamation of the gospel to men who have not yet heard it. Teaching is an instruction or exhortation on various aspects of Chrisitan life and thought addressed to a community already established in the faith.

Today, of course, the preacher or minister or pastor of a congregation is usually called upon to perform both functions. But the preaching mission of the church is still its prime function and should be considered so.

See HERALD

16. DNA and SIN

Illustration

George Murphy

Augustine thought that original sin was transmitted to the child through the sexual act, but the idea that it has such a genetic character is difficult for us to make sense of today. (It also lacks scriptural basis, unless one forces Psalm 51:6.) It may be more helpful to use an ecological metaphor. We cannot fully understand living organisms without their environment, and we cannot fully understand a human being except as part of the whole human community. This is true even -- or perhaps especially -- before birth. And the problem is that we are conceived and born in a human environment in which sin is unavoidable. We participate from the start in an ecology of sin.

What about the idea that death was caused by the first sin? The existence of sin, of separation from God, casts a different light on death, including death that took place before there was sin. Now it is seen as something more than, something worse than, the stopping of biological machinery. The meaning of death has been changed by sin.

17. BE EASTER PEOPLE

Illustration

John H. Krahn

After the tomb was found empty and Jesus appeared to the early church on many occasions, doubt disappeared, and the early church had overwhelming confidence in the Lord. The church today must live and be about its ministry with the same Easter confidence. We say we rely on God’s mercy for our salvation; we need to give over all areas of our lives to God’s control. What aspects of ourselves are outside God’s control? Our temper? Our money? Our time? We need join the psalmist and say, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Our trust in the Lord must be complete. We are no longer defeated people but powerful Easter people. Little children in danger or in despair literally run and throw themselves into the arms of their mother. This is confident faith. When was the last time we ran and thrust ourselves onto the Lord? A cautious step in his direction is better than none at all, but believing with abandonment is called forth by an empty tomb. God wants us to fall head over heels in love with him so he can bring the greatest joy and purpose possible into our lives.

God also encourages us to hold fast to hope without wavering. Scripture says, "Where there is no hope, the people perish." Too many of us view too much of our lives and the world as hopeless. Without hope, no great strides will be made in the future; there is no venturesome faith without hope. Without hope we burrow into the ground and live the life of a mole instead of walking freely in God’s sunlight. In a difficult situation, a hopeful people find the challenge and opportunity to do something great with God.

Confident in our faith, with an unwavering hope, the Lord also encourages us to stir up one another to love and good works. We must do something. Faith and hope must move from the abstract to the particular.

Easter people are called upon to celebrate the Festival of the Resurrection each Sunday, for each Sunday is a little Easter. "... Not neglecting to meet together," is how it is written in Hebrews. To break fellowship with the worshiping community is to pursue a weakening faith. It is also a form of denial of all that Christ means. True faith, strong faith, is never faith in isolation but must always be faith shared and strengthened through regular worship. We must encourage one another to be regular in worship and strong in the faith.

The end is drawing near. The Lord will return soon to reclaim his fallen creation. When the Lord of the church comes again, how will he find us? Will we be acting like people who have been touched by the meaning of the cross and the empty tomb? Therefore, let us continue to draw near to the Lord with a true heart and a confident faith. We hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering. We consider how to stir up one another to love and good works. We do not neglect to worship but encourage one another. In sum, we will all be Easter people.

18. Why Christians Sin

Illustration

J.Kirk Johnston

Why would Christians choose to sin rather than choose what they know God wants them to do? Four answers are commonly given today.

1. Some would point to Romans 8:16 and explain that Christians who willfully sin have forgotten their true identity as "children of God." While it is true that Christians can forget who they are and sin as a result, Christians can also be well aware of who they are and sin anyway.

2. Some say Christians choose to sin because they have lost sight of what God has done for them. 2 Peter 1:9 indicates that Christians can be "blind or short-sighted, having forgotten [their] purification from [their] former sins."

3. Some wisely state that Christians consciously choose to sin because they have forgotten that God will severely discipline disobedient believers.

4. Some have said that Christians who consciously sin have lost their focus on the future. These Christians have forgotten that God will reward in heaven only those who have lived faithfully for Him here on earth (1 Cor 9:24). Christians who fail to keep eternity in mind often sin in the here and now.

19. Law and Gospel

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

Martin Luther asserted that the true theologian was the one who could rightly distinguish between law and gospel. When Lutherans, including this Lutheran, work at theology we almost always work within the parameters of law and gospel. Protestant theology in general talks about three uses of the law. The first use of law is usually termed the political or civil use of law. The second use of the law, the spiritual or theological use, is the law as a mirror in which we see our lives; the law as revealer of our sins. The third use of the law is law as a guide for Christian living. There is much debate even among Lutherans whether Luther taught the third use of the law. I do not believe that he did.

The function of the civil use of law is to help humankind create a civil society. Since all people bear the law within their being, all people can work to make society a more civil place to live. Preaching on the civil use of the law would call upon people to make use of their rational intelligence in making ethical decisions in life and in working toward a civil society. There is nothing particularly Christian about the civil use of the law. It need not, therefore, occupy too much of our preaching energy. The dialogical nature of the classroom is much better suited for the important discussions of the nature of the way we might best work for an improved civil order.

The theological or spiritual use of the law was for Luther the proper use of the law. The law, that is, reveals to us our sinfulness. "What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin .... Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me (Romans 7:7, 8-10)."

The law always kills! That was Luther's dictum about the spiritual use of the law. The law always leaves me helpless, consigned to wrath, doomed to death. This is the proper use of the law and is therefore the proper use of the law in preaching. To preach the law is to render people helpless in their relationship to God. The law kills us and leaves us dead in the eyes of God.

The third use of the law is the law as a guide to Christian living. For Calvin this was the proper use of the law. This marks a radical breach among protestants. Some protestants see the law as God's revealed law for life. Clearly such a law should be preached so that people know how to live! I have already stated my conviction that Martin Luther did not teach the third use of the law in this manner. He did not believe that God revealed the law either to Israel or to Christians as a guide to living! The most radical instance of this is Luther's comments on the law as given to Moses. Luther said, "I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave commandments, but because they have been implanted in me by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature etc."1

Luther believed that the law was natural to every person alive. That's the first use of the law! For Luther, therefore, the law does not need to be revealed. If that is the case then we will need spend little time preaching the law as a guide to life. Here, too, it may be better to deal with such ethical questions about life in discussion forums under the assumption that each person brings unique resources, resources given them by God the Creator, to the discussion.

Preach the law. Preach the costly law. Preach the law that costs sinners their life and brings them to the point that they cry out for a Savior.

20. 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.

21. Essence of Peppermint

Illustration

Michael P. Green

One of the hardest things for the Christian of our day is to recognize the presence of sin in his own life and all around him. In fact, we often try to minimize the presence of sin and to make light of its effects on us.

Dr. J. Wilbur Chapman told of a distinguished Methodist minister in Australia who preached on sin. One of his church officers came afterward to talk with him in his study. He said to the pastor, “Dr. Howard, we don’t want you to talk so plainly as you do about sin, because if our boys and girls hear you talking so much about sin, they will more easily become sinners. Call it a mistake if you will, but do not speak so plainly about sin.”

The minister went to a utility closet and brought back a small bottle of strychnine that was clearly marked “Rat Poison.” He said, “I see what you want me to do. You wanted me to change the label. Suppose I take off this label of ‘Poison’ and put on some milder label, such as ‘Essence of Peppermint?’"

The point was clear. The milder you make the label; the more dangerous you make the poison.

22. Who Is Jesus?

Illustration

John R. Brokhoff

Now, more than ever, we need to face the question, "Who is the real Jesus?" Is the Christ of faith the Jesus of history? What is the truth about Jesus? What can we believe? We turn to the Apostles' Creed which has given the church's answer for 2,000 years.

Different Positions

It is not strange that the most popular question of our time is, "Who is Jesus?" Was this question not answered in Matthew 16:16 when Peter said to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"? In Jesus' day, too, there were different opinions about Jesus. When on a retreat with his disciples, he asked them what people were saying about him. The public was divided: Jesus was considered to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What more of an answer do we need than the answer of Peter? Jesus accepted his answer as the truth, for he said, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Yet, after twenty centuries, we do not believe what Peter said about the identity of Jesus. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Jesus is the Son of God." A recent report from Germany indicated that only one out of every four believe in Jesus Christ. Throughout Christian history down to the present, there are different views of Jesus. Now let us look at some of them.

1. The All-Human Jesus

Human

According to this position, Jesus is 100 percent human. It was held as early as the first centuries of Christianity by the Ebionites. They denied that Jesus was divine. He was only a teacher, prophet, miracle-man, and one with an outstanding character. But he was not divine, the Son of God. Today this view is held by many, including atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, and other non-Christian religions.

2. The All-Divine Jesus

Divine

Opposite the Ebionites, Docetists held that Jesus was entirely divine. He was not at all human. This view was originally taught by Eutychus, a monk in a monastery near Constantinople. In the fourth century, Appolonarius, bishop of Laodicea, popularized the teaching. It was known as Docetism, from the Latin word docere meaning "to seem." It just seemed that Jesus was human. It was based on the idea that the physical and material were inherently evil. The human body therefore was sinful. Jesus therefore was not human, for God could not be identified with sin. Docetists held that Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by the divine. This denied the Incarnation, the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh."

3. The Half And Half Jesus

Human/Divine

Nestorians took the view that Jesus was half human and half divine. It was taught by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in the fifth century. To this day it is a very popular understanding of Jesus. When we see Jesus hungry, thirsty, and tired, we say it was because he was human. When he struggles in prayer and on the cross cries out, "My God, why ...?" we see the human Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus is God when he walks on water, feeds 5,000, raises the dead, heals lepers, and rises from the grave. The problem with this view is that we have a divided Jesus -- two persons in one body.

4. The Adopted Jesus

Divine

Human

This is known as adoptionism. According to this position, Jesus came into the world as a human. Because of his moral excellence, his perfect obedience to God, his wisdom, his compassion for people, and his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross, the Father adopted him as his son at his baptism. This adoption was confirmed by the resurrection and the ascension. Jesus then became a deified man.

5. The Both And Jesus

Human & Divine

The above different positions concerning Jesus caused great concern, for the gospel was at stake. If Jesus were only human, then he was just a martyr on the cross and not the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. If he were only human, the resurrection was a fairy tale. His promises of forgiveness and eternal life were meaningless. His claims to know God and to be one with God would then be the words of a religious fanatic who was deluded into thinking he was the Son of God.

On the other hand, if Jesus were only divine and not human, humanity would be the loser. Because he was human, he became one of us. As a human, he fulfilled the law for us. Through his humanity we could see the nature of God. Above all, he became sin for us so that sin, through him, could go out of the world. As a human Jesus knows our human condition. Like all of us he was tempted and he showed that by the power of God we can overcome temptation to sin.

Consequently, the church had to take a stand on the question of Jesus. Is he only human, only divine, or half and half? In 451 A.D. the church held a council at Chalcedon to decide the issue. The church decided that it was not a matter of Jesus being fully God or fully human, or half and half, but it was a matter of both, both fully human and fully divine. To this day the church holds to this truth stated at Chalcedon:

We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, or a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father with respect to the Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect of the manhood, like us in everything but sin ...

This is to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man. These two natures are blended into one integrated personality. He is not a split personality, nor does he suffer from schizophrenia. It is like a blender in your kitchen. Suppose you put apples, peaches, and pears in it and pushed the "on" button for a minute. Now what do you have -- apples, peaches, and pears? Yes, you do, but can you tell which is which? They have become one fruit, one substance. Also, it is like homogenized milk. When the raw milk comes from the farm, a dairy runs it through a homogenizer. As the milk runs through the machine, pistons compact the milk so that the cream and skim milk are made one. As a result you cannot take cream off the milk. In the same way, the human and divine natures of Jesus are compacted into one integrated person.

This means that the Father and the Son are one. When Jesus prays, God also prays. When the human Jesus suffers and dies on a cross, God is in Jesus enduring the cross. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). When the human Jesus speaks, it is also God who speaks. When Jesus weeps, God weeps. This truth makes us realize the seriousness of the cross. It was not only a human on the cross, but God was there in Jesus. Good Friday is the day God died in Jesus. Indeed, the murderers did not know what they were doing; they did not know they were killing God! As the spiritual says, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble."

23. 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?"

24. Broken: Laughing Through the Pain

Illustration

Warren W. Wiersbe

Will Rogers was known for his laughter, but he also knew how to weep. One day he was entertaining at the Milton H. Berry Institute in Los Angeles, a hospital that specialized in rehabilitating polio victims and people with broken backs and other extreme physical handicaps. Of course, Rogers had everybody laughing, even patients in really bad condition; but then he suddenly left the platform and went to the rest room. Milton Berry followed him to give him a towel; and when he opened the door, he saw Will Rogers leaning against the wall, sobbing like a child. He closed the door, and in a few minutes, Rogers appeared back on the platform, as jovial as before.

If you want to learn what a person is really like, ask three questions: What makes him laugh? What makes him angry? What makes him weep? These are fairly good tests of character that are especially appropriate for Christian leaders. I hear people saying, "We need angry leaders today!" or "The time has come to practice militant Christianity!" Perhaps, but "the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God."

What we need today is not anger but anguish, the kind of anguish that Moses displayed when he broke the two tablets of the law and then climbed the mountain to intercede for his people, or that Jesus displayed when He cleansed the temple and then wept over the city. The difference between anger and anguish is a broken heart. It's easy to get angry, especially at somebody else's sins; but it's not easy to look at sin, our own included, and weep over it.

25. Do As You Please

Illustration

Michael Horton

The radical gospel of grace as it is found throughout Scripture, has always had its critics. Jimmy Swaggart once said that by trusting in God's justifying and preserving grace, we would end up living a life of sin before long and thus, lose our salvation and be consigned to hell. Paul anticipated that reaction from the religious community of his own day after he said, "Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more" (Romans 5:20, NKJV). So he asked the question he expected us to ask: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (6:1) Should we sin so that we can receive more grace? In other words, "If people believed what you just said in Romans 5, Paul, wouldn't they take advantage of the situation and live like the dickens, knowing they were 'safe and secure from all alarm'?" That's a fair question. But it reveals a basic misunderstanding of the nature of God's saving grace. Paul's response is unmistakable: "Certainly not? How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Romans 6:2, NKJV).

Someone confronted Martin Luther, upon the Reformer's rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of justification, with the remark, "If this is true, a person could simply live as he pleased!"

"Indeed!" answered Luther. "Now, what pleases you?"

Augustine was the great preacher of grace during the fourth and fifth centuries. Although his understanding of the doctrine of justification did not have the fine-tuned precision of the Reformers, Augustine's response on this point was similar to Luther's. He said that the doctrine of justification led to the maxim, "Love God and do as you please." Because we have misunderstood one of the gospel's most basic themes, Augustine's statement looks to many like a license to indulge one's sinful nature, but in reality it touches upon the motivation the Christian has for his actions. The person who has been justified by God's grace has a new, higher, and nobler motivation for holiness than the shallow, hypocritical self-righteousness or fear that seems to motivate so many religious people today.

26. ARE CHRISTIANS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?

Illustration

John H. Krahn

Are Christians an endangered species? This is really not the most pleasant question to consider. But at some time or another I would imagine we have all thought about it.

Faced with an uncomfortable question, we find comfort and assurance in God’s Word. Speaking of Jesus, in John 1:5 (GNB) it says, "His life is the light that shines through the darkness - and the darkness can never extinguish it." Never, it says. The power of God’s light can never be extinguished. The good news about Jesus will always be good news. Sin will have its triumphs, but it never will completely prevail.

Most of the danger to Christianity does not come from the outside but from within. I would like to consider with you three of the dangers from within referring to them as Christianity’s sin from within.

There is the endangering problem of self-centeredness or the S of sin from within. Often we get so caught up with our own church or our own denomination that our world view of Christianity doesn’t go much beyond our congregation’s front door. In our quest to preserve our peculiar understanding of Scripture, we often fail to bask in the good news of a Christ who stands at the center of Scripture. The New Testament abounds with encouragement for us to be one with each other - to rejoice in that which unites us in the Body of Christ rather than to dwell upon our theological idiosyncrasies. It is incompatible with Christianity for us to separate ourselves from other Christians in order to do just our own thing. We are going to spend our eternity with all these people. The time to get acquainted and work together is now.

Another aspect of the problem is inhibited love. Inhibited love is the I of the sin from within. There is no virtue in loving someone who is lovable. Anyone can do that - even non-believers. There is no virtue in loving someone with whom we agree, that is almost like loving ourself. Jesus said, "If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much." But there is virtue in uninhibited, unconditional love. We are called by Jesus to embrace with forgiving love a brother or sister who has disappointed or even offended us. Forgiveness flows in a church when the Spirit of God resides in its members. Love that flows freely is the love that Jesus spoke about when he said, "Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you. In that way you will be acting as true sons of your Father in heaven."

The final sin from within, represented by the N in sin, is nonchalance. Too many of us take our Christianity too casually - with nonchalance. Saint Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, encourages us to put on God’s armour so that we will be able to stand safe against all the strategies and tricks of Satan. We are encouraged to use every piece of God’s armor available to us.

Self-centeredness, inhibited love, and nonchalance - three sins from within that endanger Christianity. And so we return to our question, "Are Christians an endangered species?" Some are and some are not. Although we have the promise of God that the light will never go completely out, our task together with the total church is to make sure we shine brightly. We continue to do battle with the forces of evil from both without and from within. To plan to do less is to risk joining the list of endangered species.

27. Devil Descriptions

Illustration

Merrill F. Unger

Possible Biblical references to Satan:

Genesis 3:1-14 · He was disguised under the Edenic serpent
Genesis 3:15 · He is the serpent's seed
1 Chronicles 21:1 · Satan stands against Israel
Job 1:7-2:10 · He accused and afflicted Job
Isaiah 14:12 · He was Lucifer, son of the morning before the fall (This verse is erroneously ascribed to Satan. It actually refers to the king of Babylon, see v. 3)
Ezekiel 28:14 · He was the anointed cherub that covers (This verse also is erroneously ascribed to Satan. It actually refers to the king of Tyre, see v. 1)
Zecheriah 3:1-9 · He is Satan, the Adversary of unbelieving Israel
Matthew 4:3 · He is the tempter
Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:10-11 · He perverts the Word of God
Matthew 12:22-29 · He works in demon possession
Matthew 12:24; Acts 10:38 · He is the prince of the demons
Matthew 13:19 · Snatches away the Word
Matthew 13:38 · "the evil one"
Matthew 13:38-39 · He sows tares
Matthew 13:39 · He is "the enemy"
Matthew 25:41 · He is a fallen angel
Matthew 25:41; Rev 20:10 · His ultimate fate is Gehenna
Luke 4:13 · He is the devil, the slanderer
Luke 10:18 · He fell from a sinless high estate
Luke 13:16 · He blinds people physically and spiritually
Luke 22:31 · He viewed Simon Peter as a target
John 3:8, 10 · His children are unsaved people
John 8:44 · He was branded "a liar" and "the father of lies" by Jesus
John 8:44 · He is a murderer
John 12:31; 14:30 · He is the prince of this world
John 13:2,27 · He caused Judas to betray Christ
Acts 5:3 · Educes Ananias to lie
2 Corinthians 4:4 · He blinds people spiritually
Ephesians 2:2 · He indwells the unsaved
Ephesians 6:10-20 · He is routed by Spirit-directed prayer
Ephesians 6:11-12 · He heads a celestial hierarchy of evil
1 Thessalonians 2:18 · He hinders God's will in believers
2 Thessalonians 2:9 · He works diabolic miracles
1 Timothy 4:1-6 · He instigates false doctrine
1 Peter 5:8 · He seeks to harm believers
1 Peter 5:8-9 · He is overcome by faith
Revelation 2:9 · He has a synagogue of legalists who deny God's grace in Christ
Revelation 12:9 · He is the deceiver
Revelation 12:9; 20:2 · He is the dragon, that old serpent
Revelation 20:1-3 · He will be bound during the millennium

28. THE MOST WONDERFUL GIFT

Illustration

John H. Krahn

One of the things that most young children fear are monsters. Unlike the imagined monsters of children, the early church had a real monster of its own. It was a most deadly enemy that roamed about. The monster was the notion that Christ alone was not adequate for a person’s salvation. And this monster gave birth to another monster, the monster of uncertainty over our own salvation. Both monsters were real - both were inspired by the devil. Unfortunately, they are still very much with us today. Many of us are puzzled and uncertain as to whether we will be saved. To solve the salvation puzzle we must kill the monster of uncertainty that suggests we trust in something other than Christ alone for our salvation.

Recently, I surveyed a large sample of our congregation. I was amazed to discover that so many were puzzled over the crucial question of their eternal life. Perhaps some of you reading this meditation do not feel certain that if you died tonight that you will be with God in heaven. Many who feel certain that they will go to heaven do not base such certainty on faith in Jesus Christ alone. The devil that roamed freely in the early church is still with us.

Brothers and sisters, our salvation is unreasonable, and this is what causes much of our puzzlement. We have been trained from childhood that we must work out our own problems and map out our own destiny. To think that God’s salvation is a pure gift, won for us by God’s actions and effected without any help or aid from us, militates against our, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy.

Second, it smacks us where we hurt the most, right in our pride. Adults are hesitant about accepting gifts which they know they have not earned or merited. We do not want to feel obligated to anyone. It is not an easy matter for us to come before Almighty God and accept what he wants to give us - the most wonderful gift of eternal life. It takes a humble person to make such a confession from his heart and to stand totally dependent on God.

Third, for most of us, everything that we have has a price tag on it. Then we are confronted with the strange news of a gospel which declares that God’s salvation is a free gift. Our experience with every other valuable gift causes us to stop and think, "Is that reasonable? There must be a hidden cost, a string attached, we must have to do something. How can God really give us something so wonderful for nothing?"

In the survey of our congregation we also asked our people, "If you were to die tonight and stand before God and he were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ what would you answer him?" What would you answer him? Take a second, think about it. Let me share with you some answers others gave: "I’ve lived a Christian life, loving and caring for my fellowman." "I am a good person and love to help others." "I’ve tried my best to do what you have expected of me." What is the common element in all these answers? It is "I." Everyone emphasizes what I have done.

The Bible says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is a gift of God, not because of works, lest any man should boast." Heaven is a most wonderful gift, it is not something earned or deserved, it is only received by faith. Our faith in Jesus Christ is the key that opens heaven to us.

29. HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Illustration

John H. Krahn

How much is enough? Most of us have asked this question many times throughout life. When our kids are having a bad day, we wonder how much we can take before we lose our temper. How much is enough? When we are buying something and bickering as to how much we should pay, we wonder, "How much is enough?" At work, when the thrust is to increase our production, we wonder, "How much is enough?" And so it is quite understandable that this question might also creep into our religious life and into our thoughts of salvation. How often must we attend church in order to be a good member? How many times must I forgive that person in order to qualify for God’s forgiveness of me? How good must we be to make it to heaven? How much is enough?

Whereas industry might consider it enough to get six hours of work from an employee in an eight-hour day, God says that only perfection is enough for us to enter into his presence at the end of time. There will be no bickering when Jesus returns. To say to Jesus, "But Lord, I was a good provider for my family; I worked seven days a week; I never willfully hurt anyone," cuts no ice with the Lord in terms of salvation. Only those who are perfect will go to heaven when Christ comes again. So you see, we all fall short when we look at our lives and ask, have I done enough? The most righteous among us cannot do enough to save themselves and qualify for heaven, for only perfection is enough.

Heaven can only be grasped by faith. Our faith, our trust, our belief, our love of the Lord Jesus Christ make heaven a certainty for our future. When the King of Ages returns to earth again, those who put their hope in the Lord will receive the benefits of forgiveness obtained through his punishment at Calvary. They will be gifted with eternal life. Good works do not appropriate eternity, only faith does.

To be ready for his return is to remain strong in the faith. If you have been putting off some aspect of the Christian discipline, put it off no longer - now is the time for change. The King is coming, and we must prepare. Each of us needs to be sure that our personal faith is strong. If we all knew the Lord was coming in one week, what would we do differently? Now is the time to begin. God in Christ has given us the crown of life through faith in his Son. Only when God gave everything was it enough for our salvation. How much will be enough of a commitment from us today? The Lord wants a total commitment of faith. How much is enough? Everything!

30. Revealing Slip

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

At the close of a sermon one Sunday morning one of the members of the church came forward at the invitation. He was noticeably disturbed and moved by his conviction of sin in his life. With tears flowing and a halt in his voice he took the pastor's hand and meant to tell him that his life was full of sin. But what came out was, "My sin is full of life." As soon as he had spoken he realized his mistake and changed it, but in reality his first statement was the real reason for the second. His sin was full of life and that is why his life was full of sin. Praise God that the blood of Jesus Christ is the remedy and he found it that day.

31. 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.

32. A Choice for Righteousness and Not Evil

Illustration

Wayne Peterson

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

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

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

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

33. Needing a Change of Heart

Illustration

Brian P. Stoffregen

The primary point of this parable of the two sons is about having a change in heart, not just about saying or doing the right things. The following stories might illustrate this point.

Once there were two couples. Couple A were married in a large, beautiful church ceremony. They pledge life-long faithfulness and love to each other in the moving words of their vows. However, their life together has been one of abuse both physical and verbal. They both have been unfaithful to each other.

Couple B live together. They had no public ceremony. They signed no marriage license. They spoke no vows in the presence of witnesses. However, their life together is a loving and affirming relationship. They have remained faithful to each other.

Which couple would you say is doing the will of God?

Both need change of hearts - couple A in the way they act towards each other and couple B in their attitudes about the importance of the words in a public ceremony.

Another analogy might be with those who attend church and say all the right words, but whose lives fall somewhat short of John's "way of righteousness" and others who live exemplary lives; but who want nothing to do with "organized religion" and the public expression of their faith.

Both need "a change of heart".

34. Four Types of Pride

Illustration

John K. Bergland

Pride is the first of the seven deadly sins. One falls into pride when one lacks trust in God and his mercy and becomes arrogant, hypocritical, and self-centered. Reinhold Neibuhr, who has been referred to as the twentieth-century theologian of sin, summed up humanity's basic sin our unwillingness to acknowledge our creatureliness, our self-elevation in one word, PRIDE. Neibuhr described the four types of pride:

1. The pride of power wants power to gain security for self or to maintain a power position considered to be secure.

2. Intellectual pride rises from human knowledge that pretends to be ultimate knowledge. It presumes to be final truth.

3. Moral pride claims that its standards for virtue test and measure all righteousness. Niebuhr observed that most evil is done by "good" people who do not know that they are not good.

4. Spiritual pride is self-glorification. It claims that "self's righteousness" conforms to God's righteousness.

35. A Phalanx of Faith

Illustration

Staff

In ancient times soldiers who went into battle were clad in heavy armor to protect them against the spears and arrows of their enemies. In Ephesians, chapter 6, the Apostle Paul urges his fellow-Christians to take upon themselves the "whole armor of God." Be equipped, he says, with the "breastplate of righteousness," "the shield of faith," "the helmet of salvation," "the sword of the Spirit."

"Stand," he says, stand up against evil. "Withstand in the evil day," he says, and "quench the flaming darts of the evil one." The armament he prescribes is for standing, not for running away; it is not for defense only, but also for conquest.

Paul's picture is that of a solitary soldier. But soldiers usually do not fight alone - and neither do we who are Christian soldiers. In the old Macedonian phalanx, the soldiers were positioned shoulder to shoulder, marching close, shields overlapping, spears held forward at striking level. We who are involved in the conflict with evil in our time ought to stand and march as members together of an invincible phalanx of faith.

May this hour be an assembling ground for us, and here may we take up and put on the armor of our warfare. When we go from here may it be shoulder to shoulder, eyes forward, at attention, and on the alert for whatever darkness needs to be dispelled by light, for whatever ugliness needs to be displaced by beauty, for whatever wrong needs to be set right. Here in this assembly may we get together, and when we go may we be together.

36. The Size of Faith

Illustration

Vince Gerhardy

The size of faith doesn’t matter because God is the one doing the moving.

If it is my faith that moved the mountain, then the bigger the mountain, the more faith I would need to move it.

The bigger the obstacle, the more strength I’d need to climb it.

The more serious the illness, a faith even greater would be required to overcome it.

The more serious the sin, the more faith I would need in order to have it forgiven.

That kind of thinking kind of makes sense, but that’s not how faith works. In fact, faith doesn’t do the work at all. And thank God for that.

God is the one doing the work through faith. Think of faith as the key that opens the door to God acting in our lives. If I have a bigger key ring than you do, does it matter? The size of a key ring doesn’t matter. Key rings don’t open doors, but it’s that little key on the ring that opens doors. Even a little faith opens the door for God to move the mountains and trees and even our hearts.

37. THE AGE OF ANXIETY

Illustration

John H. Krahn

The present decade may well be termed the Age of Anxiety. Anxiety is nothing new. In the Sermon on the Mount we read (Matthew 6:25, 33-34): "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? ... But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day."

We need not rehearse all the problems with the economy, crime, terrorists, and assassination attempts. The evening news plays the same familiar tune night in and night out. Sometimes we feel that these days we have to take the bad with the worst. Much of the time we feel apprehensive about the future. Feeling uneasy, we sometimes wonder what impending ill will befall us next.

In the light of many troubles, the Sermon on the Mount seems to be a tough saying from Jesus. It states that if our minds were set on God, we would not lack the needful things of this earth. When we are anxious over daily concerns, it often has a paralyzing effect on our religious life. Worrying about items of food and clothing directs our life inward toward ourselves rather than outward toward the Lord.

In his sermon the Lord does not speak out against working, or planning, or saving for the future. But our obsession with having the so-called better things in life and the increased amount of time it now takes to be able to afford them, has, too often, supplanted the art of living. Further, and inexcusable in God’s eyes, work has threatened the worship life of many Christians. Many people are working on Sundays. Others work so long and so hard during the week that they say they do not have time for God on Sundays. Jesus has no understanding of this and says in reply, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, then all else will be added unto you."

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "If a man owns land, the land owns him." In some ways he is right. As we begin to own things in life and acquire better things, there are times that it seems that these things own us rather than the other way around. Our increased bills dictate to us that we must work overtime, work on Sunday, or that both husband and wife need to go to work. Maybe if we decided to own less, we could live more.

Jesus concludes his teaching on anxiety by stating that we are not to be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let today’s troubles be sufficient for the day. In Deuteronomy 33:25 God says, "as thy days, so shall thy strength or we don’t trust in the Lord for strength to meet tomorrow or we don’t." Otherwise, we will constantly ruin the present by worrying about the future.

In Isaiah 41:13 God says, "For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, ‘Fear not, I will help you.’ Worry is an insult to God. Anxiety demonstrates lack of faith. When we feel anxious, we best kneel before the Lord, confess our sins, and surrender our anxieties to him."

38. Clinging Creepers

Illustration

J. Alistair Brown

Walking through a park, I passed a massive oak tree. A vine had grown up along its trunk. The vine started small, nothing to bother about. But over the years, the vine grew taller and taller. By the time I passed the tree again, the entire lower half of the tree was covered by the vine's creepers. The mass of tiny feelers was so thick that the tree looked as though it had innumerable birds' nests in it.

Now the tree was in danger. This huge, solid oak was quite literally being taken over; the life was being squeezed from it.

The gardeners in the park, seeing the danger, had taken a saw and severed the trunk of the vine one neat cut across the middle. The tangled mass of the vine's branches still clung to the oak, but the vine was now dead. That would gradually become plain as weeks passed and the creepers began to die and fall away from the tree. How easy it is for sin, which begins so small and seemingly insignificant, to grow until it has a strangling grip on our lives. And yet, Christ's death has cut the power of sin. Yes, the "creepers" of sin still cling and have some effect. But sin's power is severed by Christ, and gradually, sin's grip dries up and falls away.

39. I Step Out on the Word of God

Illustration

King Duncan

Poet Maya Angelou recalls the struggles of her grandmother living through the great depression. She remembers a lot of things about her grandmother: her wisdom, her stature. But it was her grandmother's faith that Maya remembers most. Clasping her hands behind her back her grandmother would look up into the distant sky and say, "I will step out on the word of God."

The great depression was a difficult time for everyone, but "especially so for a single black woman in the South tending her crippled son and two grandchildren." But when faced with mountainous burdens, Maya's grandmother would face the sky and say, "I will step out on the word of God."

"She would look up as if she could will herself into the heavens," Maya writes. And because of her grandmother, Maya Angelou grew up knowing that the word of God had power. And now, today, whenever she experiences the injustices of this world, Maya remembers the great faith of her grandmother. God gives us spiritual armor to protect us from the evil we face daily: He gives us truth, righteousness, the willingness to speak up for Christ, and, most importantly, faith.

40. Pride

Illustration

John K. Bergland

Pride is the first of the seven deadly sins. One falls into pride when one lacks trust in God and his mercy and becomes arrogant, hypocritical, and self-centered. Reinhold Neibuhr, who has been referred to as the twentieth-century theologian of sin, summed up humanity's basic sin -- our unwillingness to acknowledge our creatureliness, our self-elevation, in one word: PRIDE.

Neibuhr described the four types of pride:

The pride of power wants power to gain security for self or to maintain a power position considered to be secure.
Intellectual pride rises from human knowledge that pretends to be ultimate knowledge. It presumes to be final truth.
Moral pride claims that its standards for virtue test and measure all righteousness. Neibuhr observed that most evil is done by "good" people who do not know that they are not good.
Spiritual pride is self-glorification. It claims that "self's righteousness" conforms to God's righteousness.

41. God's Opposition

Illustration

Albert Barnes

It is clear that when we think of the word "wrath" as applicable to God, it must be divested of everything that is like human passion, and especially the passion of revenge. It is one of the most obvious rules of interpretation that we are not to apply to God passions and feelings which, among us, have their origin in evil. [God's wrath] is the opposition of the divine character against sin; and the determination of the divine mind to express that opposition in a proper way, by excluding the offender from the favors which He bestows on the righteous. We admire the character of a father who is opposed to disorder, vice, and disobedience in his family, and who expresses his opposition in a proper way. We admire the character of a ruler who is opposed to all crime in the community, and who expresses those feelings in the law. Why shall we not be equally pleased with God, who is opposed to all crime in all parts of the universe, and who determines to express His opposition in the proper way for the sake of preserving order and promoting peace?

42. I Fear No More

Illustration

John Donne

Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin? and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
Swear by Thy self, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now and heretofore;
And, having done that, Thou hast done,
I fear no more.

43. The Disposition and the Dinner Table

Illustration

"I like to eat at your table," said the young lad. "Somehow the food always tastes better."

"We are always glad to have you with us," said the neighbor lady.

Even the same foods at home don't taste quite as good," effervesced Jerry. "The things you say with what you eat at your table make everything taste better."

Many lessons of life are learned at the dinner table. Not only the food we eat physically but the spiritual food we eat adds beauty to life or may give indigestion.

Solomon said, "The parents have eaten sour grapes and set the children's teeth on edge."

Everywhere Christian leaders, preachers and teachers are needed. The opportunity is great but the laborers are few.

Be sure your meal table breeds optimism, faith and love for God's kingdom. Don't be lazy in your religious endeavors. Don't be easily offended in a good cause.

You may send forth lazy children or real workers for righteousness. Children do reflect their parents. What disposition is developed at your dinner table?

44. Pastoral Prayer

Illustration

Brett Blair

D-Day for WWII was June 6, 1944 — the day on which the Battle of Normandy began — commencing the Western Allied effort to liberate mainland Europe from Nazi occupation during World War II. President Roosevelt composed a prayer and delivered it on the radio that evening. What follows is the full text of that address:

My Fellow Americans,

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Note: We offer this as a possible pastoral prayer during times of war or conflict. We understand that current wars and WWII have many dissimilarities but there are at the same time similarities. Also we understand there are many differences of opinion regarding war and conflict. So we will not attempted to contemporize or adapt the above prayer leaving that up to each pastor. Or, you may simply wish to incorporate part or all into your sermon as an historical illustration.

45. Faithful Fruit

Illustration

Charles Ryrie

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

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

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

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

46. A Higher Value than Freedom

Illustration

Johnny Dean

If there’s one thing we Americans value above everything else, it is freedom. We cherish, guard and exercise our freedom, and woe be unto those who threaten it in any way. We’re even willing to go to war to defend freedom, whether it’s ours or someone else’s. We are the world’s self-appointed watchdogs of freedom.

But Jesus says there’s a higher value than freedom. The first words the writer of the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus speak are not about freedom, but about obedience to the will of God. That’s what righteousness is all about, according to the gospel writer. Matthew uses the word righteousness seven times in his story of the life of Jesus, always connecting righteousness with being obedient to the will of God.

When Jesus comes to John the Baptist to be baptized in the Jordan, John protests. "It really should be the other way around here. You should be baptizing me. Why are you doing this?" And Jesus replies, "Just do it, John; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

47. Dead Works

Illustration

Stephen Craig Jennings

Simply changing outward behavior is not repentance. We at times change our behavior for self-centered reasons. Sometimes we change in an attempt to atone for my sins. Such change will only make my sinfulness more sinful.

This is the basis for the reference in Hebrews of repenting from ‘dead works'. A dead work is a work that is not done with the leading and empowerment of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Hence any good work a non-Christian would attempt is a dead work. And many types of good works that Christians do could be devoid of the Spirit's leading and empowerment.

A dead work is giving to charity because it is a good tax break.
It is going to church because it is good for my business reputation or my resume or my politics.
It is tithing because I am afraid God will ‘get me' if I don't.
It is sending my kids to a Christian school, not because I want them to learn the truths of the Christian faith and surrender their lives to the Lordship of Christ, but because there they will run in the right crowd.
It is the giving up of a sinful habit, not because I want to be controlled by the Spirit of God instead of the habit, but because the habit inhibits my performance at work and is harming my professional reputation.

In all these ways, I have actually changed, but the change has not accomplished what Jeremiah said was impossible:

Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard his spots?
Then also you can do good
who are accustomed to do evil.

48. Putting on the Garment

Illustration

Bill J. Leonard

In the early Christian centuries, converts were baptized naked. Did you know that? Now that would perk up a Sunday morning worship service! And they put on white robes when they came up out of the water. It was a sign that they had literally put on Christ like a garment. They wore those robes for a period as a reminder of who they were and what they had done. We, like they, are the Christ-bearers of our world, carrying Christ with us wherever we go.

Note: This is true. For validation of this you can go to this CT article. It reads in part: By the early 200s, baptism often included renouncing Satan and all his works, making a statement of faith, being baptized (naked) in water, being clothed in a white robe, receiving anointing with oil, and immediately celebrating the Lord’s Supper.

49. 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.

50. Parable of How Four Boys Got There

Illustration

Four boys stood watching the parade some ten miles from the high school classes they were supposed to be. The event was important to them.

"How did you get here" asked Dick.

"I borrowed my father's car."

"I took the bus," said Bill.

"I thumbed a ride," said Jack.

"Well, at least we all got here, didn't we," said Bill. "Nothing could keep me away."

"Me either," said Jack. "When I want to go some place, I go."

It is surprising how easily we find a way to go where we want to go. And it is strange how difficult we make it to get to some places where we ought to be.

When we stand before the altar of God, and worship each Sabbath Day, each of us may ask the question, "What brought me here?" And whatever the answer, if we truly worship and strengthen our portion in faith, we may say, "Thanks be to God who led me to His throne."

We are not meant to judge what brought people to church, for the Creator works in strange ways His wonders to perform. John Wesley observing the drunk in the gutter said, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

When we observe those who receive great honors, we may question, "How did they get them?" But we ought to rejoice that good deeds have been performed. It is natural to be attracted to dramatic events. Next best, to being in the parade for the boys, was to watch it. Next best to doing good deeds is to observe them and encourage them.

Showing 1 to 50 of 533 results