Sermon and Worship Resources

Romans 9:30--10:21 · Israel’s Unbelief

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33 As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."

20 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."

21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Give It Up

Romans 9:30--10:21

Sermon
by Leonard Sweet

Sometimes it seems like there are only two types of films being made today in Hollywood. There are “chick flicks” and there are “man movies.” Coming off Valentine’s date weekend, the cinema hormone level is heavy with estrogen. But don’t worry, gentlemen. With the approach of “March Madness” and the full court press of basketball, the testosterone level will climb steadily over the next month.

These movie “types” are actually less about male vs. female, Mars vs. Venus than they are about the different ways human beings act and react to the world. We think about things. We feel things. We take action on things. Our interior convictions and emotions inform our exterior actions. Our mind, marrow and muscles, our heart, head and hands, can never be disconnected. We are bodies. We are spirits. We are souls.

Did everyone have pancakes on Tuesday? “Shrove Tuesday” traditionally is the day all the grease and fat in the home is used up (frying pancakes) so that there will be no more rich, greasy, goodness consumed during the forty days of Lent. Reflecting the forty days of temptation that Jesus spent in the wilderness, the forty days of Lent are supposed to be marked by some sort of personal sacrifice. Giving up great, greasy fried foods. Giving up meat. Giving up carbs. Giving up sweets. Giving up drinking, smoking, swearing, or some other “vice.” Lent is about giving up things.

“Giving up” something for Lent may strike us as a rather old-fashioned notion. But it is exactly half of what Paul was preaching about in today’s epistle text. Confessing Christ, making a public exclamation and confirmation of faith, is a physical action. Confessing Christ means being baptized. Confessing Christ means welcoming and accepting Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, male and female, into a common community, a committed family of faith.

Physically “confessing Christ” in the first century meant many real, physical changes. It meant being ostracized from one’s birth community — whether Jew or Gentile. For Gentiles it meant being kicked out of “political correctness” — one could not call the Roman rulers “Lord” after proclaiming Christ to be the one and only saving Deity. For Jews embracing Jesus as the Messiah meant a one-way ticket out of the synagogue, out of the kosher-community, out of the hallowed halls and history of the chosen people. The first outward action of faith set Jesus followers apart and sent them outside their homes.

But it was the inward convictions that had to be present first, making possible that outward confession. Paul located that inner change in the heart — a resurrection conviction that gave insurmountable faith to disciples that “in your heart God raised him from the dead” (v.9).

This faith in Christ that engaged mind and body, heart and soul brings redemption and righteousness, salvation and sanctification. It transforms and transcends. Actions and words, doing and beings, letting go and latching on, those are the two sides of the one coin of faithfulness that the Lenten Season challenges us to engage and embrace.

On the one hand is the more familiar theme of “giving up” something for Lent or “giving it up.” But “giving it up” has another meaning today. “Giving it up” doesn’t just mean getting rid of something in your life. Sometimes “giving it up” means risking everything you have, “giving it all up” for something outside of yourself.

For the first century faithful and for the twenty-first century faithful, “giving it up” means both “giving up” a life of safety and social acceptance, and “giving up” individual behaviors and bad moves that work against a life lived in, with and under Christ.

Lent isn’t about giving up soufflé or steaks. Lent is a time when we acknowledge both with our lips and our lives that faith demands actions. We symbolically “give up” some things as a demonstration to the world that we have willingly given up our lives for the sake of the Savior. We push away Mars bars only as a symbol to the world that we are pushing away anything that might come between ourselves and resurrection life of Christ Jesus.

Paul’s words in today’s epistle declare that any disciple “who calls on the name of the Lord,” anyone who combines the heartfelt words of confession and the handful actions of faith, is welcomed into life eternal: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

In the boxing ring you “throw in the towel” when you are giving up. It is a universally understood symbol of “giving up.” But in the arena of politics to “throw your hat into the ring” is a symbol of entering into the fray, climbing into the rink, engaging in a battle, taking on a challenge.

“Giving up” for Lent involves both word and action, both taking something on and letting something go. Lent isn’t just about a temporary jettison of bad habits or indulgences (eating sweets or fried food, or having a glass of wine, or skipping classes at the gym). It is also about taking on those things that are bigger than your own life. “Giving it up” for the greater good.

It is easy to give up “fast food” for Lent. It is much harder to give up the safety zones we build around ourselves, and our lives. But if we feel Lent in our hearts and confess Lent with our mouths, that is exactly what we are challenged to engage. Lent is both about letting something go — bad habits, bad influences, weakening works — and about taking on something new — reaffirming a commitment to Christ, risking a new course in life for Christ, renewing a heartfelt conviction in the resurrection of Christ.

Bob Woodward may be the most influential investigative and political journalist of our time. He tells of the early days of network television, back in the 1950s, when floor reporters at political conventions were “on air” constantly and had to fill the time somehow. So they interviewed almost anyone they could find.

Woodward tells of one episode where a CBS reporter tracked down at one of the conventions Conrad Hilton, who ran and founded the Hilton chain of hotels. The reporter stuck a microphone in Mr. Hilton’s face. Mr. Hilton was not used to being on television and the reporter said, “Mr. Hilton, there are five million people watching, you can say anything you want.” Conrad Hilton was flustered for a moment, and then he realized he had a very large audience, so he looked the camera dead in the eye like a professional and said, “Next time any of you are in any hotel anywhere and you are planning to take a shower, please make sure that the shower curtain on the outside goes inside the bath tub.”

Bob Woodward went on to applaud Hilton: “He knew what was important, he knew what his audience was, and he knew what he wanted to say. And if you think about it, it’s probably one of the most honest moments in modern media communications.” (“Honest Communication,” Vital Speeches of the Day, LXVI [1 June 2000], 484.)

I say: Are you kidding? Is this the essence of your world, your wisdom, your life: “Put the shower curtain inside the tub”? If that is all life is, Give It Up! Forget about the shower curtain. Just throw in the towel.

And throw your hat into another ring. Give It Up and throw a towel of service and sacrifice into another ring, the ring of faith and fire.

Lent is about head, heart and hands coming together to bring us into a life of faith and ring of fire that is the most exciting adventure anyone can ever take. A life that is about so much more than keeping the shower curtain inside the tub.

So let’s Give IT Up this Lent:

Give it up and count your blessings.
Give it up and practice random acts of kindness.
Give it up and savor life
Give it up and feel the joy of family and friends and strangers

Give it up and forgive someone
Give it up and show your family how much you love them
Give it up and thank a bridge person in your life that has carried you across
Give it up and do something nice for your body

Throw in the towel to the rat-race, and throw in the towel to the human race.

Give it up.

COMMENTARY

We’ve all been taught that actions speak louder than words. But words also provide us with the reason for taking action in the first place. In this week’s epistle text, Paul emphasizes this interconnectedness of words and actions, of interior motivations and exterior motions, in the expression of faith in Christ.

Paul cites Deuteronomy 30:14 to contrast his contention about “the righteousness that comes from faith” (Romans 10:6). But while Deuteronomy exhorted the Israelites to “choose life” and find righteousness through the Law, through obeying all the commandments given by God to Moses, Paul declares that righteousness is now found in a different way. Just as the Law was “near” to the Israelites, so is this new “word” accessible and knowable to all who hear it — “the world of faith that we proclaim” is “Jesus is Lord.” That “word,” for disciples, is what now resides “on your lips and in your hearts.”

Paul’s proclamation goes far beyond the Deuteronomic word of Law. It is the proclamation of a new revelation, of “Jesus is Lord” and the ultimate redeeming miracle of the resurrection “that God raised him from the dead” so that we may all be saved (v.10).

The “all” of Paul’s message is especially important to this text. Although Paul, the Pharisee, used a First Testament scripture as the “proof text” for his declaration that the “word is near to you,” he directed the message of this new word of salvation through faith that “Jesus is Lord” to a wholly inclusive audience. Paul asserts that in this new “word” “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, the same Lord is Lord of all.” The confession of word and heart that Paul calls for joins together Jew and Gentile into one community of faith a community without discrimination or distinction.

As Paul continues to erase the lines between Jew and Gentile, he draws upon established Hebrew scripture to make his case. In Romans 10:11 he cites Isaiah 28:16 to give scriptural support for his claim for deliverance at the end-time of judgment. Finally, Paul alludes to Joel 2:32, once again emphasizing the universal nature of the salvation that is offered to all who confess with their lips and believe in their hearts. The salvation of “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord” is the final focus of Paul’s message.

ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Leonard Sweet Sermons.com, by Leonard Sweet

Overview and Insights · God’s Righteousness for Everyone Who Believes (9:30–10:21)

Israel has failed to secure God’s righteousness because they pursued it by works of law rather than by faith (9:30–32). While Israel has “tripped” or “stumbled” over Jesus, the “stumbling stone,” those who trust in Jesus the Messiah “will never be put to shame” or condemned at the final judgment (9:32–33; 10:11; Isa. 8:14; 28:16; 50:7–8). Israel has stumbled because their zeal for God is not grounded in knowledge and truth (10:1–4). Instead of accepting the righteousness provided by Christ, they have attempted to construct their own righteousnes…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Romans 9:30--10:21 · Israel’s Unbelief

19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."

20 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."

21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Commentary · Israel’s Unbelief

9:30–10:21 Review · Israel’s resistance to God’s righteousness:After evaluating God’s responsibilities, Paul addresses the responsibility of Israel. The reason for Israel’s unbelief rests squarely with Israel. The Jewish people insist on attaining righteousness through the law, rejecting Jesus Christ, while Gentiles believe in Jesus and thus receive righteousness (9:30–33). Israel’s zeal is misguided, ignorant of the fact that God now grants righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ the Lord, who fulfills the ultimate purpose of the law and who is the end of the law (10:1–13). Israel has no excuse for her unbelief, as God has indeed sent messengers who proclaimed the good news of God’s saving righteousness through Jesus the Messiah and Lord, a message that should have caused the Jewish people to hear and to come to faith (10:14–21).

9:30–33 · Paul first comments on the Gentiles. They did not participate in the pursuit of righteousness, which God accepts by means of the law, because they did not have the law. And yet they have attained righteousness—through faith in Jesus Christ (9:30). The situation of the believing Gentiles is contrasted with the situation of the unbelieving Jews. The members of God’s people according to the flesh (Israel) who pursued righteousness by observing the law did not attain righteousness. The reason for this failure is that they did not fulfill the law (9:31). Paul explains in verse 32: Israel insisted on expunging the curse of the law through observance of the law’s stipulations rather than accepting God’s righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ, as the Gentiles did. They thus stumbled over “the stone” promised by God, which is Jesus, the promised Savior (quotation of Isa. 28:16 and Isa. 8:14). Israel has rejected the stone that God placed in Zion, laying a foundation for a new “temple” (the new place of worship in the new covenant). The reason for Israel’s exclusion from salvation is unbelief in Jesus Christ, who brings God’s promised salvation (cf. Rom. 3:21–26; 10:4) and in whom all people are to trust, both Jews (Israelites) and Gentiles.

10:1–13 · Paul asserts again that he desires and prays for the salvation of his fellow Jews (10:1; cf. 9:1–3). In 10:2–5 Paul explains why the Jewish people need salvation. He attests that they are zealous for God (10:2). They are passionately determined to do God’s will and defend God’s honor (cf. Elijah, 1 Kings 19:10, 14). But their zeal is “not based on knowledge” since they do not recognize that God revealed his righteousness in Jesus the Messiah. Paul was himself, before his conversion, extremely zealous (Gal. 1:14); he had a zeal for God’s honor that manifested itself in his persecution of the followers of Jesus (Phil. 3:6). The tragedy is that, even though the Jewish people are eager to worship God and do his will, they have not accepted the truth that God grants righteousness through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. They continue to establish and maintain righteousness through obedience to the law. Because God’s righteousness now comes through faith in Jesus Christ, the righteousness they achieve through the law is their own righteousness and not God’s righteousness (10:3). In 10:4 Paul reiterates how salvation is achieved in light of God’s new revelation. Since God now grants righteousness through faith in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ, the righteousness he accepts on the day of judgment no longer comes through the law but through the Messiah. It is in this sense that Christ is the end (Greek telos) of the law (10:4). Another thought is present as well: the righteousness that was the goal (telos) of the law now comes through faith in Christ. Jesus Christ is both the end of the law (as a means of acquiring righteousness) and the goal of the law (as a description of the righteousness that God demands and accepts). Righteousness is granted to “everyone who believes”—but only to those who believe, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.

In 10:5–13 Paul confirms this truth through scriptural quotations. The principle of righteousness that comes through the law depends on obedience (10:5). Moses said that Israelites who obey the law will live (Lev. 18:5). The principle of righteousness that comes through faith depends on Jesus the Messiah (10:6–8). The Messiah has come, and he is present in the gospel that is being preached, as promised by the Scriptures (Deut. 9:4; 30:11–14; cf. Ps. 107:26). Jesus the Messiah has taken the place of God’s revelation (Deut. 30:1–20) as well as the place of divine wisdom (cf. Baruch 3:29–30 on Deut. 30:1–20)—both were gifts God had given to Israel. The word of God that brings God’s saving righteousness is the word of faith in Jesus Christ, which Paul proclaims (10:8). In verses 9–10 Paul explains the meaning of the expression “the word [that] is near you” in Deuteronomy 30:14 for believers in Jesus the Messiah. Saving faith, which receives God’s righteousness as a gift, involves a twofold confession (10:9). The confession by mouth is the affirmation that the crucified, risen, and exalted Jesus is Lord (Greek kyrios). The confession by heart is the affirmation that God raised Jesus from the dead and thus vindicated him as the place of God’s atonement for the sins of Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:25). The reference to the heart implies that Paul does not speak of the recitation of a creedal formula in Christian worship but of the deep persuasion of individual sinners who have come to faith in Jesus Christ and whose life is determined by God’s gracious gift. In verses 11–13 Paul describes the new epoch of salvation through faith in Christ. Scripture confirms (Isa. 28:16; cf. Rom. 9:33) that it is believers who appear as righteous people before God (10:11). This principle has universal validity. The new order of salvation in which faith in Jesus the Messiah leads to righteousness applies both to Jews and to Greeks (Gentiles) since Jesus Christ is the Lord of all people who believe in him (10:12), a truth confirmed by Joel 2:32 (10:13).

10:14–21 · Paul proceeds to survey possible explanations for Israel’s unbelief that may excuse the Jewish people from culpability. In 10:14–17 he surveys the process of the proclamation of the gospel. The Christian confession presupposes faith in Jesus Christ; faith in Jesus Christ presupposes hearing the message about Jesus Christ; hearing about Jesus Christ presupposes preachers; preaching presupposes preachers who have been sent by God, which according to Isaiah 52:7 and Nahum 2:1 is a necessity (10:14–15). Paul argues that the Jewish people have no excuses (10:16). Israel has not believed the gospel despite the fact that preachers and God’s message have reached the Israelites. This disbelief was prophesied by Isaiah, who lamented the fact that Israel had not believed the message of the suffering and the exaltation of the servant of the Lord (Isa. 53:1). Paul’s summary in verse 17 asserts that saving faith comes from the apostolic message, a message specifically about the Messiah and his death and resurrection. In 10:18–19 Paul asks a series of questions that may exonerate Israel. Perhaps Israel has never had a chance to hear the word of God. Paul dismisses this explanation of Israel’s unbelief. Israel has indeed heard, because the words of God’s messengers have been heard in the entire world (Ps. 19:5). Another explanation for Israel’s unbelief may be that they did not comprehend the message they heard. Paul dismisses this explanation as well. The Jews have not only heard the message about Jesus the messianic Savior but also have indeed understood the message. The problem of Israel is that they are not obedient. Paul confirms that the Jewish people have understood the message of Jesus Christ with two witnesses, Moses (quotation of Deut. 32:21) and Isaiah (quotation of Isa. 65:1–2). Israel’s rebellion against the Lord was (in Moses’s days) and is (today) answered by God with a provocation to jealousy—he called a new people from among the Gentiles who have understood God’s revelation (10:19). As in the prophecy of Isaiah, God is found by the Gentiles who did not ask for him (10:20). As in the days of Isaiah, God has extended an invitation to Israel that was rejected (10:21). It is Israel’s fault alone, not God’s, that the Gentiles have attained God’s saving righteousness while Israel has failed to do so. The knowledge that Israel lacks (10:3) is due to their unwillingness to accept the apostolic message as God’s word of salvation.

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

Big Idea: The key issue in this controversial text is the role of the law in light of the work of Christ. Paul reverses the Deuteronomic curses and blessings: non-Christian Jews experience the Deuteronomic curses because they attempt to be justified by the law, while believing Gentiles are justified because their faith is in Christ, so to them belong the Deuteronomic blessings.

Understanding the Text

Romans 9:30–10:21 forms the second unit in Romans 9–11 (9:1–29 is the first, and 11:1–32 is the third). The theme of Romans 9:30–10:21 is the reversal of the Deuteronomic curses and blessings. The former pertain to non-Christian Jews (and unbelieving Gentiles), while the latter apply to Christian Gentiles (and Christian Jews as well). These two themes form a simple chiastic structure for Romans 9:30–10:21.

A Deuteronomic blessings on Gentiles because of faith righteousness (9:30)

B Deuteronomic curses on Israel because of law righteousness (9:31–10:18)

A ?Deuteronomic blessings on Gentiles because of faith righteousness (10:19–21)

We may conveniently divide 9:30–10:21 into five sections: 9:30–10:4; 10:5; 10:6–8; 10:9–13; 10:14–21. I will cover the first two of these sections in this unit, leaving 10:6–21 for the next unit.

Historical and Cultural Background

Two key pieces of background information illuminate Romans 9:30–10:5. I simply list them here (for fuller discussion, see the “Additional Insights” section): (1) the Deuteronomic tradition; (2) Paul’s mention of the word “zeal” in Romans 10:2 regarding Israel’s commitment to the Torah taps into a storied tradition in the Old Testament and in Second Temple Judaism.

Interpretive Insights

9:30–10:4 the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, . . . but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Here are three indications that combine to show that 9:30–10:4 reverses the Deuteronomic curses and blessings. First, as we develop below, the Deuteronomic tradition is embedded in the overall argument of chapters 9–11. Second, more specifically, we earlier noted that 8:1–16 (cf. chap. 7) is well understood as Paul’s reversal of the Deuteronomic curses and blessings. Third, Paul continues to think along such lines in 9:25–29, where, in quoting Hosea 2:23 (v. 25), Hosea 1:10 (v. 26), Isaiah 10:22–23 (v. 27), and Isaiah 1:19 (v. 27), he draws on the motifs of the exile (Deuteronomic curses on the unfaithful) and the remnant (Deuteronomic blessings on the faithful). In light of these considerations, it can be understood that 9:30–10:4 transposes commonly held Jewish expectations: according to Paul, those who do not attempt to be justified by the works of the law but rather place their faith in Christ alone (Gentile believers) are currently experiencing the Deuteronomic blessings, while those who attempt to be saved through adherence to the Torah (non-Christian Jews) remain under the Deuteronomic curses. This ironic contrast surfaces when one observes the parallels in 9:30–10:4:

A The acquisition of righteousness (9:30)

B Israel’s failure to obey the law (9:31)

C Israel’s misunderstanding of the law (9:32–33)

A? The acquisition of salvation (righteousness) (10:1)

B? Israel’s failure to obey the law (10:2)

C? Israel’s misunderstanding of the law (10:3–4)

With regard to the first parallel (9:30; 10:1), both verses speak of the acquisition of the righteousness of God or salvation. The former attests to the ironic fact that Gentiles, who do not pursue God’s righteousness via the Mosaic law, have actually received that righteousness by faith (implied: faith in Christ). The latter expresses Paul’s deep desire that Israel also receive God’s salvation or righteousness (implied: like the Gentiles already have).

The second parallel (9:31; 10:2) addresses Israel’s failure in attempting to obey the Torah. The first parts of both verses speak of Israel’s commitment to keep the law (“pursued the law as a way of righteousness” [9:31]; “they are zealous for God” [10:2]). The second parts of both verses lament Israel’s failure to achieve that objective (“have not attained their goal” [9:31]; “their zeal is not based on knowledge” [10:2]).

The third parallel (9:32–33; 10:3–4) exposes Israel’s misunderstanding of the law. Both texts present two aspects of that confusion—one general, the other specific. In general, Israel failed to perceive that the divine intent was that the law be pursued by faith, not by one’s meritorious works (compare 9:32 with 10:3). More specifically, Israel perpetuates that mistake in its rejection of Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law and the only means of acquiring God’s righteousness (compare 9:33 with 10:4).

Paul concludes his argument in 9:30–10:4 by explicitly contrasting obedience to the law (compare Rom. 10:5 with Lev. 18:5) with the righteousness that comes by faith in Christ (compare Rom. 10:6–8 with Deut. 30:12–14). In doing so, he essentially reverses the Deuteronomic curses and blessings by replacing nomism with fideism (law with faith) and particularism with universalism (salvation for the Jews with salvation for all who believe). These are the two results that proceed from Paul’s severance of wisdom (Christ) and the Torah.1Such a reading of 9:30–10:4 to the effect that Paul portrays the law negatively, however, does not sit well with some modern scholars. Interpreters such as James Dunn view this passage as refuting only Jewish nationalism (circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary legalism), not the law per se.2In other words, they allow for a more positive understanding of the Torah in this passage. Thomas Schreiner, however, provides a formidable critique of this newer approach. First, the “works” that Paul mentions in 9:32 should not be restricted to Jewish nationalist markers. In fact, none of those badges are even mentioned in the passage or its context.3Second, to distinguish the nationalistic righteousness of the Jews from their observance of the law creates a false dichotomy. The Jews felt superior to Gentiles, not only because of their birth, but also because of their perceived obedience to the Torah. Third, the words h? idia dikaiosyn? (“their own righteousness”) in 10:3 refer to righteousness born out of works in the broad sense, an interpretation confirmed by the parallel text, Philippians 3:9: “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ.” These criticisms combine to refute a positive rendering of the Torah in 9:30–10:4.4

As we noted above, in 10:4 Paul reverses the Deuteronomic curses and blessings. Christ brought an end to the law by taking upon himself at the cross its curses (cf. Gal. 3:10–13), so that those whose faith is in him can experience justification—that is, the covenantal blessings. In this, Paul replaces nomism with fideism. Moreover, the gift of salvation is available to both Jew and Gentile, indicating the universal scope of the apostle’s message. For further discussion of 10:4, see the third item in the “Additional Insights” section.

10:5 the righteousness that is by the law. As noted in the “Additional Insights” section regarding 10:4, so too with regard to 10:5 two basic interpretations emerge concerning the Torah—one positive, the other negative. The traditional exegesis of this verse is that Paul is using Leviticus 18:5 negatively to warn people about attempting to achieve righteousness by obeying the law. That is, anyone who intends to find acceptance before God by following the law had better be prepared to obey it perfectly or suffer its curses for disobedience. But, of course, no one is capable of fulfilling the law, for all are affected by sin (see Rom. 3:20; 7:5–11). Nor does one need to obey the Torah, for Christ’s coming has spelled the end of that approach in the divine program (10:4). Rather, what is needed to acquire God’s righteousness is faith in Christ, as he is revealed in the kerygma (preaching of the gospel) (10:6–8). This is the way to life and the Deuteronomic blessings.

More recently, however, a positive rendering of 10:5 has been offered by some scholars,5claiming that it describes the obedience of faith. According to this approach, the doing of the Torah is essential if one is to have life, and this is compatible with faith in Christ (10:6–13). Thus, the de in 10:6 should be translated “and,” not “but,” indicating continuity between doing the law (10:5) and faith in Christ (10:6–8). Consequently, this viewpoint argues that Paul interprets Leviticus 18:5 positively.

Schreiner’s criticisms of this approach, however, render the tertiary usage of the law in 10:5 untenable.6First, to posit such a view of the law in 10:5 would mean that Paul has radically reversed his negative portrayal of it in 9:30–10:4, something that surely would confuse his readers. Second, similar to the first criticism, the contrast between doing the law and believing in Christ pervades 9:30–10:3. For Paul suddenly to shift gears and describe the doing of the law in positive terms seems very awkward and ultimately self-refuting to the apostle’s argument in Romans that salvation is by faith alone. Third, the parallel between 10:5 (“righteousness that is by the law”) and Philippians 3:9 (“not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law”) is too close to be denied. Since the latter is negative in connotation concerning the law, it stands to reason that so is the former. Fourth, Paul’s negative employment of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 would be consistent with his pejorative usage of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:13,7which warns that following the law, ironically, invokes the Deuteronomic curses.

Theological Insights

At least two truths meet the reader of Romans 9:30–10:5. First, these verses, like 9:1–29 before them, deal with the problem of Israel’s unbelief in their Messiah. Paul’s immediate explanation in 9:1–10:5 for that anomaly is that Israel “got hung up” over the works righteousness of the law and consequently rejected the only way to God’s righteousness: faith in Jesus Christ. This is why the majority of Jews are rejecting Christ, while many Gentiles are accepting him. Paul’s long-range explanation of the problem of Israel’s unbelief is that God intends that the Gentiles’ acceptance of Israel’s Messiah will make the Jews jealous and convert them at the end of history (see chap. 11). Second, such a mass conversion of the Gentiles to Christ is the obedience of faith (recall 1:5), the end-time conversion of the Gentiles. But such a happening is, surprisingly, occurring before the restoration of Israel (cf. 10:19–20; 11:25–27). In the meantime, the new-covenant blessing of life belongs to Christian Gentiles, while the covenant curse of spiritual death pertains to non-Christian Jews.

Here we return to two background concerns and a further exegetical matter:

Deuteronomic Background: James Scott identifies the Deuteronomic underpinning of Romans 9–11 by applying to this text the sixfold description of the Deuteronomistic tradition developed by Odil Steck.1To summarize: Israel has been disobedient to the law of God throughout history (Rom. 9:31; 10:21; cf. chap. 2). God has sent his prophets to call Israel to repentance, but Israel has repeatedly rejected them, including Paul himself (11:2–5; 10:16; cf. 15:31). The Deuteronomic curses now rest on Israel in the form of foreign oppression (9:1–3; 10:3; 11:1, 5, 10, 16–25; cf. 2:6–8; 3:5). It is still possible for Israel to repent (9:22; 10:16, 19; 11:11, 14; cf. 2:4–5). One day Israel will indeed repent and be restored (11:26–27). To this I would add that Paul reverses the Deuteronomic curses and blessings in Romans 9:30–10:21. We see, then, that the covenant structure as well as the Deuteronomic background are deeply imprinted upon Paul’s letter to the Romans, thus justifying our proposed outline for the book as a whole (see “The Genre/Outline of Romans” in the “Introduction to Romans,” above).

Zealotry: Zealotry was an important part of Israel’s heritage. The classic examples were those who were prepared to use the sword to maintain Israel’s commitment to the Torah and purity as expressed by being set apart from the Gentiles.2“Zeal for the law” became the watch cry of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes begun in 167 BC (1 Macc. 2:26–27, 50, 58; 2 Macc. 4:2). In AD 66, the Zealot movement incited Israel to revolt against Rome. Similarly, zeal for the ordinances (of the law) characterized the Essenes (e.g., 1QS 4.4; 9.23; 1QHa 6.14), although their zeal was directed toward spiritual rather than physical warfare.3Moreover, Paul in his pre-Christian days seems to have imbibed the zealot spirit of his Jewish ancestors. I have argued elsewhere that Rabbi Paul walked in the circle of writers of such Jewish works as Sirach, Baruch, and Psalms of Solomon. These writings are strongly nationalistic and nomistic in perspective. One perceives in them a zealot attitude toward the law and Gentiles. That is to say, if Jews were going to take the law of Moses seriously they would need to expel Gentiles from the land of Israel because their failure to follow the Torah made the land ritualistically unclean, thereby polluting Palestine. But what a change in Paul’s perspective after his conversion to Christ! Paul parted company with such zealous regulations, such that now Paul argued that the Torah was finished in the plan of God. And if that were so, then Gentiles were now invited to know God through faith in Christ, not the rituals of the law. No doubt, Paul’s about-face regarding the Torah and Gentiles incited zealot-minded Jews to oppose him. Indeed, his letters to the Galatian, Roman, and Philippian churches signal as much.

Telos: Here I delve more deeply into the nuance of the word telos (10:4). Basically, two interpretations of this word have been proposed: “termination” and “goal” (some suggest a hybrid of the two).4Referring to the “termination” of the law is more negative, while the “goal” of the law sounds more positive, implying the continuation of the Torah in the lives of believers.

Those who opt for the second approach point to two key considerations. First, the word telos has a degree of ambiguity,5which allows for the meaning “goal.” Second, telos, along with katelaben (“attained” [9:30]) and ephthasen (“arrived” [9:31]), calls forth race imagery,6suggesting the meaning of “goal” or “winning post.”7

Those who see in telos the idea of termination or end counter with two points. First, in the New Testament telos normally conveys a temporal meaning (see especially 1 Cor. 1:8; 10:11; 15:24; 2 Cor. 3:13; 11:15; Phil. 3:19).8Second, although Paul uses race imagery, surely telos as a goal signifies the finish line. In addition to these criticisms, a third consideration is in order. If indeed 10:5 portrays the law negatively, consistency dictates a similar rendering in 10:4. Indeed, the connecting word between 10:4 and 10:5, gar (“for, since”), seems to link the negative statement in 10:4 with a similar remark in 10:5.

Teaching the Text

A broad message comes to mind relative to Romans 9:30–10:5. One could take a general approach to 9:30–10:5 by emphasizing it as the human responsibility side of election, while 9:1–29 reflects the divine side of election. Both, I think, are true. There is mystery though harmony. A view that is being championed these days claims to harmonize divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It is known as Molinism. Over three hundred years after Thomas Aquinas, a Spanish Jesuit of the Counter-Reformation, Luis de Molina (1535–1600), advanced Aquinas’s compatibilist theory of divine sovereignty and human responsibility with his theory of middle knowledge (scientia media). According to Molinism, there are three types of God’s foreknowledge. The first level is natural knowledge. God knows all possible worlds and all things that humans can do. The third level is actual knowledge. God knows what actually will happen in the real world. This is determined by God’s free and sovereign choice. In between these two levels is a second level, middle knowledge. God knows what humans would do in any given set of circumstances; that is, God knows counterfactuals (note, e.g., Matt. 11:23: “For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day”).

Thus, God’s sovereignty applies to his knowledge, which leaves room for human choice. Molina’s concept of middle knowledge appears to harmonize divine sovereignty and human responsibility because it enables God to exercise providential control of free creatures without abridging the free exercise of their wills. By virtue of his knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom and his freedom to decree that certain circumstances exist and certain free creatures be placed in those circumstances, God is able to bring it about indirectly that events occur that he knew would happen as a direct result of the particular decisions that those creatures would freely make in those circumstances. In other words, out of all the possible worlds that God could have created, he created a world that best predisposed humans to make the right decisions for life and eternity.

Illustrating the Text

To be the “chosen people” does not preclude the need to confess Jesus as Savior.

Personal Stories: Dr. Michael Rydelnik, a professor of Jewish studies at Moody Bible Institute and the son of Holocaust survivors, tells the story of his Jewish father. When his father, who had severed all ties when Michael became a Christian, died in 1996 in Israel, Michael questioned the theology he had learned that “apart from conscious faith in Yeshua [Jesus], all people, including my father, would be lost for eternity.”8 Rydelnik knew that if admission to heaven could be earned by suffering, his father should be there. He had lost his first wife, five sons, and an adopted daughter to the ovens at Auschwitz. He had also suffered terribly in several concentration camps. He later would lose a second wife in childbirth, and a two-year-old daughter by his third marriage drowned in Berlin. Rydelnik’s father and his third wife moved to America; twenty years later, that wife and his son Michael and two daughters came to faith in Jesus Christ. The elder Rydelnik then disowned them and moved to Israel. Among the conclusions Dr. Rydelnik draws are these: “Jewish people, in fact all people, are lost without faith in Yeshua as their Redeemer,” and “Jewish people and Gentiles must have conscious faith in Yeshua to experience God’s forgiveness and receive the promise of life in the world to come.”9

God is behind everything, yet we have free will to accept or reject God’s offer.

Literature: The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Chapter 5 of book 5 of this renowned novel (1880), “The Grand Inquisitor on the Nature of Man,” has led to the conversion of more than one prominent personality and can be read coherently with the background of chapter 4. A story within a story, it includes a profound defense from an agnostic’s mouth of a Christ who will neither manipulate nor be manipulated but who seeks the free love of individuals. Ivan, the agnostic brother, says about Christ, “You desired the free love of man, that he should follow you freely, seduced and captivated by you. Instead of the firm ancient law, man had henceforth to decide for himself, with a free heart, what is good and what is evil, having only your image before him as a guide.”10

Literature: The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis. In chapter 11 of this book (1945) is a well-known account in which a “little red lizard” riding on the ghost’s shoulder represents lust. What becomes clear is that the ghost must choose whether or not to accept an angel’s offer to kill the lizard. The ghost makes several excuses, including that the lizard is asleep and bothering no one, and that the process will cause too much pain. In desperation, he tries to manipulate the angel, but the angel insists the ghost must ask him to do it, bringing his will into submission.

The Reversal of the Deuteronomic Curses and Blessings: Righteousness by Faith

Big Idea: Paul continues in 10:6–21 his reversal of the Deuteronomic curses and blessings. The former have fallen upon disobedient Israel, while the latter belong to believing Gentiles.

Understanding the Text

This unit addresses the last three sections of Romans 9:30–10:21: 10:6–8; 10:9–13; and 10:14–21.

The theme of 10:6–8 is the nearness of the gospel. It outlines thus:

1. Righteousness by faith versus the law (10:6a)

2. Righteousness by faith is in the gospel (10:6b–8)

The theme of 10:9–13 is the assurance of salvation. It divides into two parts:

1. The steps to salvation (10:9–10)

2. The scope of salvation (10:11–13)

The theme of 10:14–21 is the steps of salvation. It answers two questions:

1. What are the steps of salvation? (10:14–15)

a. A preacher is sent to declare the good news

b. The good news is heard

c. The good news is believed

d. The individual calls on the name of the Lord (cf. 10:12–13)

2. What has actually happened? (10:16–21)

a. Israel has not believed the good news of restoration in Christ

b. Gentiles have believed the good news of restoration in Christ

Note also that 10:19–20 forms an inclusio with 9:30: Gentiles believe the gospel and enjoy the blessings of the covenant.

Historical and Cultural Background

1. Many commentators argue that Romans 10:6–8 plays off of a prized equation in Second Temple Judaism: God’s wisdom is embodied in the Torah (Deut. 30:12–14; Bar. 4:1; cf. Philo, Posterity 84–85; T. Neof. on Deut. 30; also expressed in the Dead Sea Scrolls). The upshot of Paul’s argument in Romans 10:6–8 is that Christ is the wisdom of God who has replaced the law as the means to God’s righteousness.1

2. Paul’s midrash (commentary) on Deuteronomy 30:12–14 in Romans 10:6–8 is reminiscent of the pesher method of commenting on the Old Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That literature quotes an Old Testament text and then says “that is” or “this means that” (which is the translation of the Aramaic word pesher), offering an eschatological reading of that text. In other words, the Qumran new-covenant community applied the Old Testament prophecies about the remnant to itself as the people of God in the end time (see, e.g., their pesharim on Habakkuk, Nahum, Isaiah).2Paul does something similar in Romans 10:6–8. He quotes Deuteronomy 30:10–12, and then he applies it to Christ, the wisdom of God who has replaced the Torah, by introducing the quotation with “that is” (vv. 6b, 7b, 8b).

3. Once again the key background to a Romans passage is the Deuteronomistic tradition. This Old Testament setting heavily influences Romans 10:14–21. Thus, (a) God sent his prophets to call Israel to repentance (Rom. 10:14–15, 18); (b) but Israel persisted in their sin of unbelief (Rom. 10:16, 18, 21); (c) therefore God judged Israel by sending that nation into exile (the covenant curses; compare Rom. 10:16, 18, 21 with the exilic setting of Isaiah 52:7; 53:1 and the prophecy of Deut. 32:21); (d) but if Israel repents, God will restore them (Isa. 52:7); yet it is the Gentiles who repent that are being restored to God—the covenant blessings (Isa. 65:1; cf. Deut. 32:21).

Interpretive Insights

10:6–8 the righteousness that is by faith. Earlier I discussed this passage with reference to the identification of wisdom. Here I wish to make two further comments. First, 10:6–8 contrasts the righteousness that is from faith with 10:5 and the righteousness of the law. We may summarize this antithesis accordingly: the Mosaic law had promised life to those who observed its precepts (Lev. 18:5). However, an ominous note is sounded in Leviticus 26:14–39, where already there is the anticipation that Israel will fail to keep the stipulations of the covenant. Surely Paul, like much of Judaism, was aware of that eventuality. In other words, although Leviticus 18:5 held out the theoretical possibility of obeying the law, in practice it didn’t deliver on its promise of life for those who attempted to keep the divine commandments, because they failed to keep it fully. In reality, no one can perfectly obey the Torah. A different picture emerges, however, in Romans 10:6–8, where the righteousness that comes through faith speaks. That message of justification is that salvation is available to all (10:6–8) through faith in Christ (10:9–13). This contrast between faith and law surely casts the latter in a negative, not positive, light in 10:6–8.

Second, Paul’s midrash on Deuteronomy 30:12–14 (cf. Bar. 3:29–30; see “Historical and Cultural Background,” above), whereby he replaces the law with wisdom, serves to contrast the two. That is, divine righteousness comes not through the Torah but rather through Christ, God’s preexistent, now incarnate wisdom. In effect, then, Paul’s interpretive technique serves to disassociate wisdom from the law, with two results: he replaces nomism with the principle of faith alone, and particularism with universalism.

I conclude my comments on 10:6–8 by noting that even Moses himself, according to Paul, apparently had doubts that Israel would achieve God’s righteousness by obeying the law. Thus, if Leviticus 18:5 (see Rom. 10:5) and Deuteronomy 30:12–14 (see Rom. 10:6b–8) dictate that Israel needed to obey the law in order to have the covenantal blessing of life, then in Deuteronomy 9:4–5 (see Rom. 10:6a: “Do not say in your heart”) Moses already warned the Israelites not to think that it was their righteousness via the law that won them the land of Canaan. It was only God’s mercy and power that accomplished that. This reminds us of how different the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were. The former was based on grace, whereas the latter could easily lead to a works-based salvation. It seems that Moses himself early on became aware of the spiritual impotence of the Torah.

10:9–10 declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart. Verses 9–10 provide an overview of the steps to salvation (see 10:14–15). First, the sinner must believe that Jesus is Lord. That is, the sinner must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead as proof that the cross was atoning (recall 4:24–25). Second, the individual then must publicly confess Jesus as Lord. If, as many commentators suggest, the pronouncement “Jesus is Lord” was made at the time of one’s baptism, then Paul would be saying that salvation is first a matter of believing in the heart and then making that profession public through baptism (cf. Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:1–14; Col. 2:12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:20–22).3

10:11–13 “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Here Paul provides the assurance of salvation. Quoting Isaiah 28:16 in 10:11, which assures Jews that if they trust God, he will vindicate them at the judgment, Paul applies that hope to Christians because of their faith in Christ. Such an assurance is for anyone—Jew or Gentile—for God is the same Lord of both (cf. Rom. 3:29–30). Indeed, everyone who trusts in Christ will be saved, which is Paul’s adaptation of Joel 2:32. And not to be overlooked in this discussion is the fact that the setting of Joel 2:32 is the promised Spirit and restoration, which are now fulfilled in Christ.

10:14–15 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? Verses 14–21 specify the steps in the process of salvation just mentioned in 10:12–13. I have already laid out the logical order of those steps in the outline above. Here we follow the exegetical order, which, through a series of rhetorical questions, reverses the process:

How can they call on the Lord for salvation (cf. vv. 12–13) if they have not believed in the Lord? (v. 14a)

But how can they believe in one they have not heard? (v. 14b)

And how can they hear if someone is not sent? (vv. 14b–15)

The Isaiah 52:7 quotation recalls God’s promise to restore Israel out of exile (the covenant curses). This good news is, according to Paul, spiritual restoration in Christ, the blessings of the new covenant (cf. Rom. 1:1–2, 16).

10:16–21 not all the Israelites accepted the good news. Verse 16 interrupts the flow of thought of 10:14–15, signaling that Israel did not accept the good news of restoration, neither during Isaiah’s day (see Isa. 53:1) nor during Paul’s day. This is because Israel rejected the Suffering Servant in Isaiah’s day (compare Isa. 53:1 with Isa. 52:13–53:12) and now Jesus the ultimate Suffering Servant. Such ominous news of Israel’s rejection is picked up again in 10:18. But there is a positive note in 10:16 that anticipates 10:19–20. The proper response to the good news is to accept it or obey/believe (hyp?kousan/episteusen) it. This combination of obedience/faith brings to mind the obedience of faith of the Gentiles mentioned in Romans 1:5 and developed in Romans thereafter. Paul will turn to that subject again in 10:19–20. Verse 17 specifies the object of the believer’s faith: the word, or the gospel, of Christ.

In 10:18 Paul uses the language of natural revelation to say that the gospel has gone all over the world (the Roman Empire?) (cf. Ps. 19:4). Thus, Jews have had ample opportunity to hear and believe that good news. Ironically, however, it is Gentiles, not Jews, who have believed the gospel of Christ, just as Deuteronomy 32:21 (see Rom. 10:19) and Isaiah 65:1 (see Rom. 10:20) predicted. In accepting the gospel, Gentiles are participants in the blessings of the new covenant. This is the obedience of faith, the end-time conversion of the Gentiles. Indeed, such mass conversion of the Gentiles not only precedes Israel’s restoration but also participates in that restoration before Israel does (cf. Rom. 11:25–27). Lamentably, however, unbelieving Israel continues to dig in its heels against the gospel (cf. Isa. 65:2). Consequently, the covenant curses continue to fall on Israel in its spiritual exile from God.

Theological Insights

Three theological insights surface in Romans 10:6–21. First, righteousness by faith is the only way to please God (10:6–8). Second, righteousness by faith provides assurance of salvation (10:9–13). Third, Romans 10:14–21 still provides powerful motivation for evangelism and mission work today. Missionaries must go to preach the good news to those who have never heard.

Teaching the Text

Romans 10:6–21 provides excellent material for a message on missions, especially 10:12–15 with its steps to salvation, which are straightforward. Someone goes to a people group and preaches the gospel to them; those people hear the gospel and believe it, resulting in calling on the name of the Lord, which in turn results in their salvation (10:14–21). But this has sparked an age-old debate: do the lost have to actually hear the gospel and respond to it in order to be saved?

The numerous answers to this question can be reduced to three. The “exclusivist” answers yes to that question. No one can come to God in any way other than the gospel of Jesus Christ. Simply responding to natural revelation alone—believing from creation and conscience that there is a God—without hearing and accepting the special revelation of the gospel is insufficient for salvation. The “inclusivist” answers no to the question. A person who responds to whatever light he or she has—general revelation, not special revelation—and believes it (that there is a God) and thereby lives a moral life is accepted by God, apart from the gospel. This is often labeled the “anonymous Christian” view. The “universalist” goes even further than the inclusivist, saying that Jesus’ death and resurrection were so effective that they saved all people without them having to trust in Christ or even hearing the gospel at all. But from Romans 10:14–21 it seems clear that the “exclusivist” view has the most biblical support, though sometimes God may reveal Christ to the lost through dreams and visions apart from human contact.

Illustrating the Text

We have powerful motivation for missions and evangelism.

Biography: The recent death of Ralph Winter (1924–2009) reminds us of his strategic emphasis on reaching not simply every nation with the gospel but also every people group. Winter founded the U.S. Center for World Mission and, soon after, the William Carey International University without financial backing at the time and only one hundred dollars to begin. Winter said, “We were willing to fail because the goal we sensed was so urgent and strategic.” However, the center did not fail, and it has trained thousands of missionaries and support personnel and worked tirelessly to bring the vision of reaching hidden peoples to the wider church. In 2005 Time magazine included Winter as one of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals. In 2008 the North American Mission Conference gave him the lifetime service award. “No doubt Winter will take greater pleasure in meeting the men and women from every tribe, tongue and nation who praise the name of Jesus in glory—all because of his passion to spread Christ’s message.”4

Biography: David Brainerd. A great missionary statesman, Brainerd (1718–47) worked among the American Indians. He was powerfully motivated to evangelism. He suffered all kinds of distresses, including both physical discomfort and emotional discouragement, but continued his work because of his calling. Having waited long for revival among the Native Americans, Brainerd finally saw it. In his journal, he wrote, “It was very affecting to see the poor Indians, who the other day were hallooing and yelling in their idolatrous feasts and drunken frolics, now crying to God with such importunity for an interest in His dear Son.”5

Anyone who believes on and confesses the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.

Biography: Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens are brothers: one is an atheist, the other a Christian. After Peter regained his Christian faith, he wrote a book entitled The Rage against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. His older brother, Christopher, became famous as an acerbic advocate for atheism and wrote The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice and his bestseller, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Peter understands that logic; as a teen, he burned his Bible and rebelled against everything that he had been taught was good, right, and holy. But in time, he stopped avoiding churches and great religious art, leaving himself open to unsettling messages from the past. While gazing at a fifteenth-century painting of the last judgment, he was moved. “These people did not appear remote or from the ancient past; they were my own generation. Because they were naked, they were not imprisoned in their own age by time-bound fashions,” says Peter. “On the contrary, their hair and the set of their faces were entirely in the style of my own time. They were me, and people I knew. I had a sudden strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time. My large catalogue of misdeeds replayed themselves rapidly in my head.” Then came the oaths of his wedding rites and the baptisms of his formerly atheistic wife and their daughter. A fellow journalist heard that Peter Hitchens had returned to church and, with “a look of mingled pity and horror,” bluntly asked, “How can you do that?”6

Teaching the Text by C. Marvin Pate, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Abyss

In the NT, “abyss” refers to the world of the dead (Rom. 10:7; KJV, NIV: “deep”) and especially the subterranean prison of disobedient spirits (fallen angels?; Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1 2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1–3).

Anger

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.

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.

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).

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).

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 the 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 (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (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).

Confession

In the OT, “to confess” is used in reference to verbal acknowledgment of one’s sin or of God’s name in faith. An object of confession is one’s sins. Confession results in the cleansing of sin and the restoration of one’s relationship with God (Lev. 5:5; Ps. 32:5). Solomon prays that God may forgive people’s sin when they confess God’s name (1 Kings 8:35). Moses, on the Day of Atonement, commands Aaron to lay “both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites” (Lev. 16:21).

The double function of confession continues in the NT. John the Baptist exhorted people to confess their sins (Matt. 3:6). Epistles also emphasize the importance of confession of sins as a basis of atonement and purification (1 John 1:9; James 5:16). In the NT, the positive aspect of confession as confessing God’s name is recast in terms of Jesus, who fulfilled the OT prophecies. Therefore, to “confess” Jesus as Lord is reckoned as confessing God’s name so as to obtain salvation (Rom. 10:10 ESV, NRSV; NIV: “profess”). Verbal confession of Jesus in public is a means for spreading the gospel and witnessing to people about him. Thus, Paul regards his confession of God through Gentile evangelism as singing praises to God’s name (Rom. 15:9).

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).

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). 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).

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).

Fall

“The fall” refers to the events of the first human couple’s sin in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2 3). Although the word “fall” does not occur in the account, Christians have used the term to describe it, taking their cues from Paul’s writings (esp. Rom. 5:12–21). The term is important because it reflects an interpretation that the events in the garden are the entrance of human sin and that the sin has universal effects on humankind.

Gentiles

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.”

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).

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.

Good News

The English word “gospel” translates the Greek word euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being used seventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu = “good,” angelion = “announcement”), in its contemporary use in the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather a declaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empire with reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, who was thought of as a savior with divine status. These events included declarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and his accession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be traced to the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This good news, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’s promises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.

Heart

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.

Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1 Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1 Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1 Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1 Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2 Sam. 24:10; 1 John 3:20 21).

It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1 Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

Heaven

The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2 Cor. 12:2 4, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.

Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1 Thess. 4:14).

Isaiah

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece.

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah. Most scholars today, including many evangelical scholars, conclude that the book of Isaiah is the end result of a history of composition that began in the eighth century BC (so-called First Isaiah [1 39]), continued in the sixth century BC during the exile (Second Isaiah, chaps. 40–55), and then was completed after the exile (Third Isaiah, chaps. 56–66).

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Isaiah 1–39

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1 = threat; 2:1–4 = promise of hope; 2:5–4:1 = threat; 4:2–6 = promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Isaiah 40–55

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Isaiah 56–66

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

Israelites

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

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.

Moses

Moses played a leadership role in the founding of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). Indeed, the narrative of Exodus through Deuteronomy is the story of God using Moses to found the nation of Israel. It begins with an account of his birth (Exod. 2) and ends with an account of his death (Deut. 34). Moses’ influence and importance extend well beyond his lifetime, as later Scripture demonstrates.

Moses was born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’s decree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was born to Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’s decree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floated him down the river. God guided the basket down the river and into the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:5 6), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hired Jochebed to take care of the child.

The next major episode in the life of Moses concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was being beaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process of rescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. When it became clear that he was known to be the killer, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became a member of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marrying his daughter Zipporah.

Although Moses was not looking for a way back into Egypt, God had different plans. One day, while Moses was tending his sheep, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and commissioned him to go back to Egypt and lead his people to freedom. Moses expressed reluctance, and so God grudgingly enlisted his older brother, Aaron, to accompany him as his spokesperson.

Upon Moses’ return to Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly refused to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. God directed Moses to announce a series of plagues that ultimately induced Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart. After they left, Pharaoh had a change of mind and cornered them on the shores of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). It was at the Red Sea that God demonstrated his great power by splitting the sea and allowing the Israelites to escape before closing it again in judgment on the Egyptians. Moses signaled the presence of God by lifting his rod high in the air (Exod. 14:16). This event was long remembered as the defining moment when God released Israel from Egyptian slavery (Pss. 77; 114), and it even became the paradigm for future divine rescues (Isa. 40:3–5; Hos. 2:14–15).

After the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses led Israel back to Mount Sinai, the location of his divine commissioning. At this time, Moses went up the mountain as a prophetic mediator for the people (Deut. 18:16). He received the Ten Commandments, the rest of the law, and instructions to build the tabernacle (Exod. 19–24). All these were part of a new covenantal arrangement that today we refer to as the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant.

However, as Moses came down the mountain with the law, he saw that the people, who had grown tired of waiting, were worshiping a false god that they had created in the form of a golden calf (Exod. 32). With the aid of the Levites, who that day assured their role as Israel’s priestly helpers, he brought God’s judgment against the offenders and also interceded in prayer with God to prevent the total destruction of Israel.

Thus began Israel’s long story of rebellion against God. God was particularly upset with the lack of confidence that the Israelites had shown when the spies from the twelve tribes gave their report (Num. 13). They did not believe that God could handle the fearsome warriors who lived in the land, and so God doomed them to forty years of wandering in the wilderness, enough time for the first generation to die. Not even Moses escaped this fate, since he had shown anger against God and attributed a miracle to his own power and not to God when he struck a rock in order to get water (Num. 20:1–13).

Thus, Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he had led the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab. There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the second generation of Israelites who were going to enter the land that they must obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of the sermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasion reaffirmed its loyalty to God.

After this, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see the promised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the following statements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. . . . For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

The NT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point that Jesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God and people (Acts 3:17–26; Heb. 3).

The date of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical text does not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to the thirteenth century BC and associate him with Ramesses II, but others take 1 Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end of the fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of Thutmose III.

Prayer

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

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

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

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19 20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

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

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

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

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).

Rock

In the OT, the “rock” (sela’, tsur) is an image of inaccessibility and so of refuge from danger (Isa. 7:19), but rocks will not provide refuge on the day of God’s wrath (Isa. 2:10, 19, 21; cf. Rev. 6:15 16). A great rock providing needed shade (Isa. 32:2) is a variation on this theme of protection. By extension, the image is applied to God himself in poetry (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:2; Ps. 31:3, in both cases parallel with “fortress”). God as the “Rock” is the object of trust (2 Sam. 22:3). This quality is an aspect of his incomparability: “And who is the Rock except our God?” (2 Sam. 22:32).

Salvation

“Salvation” is the broadest term 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.

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).

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.

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.

Stone

Rocks and stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12; Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as a sign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam. 18:17), as a marker or memorial (Gen. 31:46 50), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). A single rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen. 28:22; 35:14, 20; 1 Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones (Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also be used to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb, such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus (Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).

Stone was used as a construction material, particularly for the temple (1 Kings 5:15–18; 1 Chron. 2:22; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15; Mark 13:1–2). Stone was used in a building’s foundation and for the cornerstone or capstone (1 Kings 5:17; Jer. 51:26; Isa. 28:16), as well as for the walls (Hab. 2:11). Psalm 118:22 refers metaphorically to the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone. In the NT, this is interpreted as referring to Jesus (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; cf. Eph. 2:20). Stone could also function as a writing material (Josh. 8:32), such as the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9–11; 1 Kings 8:9; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3, 7). Stone was also carved, although at Sinai the Israelites are instructed not to use cut or “dressed” stones when constructing an altar (Exod. 20:25; cf. Josh. 8:31). The phrase “carved stone” refers specifically to idols, since stone was one material used for crafting false gods (Lev. 26:1; cf. Deut. 4:28; 29:17; 2 Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; Rev. 9:20); the term “stone” itself can therefore be used to refer to an idol, especially in the phrase “wood and stone” (Jer. 3:9; Ezek. 20:32).

Stones were used as a weapon or instrument of destruction, whether thrown by hand (Num. 35:17, 23) or flung with a sling (Judg. 20:16; 1 Sam. 17:40, 49–50; Prov. 26:8). The verb “to stone” refers to the throwing of stones at an individual, which typically functioned as an official manner of execution (Exod. 19:13; 21:28–29; Deut. 21:20–21; 1 Kings 21:13–15; John 8:5; Acts 7:58–59), although it was at times the action of an angry crowd (Exod. 17:4; 1 Kings 12:18; cf. John 8:59).

The phrases “precious stones” and “costly stones” refer to gems (2 Sam. 12:30; Esther 1:6; Isa. 54:12; 1 Cor. 3:12). Gems were used as a display of wealth or honor (1 Kings 10:2, 10–11; 2 Chron. 32:27; Ezek. 27:22) and for decoration (1 Chron. 3:6; Rev. 17:4; 18:16). The two stones on the high priest’s ephod and the twelve precious stones on his breastpiece represented the twelve tribes (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–12, 17–21), a symbolism echoed in the twelve types of precious stones adorning the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20).

Rocks and stones are used often in metaphors or similes (e.g., hard as a rock, still as a stone). They can represent something that is common (1 Kings 10:27; Job 5:23; Matt. 3:9; 4:3), strong (Job 6:12), hard (Job 38:30; 41:24), heavy (Exod. 15:5; Prov. 27:3), motionless (Exod. 15:16), or immovable (Zech. 12:3). A “heart of stone” describes coldheartedness (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). A “stumbling stone,” which is literally a stone that causes one to stumble (Isa. 8:14), is used in the NT as a metaphor for an obstacle to faith in Jesus (Rom. 9:32–33; 1 Pet. 2:8).

Wise

In the OT, wisdom is a characteristic of someone who attains a high degree of knowledge, technical skill, and experience in a particular domain. It refers to the ability that certain individuals have to use good judgment in running the affairs of state (Joseph in Gen. 41:33; David in 2 Sam. 14:20; Solomon in 1 Kings 3:9, 12, 28). It can also refer to the navigational skills that sailors use in maneuvering a ship through difficult waters (Ps. 107:27). Furthermore, wisdom includes the particular skills of an artisan (Exod. 31:6; 35:35; 1 Chron. 22:15 16). In all these cases, wisdom involves the expertise that a person acquires to accomplish a particular task. In these instances “wisdom” is an ethically neutral term, or at least that dimension is not emphasized. The wise are those who have mastered a certain skill set in their field of expertise.

The uniqueness of the OT wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) is that it highlights the moral dimension of wisdom. Here “wisdom” refers to developing expertise in negotiating the complexities of life and managing those complexities in a morally responsible way that honors God and benefits both the community and the individual. Although it is difficult to pin down a concise definition, one can gain a better understanding of wisdom by investigating two important dimensions: wisdom as a worldview, and the traits of a person who is considered to be wise.

Who is wise? First, the wise are those involved in a lifelong process of character development. They manifest the virtues of righteousness, justice, and equity (Prov. 1:3; 2:9). The embodiment of these virtues culminates in the description of the woman of noble character at the conclusion of Proverbs (31:10–31). She exhibits self-control, patience, care, diligence, discipline, humility, generosity, honesty, and fear of the Lord (cf. James 3:13–18). She is the epitome of wisdom in its maturity and the model that all should emulate.

Second, the wise know the value of words and how to use them. They know when to speak, what to say, and how to say it (Job 29:21–22; Prov. 15:23; 25:11; Eccles. 3:7; 12:9–10). Wisdom and the wise place a premium on the power of words.

Third, the wise place great importance on relationships and on interaction with others. The wise person is the one who is open to the give-and-take of relationships (Prov. 27:5–6, 17, 19). Such a person develops the humility necessary to receive correction and criticism from others. Hearing criticism and changing wrong behavior are integral to wisdom (3:1–11). The wise appreciate insightful criticism because it helps them live life more productively (15:12). Wisdom is, ultimately, relational.

Fourth, the wise person develops the art of discernment (Prov. 1:2, 4–6). The sage is equipped with the ability to think critically. The very quality of wisdom itself invites the re-forming and rethinking of ideas. Sages are not interested in pat answers (26:4–5). Proverbs 16:1–9 throws a wrench in the conventional cogs of wisdom, claiming that although humans make their plans, God has the final say. Both Job and Ecclesiastes go head to head with conventional beliefs, probing more deeply into the complexities of life and the relationship between human and divine. No easy answers exist here. In contrast, fools do not use their mental faculties. They view wisdom as a commodity, a matter of learning some techniques, accepting certain beliefs, and memorizing a few proverbs (17:16). The wise, however, know that wisdom involves the art of critical thinking and interacting with others.

Fifth, and most fundamental, the wise person takes a God-centered focus toward life. Wisdom literature affirms, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10; cf. Prov. 1:7; Job 28:28; Eccles. 12:13). That this is the beginning step in the process of gaining wisdom means that one who misses this step can proceed no further along the path to wisdom. The fear of the Lord is to wisdom as the letters of the alphabet are to forming words. The wise gain wisdom by being in relationship with the Lord (Prov. 3:5–8). The fear of the Lord is the beginning as well as the culmination of wisdom.

Wisdom is a highly prized quality, superior to might and power (Prov. 25:15; Eccles. 9:13–16), and one must diligently seek it (Prov. 2:1–5). Yet in the end, wisdom is a gift that only God can give (Prov. 2:6–8; 1 Kings 3:9).

Witness

The English term “witness” occurs in both Testaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One common meaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to the legitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15 16, 18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occurs primarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especially God—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensic dimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g., Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).

Central to the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. This was a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legal proceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimony against anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was so significant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).

Truth-telling was not something that the people of Israel were called to merely among themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to the nations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence and holiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod. 19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israel failed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind” (Isa. 42:19).

The NT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’s witnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testify concerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context that Jesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designated as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then called to bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

“Witness” is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one has seen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legal testimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replace Judas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close of the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern for witnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundred others, and himself as among those who have witnessed the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Throughout Revelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearing witness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of this witness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred, and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev. 2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, who explicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and are eventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they have finished “their testimony” (11:7).

It is this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads to the second-century employment of “martyr” as a designation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point of death.

Word

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

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

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

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).

Zion

Jerusalem was held by the Jebusites, who mocked David’s forces. But David captured the city, which from then on bore the title “City of David,” also called “fortress of Zion” (2 Sam. 5:5 9). David made it his capital. Later, Solomon built the temple there, making it also the religious center of the nation (1 Kings 8:1–14). “Zion” (of uncertain meaning) sometimes is a designation for the city of Jerusalem. It is said to have towers, ramparts, and citadels (Ps. 48:12–13), and Jeremiah prophesied its razing (Jer. 26:18). But it is also a designation for the mountain on which the city is built (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 8:3).

Since the God of Israel has a special relationship with Israel and its king, God’s purposes for the world often are couched in terms of Mount Zion. God set his king on Mount Zion (Ps. 2:6). The psalmist praises God, who has established Zion “forever” (Ps. 48:1–8). It is there that God is said to reign (Isa. 24:23). Nevertheless, the king on David’s throne and the inhabitants of Zion can be censured by God and found wanting (Amos 6:1). In fact, it is precisely because God identifies with the city that the people bear particular responsibility to represent his character. Thus, the time came when Zion was indeed “plowed like a field” (Mic. 3:12). Lamentations mourns Zion’s destruction numerous times. After God’s people spent a period of time in exile, God brought them back to Zion (Ps. 126). Although the ancient city was again destroyed by the Romans, Zion has become in the NT a symbol of the present heavenly dwelling place of God, entered into by faith (Heb. 12:22), and the future destiny of the saints (Rev. 14:1).

Direct Matches

Abyss

In classical Greek, abyssos is an adjective meaning “bottomless,” and it was applied to the primeval deep of ancient cosmogonies, an ocean surrounding and under the earth. The LXX uses abyssos to translate the Hebrew tehom in Gen. 1:2 (KJV, NIV: “deep”). In the NT, abyssos refers to the world of the dead (Rom. 10:7; KJV, NIV: “deep”) and especially the subterranean prison of disobedient spirits (fallen angels?; Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1–2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1–3). Some English versions translate abyssos in Revelation as “the bottomless pit” (NRSV, NLT), others as “the Abyss” (NIV). See also Bottomless Pit.

Anger

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).

Confession

Another object of confession is God’s name. To confess the name of God means “to give thanks/praise” to God (Josh. 7:19). It involves not only negative matters such as sins and wrongdoings (Lev. 26:40; Prov. 28:13), but also positive ones such as God’s name (1 King 8:33, 35; 2 Chron. 6:24, 26; Dan. 9:4). In this respect, confession conceptually involves a double function: to remove obstacles to fellowship with God, and to recover fellowship in covenantal faithfulness to God (1 Kings 8:33). Through its double function, therefore, confession often occupies the center of the cultic service of worshiping God (Neh. 9:3). Israelites made fellowship offerings and gave praise to God (2 Chron. 30:22). Coming back from Babylon, Ezra prayed, confessing, weeping, and throwing himself down before the house of God (Ezra 10:1).

Refusal to confess Jesus’ name constitutes as grave a sin as denying God. John teaches that “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God” (1 John 4:3), but those who confess that “Jesus is the Son of God” live in God and God in them (4:15). Public confession of Jesus functions to test one’s faith. Many Jewish leaders believed in Jesus but failed to confess him in public for fear of excommunication (John 12:42). Their halfhearted faith is sharply contrasted with the faith of the blind man excommunicated for his confession of Jesus to the council of Pharisees (John 9). Jesus teaches that anyone who denies him in public will be denied by him on the judgment day (Matt. 10:32).

Confirm

The language of confirmation is used in the OT in reference to confirming a covenant (Lev. 26:9; Deut. 8:18; 9:5; 27:26; Dan. 9:27), an oath (Gen. 26:23; Ps. 119:106), or a people (Deut. 29:13). Gideon sought confirmation of success when he laid a fleece on the threshing floor (Judg. 6:36–40). God honors his request, not once, but twice. Israel’s language of “confirmation” of God’s revelation is distinct from the cultural backdrop in the ancient Near East. Whereas God would confirm his covenant relationship with his people, the gods of the ancient world were elusive and acted on whims, making them difficult and problematic to understand.

In the NT, the verb martyreō is used to refer generally to “attestation” (Acts 13:22; Rom. 10:2; 2 Cor. 8:3). Although both humans (Gal. 4:15; Col. 4:13) and God engage in this action, “God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son” (1 John 5:9).

Disappointment

A feeling of frustration, sadness, or distress because something has not happened or turned out as desired. Misplaced trust or hope will result in disappointment. Often in their apostasies, the people of Israel put trust in other gods or in foreign alliances. The prophets warn that such expectation will meet with disappointment (Jer. 2:36–37). In contrast, God is reliable and worthy of trust (Isa. 49:23). Three times the NT quotes Isa. 28:16 (Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6), saying that those who believe “in him” (the cornerstone representing the Messiah) will not be disappointed. Although the working out of the plan of salvation and the future end of time are a hope that will not be disappointed, current disappointments nonetheless abound, even disappointment with God. When, in Ps. 22, the psalmist affirms God’s faithful pattern of deliverance, by which Israel’s forefathers have not been disappointed in their trust (v. 4), this affirmation comes in stark contrast to the disappointment expressed in the psalm’s opening question: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (v. 1). Thus, the surety of hope and trust in God does not mean a lack of disappointment or the suppression of its expression. See also Frustration; Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani; Hope.

Gentiles

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 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.

Glad Tidings

The KJV rendering of the Greek word euangelizō, referring to the proclamation of the “good news” or “gospel” (Luke 1:19; 8:1; Acts 13:32; Rom. 10:15). See also Gospel.

Good News

The Gospel Message

The apostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1–5). He states that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1 Tim. 1:11), the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncement that requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2 Cor. 11:4; 2 Thess. 1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people to respond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is also in the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with the proclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).

The records of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliest public declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three such speeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whose content can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment has dawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days” foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection, has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the new Israel (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to the church as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation (10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the return of Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appeal is made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation (2:37–41).

This declaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what was preached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of this gospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek is closely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oral transmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form through repetition, which helps explain some similarities between later written accounts of the gospel.

From Oral to Written Gospel

Later, this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons. With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book of Acts, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the message of Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was a need to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died (e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing opposition and persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catechetical and liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continue following Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness through great suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples of those who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied him and betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followed him became foundational documents for the early church.

It should be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to give it greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oral culture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts was integral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minor who died around AD 130, states his preference for oral tradition rather than written information about Jesus: “For I did not think that information from books would help me as much as the word of a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospel preached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that the authors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/or written sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospels were written in the second half of the first century.

The majority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel to be written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author was John Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 5:13) and a part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says, “Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement of Alexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).

It is widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources: of the material in Mark, over 97 percent is repeated in Matthew and over 88 percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke also contain material that appears to come from a common written source that is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q” (from the German Quelle = “source”), although this may be a collection of sources rather than a single document.

Furthermore, the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes back to Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel” is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers to the “memoirs of the apostles” (1 Apol. 67) and Irenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name (Haer. 3.11.7).

The Purpose and Genre of the Gospels

Purpose. The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirm faith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life of Jesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemn those who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies in that they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’ life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event in Jesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtually incidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonical Gospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of the sixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the one week from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.

The primary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels were not to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to an acknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purpose of his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes, however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historical accuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who lived within a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be more concerned than the other evangelists with historical details, giving a rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a more specific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).

Genre. The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questions concerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion is imperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece of literature will largely be determined by the function of the text within a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholars believed that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and were therefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. This conclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels were collections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, and that the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, this presupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars have seen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who were not just collecting primitive source material but were using that material to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospels therefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written in such a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Such an overall intention may have stronger similarities with different genres in the Greco-Roman world of the NT.

The Gospels have been associated with several genres. They bear some resemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divine persons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. These stories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birth or death or during life, and they included the presence of both disciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative was secondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies, therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention to moral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded. Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collection of wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view again gives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of the narrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularly the miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue the opposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts in particular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus on miracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on either sayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that the Gospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). These contained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, and a concern for character.

Although the Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective of different genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactly replicate a known genre. They contain material not found in other Hellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillment of OT expectations and their desire to address particular issues faced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission; the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlike other literature of the time, they do not name their authors, and with the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devices such as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or at least as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.

Canonical and Noncanonical Gospels

The progression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oral preaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the story led to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body of literature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels. These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed as authoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature of early Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospel of Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered at Nag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain a resurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.

The canonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections of Scripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, with particular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw the attention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose in the life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of great importance within Scripture.

Gospel

The Gospel Message

From Oral to Written Gospel

The Purpose and Genre of the Gospels

Canonical and Noncanonical Gospels

Heart

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors. The NT uses the Greek term kardia similarly to the OT Hebrew terms leb and lebab and in some cases depends on OT usage.

Mind and Emotions

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. We also should not confuse some modern English idioms or distinctions as being related to the biblical viewpoint. The Bible does not make a distinction between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” nor does it employ language making the “heart” good or superior and the “head/mind” bad, inferior, or merely intellectual. It does not prize the emotional over the thoughtful; it has a more integrated viewpoint.

Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1 Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

Idioms

The word “heart” also appears in several idioms.

Hardness of heart. A hard heart is obstinate or averse (Mark 3:5), while a tender heart is humble (2 Kings 22:19). In the book of Exodus the translations typically say that God or Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s/his heart. These passages in Exodus use not the Hebrew words for hardness but rather those for being heavy or for strengthening. The neutral sense of strengthening the heart takes on nuances in context for being bold or obstinate. Pharaoh was strengthened in his opposition to God, and this obstinacy fits the idiom of having a hard heart.

Uncircumcised/circumcised heart. An uncircumcised heart is a metaphor for an obstinate and rebellious heart, while a circumcised heart is linked to being humble and faithful (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Acts 7:51). Perhaps the metaphor is based on the role of circumcision in the covenant.

“A man after his [God’s] own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). This description of David may mean either “according to his [God’s] choice” (cf. 2 Sam. 7:21), stressing God’s choice over the people’s choice, or it may mean “in accordance with his [God’s] desire” (1 Sam. 14:7; 1 Kings 15:3), referring to how David showed conformity with God’s agenda.

All the heart. The phrase “with all [one’s] heart” in some cases means “wholeheartedly” or “single-mindedly,” which emphasizes unity of purpose and focus. In other cases it seems to mean, more broadly, “with all of one’s thinking or perspective” and implies the work of adjusting our worldview away from common cultural assumptions and toward God’s teaching.

Say in one’s heart. This expression denotes talking to oneself (i.e., thinking) rather than out loud or indicates reflection or deliberation. There are several warnings not to lie to oneself—that is, not to deliberate, believe, and act on the stated false premise.

Take [a matter] to heart. To take something to heart is to take it very seriously or to give it high priority.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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.

Nations

Old Testament

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

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.

Rock

In the OT, the “rock” (sela’, tsur) is an image of inaccessibility and so of refuge from danger (Isa. 7:19), but rocks will not provide refuge on the day of God’s wrath (Isa. 2:10, 19, 21; Rev. 6:15–16). A great rock providing needed shade (Isa. 32:2) is a variation on this theme of protection. By extension, the image is applied to God himself in poetry (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:2; Ps. 31:3, in both cases parallel with “fortress”). God as the “Rock” is the object of trust (2 Sam. 22:3). This quality is an aspect of his incomparability: “And who is the Rock except our God?” (2 Sam. 22:32).

Repeated references in the OT to the incident in Num. 20 in which God brought water from the rock in the wilderness (e.g., Deut. 8:15; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:16) form the background to Paul’s typological identification of Christ with this rock (1 Cor. 10:4). The water from the rock was “spiritual drink” that pointed forward to the later spiritual realities of the Lord’s Supper.

Isaiah 8:14 turns what is usually a positive image of God’s protection into a negative picture of destruction (“a rock that makes them fall”). This verse, together with Isa. 28:16; Ps. 118:22, lies behind the “stone” sayings of Jesus (e.g., Luke 20:18; NIV: “stone”), Paul (Rom. 9:33; NIV: “stone”), and Peter (1 Pet. 2:8) in which Jesus is described as a rock that people stumble over in unbelief.

In the NT, “rock” (Gk. petra) as a solid foundation for a house (as in Jesus’ parable of Matt. 7:24–25) is the idea behind something that Jesus said to Simon, whom he named “Peter” (Gk. petros): Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” would be the unshakable foundation of the church that Jesus would build (Matt. 16:16–18).

Sion

The KJV uses “Sion” to translate the Hebrew word si’on in Deut. 4:48, referring to Mount Hermon (NIV: “Sirion”); the Hebrew word tsiyyon in Ps. 65:1, referring to Zion (NIV: “Zion”); and the Greek form of “Zion,” Siōn, in Matt. 21:5; John 12:15; Rom. 9:33; 11:26; Heb. 12:22; 1 Pet. 2:6; Rev. 14:1 (NIV: “Zion”).

Stone

A mineral cluster or rock. Although the terms “rock” and “stone” are occasionally used synonymously, “rock” usually refers to a large geological formation such as a cliff, cave, outcropping, or bedrock, while “stone” is preferred when the rock is small enough to be fashioned or handled by human beings. “Stone” can also function as an adjective, referring to a material made of stone, or as a verb, referring to the casting of stones.

Rocks and stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12; Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as a sign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam. 18:17), as a marker or memorial (Gen. 31:46–50), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). A single rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen. 28:22; 35:14, 20; 1 Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones (Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also be used to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb, such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus (Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).

The Deep

“The deep” (Heb. tehom; Gk. abyssos) refers to the deep sea or the depths of the sea, in particular to the primeval sea that was understood to exist prior to God’s creative work, which brought order to the chaotic initial state of the world (Gen. 1:2), and that re-covered the earth as creation was reversed in the flood (Gen. 7:11; 8:2). The Hebrew term is etymologically related to the primeval Babylonian goddess who, according to the creation myth in the Mesopotamian text known as the Enuma Elish, was slain by the god Marduk and from whose carcass the universe was formed. In spite of this, there is no indication that the term as used in the Bible was in any way associated with the Babylonian deity, particularly given that the root itself was also used at Ugarit and Ebla to mean “the deep.”

Although the OT does not import the mythological and religious ideas associated with the deep from Mesopotamia, the deep nevertheless often represents a somewhat ominous place, a fearful place of chaos (e.g., Ps. 148:7; Jon. 2:5), sometimes symbolically representing the depths of despair (Ps. 71:20). Yet the OT affirms God’s complete control and sovereignty over the deep (Pss. 33:7; 77:16; 135:6; Isa. 51:10). Elsewhere, however, the term can simply refer to the source of springs and appears to reflect an abundant supply of water (Deut. 8:7; Ps. 78:15).

In the NT, the deep (or the abyss) is presented as a place of the dead (Rom. 10:7) or a prison for demons (Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1–11) from which opposition to God arises. Revelation also continues the view that the deep sea is a place of darkness and opposition to God with the pronouncement that in the new heaven and new earth there is no longer any sea (Rev. 21:1).

Word

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

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

Theology of the Word

From the perspective of many systematic theologians, the word of God is defined with several essential labels. The word is the special revelation of God to humans—specifically, truth communicated from God to his human creatures by supernatural intervention, including a disclosure of his mind and will, his attributes, and his redemptive plans. This revealed word is inspired. Inspiration is an act of the Holy Spirit of God whereby he superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the canonical books of Scripture. Inspiration is verbal and plenary in that it extends to every part of the Bible and includes the choice of words used by the authors.

The word of God is inerrant, free from error in every matter addressed, and infallible, true in every matter addressed. The locus of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility is the original manuscripts and not the translations. A translation is reliable when it accurately reflects the meaning of the inspired originals (Matt. 5:18; cf. John 10:35; 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). And finally, the word is authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals without error, it is binding upon people in their relationship with their God as well as their relationships with their fellow human beings. Biblical authority derives from the eternal character of the divine author and the revelatory content of the Scriptures.

Psalm 119

A key OT text extolling the word is Psalm 119 (cf. Pss. 1; 19). The writer glorifies God, his word, and his divine directions to people by means of an acrostic format that covers the subject of Torah meditation. Eight synonyms are used for the “word” in the psalm. The eight are translated in the NIV as “words” (v. 57), “promise” (v. 58), “statutes” (v. 59), “commands” (v. 60), “law” (v. 61), “laws” (v. 62), “precepts” (v. 63), and “decrees” (v. 64).

The Ps. 119 word vocabulary informs us that God has pierced the darkness of our existence with the light of his word to make himself known to us. The word is his word spoken to us and preserved for us. The psalm also instructs us that the word is the will of God. When God pierced our darkness, he lit the path of freedom for us with his word. He described himself, defined righteousness, declared his love, announced his promises, and issued his warnings. Finally, the vocabulary establishes the authority of his word in our lives. Directions, commandments, laws, charges, and divine will ring with the sound of authority. The word of God is an authoritative proclamation from God to us that must be obeyed, that must be sought, that cannot be ignored.

Finally, Ps. 119 makes an intimate connection between the content of the word, things spoken, and the author of the things spoken. This connection better enables us to understand the “Word” as the person of Jesus Christ in John 1. The progressive development of verses 1–2 of Ps. 119 intimately connects the law of God, his statutes, and him, the one sought with all the heart. Verses 89–96 emphasize the durability and eternality of the word in keeping with the eternal character of God. In verse 114 the writer parallels God as refuge with putting hope in his word. Here the writer intimately connects God as a refuge with his word. In the Hebrew text “you” and “your word” stand side by side. In verses 137–44 the writer aligns the righteous God with a righteous word. According to verses 105, 130, 135, God and God’s word give light. The life-giving quality of the word and the Lord are proclaimed in verse 93. Just as God is to be feared, so is his word (vv. 63, 120).

The Word of God

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Romans 9:30--10:21 is mentioned in the definition.

Bottomless Pit

Some English versions (NRSV, NLT) use this designation to translate the occurrences in Revelation of the Greek word abyssos, otherwise translated in the NIV as “abyss” (Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1, 2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1, 3) and once as “the deep” (Rom. 10:7). It can refer generally to the place of the dead (Rom. 10:7), but more often it indicates a temporary sphere of torment and incarceration for demons whose final destination is the lake of fire (Rev. 20:7–10). See also Abyss.

Child

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

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 was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

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.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

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 Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

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.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. 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 prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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.

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).

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

Esau

The firstborn son of Isaac and Rebekah, the twin brother of Jacob, and the father of the Edomites (Gen. 25:25–26; 36). Unlike Jacob, Esau was red and hairy in appearance (hence his name [25:25]), a skillful hunter by trade, and loved by his father, Isaac.

Before the birth of the twins, Rebekah received a prophecy that the two sons would represent nations, and that the older, Esau, would serve the younger, Jacob (Gen. 25:23). This reversal of events was brought about through the trickery of Jacob and Rebekah. Jacob bargained for Esau’s birthright, which the famished Esau traded for food. Rebekah cleverly disguised her beloved son, Jacob, to feel and smell like Esau in order to fool her blind husband, which allowed Jacob to steal Esau’s blessing. Esau plotted to kill Jacob, who possessed his birthright and blessing.

Rebekah intervened to save Jacob by urging Isaac to send Jacob away to Paddan Aram to take a wife from her father’s home (Gen. 27:42–28:5). As a result, Jacob’s wife-to-be would not be a grief to his parents like Esau’s foreign wives, Judith and Basemath (26:34). Upon hearing of his parents’ disapproval, Esau added another foreign wife, Mahalath, apparently out of spite (28:8–9). Esau never exacted revenge on his brother, even though Jacob greatly feared this fate (32:3–21). Instead, the two brothers met peacefully following Jacob’s departure from Paddan Aram (Gen. 33:4), and again in order to bury their father (35:29).

Genesis 36 describes Esau as the father of the Edomites, who inhabited the hill country of Seir in Edom (also Deut. 2:4–6). Even though Jacob and Esau resolved their differences, there was continued strife between the two nations that they represent, fulfilling the earlier prophecy. Edom also figures prominently within the prophetic corpus (see Obadiah; Mal. 1:2–4). Further, the relationship between Jacob and Esau and their father is used as a type in the NT (Rom. 9–11), and Esau is used to represent the godless (Heb. 12:16).

Evangelism

Evangelism is the proclamation of the “evangel” (Gk. euangelion), the good news, of Jesus Christ. The content of the evangel includes Jesus’ birth, which was announced as good news to Zechariah by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:19) and by the angels to the shepherds (Luke 2:10). The good news speaks of the reality of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 17:18), is described as a message of grace (Acts 20:24) and reconciliation to God through the sacrificed body of Christ (Col. 1:22–23), and includes the expectation of a day of divine judgment (Rom. 2:16). Paul preached the gospel (from Old English gōdspel, “good news”) message, which he claimed had its origin with God, not humans (Gal. 1:11–12). He summarizes this message in 1 Cor. 15:3b–5: “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” The introduction to the Gospel of Mark (1:1) may indicate that this written gospel could serve evangelistic purposes.

Evangelistic efforts in the New Testament. Numerous figures throughout the NT participated in evangelistic endeavors. John the Baptist’s preaching about the coming Messiah is described as evangelism (Luke 3:18). Evangelism was a characteristic activity of Jesus’ own ministry (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14; Luke 20:1), which focused on proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; 8:1) and at times was targeted toward the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18; 7:22). Jesus commanded those who follow him to engage in evangelism. He sent out the twelve apostles for evangelistic purposes (Luke 9:2), and he issued the Great Commission to this end (Matt. 28:18–20).

The missionary enterprise recorded in Acts demonstrates the efforts of the earliest Christians to spread the gospel. The apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 5:42) proclaimed the gospel in spite of great opposition and persecution, and believers who were scattered outside Jerusalem because of persecution spread the gospel in new locales (8:4). Philip evangelized Samaritans and an Ethiopian (8:12, 35). The ministry of Paul and Barnabas is characterized as preaching the good news (14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18). Philip, one of the seven chosen to distribute food (6:5), was given the name “the Evangelist” (21:8). Timothy, additionally, is said to be Paul’s fellow worker in evangelism (1 Thess. 3:2; cf. 2 Tim. 4:5).

Evangelism was a central part of Paul’s ministry (Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:17; 15:1–2; Eph. 6:19; 1 Thess. 2:2, 9). He indicated an explicit interest in sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Rom. 15:16; Gal. 1:16; 2:7; Eph. 3:8) and with those who had never heard it (Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16), and he expressed a desire to preach the gospel at Rome (Rom. 1:15). Paul wrote of the necessity of evangelism in order for people to be saved (Rom. 10:15), and he preached the gospel message free of charge (1 Cor. 9:16, 18; 2 Cor. 11:7). He listed the role of the evangelist in the church along with apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).

Goal and methods of evangelism. Evangelism’s goal is to spread the gospel across ethnic and religious boundaries until it reaches all nations (Mark 13:10; Col. 1:23). To this end, Acts details an intentional effort by the earliest Christians to share the gospel with those who came from both Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds. Acts 8:25 records Peter and John’s evangelistic efforts in Samaritan villages, and Acts 15:7 identifies Peter as an evangelist to Gentiles. An outreach specifically to Gentiles is chronicled in Acts 11:20, and Paul’s intentional program of traveling from city to city further contributes to this goal (Rom. 15:19).

The evangelists recorded in the NT demonstrate a range of methods and approaches to sharing the good news. They often began with a point of contact from the religious worldview of their audience. For instance, Philip used Scripture as a starting point in speaking with an individual who was familiar with some portion of it (Acts 8:35). Similarly, when addressing Jews, Paul preached Jesus as the fulfillment of various OT Scriptures (Acts 13:32–41), but when preaching the gospel to the Greeks in Athens, he acknowledged their religiosity and their previous worship of one called “an unknown God” (17:22–23). Evangelists sought opportunities to gain an audience, and Paul even took advantage of an illness to stay with the Galatians and share the gospel with them (Gal. 4:13). Finally, much of the evangelistic work in the early church was coupled with miraculous signs and wonders, which served to authenticate the message being proclaimed (Rom. 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:5).

Family

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Father

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Freedom

Human Freedom and Divine Freedom

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

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

Freedom and Determinism

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

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

Religious Liberty

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

Heathen

Old Testament

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Household

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Husband

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Intercede

The act of advocating before the powerful on someone’s behalf (Gen. 23:8–9), especially turning to God in prayer to seek God’s favor for others in crisis (2 Sam. 12:16). While it is a prerogative of prophets (Gen. 20:7; Num. 12; Amos 7:1–6), priests (Ezra 6:9–10), and kings (1 Chron. 21:17; 2 Chron. 30:18; Jer. 26:19), intercession is a ministry that belongs to all the people of God (Acts 12:5; Eph. 6:18; 1 Tim. 2:1; James 5:16).

Old Testament

Reflecting God’s own deliberative process (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:18), our creation in God’s image implies and makes possible our genuine conversation, participation, and even disputation with God. A biblical understanding of God’s rule accommodates this divine-human dialogue and the intertwined roles of both parties. People request intercession for themselves (1 Kings 13:6; Acts 8:24), but Scripture highlights God’s initiative.

In Gen. 18 God invites (even provokes) Abraham’s intercession by confiding in Abraham, reviewing the divine promises, and disclosing the guilt and impending doom of Sodom and Gomorrah. On behalf of righteous persons who may live there, Abraham appeals boldly to God’s own “justice” (mishpat) in distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, and he successfully negotiates God’s pledge to spare the city if even ten righteous persons can be found there. Without disputing the allegations of wickedness, Abraham puts God’s just response on the table as well.

Similarly, in Exod. 32 God informs Moses of the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf and his own intention to destroy them and start over with Moses. In response, Moses intercedes, arguing that God’s deliverance of Israel, and the likelihood of its being misconstrued by Egypt, should trump divine anger. Moses urges a different course of action: turn from anger, relent, and do not bring the announced disaster. The destruction of Israel would be inconsistent with God’s own commitment to multiply the people of Israel and give them the land as their inheritance (cf. Num. 14:13–29). The issue for Moses is not only Israel’s sin but also the rightness of God’s response in faithfulness to his purposes.

In Job’s intercession for his friends, God dictates the entire process, directing the friends to make offerings and assigning Job the task of interceding for them. God makes his own vindication the central issue: Eliphaz and friends have not said “the truth” (nekonah) of God, as Job had (Job 42:7–10).

These three narratives highlight God’s initiative and make God’s character the grounds for intercession. They also introduce the potential pain borne by the intercessor. For example, Moses dramatizes his passionate concern for God’s cause by falling down before God and lying prostrate forty days and nights (Deut. 9:13–29). He so identifies his own destiny with Israel’s as to offer himself as “atonement,” saying, “Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exod. 32:32). This anticipates later prophets’ participation in the sorrow of God and the pain of the people’s separation from God (Jer. 15; cf. Luke 13:34–35; 19:41–44).

New Testament

In the Gospels, Jesus heals by command, without explicit reference to intercession, and in this way remarkably transcends the OT prophets (1 Kings 17:19–21). Although he does ask his Father to forgive his crucifiers (Luke 23:34), the Gospels emphasize Jesus’ intercession for his disciples, such as for Simon Peter to survive Satan’s assaults on his faith (22:31–32). John 17 comprises an extended intercession of Jesus for his disciples—significantly, that the Father will protect them in a hostile world. Moreover, Christ promises to acknowledge faithful disciples before the Father (Matt. 10:32), an action formally close to intercession, and that Christ performs as mediator of the Father’s kingdom and salvation.

Paul’s prayer for his fellow Israelites to be saved is fueled by anguish over their unbelief (Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1–4). Mirroring this is “the pressure of concern” he feels for all the churches and for the welfare of their members (2 Cor. 11:28–29), hence the prominent role of prayer in Paul’s ministry (see the thanksgivings that open his letters [e.g., Phil. 1:3–11]). Intercession per se, as prayer that others be spared or delivered from crisis, is seen in the churches’ prayers for Paul’s deliverance from prison and death (Phil. 1:19; 2 Thess. 3:2–3; cf. Rom. 15:31).

The NT extends the Gospel portrayals to reveal Christ as our heavenly intercessor, a role made possible by the cross and resurrection. In Rom. 8:34–39 Christ’s death, resurrection, and reign “at the right hand of God” ground Paul’s confidence that Christ’s intercession assures victory over condemnation and all opposition. The work of Christ our high priest (Heb. 7:25) may be summed up as intercession, echoing Isa. 53:12. Accordingly, “Jesus Christ the Righteous One” not only advocates before the Father for the forgiveness of our sins but also is their atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:1–2). In these texts, Christ’s heavenly intercession implements the saving purposes of God made real in the cross. Moreover, the work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king implies the central role of intercession, since intercession is a function of each of these offices.

Thus God’s initiative in intercession is intensified in the NT: God’s self-giving through Christ is the foundation of an ongoing heavenly intercession that in turn gives the church increased confidence to intercede boldly. Further, God’s Spirit helps us in our weakness by interceding for us in accord with God’s will, even if we experience that intercession as “wordless groans” (Rom. 8:26–28).

Intercession

Old Testament

New Testament

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).

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

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

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

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

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

James and Justification

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

Other Views on Justification

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

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 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).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

Parenting

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Parents

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Paul

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

Paul’s Life

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

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

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

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

Paul’s Gospel

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

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

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

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

Paul’s Letters

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Pauline Letters

Paul’s Life

Paul’s Gospel

Paul’s Letters

Conclusion

Persecute

The words “persecute” and “persecution” refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. The terms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer to persecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takes varying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, or execution.

Persecution throughout the Bible. Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and “persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations of the Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos. However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue, follow after,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness or peace (Rom. 9:30; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15; Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2 Sam. 22:38). The Greek words were translated into English as “persecute” or “persecution” when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongful affliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.

In this sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout the Bible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea (Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stone the prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saul hunts David (1 Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays the Gibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1 Sam. 21:1–2). Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1 Kings 18:13). The prophet Uriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated (Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are strongly opposed, suggesting persecution (2 Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6; Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to the lions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jews for holding the laws of God above the king’s commands, indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility is shown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecution described in 1 Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings in Egypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.

Persecution in the New Testament. In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19). Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is tried and executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’ apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen is soon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning (7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men and women from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from the chief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he casts votes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herod executes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts, and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2 Cor. 11:23–25). Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speaking disciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and some disciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Thess. 1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution of Christians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far more severely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4, 41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic, often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred in many regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records of persecution survived haphazardly.

Jesus says that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesus accordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34; cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples to pray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). Both Jesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength in persecution (Acts 14:22; 2 Cor. 12:10).

Persecution

Stumbling Block

In the OT, this image is used to convey the concept of a “stumbling block” in a literal (Lev. 19:14) or figurative (Jer. 6:21) sense. In the NT, the image is used as a messianic reference—Christ as a stumbling block (Rom. 9:32–33; 1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Pet. 2:8). This rendition of messianic expectation plays off the Isaianic presentation of God as a stumbling block to his faithless people. The NT Greek words that are translated as “stumbling block” (skandalon) or “to cause to stumble” (skandalizō) have either a christological or a moral application.

Submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subordination

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

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

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

Wife

Patriarchal Structures

Aristotelian Household Codes

Marriage and Divorce

Children, Parenting, and Education

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

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.

Family as an Analogy

Wrath

Showing 1 to 50 of220 results

1. Beyond the Routine

Illustration

John R. Steward

In a Danish village there was a Lutheran Church where each Sunday the people would walk into the church by way of the center aisle. At the front of the church, there was a break between the pews and a blank white wall. Every Sunday, the people of that church would walk down the center aisle to the front of the church and genuflect at the blank wall. A man visiting the church did not understand what the people were doing; when he asked them they said that they had always done this. Upon further investigation, he learned that hundreds of years before there had been a painting of the Virgin Mary on that wall. At the time of the Protestant Reformation when the church became Lutheran they had painted over the display of the Virgin Mary. Since the people had always bowed before the Virgin Mary, they just kept on bowing even though there was nothing there.

There are many people in church who simply go through the routine Sunday after Sunday. They know all the prayers by heart and could go through the entire service without ever opening the hymnal. For some that is all it has ever been. They do it because they have always done it that way before. But God wants to move beyond the routine. He wants the gospel to become so real that we confess with our own lips that Jesus is our Lord and Savior. God wants his love to be routine no longer but to be very real in our lives.

Adapted by Leith Anderson, A Church for the 21st Century (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers), p. 145.

2. No Imitations

Illustration

Martin Luther

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

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

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

3. 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. "

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Athanasian Creed

Illustration

Brett Blair

Athanasian Creed: Athanasius, known as Athanasius of Alexandria, was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. His intermittent episcopacy spanned 45 years, of which over 17 encompassed five exiles. He is traditionally thought to be the author of the this Creed named after him. It was created to guard Nicene Christianity from the heresy of Arianism. It is widely accepted as orthodox and some abbreviated versions of it are still in use today. And yes, the intro and outro are actually part of the original text.

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

    That we believe and confess
    that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
    is both God and human, equally.

     He is God from the essence of the Father,
    begotten before time;
    and he is human from the essence of his mother,
    born in time;
    completely God, completely human,
    with a rational soul and human flesh;
    equal to the Father as regards divinity,
    less than the Father as regards humanity.

    Although he is God and human,
    yet Christ is not two, but one.
    He is one, however,
    not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
    but by God's taking humanity to himself.
    He is one,
    certainly not by the blending of his essence,
    but by the unity of his person.
    For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
    so too the one Christ is both God and human.

    He suffered for our salvation;
    he descended to hell;
    he arose from the dead;
    he ascended to heaven;
    he is seated at the Father's right hand;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    At his coming all people will arise bodily
    and give an accounting of their own deeds.
    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

This ecumenical creed (428 A.D.) is probably unknown to most Christians because it is seldom, if ever, used in worship services. It is probably not used because of its length. The Nicene Creed has eighteen printed lines, whereas the Athanasian has 69. It is difficult for congregations to use because of the creed's intricate and complex terms.

Though the creed carries the name of Athanasius, he did not write it. It was the product of the church of his time. The creed was named after him to honor him for his brave and forceful defense of the Trinity. Athanasius (289-373) was a bishop in Alexandria, Egypt.

The creed deals primarily with the Trinity and Jesus as the Son of God. At this time, the heresy of Arius was prominent. He taught that Jesus was not fully human or divine and that the Holy Spirit was not God but only a divine influence. The Athanasian Creed denounced these false teachings and upheld the doctrine of the Trinity. Luther's high regard for this creed was expressed: "I doubt, since the days of the Apostles, anything more important and more glorious has ever been written in the church of the New Testament."

9. Born Again

Illustration

Brett Blair

Mark Leyner, a prolific modern writer out of New Jersey, asked a question asked a question in a national magazine (Time). It's a question we've all pondered: "Can a person really, and I mean fundamentally, change?" Mark Leyner says, No. There is no such animal, he says, as a changed man. "I don't believe in epiphanies, personal growth, midlife crises, or death bed conversions." He's convinced that the assumptions behind psychiatry, prison reform, and religion are all false. That we are who we are through millions of years of Darwinian evolution.

Strangely, he adds that, in addition to evolution, everything his parents did to mold him made him who he is. That seems a bit contradictory but ok. Let's give him that. Evolution and early social influences creates a person. The die is cast. A personality is formed. Irrevocable.

You might find this surprising but I agree with Mark Leyner. You and I cannot change. Even if I had a death bed experience or someone came back from the grave to warn me of the judgment to come, it would not fundamentally change my behavior. I would continue to live as I always have. (Luke 16:30-31).

I think this is Nicodemus' confusion. If you're a Jew you're a Jew. If you're a Gentile you're a gentile. Nothing will ever change that. I'm a grown man Jesus. I can't come out of my mother's womb again and start all over. I can't be born again!

Nicodemus there is the Spirit and it is like wind. You do not know where it has come from and you do not know where it is going. And Nicodemus...so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. God can change you simply by an act of his grace. There is no reason for it having happened and there is no explanation for its continuance. The wind: you can hear it but you cannot map it's journey. This man, that woman, this old man, this young child has been changed, fundamentally. But, Darwin has no theories to explain this evolution.

The changes that take place in us do not come from this world and our effort. I cannot change. But what Mark the columnist does not understand Paul the apostle does. When the Spirit breaths new life in us it is no longer I who live, but Christ, who lives in me.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. For He Shall Save His People - Sermon Starter

Illustration

I have a Christmas dilemma. When I was a kid there was no Christmas dilemma. You filled out your wish list and you waited for Santa to fulfill it on the 25th. That was pretty awesome. The rest of the year didn't work like that so it made Christmas a strange and wonderful time. But you know what happens? Slowly the tables get turned on you until one day you're being handed the wish list. Such is life!

This is when the dilemma enters in too. Not for everyone. There are still some sad sacks out there who are 40 years old still filling out their wish list like their 4. But for those who are keenly aware and can read between the lines, you will take note that when the Angel meets the shepherds out abiding their fields he says, "Peace good will toward men." That's well and good and fits my four year old concept of Christmas. But the second part of the verse never gets quoted. Our culture curiously ignores its presence. Here is the whole verse: "Peace, good will toward with men, with whom he is pleased."

What does that mean? It makes me want to run and hide more that it makes me want to sing Jingle Bells. Look at our text in Matthew 1:21. The same strange thing occurs. The angel tells Joseph, "Don't be afraid to take Mary as you wife because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" Sounds like the Christmas we all know. But then there's the matter of another unfinished verse which ends, "You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

That's the dilemma. That baby is the greatest gift ever given. But it's as if someone handed you a beautifully wrapped gift and said, John, I am giving you this because I love you. And when you open it it's a copy of Alcoholics Anonymous, or When Bad Things Happen To Good People, or a new copy of Miss Manners. You can't miss the message that someone is trying to tell you something. Christmas tells me that God has launched a great rescue mission. That is the message that is presented in the Advent story over and over again. In fact, the name Jesus (which is, of course Greek because the New Testament was written in Greek) is the Hebrew equivalent of Joshua, which translated means: The Lord will save.

The Advent message says to us that in the midst of our depressions, our fears, the mundane of living, a rescuer is coming because we need rescuing. The church teaches that sin is like quicksand. You know what happens when you get stuck in quicksand and try to get yourself out. You only end up getting in deeper and deeper. The Unitarian church affirms that man is capable. If he is just shown the right way and is properly motivated he will do what is right. The Christian church says just the opposite. It says that man is not capable of extricating himself from the messes that he gets into. He is in need of a rescuer, and that is precisely what God has given us in the person of Jesus. Someone to save us. And the price of the rescue mission is a costly one. Blood is shed. Christ who was born in Bethlehem was also born to die. That is why one of the gifts that the wise men bring the Christ child is the gift of Myrrh. It was an embalming agent. It is to remind us always that the child was sent to die.

But the great tragedy is that after this costly rescue mission has been launched, so often our response to it is thanks but no thanks. We don't want to be rescued. We did not ask for a rescuer and we do not want one. That is the dilemma that we find ourselves in. God has sent us a Savior, and there are a whole lot of people who don't want to be saved.

Well, you say, how ridiculous. Everyone wants to be saved. On an intellectual basis, perhaps, but on an emotional basis where decisions are really made (and I am convinced that most of our decisions in life are emotional ones and not intellectual ones --I think studies prove this) I am not so sure that we do want salvation. Indeed, I think that we even resist salvation. Oh, it is true that we sing songs in church like Rescue The Perishing but the problem is that we usually don't have us in mind when we sing it. We have someone else in mind. Who of us wants to be counted among the fallen, the erring, the perishing. Who of us wants to change or be changed? We rebel at the thought of being snatched in pity from sin. That is the truth of the matter. This morning I would like for us to look at several reasons why we reject this great rescue mission that God had given to us. We reject it because...

We have a misconception of what salvation really means.
We believe we can save ourselves through their own cleverness.
We are uncomfortable with the Biblical image of power - power through vulnerability.

17. 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.

18. Great Reversals

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

The theme of poverty, riches, possessions and the realm of God is a constant theme of Luke. It begins with Mary's song. Mary had an encounter with an angel. "You will bear a son and call his name Jesus," the angel announced. "Let it be with me according to your word," said Mary. Elizabeth, Mary's relative, blessed Mary for her trust that God's word of promise would be fulfilled. And then Mary sang a song. Mary's song may just well be the central song of Luke's entire gospel. Luke tells many stories in his gospel that are best understood as comments on her song!

Mary's song sings of a God of great reversals. This God has high regard for a lowly maiden. This God scatters the proud and puts down the mighty from their thrones. The high are made low and the low are exalted. This God, furthermore, fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich away empty-handed. That's the kind of God that Mary sings about it. A God of great reversals. A God who makes the rich poor and the poor rich.

Jesus sings a similar song in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth. During the worship service that day Jesus was given the scroll of Isaiah that he might read it to the congregation. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," Jesus read, "because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). Isaiah had prophesied that God would send a spirit-filled servant who would bring a great reversal to human affairs. After he had finished reading from the Isaiah scroll, Jesus gave it to the attendant and sat down. Every eye in the synagogue was fixed upon him. Jesus spoke. "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," he said. He was the spirit-filled servant of whom Isaiah had prophesied. He was the one who would bring great reversals to life in fulfillment of Mary's song. He was the one who brought good news to the poor.

"Blessed are you poor." We should not be surprised at these words of Jesus to his disciples. In Luke 6:20-26 Jesus also speaks of great reversals. The poor will be blessed. The hungry will be satisfied. The weeping ones shall laugh. Those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake will rejoice. Reversals work the other way as well. The weak of the earth will be blessed but the mighty of the earth shall be filled with woe. Woe to the rich. Woe to those who are full now. Woe to those who laugh now. Woe to those of whom the world now speaks well.

John the Baptist watched Jesus' ministry from afar. John wondered about Jesus. Was he really the promised Messiah? John sent some of his disciples to Jesus with just this question. "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?" John's disciples asked Jesus on John's behalf (Luke 7:21). Jesus had an answer for John. "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard," he instructs John's disciples, "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" (Luke 7:22). The "great reversals" have begun. That's Jesus' word to John.

Today's story from Luke is a story in this lineage. A great reversal takes place. The rich man is sent away empty. The poor hear good news!"

19. The Good News

Illustration

Once, during the hours of a quiet, starlit night, above the hills of Bethlehem, from a strange voice there came an announcement this world will never forget. To a few shepherds then - and to all the world eventually - that voice said, "Behold! I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be to all people ..."

We cannot be sure what language that messenger spoke - perhaps Hebrew, maybe Aramaic, or possibly some language never named and not understood except by a few. But the message heard that night has been translated into almost every language spoken on this planet. When the message reached primitive England, there it encountered an old Anglo-Saxon word, "godspell," which meant "good news" and thus the message became the "gospel" and so it has remained ever since.

"I bring you good news!" From whatever source, these are welcome words to most people most of the time. But this particular piece of news is especially good because it is good for all people in all time. For almost 2,000 years it has occupied an uppermost place in human thought.

And now today, it is because of this piece of good news that we are gathered here - to think about it again, to talk about it some more, to ponder it anew, to give thanks for it and rejoice in it - and to prepare ourselves to share it with all others wherever we can.

20. 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.

21. Service

Illustration

James W. Moore

Have you heard the beautiful children's story about the three trees? The trees were talking in the forest one day about their dreams for the future. The first tree said it would like to be made into a cradle, so that it might go on living as a support for the fragile life of a tiny new baby. The second tree wanted to be made into a big ship, so that it might go on living, carrying important cargo and influential people to exotic new lands. The third tree longed to stay right where it was, existing only as a tree, but growing ever taller, and pointing ever higher, to remind everyone that there is a God in heaven who loves them. Those were their dreams: One wanted to be a cradle, one wanted to be a mighty ship, and one wanted to be a tall tree, pointing people toward God.

But then one day the woodcutters came and chopped down the three trees...and destroyed their dreams. The first tree was not made into a cradle, but into a simple feeding trough, a manger for animals. But the manger was sold to a family in Bethlehem, and on the night Jesus was born, that simple feed box became the cradle for the Christ Child.

The second tree was built into a boat, but not the kind it had dreamed of--not a mighty ocean-going vessel--but a tiny inexpensive fishing boat. A man named Simon Peter bought the boat, and on one warm afternoon when the crowds pressed in, Jesus himself climbed aboard that small fishing boats that he might preach good news to the multitudes.

The third tree also was deprived of its dream. It wanted to remain standing tall and pointing toward God. Instead, it was cut down and shaped into a horrible instrument of torture, a cross. But it was on that very cross that Jesus was crucified, transforming a symbol of cruelty into a powerful reminder of God's eternal love for all the people.

The three trees were humbled, but in the plan of God, they were exalted.

That's the way it works: When we, in humility, give ourselves to God, our Lord can do great things through us and for us greater than we can ever imagine.

22. Good News - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

The story is told of a Franciscan monk in Australia was assigned to be the guide and "gofer" to Mother Teresa when she visited New South Wales. Thrilled and excited at the prospect of being so close to this great woman, he dreamed of how much he would learn from her and what they would talk about. But during her visit, he became frustrated. Although he was constantly near her, the friar never had the opportunity to say one word to Mother Teresa. There were always other people for her to meet.

Finally, her tour was over, and she was due to fly to New Guinea. In desperation, the Franciscan friar spoke to Mother Teresa: If I pay my own fare to New Guinea, can I sit next to you on the plane so I can talk to you and learn from you? Mother Teresa looked at him. You have enough money to pay airfare to New Guinea? she asked.

Yes, he replied eagerly. “Then give that money to the poor,” she said. “You'll learn more from that than anything I can tell you.” Mother Teresa understood that Jesus’ ministry was to the poor and she made it hers as well. She knew that they more than anyone else needed good news.

On a Saturday morning, in Nazareth, the town gathered in the synagogue to listen to Jesus read and teach. It was no big surprise. He was well known in the area; it was his hometown. He was raised there. They wanted to learn from him. So when he read from the Isaiah scroll, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor” everyone understood these words to be the words of Isaiah. It is how that prophet from long ago defined his ministry.

When Jesus finished that reading he handed the scroll to the attendant and sat down. In that day you sat in the Moses Seat to teach to the people. Today preachers stand in a pulpit. So all eyes were on Jesus, waiting for him to begin his teaching. What would he say about this great prophet Isaiah? Would he emphasis the bad news? Israel had sinned and would be taken into captivity by the Babylonians. Or would he emphasis the good news? One day God would restore his people and bring them back from captivity. It was Israel’s ancient history but it still spoke volumes.

Now here’s the wonderful twist, the thing that catches everyone off guard that Saturday morning in Nazareth. Jesus does neither. He doesn’t emphasize those things past. He focuses on the present. He doesn’t lift up Isaiah as the great role model; Jesus lifts up himself. This is the pertinent point. It’s what upsets everybody at the synagogue. It’s why everybody was furious with him and drove him out of town. They were going to kill him. He dared to say that these great words of Isaiah were really about himself. “Today,” he said, “this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Why does Jesus describe himself as the new Isaiah? How is it that he is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words? Let’s take a look at…

1. The captivity and restoration of Israel under Isaiah’s ministry.
2. The captivity of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
3. The restoration of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.

23. 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.

24. The Only Place We Have No Fear

Illustration

King Duncan

Pretend something like this happened for a moment: The angel Gabriel got back to heaven and rushed up to God and said, "I've got good news, and I've got bad news."

And God said, "Well, give me the good news first."

"The good news is," said the angel, "mission accomplished. I've visited those people you told me to visit. I told them what you told me to tell them. And it's all accomplished."

God said, "So what's the bad news?"

"The bad news," the angel said, "is that those people down there on earth are terrified of you. Every time I visited someone I had to start it off with 'fear not,' because they got so frightened that you were coming close."

God said to the angel, "That's the reason I have to carry out the plan I've made."

"You see," God said to the angel, "I need to go to earth because my people are so frightened. They are so full of fear that I've got to bring the message that they no longer need to be afraid."

The angel said, "And how are you going to do that, since they're so fearful?"

God said, "There's one place on earth that people are not afraid: that one remaining place is a little baby. My people on earth are not afraid of a baby. When a baby is born they rejoice and give thanks without fear because that's the only place left in their lives where they're not afraid. So I will go to earth. I will become a little baby, and they will receive me with no fear at all, because that's the one place my people have no fear."

God acted in the only way God could act without overwhelming us and taking away our freedom. God became a tiny babe. Christmas is an act of God. In Christmas God acted in the only way God could have acted.

25. Faith in Jesus Christ

Illustration

Will Willimon

Princeton preacher James F. Kay puts it this way, "If the Gospel is good news, it is not because it predicts a bright, shiny future based on our morality or piety. The Gospel is neither a cocoon that insulates us from the sufferings of this present age nor a pair of ear plugs that shuts out the groaning of creation....The Gospel is Good News, not because it predicts a future based on our good behavior or other present trends; the Gospel is Good News because it promises a future based on God's faithfulness to Jesus Christ." (The Seasons of Grace, Eerdmann, 1995, p. 7).

26. Be Opened!

Illustration

David E. Leininger

In a Peanuts comic strip Charlie Brown and Linus come across Snoopy who is shivering in the snow. Charlie says, "Snoopy looks kind of cold, doesn't he?"

"I'll say," replies Linus, "maybe we'd better go over and comfort him."

They walk over to the dog, pat his head and say, "Be of good cheer, Snoopy."

"Yes, be of good cheer."

In the final frame, the boys are walking away, still bundled up in the winter coats. Snoopy is still shivering, and over his head is a big "?".

The message of the cartoon was powerful. The most noxious lifestyle of all is when compassionate words come from a care-less heart. Snoopy would no doubt prefer a blanket over a greeting. A compassionate heart is a reflection of the heart of God.

ALTERNATE CONCLUSION WITH THE MARK 7 PASSAGE

The Good News is that the Kingdom of God is not a pat on the head. EPHPHATHA...Be opened! Jesus exclaims and healing happens. Can the good news be limited? Is it merely a jesture? The story of a certain Gentile who sought healing for her daughter says no. "EPHPHATHA...Be opened!" It is not limited by geography. Not in Jesus' day, and certainly not in ours. "EPHPHATHA...Be opened!" It is not limited by race, or creed, or political persuasion. The Good News is not a mere jesture or word of well wishing. "EPHPHATHA...Be opened!" It is God in action in our world through you.

27. Bad News First

Illustration

A farmer went into his banker and announced that he had bad news and good news. "First, the bad news..."

"Well," said the farmer, "I can't make my mortgage payments. And that crop loan I've taken out for the past 10 years I can't pay that off, either. Not only that, I won't be able to pay you the couple of hundred thousand I still have outstanding on my tractors and other equipment. So I'm going to have to give up the farm and turn it all over to you for whatever you can salvage out of it."

Silence prevailed for a minute and then the banker said, "What's the good news?"

"The good news is that I'm going to keep on banking with you," said the farmer.

28. Decoration Day

Illustration

Eric Ritz

In many towns and villages, Memorial Day is known as "Decoration Day." It sets off the imagery of freedom and democracy.

Yes, Memorial Day--fireworks, high school marching bands decked out in colorful uniforms marching in unison down Main Street playing John Phillip Sousa's musical pieces. There are speakers and politicians everywhere, flowers on graves, flags waving and flapping in the air, family picnics, fried chicken, softball games, joy, laughter, tears. This is the obvious and visible side of Memorial Day.

A gray haired woman with a scarf around her head, old skirt, and worn sneakers is kneeling by a grave side with tears running down her cheeks. She is still mourning the loss of her sons in a war in a foreign land thousands of miles away. She wears the medals on her tattered blouse--the medals given by a thankful nation for the lives of her sons sacrifice. The blouse is tattered, but it was the blouse she had on the day her sons went to Fort Dix. She talks to the crosses herself and slowly walks to the car to go home, where she works in the yard all day with her flowers. These flowers are placed periodically on the graves of her boys. Her husband reads the newspaper all day--he hurts too much to go anywhere that day.

Freedom also can be as quiet as a whisper inside a cabin door in 1863, "Mr. Lincoln said we are free."

Our past is vital. It provides identity and the dreams that have guided us individually as a nation, and as a faith community.

29. God’s Resources Are Inexhaustible

Illustration

King Duncan

John D. Rockefeller was one of the richest people who ever lived. There is probably nothing of material value in this world that John D. Rockefeller could not provide for his children. Did you know, however, that he had a daughter who became obsessed with the fear that she would die penniless? Her years were haunted with the fear that she would die destitute. Can you imagine such a thing a Rockefeller worried sick about money? Can you imagine a child of God worried sick that he or she will go to God’s well for spiritual resources in a time of need and find that well dry? God’s resources are inexhaustible. Did you know that there are even churches that never venture out to do great works for God because they fear that God may let them down? Unbelievable! Our faith is a gift from God. He gives us faith according to our needs the greater the need, the greater the faith.

30. Scarred Hands

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

A small boy lived with his grandmother. One night their house caught fire. The grandmother, trying to rescue the little boy asleep upstairs, perished in the smoke and flames. A crowd gathered around the burning house. The boy's cries for help were heard above the crackling of the blaze. No one seemed to know what to do, for the front of the house was a mass of flames.

Suddenly a stranger rushed from the crowd and circled to the back where he spotted an iron pipe that reached an upstairs window. He disappeared for a minute, then reappeared with the boy in his arms. Amid the cheers of the crowd, he climbed down the hot pipe as the boy hung around his neck.

Weeks later a public hearing was held in the town hall to determine in whose custody the boy would be placed. Each person wanting the boy was allowed to speak briefly. The first man said, "I have a big farm. Everybody needs the out-of-doors." The second man told of the advantages he could provide. "I'm a teacher. I have a large library. He would get a good education." Others spoke. Finally, the richest man in the community said, "I'm wealthy. I could give the boy everything mentioned tonight: farm, education, and more, including money and travel. I'd like him in my home."

The chairman asked, "Anyone else like to say a word?" From the backseat rose a stranger who had slipped in unnoticed. As he walked toward the front, deep suffering showed on his face. Reaching the front of the room, he stood directly in front of the little boy. Slowly the stranger removed his hands from his pockets. A gasp went up from the crowd. The little boy, whose eyes had been focused on the floor until now, looked up. The man's hands were terribly scarred. Suddenly the boy emitted a cry of recognition. Here was the man who had saved his life. His hands were scarred from climbing up and down the hot pipe. With a leap the boy threw himself around the stranger's neck and held on for life. The farmer rose and left. The teacher, too. Then the rich man. Everyone departed, leaving the boy and his rescuer who had won him without a word. Those marred hands spoke more effectively than any words.

SHORT VERSION

The story has been told of a boy who was living with his grandmother when their house caught fire. The grandmother, trying to get upstairs to rescue the boy, died in the flames. The boy’s cries for help were finally answered by a man who climbed an iron drain pipe and came down with the boy hanging tightly to his neck.

Several weeks later, a public hearing was held to determine who would receive custody of the child. A farmer, a teacher, and the town’s wealthiest citizen all gave the reasons they felt they should be chosen to give the boy a home. As they talked, the lad’s eyes remained focused on the floor.

Then a stranger walked to the front and slowly took his hands from his pockets, revealing scars on them. As the crowd gasped, the boy cried out in recognition. This was the man who had saved his life and whose hands had been burned when he climbed the hot pipe. With a leap the boy threw his arms around the man’s neck and held on for dear life. The other men silently walked away, leaving the boy and his rescuer alone. Those marred hands had settled the issue.

31. In Through The Back Door

Illustration

Michael P. Green

In discussing the conversion of Jews, C. S. Lewis once said, “In a sense, the converted Jew is the only normal human being in the world.” He continued, “Everyone else is, from one point of view, a special case dealt with under emergency conditions.” That is a way of stating the truth about Gentile conversion. God opened a “back door” and let us in as emergency cases. There are a lot of us, but we remain “grafted-in branches.”

32. Faith and Power

Illustration

Larry Powell

Mark 4:37-41 is one of the many passages in the Bible which has been set to music. "Master, the tempest is raging! The billows are tossing high! The sky is o’er shadowed with blackness ..." You recognize it. From childhood, we have sung the words to "Peace Be Still" and have loved to lift the refrain which concludes, "they all shall sweetly obey thy will ..." Two primary elements are underscored in both the scripture and the hymn: the power of Christ and faith in Christ.

The Gospel according to Mark characterizes the ministry of Jesus as being a succession of "mighty works," indicative of his Sonship. Actually, the stilling of the storm is only the beginning of a series of incidents portraying the power of Christ. After the storm experience on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus and the disciples came to the other side of the sea into the country of the Gerasenes. Here they encountered a man who lived among the tombs, crying out in travail both day and night, inflicting injury upon himself and striking fear into the hearts of all who chance to see him. Frequently, he had been subdued and bound with chains, but such was his deranged agony that he tore away the fetters and ran about the tombs as a wild man. In a great display of power, Jesus freed the man from his torment (5:13) and "all marveled. Then, crossing to the other side of the sea, Jesus encountered a certain Janus, a ruler of the synagogue, who prevailed upon him to accompany him to his home and heal his daughter" (5:23). On the way to the home of Janus Jesus was "touched" by a desperate woman who had hemorraged for twelve years and, according to Mark 5:29, so great was the power of Jesus that the woman was immediately healed simply by touching his clothing. Not to be minimized here is Jesus’ statement to the woman; "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed from your disease" (5:34). Now the word comes that during the interval, Janus’ daughter has died. Reassuring Janus, Jesus said, "Do not fear, only believe." Approaching the house Jesus observed a gathering of people loudly mourning the death of the girl. Everyone was asked to wait outside the house save the little girl’s parents and the disciples who had been selected to accompany Jesus to the house, Peter, James, and John. "Taking her by the hand, he said to her, ‘Talitha cumi’ which means ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’ And immediately the girl got up and walked" (5:41-42).

Power! That is the theme of Mark’s section dealing with three successive miracles of Jesus. Read again the refrain of "Peace, Be Still" and see how it applied to each of the three incidents. See also the summons for faith. The disciples were scolded for their lack of faith, the woman with the issue of blood was rewarded because of her faith, and Janus was encouraged to intensify the faith he already had exhibited by falling at the feet of Jesus. Desperation characterizes all three encounters, and all three contain the enacted teaching that the power of Christ is but half of the whole; the other half, which taps this power, is faith. Ironically, it would appear that we, too, learn the lesson best in times of desperation.

33. HOW TO KNOW THE WILL OF GOD

Illustration

John H. Krahn

How often has each of us struggled over an important decision? We considered the variety of alternatives; often we discussed the decision with our family and friends. Sometimes we prayed over it and sought God’s direction. "What would God want me to do?" we asked ourselves.

Unfortunately, there is much confusion about the subject of the will of God. The words, "It is the will of God," are used too freely. A catastrophe happens and people say glibly, "It’s his will." We sometimes do inappropriate things and pass them off by saying God willed that we did it. Many talk about searching for the will of God as if it were somehow lost and needed to be found.

First and foremost in God’s will is that all people be saved. The Bible tells us that God wills all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Throughout Scripture we find God desiring that everyone have the joy of Jesus as their Lord and Savior. To not have Jesus is to be firmly in sin’s control ... to have faith in the Son of God is to be alive to our full creative potential as he controls our lives. Through a cross and a vacant grave our salvation has been secured. Jesus, unlike any of the gods in other religions, is a personal God, and those who know him personally will be well on their way to know the Father’s will. To have said, "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior" is to have taken the first step.

Our second step in knowing the will of God is to be Spirit-filled. In Ephesians 5:17 we read, "Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is." To not be willing to understand the will of the Lord is to be foolish. Now what is the will? We continue to read in verse 18, "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit." Now most of us are at least qualified to discuss what it’s like to be filled with wine or some other spirited liquid. To be drunk is to be controlled by the agent within. We act differently when we have the spirit within us. Likewise to be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be controlled also by an agent within. We have no more control over ourselves than we would have if we were drunk with alcohol. To be filled in the Spirit is to be dominated and controlled by the Spirit.

The third and final step in discovering the will of God for our lives you’re really going to like; you’ll eat it up. It is to do whatever you want to do. That’s right. Do what you want when you have a decision to make. In the Book of Psalms we read, "Delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart." Notice that it says the desires of our hearts are given to us by God when we delight in him. God puts the desire in our hearts so that what we want is really what God wants. His will becomes our will, and conversely, our will is his will. The third step is possible when we have taken the first step of believing and the second of being filled by the Holy Spirit. Having taken the first two steps and having become well-versed in Scripture, we follow our desires (really God’s) and live according to his will. We set out in life without fear, and as we make our way, he provides us with the necessary corrections along the course.

34. Death of a Blacksnake

Illustration

Staff

I was driving along a rural road recently when the car in front of me swerved off the shoulder and came to a sudden stop. The driver jumped out of the car and ran up a small bank, grabbing a large stick with which he immediately began to flail wildly at the ground.

I stopped and rushed up to the man, certain that he had encountered some vicious threat to human life. But I was wrong.

"Why did you kill it?" I asked. "It was only a blacksnake."

"Blacksnake or rattlesnake, it makes no difference to me," the man said, still beating the now lifeless body. "I kill 'em all!"

I walked away from the man feeling very angry and a little sick. The killing of the snake was not anything unusual, and neither was the man's attitude concerning it. And yet - perhaps the very commonness of the act and the attitude behind it indicates something more than just an aversion to snakes.

The man went out of his way to kill the snake - not because it posed a danger to him, or because he especially enjoys killing snakes (I hope) - but because he was using that club in an exercise of his fears and prejudices.

In that respect he was no different than most of us. At one time or another we have all flailed wildly at those things which society, with its misguided traditions, has taught us to hate or to fear.

We have been taught that the snake is a symbol of evil, and because there are a few poisonous species we treat them all equally - equally bad.

In the same way we categorize people and allow myth and rumor to determine our relationship with those who might be "different" from us. Catholic-Protestant; Jew-Gentile; Black-White; Indian-Anglo; Northerner-Southerner; Russian-American; etc.; each mistrusts or hates the other not because there is a valid reason, but merely because of some fear or prejudice which has been passed on by a parent, teacher, or preacher.

That particular blacksnake is dead - killed by ignorance, perhaps, rather than by a particular cruelty - but dead nonetheless. His very valuable contribution to the balance of nature has ceased simply because someone thoughtlessly reacted to the stimulus of traditional fear or prejudice.

And, as blacksnakes are killed, so are humans. They are slaughtered because human beings have not yet learned to rise above traditional fears and prejudices and to live in harmony with those around us. But we had better learn soon because time may be running out. If the "meek" are really going to inherit the earth, they had better start making themselves known.

Because the violent people are becoming more numerous - and the blacksnakes fewer.

35. 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.

36. Encourage One Another

Illustration

The New Testament book of Hebrews, initially, was a letter written to the Christians of the first century church. Those people were suffering horrible persecutions. They had much to discourage them. They needed one another urgently and deeply.

In this letter to them the writer says, "Stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another." They needed the encouragement of their meeting together and being together. And so they met - whatever the danger to them, they gathered regularly together.

In our gathering today, you and I do not confront the kind of danger those people did. Still we need one another no less than they did. As they could draw strength mutually from the faith and courage of one another, so can we. Their meeting at risk of their very lives stands to shame us for any indifference we may feel toward our meeting, especially since there is now involved absolutely no risk at all.

By our being here today we are giving encouragement and support to one another in one of the historic essentials of Christian faith and fellowship, the meeting together of the people of Christ. Thank you for the ministry of your presence.

37. Devout of this World

Illustration

Elizabeth Gilbert

The devout of this world perform their rituals without guarantee that anything good will ever come of it. Of course there are plenty of scriptures and plenty of priests who make plenty of promises as to what your good works will yield (or threats as to the punishments awaiting you if you lapse), but to even believe all this is an act of faith, because nobody amongst us is shown the endgame. Devotion is diligence without assurance. Faith is a way of saying, 'Yes, I pre-accept the terms of the universe and I embrace in advance what I am presently incapable of understanding.' There's a reason we refer to 'leaps of faith' because the decision to consent to any notion of divinity is a mighty jump from the rational over to the unknowable, and I don't care how diligently scholars of every religion will try to sit you down with their stacks of books and prove to you through scripture that their faith is indeed rational; it isn't. If faith were rational, it wouldn't be by definition faith. Faith is belief in what you cannot see or prove or touch. Faith is walking face-first and full-speed into the dark. If we truly know all the answers in advance to the meaning of life and the nature of God and the destiny of our souls, our belief would not be a leap of faith and it would not be a courageous act of humanity; it would just be . . . a prudent insurance policy.

38. Doctrine vs. Doing

Illustration

Michael P. Green

Doctrine and doing are like the two chemical ingredients of salt, which is composed of two poisons: sodium and chlorine. If we ingested either of the two poisons, we would die. But if we combine them properly, we have sodium chloride, which is the common table salt that gives flavor to our food and indeed life and health to our bodies. So, too, are faith and works inseparable.

39. 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."

40. 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.

41. Walking the Talk

Illustration

Suzanne Webb

There's a story about a farmer who was visited by a couple of young, energetic evangelists. They knocked on his door and asked if he ‘was saved.' The farmer left the two at the door and went into his farmhouse for a pencil and a pad of paper. Coming back to the two evangelists, he gave them a list of 10 people. "These are the names of my neighbors. Go talk with them. They will be able to tell you whether what I say I believe is truly how my life is lived."

Talking is not enough. What we claim to believe has to manifest itself through our very life. And this is not just about activity or specific deeds or works that we can do on a weekend. It is about the building of our character. It is about creating a life that is so steered, so controlled by our faith in Jesus Christ that when the rain falls, the floods come and the winds blow we are still the same.

42. 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).

43. The First and Last Things

Illustration

Brett Blair

H.G. Wells had the reputation as the apostle of scientific materialism and the deadly foe of organized faith. So it's surprising that in one of his most successful but least known novels Mr. Britling Sees It Through, he made a rather startlingly confession, or at least it appears to be a confession. It is generally thought that the character Mr. Britling is a surrogate for Wells. The character expresses a simple but clear faith, leaving no doubt as to the meaning. At first, his religious views are passionate, but not strictly orthodox. Mr. Britling makes this confession, giving us a window into Wells' on beliefs:

"Religion is the first thing and the last thing, and until a  man has found God and been found by God, he begins at no beginning, he works to no end. He may have his friendships, his partial loyalties, his scraps of honour. But all these things fall into place and life falls into place only with God. Only with God. God, who fights through men against Blind Force and Night and Non-Existence; who is the end, who is the meaning. He is the only King. . . . It was as if he had been groping all this time in the darkness, thinking himself alone amidst rocks and pitfalls and pitiless things, and suddenly a hand, a firm strong hand, had touched his own. And a voice within him bade him be of good courage. . . . God was beside him and within him and about him."

Note: Wells, through the Britling Character, draws more a picture of a finite God rather than an Omnipotent Being, saying, "After all, the real God of the Christians is Christ, not God Almighty; a poor mocked and wounded God nailed on a cross of matter…. Some day He will triumph…. But it is not fair to say that He causes all things now. It is not fair to make out a case against him. You have been misled. It is a theologian’s folly. God is not absolute; God is finite…. A finite God who struggles in his great and comprehensive way as we struggle in our weak and silly way—who is with us..." Go Here for more.

44. Inerrancy of the Bible

Illustration

James Packer

James Packer (some knew him as J.I Packer), passed away in 2020. He was a systematic theology professor at Regent College, Vancouver. He was famous for his evangelical theology. His treatment of inerrancy is worth the read. Here it is: "For practical purposes the words infallible and inerrant are interchangeable. When we apply them to the Bible, what we are saying is that only those who accept as from God all that Scripture proves to tell us, promise us, or require of us, can ever fully please him. Both words thus have religious as well as theological significance; their function is to impose on our handling of the Bible a procedure which expresses faith in the reality and veracity of the God who speaks to us in and through what it says and who requires us to heed every word that proceeds from his mouth. This procedure requires us not to deny, disregard, or arbitrarily relativize anything that the writers teach or to discount any of the practical implications for worship and service which their teaching carries or to cut the knot of any problem of Bible harmony, factual or theological, by allowing ourselves to assume that the writers were not necessarily consistent with themselves or with each other.

For me to confess that Scripture is infallible and inerrant is to bind myself in advance to follow the method of harmonizing and integrating all that Scripture declares, without exception, I must believe that it is from God, however little I may like it, and whatever change of present beliefs, ways, and commitments it may require, and I must actively seek to live by it."

45. 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".

46. 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.

47. Rethinking the Formula

Illustration

James Emery White

Some of you may remember comedian Yakov Smirnoff. He said when he first came to the United States from Russia; he wasn't prepared for the incredible variety of instant products available in American grocery stores. He says, "On my first shopping trip, I saw powdered milk--you just add water, and you get milk. Then I saw powdered orange juice--you just add water, and you get orange juice. And then I saw baby powder, and I thought to myself, what a country!"

One of the most basic assumptions made about life change is that it happens instantly at salvation. According to this belief, when someone gives his or her life to Christ, there is an immediate, substantive, in-depth, miraculous change in habits, attitudes, and character. As a result disciples are born not made.

The question for rethinking discipleship is this: Are these assumptions valid? If they are, then working this formula in the life of the church should consistently give the same result: a new community of people who are becoming increasingly like Jesus in their life and thought. If that is not the answer a church gets when it works the equation, then it needs to rethink whether the formula is sound.

Unfortunately, many churches are not getting the correct answer. In fact, a Search Institute study has found that only 11 percent of churchgoing teenagers have a well-developed faith, rising to only 32 percent for churchgoing adults. Why? Because true life change only begins at salvation, takes more than just time, is about training not trying, and it is a team effort.

48. I Have Never Told the Half of It!

Illustration

James W. Moore

Sometimes people tease me about speaking about God's love and grace so much and when they do, I think of Marco Polo. In the 14th century, when he came back to Venice from his travels in Cathay, Marco Polo described the incredible wonders he had seen there. People didn't believe him and for the rest of his life (and even on his death bed) they tried to get him to confess that he had lied and exaggerated about the wonders he had described. His last answer was: “I never told the half of it!"

That's the way I feel about God's love and grace – “I have never told the half of it!"

49. I'll Always Be There for You!

Illustration

Jack Canfield

Many years ago an earthquake almost flattened Armenia. The deadly tremor killed over 30,000 people in less than four minutes. In the midst of all the confusion of the earthquake, a father rushed to his son's school. When he arrived there he discovered the building was collapsed flat. Standing there looking at what was left of the school, the father remembered a promise he made to his son, "No matter what, I'll always be there for you!" Tears began to fill his eyes. It looked like a hopeless situation, but he could not take his mind off his promise.

Remembering that his son's classroom was in the back right corner of the building, the father rushed there and started digging through the rubble. As he was digging other grieving parents arrived, clutching their hearts, saying: "My son! "My daughter!" They tried to pull him off of what was left of the school saying: "It's too late!" "They're dead!" "You can't help!" "Go home!" Even a police officer and a fire fighter told him he should go home. To everyone who tried to stop him he said, "Are you going to help me now?" They did not answer him and he continued digging for his son stone by stone.

He needed to know for himself: "Is my boy alive or is he dead?" This man dug for eight hours and then twelve and then twenty-four and then thirty-six. Finally in the thirty-eighth hour, as he pulled back a boulder, he heard his son's voice. He screamed his son's name, "ARMAND!" and a voice answered him, "Dad?" It's me Dad!" Then the boy added these priceless words, "I told the other kids not to worry. I told 'em that if you were alive, you'd save me and when you saved me, they'd be saved. You promised that, Dad. 'No matter what,' you said, 'I'll always be there for you!' And here you are Dad. You kept your promise!"

50. A Personal Calling

Illustration

R.C. Sproul

Some have argued from Romans 8:29 that predestination is based on God's foreknowledge in the sense that God looked down the corridors of time and saw who would freely choose to believe, and then predestinated them. This position assumes that foreknowledge here only means "knows in advance." In the Bible, however, knowledge is often used in a sense of personal intimacy, as when Adam "knew" Eve and she conceived a son (Genesis 4:1). God's foreknowledge is linked to His foreloving. We see in Romans 8:30 that everyone who was "foreknown" was also "predestined, called, justified, and glorified."

Does God glorify everyone? Does God justify everyone? No. Clearly then, in terms of what this passage is dealing with, God does not call everyone, does not predestine everyone, and does not foreknow everyone. In Romans 8:29-30, "foreknowledge" must have the sense of intimacy and personal calling, and can refer only to God's elect. God's predestination does not exist in a vacuum, and it is not simply for the purpose of saving us from sin. Verse 29 shows us the goal or purpose of salvation: that we might be conformed to the likeness of His Son. Ultimately, the reason God has saved you and me is for the honor and glory of His Son, "That He might be the firstborn." The goal in creation is that God would give as a gift to His Son many who are reborn into Christ's likeness.

Showing 1 to 50 of 220 results