The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinct elements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he or she has the right to tell others what to do and decide how matters should be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she has not only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the power to control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. When the angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority (Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same sense of authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod. 18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense of authority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewise regarding the one who “overcomes” in the book of Revelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rule the nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Both ideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in that context.

The authority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, being evidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the crowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who had authority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29). Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10), natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32), culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitate the dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallel passages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains. John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge (5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and to grant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority of Christ over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme of the book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for the sake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority in opposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the Great Commission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18; cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right and as power always to coincide in the end.

On this same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first to God and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be done in good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord” throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over those whom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20). For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on the Corinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over” others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant must respect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19). Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph. 5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slaves must yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), and laypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).

Respect for authority also extends to secular governments, whatever the character of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to kill David (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would kill Saul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons to distrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he is subjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts 16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands the church to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God has established them, so that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In 1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secular rulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authority even when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they do prevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks of revolutionary enthusiasm.

The northern region of Israel. The name can mean “circle,” “region,” or “district.” Determining the region’s precise boundaries is difficult, but in Jesus’ time it appears to have encompassed an area of about forty-five miles north to south and twenty-five miles east to west, with the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee forming the eastern border. Josephus divides the region into Upper and Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee contains elevations of up to about four thousand feet and is comprised mostly of rugged mountains, while Lower Galilee reaches a maximum height of about two thousand feet and is characterized by numerous fertile valleys. Lower Galilee was the site of most of Jesus’ ministry.

Galilee appears several times in the OT (e.g., Josh. 20:7; 1 Kings 9:11; 1 Chron. 6:76). It was part of the land given to the twelve tribes (Josh. 19). Since Galilee was distant from Jerusalem, which played the most prominent part in Jewish history, much of its history is not mentioned in the OT. Many of the references that do occur are military references, such as Joshua’s defeat of the kings at the waters of Merom (Josh. 11:1–9) and the Assyrian removal of the northern kingdom of Israel (Isa. 9:1). However, its great beauty, particularly of mountains such as Carmel, Hermon, and Lebanon, was the source of numerous images and metaphors in the poetic and prophetic literature (e.g., Ps. 133:3; Isa. 33:9; 35:2; Jer. 46:18).

Galilee figures more prominently in the NT. Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and conducted much of his early ministry there. Luke specifically identifies Galilee as the place where Jesus’ ministry began before spreading to Judea (Luke 23:5; Acts 10:37). Galilee is also portrayed as the place where Jesus will reunite with his disciples following the resurrection (Mark 16:7) and where he gives them the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16–20).

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

In the OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar [e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4]) God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed as listening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV, NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’s voice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaic covenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the laws set forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, God would bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, he would curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history of Israel sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen people and the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2 Kings 18:9–12; 2 Chron. 36:11–21), even though God repeatedly warned the people through his prophets that this destruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).

The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

The initiatory ritual of Christianity. This rite is of great significance in connecting the individual both to Christ and to the greater community of believers. Baptism carries an equal measure of symbolism and tradition, evoking a connection between OT covenantal circumcision and ritual cleansing and NT regeneration and redemption. It is the visible response to the gospel, reflecting the internal response to the gospel: the climactic moment in the journey of reconciliation of the believer with God.

The word “baptism” (Gk. baptisma) carries with it the sense of washing by dipping (Gk. baptizō); the word can also carry the sense of being overtaken or subsumed, or of joining or entering into a new way of life. In either sense, a distinct change in the recipient is envisioned. Through baptism, Christians both demonstrate their desire for and symbolize their understanding of being washed clean of sin; they also proclaim their surrender to and subjugation by Christ. All this intellectual underpinning occurs in what can be a deeply emotional ceremony.

Baptism in the Bible

The immediate precursor of Christian baptism was the baptism of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4 pars.), a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, preparing the hearts of the people for the coming Messiah. But when Jesus himself was baptized by John to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to allow Jesus to identify with sinful humanity, he became the firstfruits of the new covenant. John emphasized that his baptism with water was inferior to the baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire” that Jesus would bring (Matt. 3:11). Jesus’ disciples continued John’s baptism during his earthly ministry (John 4:1–2).

Baptism was immediately important in the early church. Jesus commanded the disciples to “make disciples . . . , baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). The disciples replaced Judas from among those “who have been with us the whole time . . . from John’s baptism” (Acts 1:21–22). Peter’s first sermon proclaims, “Repent and be baptized” (2:38). The apostles baptized new believers in Christ immediately (8:12–13; 8:38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).

For the apostle Paul, baptism represents a participation in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3–4); “In him you were . . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).

Though the NT does not explicitly command baptism (the command in Acts 2:38 is understood to be directed toward a specific group), it assumes that all believers will be baptized (Acts 19:2–3). The expectation of baptism is as good as a command, and Christians should understand baptism as a matter of obedience. Accounts of baptism in Acts are always preceded by reports of belief, and new believers are immediately baptized. Baptism also carries the idea of conveyance: no one self-baptizes; rather, believers baptize others as an initiation into the family of believers.

Baptismal Practices

Historically in the church, the manner of baptism involves the application of water to the recipient by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. These practices vary among Christians, but no one practice has a clear biblical warrant above the others. Paul, however, appeals to symbolism in his discussions of baptism. He describes those baptized “into Christ Jesus” as being “baptized into his death,” “buried with him through baptism into death” that they might be raised to a new life “just as Christ was raised from the dead” (Rom. 6:3–4; see also Col. 2:12). Immersion may be the best vehicle to retain this striking symbolism of Paul.

The timing of baptism has caused controversy within the church. Some churches (especially Baptist) believe that baptism is for those who have made a conscious decision for Christ—believer’s baptism. Baptism is an expression of both the change in one’s life and one’s devotion. With this act, the person unites with the church as well as with Jesus himself. This is a deeply moving experience for the celebrant, one to be remembered forever. The celebrant metaphorically is buried with Christ in order to be raised up with him. Baptism does not of itself convey salvation but rather is an act of obedience, and obedience indicates active affirmation of the gospel.

Some churches (e.g., Reformed, Presbyterian) practice infant baptism (paedobaptism). Baptism is at least partly a covenant act similar to circumcision; by this act the child’s parents announce their own membership in the body of Christ and their desire that the child be considered a member as well. Baptism does not convey salvation, but it does convey a type of grace. Entering early adulthood, the child will be given a chance to affirm his or her faith through confirmation. Obviously, the child will have no conscious memory of the original baptism, but the child will grow from infancy with the knowledge of having been entered conditionally into the church by his or her parents. Infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents that the child must claim later, at which time some church traditions have a ritual of confirmation. The warrant for infant baptism is the passages where a “household” or other unspecified group is baptized (see Acts 2:38; 16:15, 31, 34). Also, Paul seems to relate Christian baptism to OT circumcision (Col. 2:11–12), an event for the child performed at the parents’ request (Lev. 12:3). (See also Infant Baptism)

Advocates of believer’s baptism also see value in the ceremonial incorporation of infants into the church. These churches offer child dedication, a similar ceremony but without the water component.

Another source of debate is the concept of rebaptism. Some churches require that prospective members who were baptized as infants be baptized anew as believing adults. It is claimed that the previous baptism is invalid, since an infant cannot possess the proper faith. For other churches, rebaptism is strictly forbidden as unscriptural.

Notably, while most Christian groups see baptism as fundamental to their fellowship, many groups also make allowances for baptism received in extraordinary ways. For instance, the Catholic Church allows for “baptism by blood” and “baptism by desire,” where in extreme cases baptism is credited though having never been performed. Catholic doctrine also allows for “extraordinary ministers” who may not even be Christians to perform baptism, as long as the intended goal is a valid Christian baptism.

The Function of Baptism

Baptism should not be seen as a saving act; Paul tells a jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” (Acts 16:31). It is later, after the jailer has washed Paul’s and Silas’s wounds, that the family is baptized. Paul does write to Titus about salvation, saying, “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). But here Paul is invoking OT imagery rather than NT baptism, as he nowhere uses these terms to refer to baptism. Peter writes, “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21). It is not the baptism that saves, nor the washing, but rather the working of faith in relationship with God.

It is a shame that baptism has become a source of division in today’s churches. Paul emphasizes that “we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Cor. 12:13). Having been baptized into Jesus Christ should be a unifying element among Christians, not a source of contention.

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

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

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

The Development of Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

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

Linguistics

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

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

Literature and Literary Theory

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

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

History

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

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

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

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

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

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NT begins with the claim that Jesus is the “son” or descendant of King David, presupposing the significance of the biblical narrative about the kings of Israel for understanding the gospel (Matt. 1:1, 6; see also Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). The epithet also creates an almost immediate conflict with Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1–2), who was given the title “King of the Jews” by the Roman senate in 40 BC, although he was not a Jew. Herod unsuccessfully attempts to kill the infant king, but Jesus finally is executed by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate as “King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37 pars.).

Greco-Roman and Jewish Backgrounds

The conflict between the king and the child somewhat parallels a more extensive Greco-Roman motif. Virgil, in his Fourth Bucolic, offers a vision of a golden age to attend the birth of a child king. (Christians in the Middle Ages interpreted his poem as a prophecy of Christ’s birth.) The threat upon Jesus’ life also resembles Herodotus’s account of Cyrus: King Astyages has a dream vision that the magi interpret to be a prophecy that the child of his daughter will eventually rule in his place. He commands Harpagus, his most faithful servant, to take the male child, “adorned for its death,” and kill him. Overcome with emotion, Harpagus pawns the child off to a cowherd, Mitradates, who is instructed to lay the child “in the most desolate part of the mountains.” When Mitradates’s wife sees the beauty of the child, she pleads for his life and devises a plan to switch her stillborn child with Cyrus. They then raise Cyrus under a pseudonym as their own (Herodotus, Hist. 1.107–30). Interestingly, the prophet Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the Lord’s “messiah” or “anointed” (Isa. 45:1), a uniquely positive role for a non-Israelite king. By God’s power, Cyrus will free the exiles (Isa. 45:13).

In the OT, God promises David, the king of Israel, an eternal reign for his “offspring” (2 Sam. 7:12–16). After the fall of the Davidic monarchy, the prophets reiterate the promise in visions of God’s future salvation (Isa. 55:3; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:8; 5:1–5 [cited in Matt. 2:5–6]; Zech. 3:8). By the first century, “son of David” had become a popular messianic title, signifying a warrior who would free the Jews from Roman oppression and establish an everlasting kingdom. Although not viewed as a supernatural being, the Davidic messiah, some claimed, would be without sin, ruling with perfect wisdom, justice, mercy, and power—different from his predecessors. He would restore the ancient tribal divisions and regather the Diaspora, Jews living outside Judea and Galilee. The nations (non-Jews) would pay him homage (see Psalms of Solomon).

Jesus’ Kingship

The popular Jewish emphasis on a violent overthrow of Rome probably explains why in the Gospels Jesus himself does not emphasize his kingship in his ministry, except for the explicit fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble king riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.; cf. Zech. 9:9; see also Isa. 62:11). However, following his resurrection and final instructions to his disciples, Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:6–11; 2:33–36), a coronation ceremony foretold in the psalms (Pss. 2; 110). He presently reigns from heaven (Rev. 1:5; cf. Matt. 28:18), but he will return to make his authority explicit on earth, which includes the dispensing of justice (2 Thess. 1:5–12). His rule is present, however, in the lives of those who obey him and wherever the Holy Spirit is manifested. Through his ministry, the God of Israel comes near so as to once again exercise sovereign power on behalf of God’s people. For Christians, Jesus alone is Lord and Savior (Phil. 3:20). Paul presents Jesus as the “Savior of all people” (1 Tim. 4:10). This title was given to the Roman emperors. (The preamble to a decree by the council of the province of Asia describes Augustus as “the father who gives us happy life; the savior of all mankind.”)

The Western church has largely maintained a distinction between two spheres of authority: political and ecclesiastical. Hosius, bishop of Cordova (AD 296–357), wrote to Emperor Constantius, “For into your hands God has put the kingdom; the affairs of his Church he has committed to us. . . . We are not permitted to exercise an earthly rule; and you, Sire, are not authorized to burn incense.” Paul affirms the continuing role of government despite the overarching lordship of Jesus Christ, who preferred to speak of the kingdom of God, a restored theocracy that incorporates yet transcends the Davidic covenant (Rom. 13:1–7; cf. John 18:36). But this process does begin a delegitimizing of all contrary claims to authority and will lead to their complete withdrawal. For this reason, the kingdom of God cannot be separated from the political, economic, and religious conflicts taking place in Roman Palestine in the first century and wherever similar conflicts occur today.

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).

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).

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

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

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

The Development of Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

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

Linguistics

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

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

Literature and Literary Theory

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

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

History

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

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

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

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

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

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagery of God

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

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

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

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

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

Names and Attributes of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God of the Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Development of Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

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

Linguistics

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

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

Literature and Literary Theory

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

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

History

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

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

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

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

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

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Development of Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

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

Linguistics

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

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

Literature and Literary Theory

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

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

History

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

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

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

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

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

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”), these four consonants comprise the personal name of God. Most English versions gloss this name in small capital letters as “Lord” (see Gen. 15:1) or “God” (see Gen. 15:2 KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB). “Lord” without the small-capital format signifies a title, not a personal name, in Hebrew: ’adonay. In the intertestamental period, reverent Jews became reluctant to speak the divine name, and so they substituted ’adonay or some title for “YHWH.” In the Middle Ages, when vowels were introduced to the Hebrew text, those belonging to ’adonay were inserted into “YHWH,” reminding readers to speak the title rather than the name. English speakers, however, substituting J for the Y, vocalizing W with a V sound (both under the influence of German), and reading the consonants and vowels together, invented from this an artificial word that no ancient had ever pronounced: “Jehovah” (see Gen. 15:2 ASV).

Many derive “YHWH” from the Hebrew verb “to be” (hayah) and understand the meaning of the name to be “He Is,” though this is debated. Such an etymology is found in Exod. 3:13–14, where Moses asked God his name, and God replied, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” Passing by Moses on Mount Sinai, God declared the meaning of this name, revealing God’s nature as being compassionate, gracious, patient, loving, forgiving, and just (Exod. 34:5–7). Jesus claims this name for himself in John 8:58: “Before Abraham was born, I am.” Christians baptize in the singular name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). See also Lord.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Identity of Jesus Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

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

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

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

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

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

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

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]). These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe the whole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describe either a special ministry performed by an official functionary (1 Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). In the early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchies but on services performed (1 Tim. 3:1–13).

The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1 Pet. 5:3).

Jesus’ ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NT writers describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39; Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministry of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).

The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1 Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1 Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).

Although ministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were those with special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart for particular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apart Apollos and Paul for special ministries (1 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7). The church called on special functionaries to carry out specific ministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individuals to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry the relief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2 Cor. 8:19, 23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the elders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching and preaching and healing for the whole church.

All the ministries of the church, whether performed by believers in general or by some specially appointed functionary, were based on gifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1 Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’s relationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians are equal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paul identifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ calls certain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. The ones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the church but rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph. 4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or her because those gifts were given for ministry to others (1 Cor. 4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results in leadership.

It becomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others for ministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turn minister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2 Tim. 2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is to build up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ (Rom. 15:15–17; 1 Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1 Thess. 2:19–20).

In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]). These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe the whole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describe either a special ministry performed by an official functionary (1 Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). In the early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchies but on services performed (1 Tim. 3:1–13).

The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1 Pet. 5:3).

Jesus’ ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NT writers describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39; Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministry of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).

The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1 Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1 Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).

Although ministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were those with special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart for particular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apart Apollos and Paul for special ministries (1 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7). The church called on special functionaries to carry out specific ministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individuals to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry the relief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2 Cor. 8:19, 23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the elders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching and preaching and healing for the whole church.

All the ministries of the church, whether performed by believers in general or by some specially appointed functionary, were based on gifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1 Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’s relationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians are equal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paul identifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ calls certain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. The ones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the church but rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph. 4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or her because those gifts were given for ministry to others (1 Cor. 4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results in leadership.

It becomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others for ministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turn minister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2 Tim. 2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is to build up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ (Rom. 15:15–17; 1 Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1 Thess. 2:19–20).

The word “mission” was coined by the Jesuits in the sixteenth century to refer to the sending of the Godhead into the world, reflecting a particular trinitarian formulation. The Jesuits used the term “mission” to describe the Father, who sends the Son, who sends the Holy Spirit, who sends the church into the world as an agent of redemption and reconciliation. Simply put, the Jesuits conceived of mission as sending. That biblical term “send” (e.g., Gk. apostellō) described the fundamental nature of the church as being sent by God into the world with a specific purpose, animated by the Holy Spirit to accomplish its task given by God, as a sign and instrument of God’s kingdom. Initially, the Jesuits employed the term in the context of both the conversion of heathens (those who failed to recognize the God of the Bible) and the reconversion of Protestants to Roman Catholicism.

The biblical notion of mission affirms that God is a sending God (Lat., missio Dei), who loves the world so much that he sent his Son into the world to redeem it (e.g., John 3:16), and whose Son then sends the Holy Spirit as the Counselor (Gk. paraklētos [e.g., John 16:5–7]) and guide so that the church can fulfill its purpose. Mission (sending), therefore, expresses both the heart of God and the nature of the church in the world.

The Role of Language and Culture

Functionally, mission is the sharing of the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed across cultural and linguistic boundaries, without granting any particular language or culture a superior position in the divine economy. The Bible tells the story of God’s mission in offering human beings a covenantal relationship with himself. South African mission scholar David Bosch suggests that the missionary in the OT is God himself, whereas the NT presents several significant missionaries, with Jesus and his disciples being the most illustrative examples. Indeed, it can be said that the NT is itself a mission document, since it was written by people actively involved in mission (e.g., Paul, Luke). Biblically, the Christian mission implies a certain perspective on language and culture whereby all languages and cultures are relativized in the light of Christ, with no language or culture having privileged access to God, for God communicates through every particular language and culture. Thus, for instance, Koreans, Zulus, Cambodians, Quechuas, and Swedes have the same access to God through their own language and culture, and none of them are required to adopt another language or culture, such as Hebrew, Greek, or English, in order to know and worship God.

The importance of the parity of languages and cultures worldwide as vehicles of the gospel is exemplified biblically in the account of the Jerusalem council, where the apostle Paul confronted Jewish Christians who would have made Torah and circumcision the litmus test of authentic faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15). Paul argued vigorously against those who sought to require new Christians to adopt Jewish ceremonial practices of the OT in order to join the body of Christ. The relativization of language and culture is so crucial to Christian mission that Scripture records Paul rebuking Peter for seeking to make Gentile Christians follow Jewish customs (Gal. 2:14). Requiring followers of Christ to adopt Jewish (or other) ceremonial traditions (e.g., circumcision) would render the grace of Christ useless, making a mockery of the cross (Gal. 2:21), since Christ liberates human beings within their own language and culture. Simply put, people were to become followers of Jesus Christ on the basis of their own language and culture (Greek or otherwise) rather than according to any other tradition. According to the biblical account, no language or culture is too profane to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ.

Mission as Sending

Biblically, sending implies a sender, the one sent, and a message. The sender is the agent who initiates the deliverance of the message. The one sent has been given the authority to deliver in word and deed the message of the sender. The message refers to the content in word and deed that is shared by the agent (e.g., missionary) of the sender. The authority of the sender is invested in the messenger, so much so that the messenger (e.g., the missionary) represents the sender directly. More broadly, the biblical term “sending” appears in both Testaments, and it occurs in mundane contexts that are not concerned with God’s mission (missio Dei) as well as in texts that are explicitly mission related. In the OT, the Hebrew term shalakh, which occurs in various forms over eight hundred times, refers to sending the intentions of an authority figure, often a king, judge, or other person of high status. An example would be God, as a demonstration of his authority, sending Adam out of the garden (Gen. 3:23). The act of sending expresses the intention of the sender. The mission of God as presented in the OT is communicated clearly in Gen. 12:1–3 (in what is known as the Abrahamic covenant), where God tells Abram to leave his country, guided by God, in order to be a blessing to the entire world. Following Israel’s continual disobedience, God promises to send them a savior (Isa. 19:20), a statement that Christians interpret as foreshadowing the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ.

In the NT, the Greek terms for “send,” and their variations, occur over two hundred times, appearing in texts such as “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves” (Matt. 10:16); “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21); and “Jesus sent two of his disciples” (Mark 11:1). People often assume that there is one Great Commission text, Matt. 28:18–20, which summarizes the biblical warrant for mission. However, there are several “great commissions” in the Gospels, which might be better understood as “last commissions.” Each Gospel writer records his own version of the last commission, reflecting his theological purposes within the particular contexts out of which he writes his account. The last commissions appear in Matt. 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–20; Luke 24:44–47; John 20:19–23.

The most responsible interpretive strategy with regard to these passages is to read them within the larger context of each Gospel narrative rather than as individual texts (i.e., proof texts) disconnected from their wider context. That is to say, a faithful theology of mission in part entails letting the text interpret itself through study of the entire Gospel account. Otherwise, one may fail to understand the biblical notion of mission in its entirety. For instance, Luke 24:47 announces that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [Christ’s] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” which emphasizes the need for confession, forgiveness, and redemption (vertical aspects of mission). Yet one could misinterpret Luke’s Gospel were one to understand mission solely through the words of Luke 24:44–47, the vertical (spiritual) aspect, while overlooking Luke 4:16–30, verses that announce Jesus’ mission to liberate captives and give sight to the blind, reflecting the horizontal (social) nature of mission. In Luke’s Gospel, mission is characterized as equally vertical (i.e., calling for repentance and forgiveness) and horizontal (i.e., seeking sociopolitical justice). According to Luke’s Gospel, then, both vertical and horizontal aspects must be present in mission.

Mission and Missions

It is worthwhile to note the difference between the terms “mission” (sg.) and “missions” (pl.). Whereas “mission” refers to the singular act of God, who sends his Son, who sends the Holy Spirit into the world, “missions” refers to the specific agencies and organizations in history and currently that have sought to carry out that mission of God. There is only one mission (missio Dei), with several missions aiming to accomplish that singular mission through time and space. Generally, missions are divided into denominational and faith missions. Denominational missions, such as those of Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian churches, send out missionaries financially supported by the denomination. Faith missions, such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, Operation Mobilization, or SIM (Serving in Mission, formally Sudan Interior Mission), require that missionaries serve in mission by faith, either by going where they are called by God without having prior financial support or by raising financial support from friends and churches prior to leaving for their intended region of service.

Conclusion

Finally, there are two important lessons from the biblical account of mission. First, Paul and the other disciples, while seeking to communicate the gospel of good news to particular people, sought to maintain the unity of the churches in the face of their diverse cultural and linguistic makeup (e.g., Eph. 4:4–7). This means that a biblical perspective on mission sees culture and language as channels rather than obstacles to the communication of the gospel. Second, Paul and the disciples never started missions but rather established churches. Since mission implies movement across cultural and linguistic frontiers, the earlier followers of Christ were on the move, with the conviction that the Holy Spirit would guide, direct, and protect them until Christ returned.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Identity of Jesus Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

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

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

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

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

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

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

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

In the OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar [e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4]) God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed as listening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV, NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’s voice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaic covenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the laws set forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, God would bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, he would curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history of Israel sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen people and the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2 Kings 18:9–12; 2 Chron. 36:11–21), even though God repeatedly warned the people through his prophets that this destruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).

The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

A God-established observance, often given as a remembrance for generations, a memorial, always a commandment or an edict to be carried out, noted because God’s people are a covenant people, a perpetual statement of how God wants his people to relate to him.

Old Testament

In the OT the use of the word “ordinance” to translate certain Hebrew words varies among English translations. Since “ordinance” relates to the law, it is often mentioned with commandments and statutes, without a clear distinction of meaning (Deut. 7:11).

In the OT of the NIV, the word “ordinance” is the translation of these Hebrew words: (1) khuqqah (“statute, decree”), at least twenty-three times in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel; (2) khoq (“action, statute, decree”), twice in Exodus; and (3) mishpat (“judgment, justice”), at least five times in the historical books, Psalms, and Ezekiel.

The Hebrew term khuqqah is used in all but one instance with ’olam to note a “lasting ordinance” in the NIV. This term refers to the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod. 12–13). The oil for the perpetual lampstand is referred to as a lasting ordinance (Exod. 27:21), as are also the directions for the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:31) and the ceremonial cleanliness for the man working with the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19:10). Other, more-specific laws are noted as lasting ordinances. These include, for example, the restriction from wine for the priests (Lev. 10:9), restriction of the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31), and the grain offering (Ezek. 46:14).

The Hebrew term khoq is also used in conjunction with ’olam in Exod. 12:24; 30:21, translated as “lasting ordinance” by the NIV. It notes the Passover as a lasting ordinance and the ritual cleansing of the priests as a lasting ordinance.

The Hebrew term mishpat, often translated “judgment,” is also translated in the NIV as “ordinance.” In these instances it notes edicts such as that of the equal division of spoils (1 Sam. 30:25) and the edicts of David (2 Chron. 8:14). The Levites state that Israel has sinned against God’s mishpatim (Neh. 9:29), and the priests will judge according to God’s ordinances (Ezek. 44:24).

New Testament

In the NT, the KJV (3x) and NASB (1x) translate dikaiōma (“regulation, requirement”) as “ordinance,” and both also once translate diatagē (“that which is commanded”) as “ordinance”; additionally, the KJV translates paradosis (“tradition”) and ktisis (“human authority”) as “ordinance” once each. The ESV, NRSV, KJV, and NASB translate dogma (“ordinance, command”) in Eph. 2:15 as “ordinance.” These terms seem to refer to the edict of God for his people, his commandments that are to be obeyed. The NIV does not translate any noun as “ordinance” in the NT.

Christian Theology

In Christian theology the use of the word “ordinance” is not dissimilar. It denotes a God-ordained observance given as a command for his people to fulfill as a covenant people.

Protestants generally recognize two ordinances in the NT: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist). The common characteristics identifying these relate to their ordination by Christ to picture his work in the life of believers and the church and their participation in him. (See also Sacrament.)

Baptism. The concept of baptism is found in five different Greek words, the nouns baptisma (“plunging, dipping”), baptismos (“washing, cleansing, plunging”), and baptistēs (“baptizer”), and the verbs baptizō (“to plunge, dip, wash”) and baptō (“to dip”). The meanings of these words have been discussed throughout church history, but all of them seem to denote an action of dipping or plunging.

Christian baptism certainly is rooted in the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the apostles. In the book of Acts the disciples simply continue to baptize those who repent, as they had done at the inception of Jesus’ ministry (John 4:2). There is no surprise expressed by the recipients of baptism; the expression seems a natural follow-up to their repentance. The connection to Judaism, however, is unclear. Judaism was saturated with rituals of purification with water and washings. These washings were similar to baptisms. While Jewish washings were perpetual, only the Jewish proselyte baptism was a onetime rite. It is unclear when proselyte baptism started or how it developed. It may already have been in place in the time of Jesus. The Talmud later speaks of it, but it is not mentioned in the OT and seems to be missing from Second Temple literature altogether. Just as there were cleansings in the OT rituals, so too the proselyte baptism was a preparatory cleansing of the proselyte candidate. Yet proselyte baptism before the time of Jesus has little extant evidence. Additionally, John would not seem to look to a ritual for Gentiles.

Others have proposed that John was in continuity with a practice of Qumran. The two were very similar (though the Qumran rite was perpetual). At Qumran, baptismal cleansing and repentance looks to the Messiah (Qumran was an eschatological community). Yet it may be that this, as well as the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the apostles, was derived from (common?) sources not now known.

For John, too, baptism is a sign of repentance and cleansing in preparation. John is the forerunner of the Messiah, and as such his focus is also eschatological. John brings an immediate focus on the Messiah, and he draws the Israelite community together to recognize, receive, listen to, and follow the Messiah. With this as the significance of John’s baptism, it is surprising to find Jesus coming to him for baptism. Although Jesus has no need for cleansing and preparation, he is baptized in solidarity with John’s message and his people. When Jesus is baptized, it apparently marks the inception of the kingdom as the Spirit comes upon him and the Father affirms him. Thereafter, Jesus notes the kingdom as being “at hand” in his presence.

Jesus baptizes at least some of the disciples (John 3:22), though the disciples are noted as those who regularly do the baptizing (John 4:2). No doubt this baptism referenced cleansing and preparation, as the Messiah was present. Apparently, the baptism of Jesus’ disciples subsided, since there is no further reference to it by the four evangelists.

On the day of Pentecost, repentance and baptism with regard to the Messiah are begun by the apostles postresurrection. This is according to the command of Jesus before the ascension to make disciples by way of baptism and instruction (Matt. 28:19–20). This baptism commanded by Jesus is to be done “in the name” of the three persons of the Trinity. The early baptismal creed was “Jesus is Lord,” and it may have included a threefold query of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Postresurrection baptism symbolizes cleansing; the inundation in the water symbolizes this cleansing as effected in the death and resurrection of Christ, “buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4).

Baptism is always assumed of a believer (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3–4; 1 Pet. 3:21). It would have never occurred to the early church to dichotomize salvation and baptism as is often done today. The exception can be seen in Paul’s writings, where he emphasizes the kerygma over the act of baptism (1 Cor. 1:17). For Paul, the watershed is the preaching of the gospel to be received by faith, but he perpetually appeals to the baptism of his readers.

Some have overemphasized baptism by seeing it as the salvific entity. Acts 10:47 applies for Cornelius and his family the permanent reception of the Spirit before baptism. This reception of the Spirit is later likened by Peter to the original gift of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 11:15). Although it would be unwise to infer doctrine from the mere sequence of narrative events, the passage in Acts 10 at least shows the nonnecessity of the sequence of baptism to come into union with Christ. This is enacted by the operation of the Spirit alone.

In every case in the NT, the candidates for baptism are those who have come to repentance, and they are always adults. There is no direct reference to infant baptism. Some in the church have assumed infant baptism in family contexts, thought to be especially effectual in dealing with original sin. But overall, the biblical testimony seems to indicate that baptism is for believers who have repented. Because it is usually NT authority figures who administer baptism, a general consensus arose that only the bishop of the church should administer baptism. Ignatius calls for the bishop only to minister both ordinances. The tradition that baptism be administered by an ordained officer of the church is largely maintained today, though there is no edict in the Scripture.

With regard to mode, the Didache calls for immersion in running water as the preferred method, with still water being the second choice. If water is not available for immersion, then a threefold pouring is allowed. In church history, those who prioritize the symbol of cleansing use sprinkling as the mode. In any event, when anything with regard to mode can be discerned from Scripture, it involves dipping into water (“he went up out of the water” [Matt. 3:16]; “they came up out of the water” [Acts 8:39]). (See also Baptism; Infant Baptism.)

The Lord’s Supper. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is also referred to as the Lord’s Table, Communion, and the Eucharist. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the death of Christ. In the partaking of the bread and the cup there is remembrance of the ground of salvation effected in the sacrifice of the cross. Most evangelical Christians consider the bread and the cup to symbolically represent the body and blood of Christ. Other Christian traditions claim that the bread and the cup are transformed into the real body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation) or that the real body and blood of Christ are present alongside the bread and the cup (consubstantiation).

The narrative of Jesus’ Last Supper is found in Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26. This meal as recorded in the Gospels is the covenant meal celebrated in view of the ratification of the new covenant that would soon be accomplished (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood” [Luke 22:20]). Jesus instituted the supper on the night before the crucifixion. The Last Supper of Jesus with the apostles in the upper room also looks to the past redemption effected in the Passover on that fateful night in Egypt. It looks to the present work of Christ as the covenant meal. It anticipates the messianic meal in the eschaton. Just as the bread and the cup with Jesus in his Last Supper were connected with the Passover meal, so in the early church it was observed with the love feast. The fellowship of the church contained the love feast, with the bread given before or after the meal and the cup following the bread. But by the second century, the bread and the cup took on a more liturgical air, being separated from the love feast.

Much of what we know about the Lord’s Supper comes through discussion of problems in the Corinthian church. The very thing that the Lord’s Supper was to foster—unity around the cross of Jesus Christ—was denied. The exact abuse in Corinth is unknown, but it probably involved the rich oppressing the poor by exclusion or denial of food. The response of the apostle is that if they cannot eat in equal moderation with all socioeconomic strata in the body, they are to eat at home (“Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?” [1 Cor. 11:22]). (See also Last Supper; Lord’s Supper.)

A mountain or ridge northeast of the Dead Sea. The region across the river from Jericho is described as being “below the slopes of Pisgah” (Deut. 3:17; 32:49; Josh. 12:3). Pisgah refers to the same location as Mount Nebo. In Deut. 34:1 Moses “climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the top of Pisgah,” from which he was able to survey the entire promised land before his death.

Pisgah was one of three mountains upon which Balaam and Balak sought a divine revelation, in the “field of Zophim” (Num. 23:14). Throughout the Bible, mountaintops serve as the setting for worship, divine revelation, and divination: in the OT, Sinai, Gerizim, Zion, Carmel; in the NT, the mountains where Jesus teaches, is transfigured, and is worshiped (Matt. 5:1–2; Mark 9:2; Matt. 28:16–17), and where John the Seer envisions the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:10).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Human Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ’s resurrection is the foundational event for the Christian faith. Paul goes so far as to say that if Christ did not rise, then the Christian faith is futile and Christians are to be pitied more than all others (1 Cor. 15:17–19). Resurrection’s climaxing position in all four Gospel narratives yields the same understanding. Christ came not merely to die, as some claim, but to conquer death. Resurrection gives everything that Christ did before his death an “of God” significance, and it establishes everything that follows as a guarantee of God’s eschatological promises. Without the resurrection, Jesus would have been just another “prophet hopeful” who died a tragic peasant death in Jerusalem. However, as it is, evidenced by the resurrection, he is the Son of God. According to the NT, the resurrection is the triumphant cry that God indeed did come to visit his creation and conquer the power of sin and death.

Old Testament

Resurrection hope is poorly attested by the OT, especially in earlier sections. References are made to death that seem to indicate that the dead have not ceased to exist, but such passages refer (at best) to death as a shadowy, nonlife existence (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Ezek. 32:21). When early OT texts suggest that certain individuals experience everlasting life, they do so by escaping death altogether. Enoch (Gen. 5:24) walked with God and was simply taken away, while God dramatically picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11). Saul’s attempt at Endor to reawaken Samuel from death to receive his counsel (1 Sam. 28:3–14) speaks more to the superstition and disobedience of Saul than it does to Israel’s faith in life after death.

Some OT prophetic texts hint at a corporate restoration of life beyond the grave. It is a promise not of resurrection from death to life for the individual but of God’s unceasing love for corporate Israel that ultimately results in the redemption of his people from the snares of death (Hos. 6:1–3; 13:14). Although these texts are difficult to separate from Israel’s vision of postexilic national restoration, as in the vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37:1–14), they do indicate a growing sense of hope that God will restore Israel to renewed life in his presence after death. A similar trend may lie behind Job 14:14, where Job, after affirming the finality of individual death (14:12), still raises the question of a possible life after death. The basis for this notion rests on the affirmation that the living God, Job’s gracious redeemer, has power over death and will allow Job to see life after death (Job 19:25–26; cf. Ps. 16:10).

Daniel 12:2, which on the surface looks like a full-fledged teaching on individual resurrection, still falls short as a beneficial comparison to the teaching of Jesus. Although the Pharisees (along with a number of modern interpreters looking for OT foundations for individual resurrection) later used this as a proof text for individual resurrection, its context (Dan. 11) clearly suggests a struggle between nations, to which God eventually will reveal his eternal judgment. God will vindicate his people. Notwithstanding, OT language of eternal awakening to a new reality, good or bad, opens the door for further reflection on God’s eternal purpose and how it relates to human experience beyond death.

Intertestamental Period

The speculations of the intertestamental period portray a vast array of philosophical influences that affected the thinking of Second Temple Judaism. The conservative Sadducees, who may have accepted only the Torah as Scripture, understood Sheol (the state or abode of the dead) to be a place of unending sleep and thus denied resurrection (cf. Sir. 17:27–28; 30:17; Acts 23:8). Other groups, such as the Pharisees and the Essenes, were to a greater or lesser extent influenced by Hellenistic thinking on the relationship between spirit and matter. The lack of unity among these groups, especially the Pharisees, created a plethora of understandings concerning resurrection. Some, influenced by the Platonic idea that the soul/spirit is immortal and will be released at the death of the body, turned reflections on the afterlife into an issue of immortality (4 Macc. 14:5; 18:23). Others seem to have affirmed a physical resurrection but restricted it to either Israel or a righteous remnant thereof. This latter perspective easily connected to the view that all would be raised, the unrighteous for punishment, the righteous for reward and bliss.

It proves impossible, therefore, to determine to what extent Christian reflections during the first century influenced Jewish writers rather than vice versa. Sociologically speaking, the early Christians were one of the many parties of Judaism developing during that period. As the Gospels seem to suggest, they interacted, maybe especially, with the Pharisees.

New Testament

The OT’s relative silence on the issue of resurrection stands in stark contrast to the central position that it holds in the NT. All four Gospels build their narrative portrayal of Jesus’ ministry toward this climaxing event, and Jesus himself argued against the view of the Sadducees (Mark 12:18–27). Beyond the Gospel narratives, Paul makes resurrection the very heart of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15); Hebrews understands resurrection as part of Christian elementary teaching (Heb. 6:1–2); James plays on the word “raise” as he explains the connection between faith and strength of life (James 5:15); Peter sees resurrection as the basis for Christian hope (1 Pet. 1:3); Revelation details the quality of the resurrected life (Rev. 21–22). In short, every part of the NT affirms the reality of a resurrection after death. It is the climactic evidence that God’s kingdom now dwells among people. God brings life; death will no longer have the last word.

The Gospels. The Gospels give four accounts of raisings from the dead. Strictly speaking, these are not resurrections but resuscitations. The people in question are not raised to eternal life but rather are brought back to life in their historical circumstances; they will later die again. The Gospels’ intertwining of the raising of Jairus’s daughter with the healing of the hemorrhaging woman (Mark 5:21–43 pars.) underscores the conceptual connection between life and God’s presence. First-century Judaism had come up bankrupt and could do nothing to help a woman whose bleeding made worship of God impossible. Now, however, life could be restored after death. Even the leader of the worship center, who could do nothing to help this woman, now saw his own daughter raised from the dead.

The raising of the widow’s son from Nain (Luke 7:11–17) similarly indicates that the days of the prophet Elijah had returned (1 Kings 17:8–24). God was again visiting his people and bringing life after death. Most spectacularly, Lazarus’s raising after four days in the grave (John 11:1–44) speaks directly to God’s power to bring life out of death in connection with OT understandings of the afterlife. The emphasis on the four days in the grave, along with Jesus’ pronouncement of himself as “resurrection and life” and his application of God’s revelatory name (“I am”) to himself, make this event stand out as anticipating what is soon to come in full. The same holds true in the unleashing of power at Jesus’ death, when graves spring open and the dead are raised (Matt. 27:51–53).

Paul’s letters. Paul’s teaching on resurrection anchors in eschatology, or vice versa. The reality and finality of death, introduced by Adam’s disobedience, are now overcome by Christ through his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:21–22). Christ’s resurrection evidences that God has ended death’s reign; it heralds the imminent coming of the end, a time when all who belong to Christ will be raised in like manner, and death will be no more (15:23–24).

Although at times Paul uses the language of body, soul, and spirit, he never falls prey to a Platonic dualism that separates body from soul, claiming that only the body dies while the soul remains immortal (1 Tim. 6:15b–16a). Rather, following Hebraic thinking, he understands resurrection as total transformation of the whole person, comparing it to what happens to a seed put in the ground. It must die before something completely new comes up (1 Cor. 15:36). The promise of resurrection is the promise that the death-marked human who is buried will, at the time of resurrection, be transformed and suited to live eternally in God’s presence. What is now perishable will become imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42–44). To Paul, this is not about getting rid of matter (the body) that is created by God, but about Christ’s restoration of what Adam destroyed (1 Cor. 15:49). It is the same understanding expressed in Rev. 21:1–5a, where John prophesies the transformation of both heaven and earth when God reestablishes his covenant relationship with his people.

Summary. Although the Gospels’ presentations of Jesus’ resurrection vary in some detail (probably due to purpose and audience), all of them treat the event as the theological centerpiece of the Gospel narrative. The resurrection story launches God’s eschatological work and opens the door, as the postresurrection appearances show, for a connection between the Jesus story and the church story. It is the foundation both for the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) and for Pentecost (Luke 24:49). All people of all nations can now meet the living Christ.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriage and Adultery

Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).

Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.

The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).

Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Control and Purity

The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriage and Adultery

Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).

Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.

The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).

Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Control and Purity

The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.

Since the early apologists’ first attempts to defend the Christian faith against contemporary Greco-Roman philosophers, explanations of God’s sovereignty have found support from Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian categories. This unfortunate “marriage” pushed theologians to identify God’s power in static and absolute categories that explained God as unmoved and impassible. God’s sovereign will must be perfect and cannot be affected by the world or by human suffering. In his perfection, God is necessarily apatheia (Aristotle), beyond joy or sorrow (Plato). This notion led medieval and Reformation theologians to assert that Jesus suffered in his human nature, but not in his divine nature. To protect God’s integrity (incapability of corruption), the biblical emphasis on God’s passionate involvement with his creation and people (e.g., Isa. 34:2; Zeph. 3:17) was squelched.

Christian speculation on God’s sovereignty followed the Neoplatonic principle of plenitude, in which the created universe is little more than the divine being’s necessary overflow of temporal diversity. God’s perfection requires the unlimited actualization of all possibilities. For Augustine, this meant that all human experience is foreclosed in God’s eternity; for Anselm, it gave an ontological argument for God’s existence; for Abelard, it meant that God cannot do or leave undone anything other than what he has done; for Beza (Calvinism), double predestination was a given; for Schleiermacher, human self-consciousness had its roots in the divine being; for Tillich, a “God above God” was the ground of all being; and we could add many others. “Sovereignty,” in these delineations, expresses the necessary manifestation of God’s perfection and absolute power.

The biblical language of sovereignty does not parallel such logic. Broadly speaking, the Bible describes sovereignty as God’s divine authority to rule his creation in general and Israel in particular. He is the Lord of all creation and the King of Israel. He is almighty (sovereign) to accomplish his purpose, which is to restore his kingdom on earth through Christ (1 Tim. 6:14–15), to whom he now has given all authority (Matt. 28:18). Rather than an aloof divinity of perfection, God is presented in the Bible as intensely personal and superbly engaged in the affairs of his creation. He remains outside his creation as its supreme, infinite Creator (transcendence), while allowing his love to instruct both his justice and his power (immanence). He creates not because the necessity of his perfection requires it but rather out of sovereign freedom and love. He is both protective of his position as Lord of creation and concerned for his people’s welfare (Deut. 6:13–19). His sovereignty displays his moral character (Exod. 15:11–18) while demanding reciprocal love and relational obedience from his people.

As sovereign, God has power and rule that are above all other powers and rulers (Pss. 22:28; 103:19; Dan. 5:21). His providential care for all creation exhibits his loving kingship and confirms his essential goodness. God’s sovereignty affirms that human life has meaning and purpose; he does not leave us alone to create our own happiness, nor are we subject to whatever misery presses upon us (1 Chron. 29:11). Rather than an indivisible attribute, God’s power is subject to his control and expresses itself relationally. This same relationality lies behind the biblical understanding of God’s will and unchangeable character (James 1:17; cf. Ps. 102:25–27; Isa. 40:8). As a comparison of 1 Sam. 15:11 with 15:29 shows, God’s sovereignty does not militate against his freedom to change his mind. Rather, God remains unchangeably faithful and true to his character even when humans prove faithless and false (2 Tim. 2:13).

This relational quality of God’s sovereignty is rooted in his triunity. His existence is coexistence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes love the distinctive mark of his sovereignty. The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards against metaphysical understandings of God that make light of his self-revelation in Christ. Opposite the self-expanding god of philosophical speculations, the biblical God manifests his sovereignty through the self-limiting and self-denying Christ (Phil. 2:5–11), who reveals God’s absolute power as the servant of his absolute love.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

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

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

Trinitarian Heresies

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

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

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

Known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”), these four consonants comprise the personal name of God. Most English versions gloss this name in small capital letters as “Lord” (see Gen. 15:1) or “God” (see Gen. 15:2 KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB). “Lord” without the small-capital format signifies a title, not a personal name, in Hebrew: ’adonay. In the intertestamental period, reverent Jews became reluctant to speak the divine name, and so they substituted ’adonay or some title for “YHWH.” In the Middle Ages, when vowels were introduced to the Hebrew text, those belonging to ’adonay were inserted into “YHWH,” reminding readers to speak the title rather than the name. English speakers, however, substituting J for the Y, vocalizing W with a V sound (both under the influence of German), and reading the consonants and vowels together, invented from this an artificial word that no ancient had ever pronounced: “Jehovah” (see Gen. 15:2 ASV).

Many derive “YHWH” from the Hebrew verb “to be” (hayah) and understand the meaning of the name to be “He Is,” though this is debated. Such an etymology is found in Exod. 3:13–14, where Moses asked God his name, and God replied, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” Passing by Moses on Mount Sinai, God declared the meaning of this name, revealing God’s nature as being compassionate, gracious, patient, loving, forgiving, and just (Exod. 34:5–7). Jesus claims this name for himself in John 8:58: “Before Abraham was born, I am.” Christians baptize in the singular name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). See also Lord.