Sermon and Worship Resources

John 7:45--8:11 · Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders

45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, "Why didn't you bring him in?"

46 "No one ever spoke the way this man does," the guards declared.

47 "You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees retorted. 48 "Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law--there is a curse on them."

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?"

52 They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee." 53 Then each went to his own home.

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. 7 But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

He Breaks the Power of Cancelled Sin

John 8:1-11

Sermon
by Maxie Dunnam

Dr. Carl Meninger, well-known psychiatrist, wrote a book a few years ago entitled, Whatever Became of Sin. In it, he reported how a stern, plainly dressed man appeared on a busy corner of Chicago’s Loop. As people passed by, he would from time-to-time solemnly lift his arm and point to a passerby and say just one word; “Guilty!” Then without changing expression, he would drop his arm. After a few seconds, he would raise his arm again, and with an accusing finger pointing at another person, he would utter that one word indictment: “Guilty!”

The effect of this on the people on was extraordinary. Some stared, started to laugh, then stopped, hesitated, looked around with furtive glances, and hurried on with quickened step. One passerby turned to a companion and exclaimed, “But how did he know?”

We do not have to have an eccentric street preacher pointing an accusing finger to remind us of our guilt. We have more authentic inside information. We are intimately acquainted with what some have called “the shadow side of our nature.” So, we move through life as “half-prisoners.”

It isn’t that we aren’t Christian. It isn’t that we have not been forgiven. The problem is in our unwillingness to trust Christ, to do what he says he will do. So, it is a big issue of faith.

Again, we live as “half - prisoners.” We are not in complete bondage. We may have claimed our salvation in Christ. We may have experienced joyful good news of forgiveness. But something holds us back, keeps us down - and we are not the Dynamic Disciples we are called to be and could be.

So, I want to talk about that today as we continue our sermon series on Dynamic Discipleship. I want to use an image from Charles Wesley hymn, 0, For A Thousand Tongues To Sing. The image is in the first line of the fourth verse “He breaks the power of cancelled sin.”

We will pursue that image in a moment, but let me say a parenthetical word here. It is not without meaning that on this Choir Dedication Sunday the core message of the sermon would be the line of a hymn. John Wesley was the preacher of the Wesleyan revival, Charles, his brother, was the poet. Together, they believed that the principle of “Faith working through love” had to be sung as well as preached.” When John and Charles Wesley climbed the steps of the Market Cross to preach the gospel, their congregation was made up of dirty, displaced, drunken and brawling people who had been led by Puritan theology to believe that they were damned, and by deistic philosophy to believe that God didn’t care. Then, cutting through the gloom and rising above the curses came the pure sound of Charles singing the hymn that he wrote to celebrate the first anniversary of Wesley’s conversion to Christ,

0, for a thousand tongues to sing
My great redeemer’s praise,
The glories of my God and King,
The triumphs of His grace!

Jesus! The Name that charms our fears,
That bids our sorrows cease,
Tis music in the sinner’s ears,
Tis life, and health and peace.

He breaks the power of cancelled sin,
He sets the prisoner free;
His blood can make the foulest clean;
His blood availed for me.”

Sad to say, what we sing is not always what we preach. Great hymns are cancelled by the platitudes of cheap grace or our preaching is made ludicrous by love ditties. (David L. McKenna, “What a Time to Be Alive”)

That’s the reason it’s so important that we have a Music Ministry that aims at excellence, but immersed in and communicates the Gospel. That’s the reason our Director of Music must be seen as much a minister as any of the ordained persons on the staff. That’s the reason I celebrate the presence of Mike Brewster. He knows what it means to sing the He knows that feeble songs and spiritless music is a primary sign of a powerless church.

So, we sing as well as preach the good news! And no one sang it more pointedly and powerfully than Charles Wesley. “He breaks the power of cancelled sin.”

What am image! Note the truth of it. Sin, though cancelled by forgiveness, may still have power over us. That’s what we were saying earlier. It isn’t that we aren’t Christian. It isn’t that we’ve not been forgiven. We simply have not trusted Christ to do completely what he wants to do. So the Good News is alas for us who remain “half prisoners”. “He breaks the power of cancelled sin, He sets the prisoner free. His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me.”

Now come to our Scripture. This is one of the most popular and beloved stories in the New Testament. No ingredient is missing from it. Life situation drama: The woman was caught in the act of adultery. Intrigue and efforts to ensnare Jesus are in it. “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commands us to stone such. What do you say about her? This they said to test him, that they might have some charge against him.” (vs. 4-6)

Then the suspense: They waited for Jesus’ word: They were ready for argument and debate. Jesus’ action intensified the suspense and punctuated it with an exclamation mark for He did not speak: He bent down and wrote with his finger in the sand.

Then comes the Confrontation. “He stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. (vs. 7)

Now more suspense to underscore the judgment implicit in the confrontation: “Once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.” (vs. 8).

Life situation drama, intrigue, suspense, confrontation, and now action and resolution. Confronted by the reality of their own sin, “One by one” the accusers slipped away and Jesus is alone with the woman. Here is one of the tenderest yet toughest expressions of the gospel we have in the entire Bible. “Jesus looked up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? “She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you: Go, and do not sin again.” (vss. 10—11).

So the story is complete. It stands alone. We can pronounce the Amen here and most sermons preached on this passage do just that. But there is another word here – a crucial word - John’s commentary on the story. Listen to verse 12. “Again, Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the Light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the Light of Life.” This is a core truth for dynamic discipleship. We are free, not partially, but completely free. In Christ we have the Light of Life. So, let’s hone in on the truth in this image of Brother Charles Wesley: “He breaks the power of cancelled sin.”

We’ll pursue a variation on the theme next Sunday. For now, underscore this big point: CHRIST FREES US FROM SOMETHING. What is it from which we are freed? What is the darkness from which we are delivered as we are given the Light of Life?

One of the most perceptive observers of our time, Paul Tillich, said that ours is a negative age characterized by meaninglessness, guilt, and death. We don’t have to stretch the gospel even a fraction of an inch, nor do we have to exaggerate to any degree the testimonies of history to confirm the “Good News” that Christ frees us from meaninglessness, guilt, and death. Let’s probe these briefly, but deeply.

CHRIST FREES US FROM MEANINGLESSNESS

First, Christ frees us from meaninglessness. We know this experience don’t we? Meaningless! We try to escape it. We take more and more tranquilizers, spend more and more money, involve ourselves in more and more superficial relationships, play more and more games, go to more and more cocktail parties, develop more and more ulcers, commit more and more crimes, demonstrate for more and more causes, become more and more inaccessible. But it ends the same. In Margaret T. Applegrath’s words, we are still “dirt-bound, earthbound, skin-bound, sex-bound, scandal-bound, drink-bound, fashion-bound, gadget-bound, noise-bound.”

Bring it down to where we all live.

The story of meaninglessness can be written out of the setting of almost every home. The characters of the story vary, but the plot is pretty much t same. It is the story of wives who feel no longer needed husbands who have become bread-winners and nothing more, of young people who are frustrated in their efforts at freedom and have found the shackles of the free to be free:’ It is the story of the man in the pin-striped suit who has grown weary of the rat race and the cog that he is in the giant wheel of success. It is the story of old people who are insecure in their retirement and who are neglected by their own kin, wondering if they can bare the neglect one more day. It is the story of the pyramid climber who finds that near the top level nothing is different than what he found at the bottom - meaninglessness. It is even the story of the minister who awakens to the fact that he has been seduced by the way of his church – but Christ frees us.

He frees us from meaninglessness by providing a sense of purpose, a sense of mission, a sense of responsibility, a feeling of self-worth, a basis for relationships, and a reason for being.

He breaks the power of cancelled sin. Listen to him. “He who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the Light of Life.”

CHRIST FREES US FROM GUILT

Christ frees us from meaninglessness. He also frees us from guilt. We are plagued by all sorts of guilt. We haven’t been good husbands or wives. We haven’t functioned well as parents. We failed to live up to previous commitments. We have cheated our future by compromising ourselves. In moments of impulse we hurt someone we loved, and yet never had the courage to seek reconciliation. Deeper than all this, we have violated precious relationships with God and others and are estranged.

In Christ God speaks the word of forgiveness and frees us from the power of guilt. The adulterous woman in our story heard that word: “Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more.” The relief that comes when we can accept this is wing—giving. It never comes though until we by faith appropriate it personally. Here is the problem. I, and most people I know go through much of life accepting forgiveness on an intellectual level, but never at the heart level and gut level of personal being. We accept the truth with our mind, but not with our emotion, and so we continue unfree, bound by guilt.

Somehow, by a miracle of grace and the reception of my whole being, I must accept Jesus’ word “Son, daughter, thy sins be forgiven thee,” (Matt. 9:2 K.J.V.)

He breaks the power of cancelled sin. Listen to him: “He who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

III

CHRIST FREES US FROM DEATH

Christ frees us from meaninglessness and guilt, and now the final word: Christ frees us from death.

One of my most vivid boyhood recollections is the ringing gospel songs that dominated our worship. In our little country church we didn’t know too much about the proper movement of worship, or that there was high and low or classical and popular forms of music.

The songs were always very personal. One that remains clear to me was set to a rousing tune that even now I catch myself humming. The first verse went,

Tis a sweet and glorious thought that comes to me,
I’ll live on; yes I’ll live on;
Jesus saved my soul from death and now I’m free,
I’ll live on, yes, I’ll live on.

The chorus was simply a repetition of the refrain,

I’ll live on, yes, live on,
Through eternity I’ll live on.

The chorus was simply a repetition of the refrain.

I’ll live on, yes, I’ll live on,
Through eternity I’ll live on.

Even as a boy that meant a great deal to me because it spoke to my fear of death. This was before TV brought the fact of death dramatically into our living rooms. But there in rural Mississippi, living very close to nature, not even a child could escape early confrontation with the fact of death.

I knew nothing of the “threat of non-being” or the psychological efforts we put forth to escape the fact of death by clinging to some vague doctrine about the immortality of the soul. Yet this is what we were singing about and this is what we were clinging to: the belief that somehow we would be delivered from death.

I know better now. We are never delivered from death. The threat and fact of death remain always. Yet, however crude and impressive the song may be, it still is meaningful, and I sing it to myself now and then. It’s not a matter escaping death but a matter of Jesus saving “my soul from death and now I’m free.” It’s the freedom that is mine because the threat of death is no longer powerful in its devastation. The threat is always there, but the power of it doesn’t devastate and immobilize us.

When Charles Williams died, C. S. Lewis said, “What death did to him was nothing compared to what he did to the idea of death.” Lewis knew he was saying something similar to what John quoted Jesus as saying, “I am the Light of the World; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Life purposefully lived in Christ is eternal life and death has no power over it\

So, get it clear in your mind. We do not have to live in bondage as half-prisoners, bound by guilt, meaninglessness and the threat of death. We can be released for dynamic discipleship. “He breaks the power of cancelled sin!” 0, listen to him - Jesus is speaking to you - and me. “He who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

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

Overview and Insights · Jesus Offers Living Water (7:37–8:11)

During the Feast of Tabernacles, the priests would draw water from the Pool of Siloam and lead a procession to the temple, where they would pour out the water at the base of the altar as a means of thanking God for his provision. Also, they would read from the Prophets (e.g., Ezekiel 47; Zechariah 14), which mention living water flowing from the temple. On the final day of the Feast, Jesus publicly invites the thirsty to come to him and permanently satisfy their thirst (7:37). Jesus will provide living water, a promise fulfilled later when he is glorified and sen…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

John 7:45--8:11 · Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders

45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, "Why didn't you bring him in?"

46 "No one ever spoke the way this man does," the guards declared.

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?"

52 They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee." 53 Then each went to his own home.

11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Commentary · The Woman Caught in Adultry

The section about the woman caught in adultery has always proved difficult. Three questions persist: (1) Is it an insertion into the text of John? Most scholars answer in the affirmative. The best Greek manuscripts do not have it, and when they do, it appears in a variety of places (e.g., after John 7:36; 21:25; Luke 21:38; or even Luke 24:53). It also has a style unlike that of John, and it interrupts the Feast of Tabernacles story (see 8:12). If it belonged here, 7:53–8:1 would imply that Jesus was at the Sanhedrin meeting in 7:45–52! (2) Is the story authentically from Jesus? Yes it is. It is similar to Synoptic stories of Jewish entrapment climaxed by Jesus’s profound pronouncement (8:7). (3) Why was it located here in John? The surrounding discourse (esp. chap. 8) asserts themes that the story illustrates. Jesus judges no one (8:15), and his accusers cannot convict him of sin (8:46). (For a current study on the history of the text, see Burge 1984.)

But these concerns should not deter us from the power and authority of the story. The account has always been a favorite for good reason. The falsehood of the scribes and Pharisees is indicated in two ways. First, the Old Testament law on which they base their charges (8:5) required the punishment of both parties (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). The woman’s partner is absent. Was she set up? Second, Jewish law carefully stipulated what evidence needed to be in hand. No execution was possible without a solid case. Hence Sanhedrin records indicate judges who would even demand to know the color of the sheets on the bed. The law even distinguished intercourse from preliminary sexual contact. This extensive demand for evidence made adultery charges rare in Judaism since couples would naturally take precautionary measures to conceal themselves. However, the law was aware of men who, rather than divorce their wives for an illicit affair, chose to have them “set up” with witnesses for execution. (If a man thus executed his wife, he became heir to her property; but not if he divorced her.) But this self-interest was deemed morally wrong. If witnesses viewed preliminary coition, they were obliged to interrupt the act and prevent the greater crime. If, as we suspect, a man has discharged his wife thus and engineered testimony (“caught in the act,” 8:4) to execute her without warning her, the entire affair may appear legal but reeks of injustice. In Jesus’s eyes the entire situation would have been reprehensible. The woman is simply a pawn for the Jewish leaders who wish to play off Jesus’s well-known compassion for sinners (even women sinners! cf. Luke 7:36–50) against the demands of the law. They wish to discredit Jesus (8:6). However, Jesus does not deny the woman’s sin but draws her accusers into the circle of condemnation.

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

Jesus’ third public announcement at the Feast of Tabernacles took place on the last and greatest day of the Feast (v. 37). It is perhaps the most remembered and certainly the most widely discussed saying in Jesus’ temple discourse if not in the entire Gospel. Of the nineteen articles on John 7 listed in the bibliography of Raymond Brown’s major commentary, seventeen deal with verses 37–39! (The Gospel According to John, AB 29A [New York: Doubleday, 1966], p. 331). This is attributable both to the intrinsic appeal of Jesus’ words and to the unique combination of difficulties in knowing how they should be heard or read. Verses 37–39 might be plausibly understood in any of at least three ways:

1. Jesus … said … “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit … (NIV).

2. Jesus … said … “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me. And let him drink, who believes in me. As the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit … (NIV margin).

3. Jesus … said … “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me. And let him drink, who believes in me.” [It was] as the Scripture said, streams of living water will flow from within him. But by this it meant the Spirit …

In the interpretation of this text two issues present themselves: the issue of punctuation and the issue of whether Jesus or the narrator is represented as introducing the scripture quotation of uncertain origin. The first rendering connects the phrase, whoever believes in me, with the scripture quotation so that the believer (any believer) is the one from whom the streams of living water are to come. In version 2 the punctuation is different: The phrase “If anyone is thirsty” stands parallel with “him … who believes in me,” and the scripture quotation follows as Jesus’ comment on the whole preceding sentence. In both versions, the Scripture is Jesus’ text and not the narrator’s. But as soon as the scripture quotation is set apart from the phrase “Whoever believes in me,” it is no longer obvious that the quotation is being attributed to Jesus. The third rendering attributes it instead to the narrator.

The effect of this shift is significant. According to version 3, Jesus extends an invitation to the spiritually thirsty to come and drink, but without an explicit promise attached. The Gospel writer takes the opportunity to state that this appeal by Jesus fulfills a particular text of scripture. The one from whose heart the living water flows is now Jesus himself, not the believer. This rendering of the passage has certain considerations in its favor. It is more natural to think of Jesus than of individual Christian believers as the source or wellspring of the life-giving Spirit of God. Verse 39 mentions the Spirit whom believers in Jesus were later to receive (not dispense to others). It is Jesus who dispenses the Holy Spirit as the very breath of his mouth (20:22). At his crucifixion, in a scene rich with symbolism, water as well as blood flows from his pierced side (19:34).

The real choice in the interpretation of verses 37–39 is not between versions 1 and 2 (i.e., the NIV text and the NIV margin), but between either of them and version 3. The real issue is whether Jesus or the gospel writer is quoting Scripture. In favor of 1 and 2, it can be said that Jesus is freely represented as quoting scripture in this Gospel, and there are hints, as we have seen, that the exposition of scripture may have played a larger part in the temple discourse than first appears (cf. vv. 15, 22–23). Verse 39 is a comment of the narrator in any case, and such a comment makes good sense on the assumption that Jesus himself is still the speaker in verse 38.

If, on the other hand (as in version 3), the narrator is already responsible for most of verse 38, then in verse 39 he is commenting on his own appended words (i.e., the scripture quotation), not the words of Jesus. The subject of verse 39 is not Jesus (“he meant”) but the Scripture (“it meant”). The same Greek verb, eipen, is translated “said” (in reference to the Scripture) in verse 38b and “meant” in verse 39.

It is difficult to decide among the three alternatives, and the modern reader is perhaps inclined to ask how necessary it is to decide. The weight of tradition favors version 1, and to a lesser extent version 2, yet an appreciation of version 3 sheds its own light on the text’s meaning. Here, as elsewhere (e.g., 3:11–21), Jesus’ words have merged so closely with those of the narrator that all three renderings of the passage convey broadly similar meanings. In all three, Jesus invites the thirsty hearer to come and drink from the water he has to give. All three attach to the invitation a promise of living water. All three interpret the water as the Spirit, and in all three the qualification of v. 39 that this gift of the Spirit was some thing believers were later to receive is decisive. It is clear in any case that the invitation and the promise were future from the standpoint of the events just recorded at the Feast of Tabernacles. The Spirit, after all, had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified (v. 39). Verses 37–39 belong with those references within and just before the temple discourse that keep emphasizing that the time for Jesus’ decisive and final self-revelation is not yet (i.e., 7:6, 30; 8:20, 28). Jesus’ announcement on the last and greatest day of the Feast is an invitation to faith and a promise of life, embedded within a discourse focused primarily on unbelief and judgment. It is a joyful announcement whose time has not yet come. Yet for the narrator and his readers the time has come: Jesus has been raised to glory and the Spirit has been given. The invitation and the promise are now in effect.

These features that the three renderings have in common far outweigh the points on which they differ. The principal difference is simply that version 3 makes Jesus the source of the life-giving Spirit, whereas versions 1 and 2—version 1 clearly and version 2 more ambiguously—assign this role (at least derivatively) to the believer. Yet in neither case is the believer viewed as a source of life, or of the Spirit, to others. The image of streams of water from the believer’s heart (if that is intended) is akin rather to 4:14, where Jesus promises to whomever drinks of the water he gives “a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” That the believer in Jesus will become a channel of God’s life to others is implicit in the total message of John’s Gospel, but is not the point of either 4:14 or 7:37–38 in particular. The accent is on the rich abundance of the Spirit’s life and power in the heart of the believer, like a self-replenishing and overflowing stream. The source of the stream is Jesus, no less in versions 1 and 2 than in 3, for he alone can say come to me and drink.

Most of the “I am” statements in John’s Gospel are accompanied by a corollary of some kind—an invitation or a promise or both (e.g., 6:35: “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty”; cf. 8:12; 10:9; 11:25–26; 14:6; 15:5, etc.). Verses 37–38 have the appearance of one of these statements in which the “I am” saying proper has been omitted, and only its corollary remains—as if Jesus had said, “I am the fountain of life”; if anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink (cf. Rev. 21:6).

Whether this is the case or not, the passage invites comparison with 8:12, in which Jesus’ self-disclosure and confrontation with the religious authorities continues: I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Each of these pronouncements takes on special meaning against the background of a daily ritual at the Feast of Tabernacles—the pouring of water from the pool of Siloam into a bowl beside the altar in the temple and the lighting of giant lamps in the Court of the Women, respectively (cf. the Mishnah, Sukkah 4.9–5.4). On the last day, when these rituals had ceased, Jesus proclaims himself the true source of water and of light—for Jerusalem and for all the world. In 8:12 he again extends an invitation and a promise, but again the note of hope is submerged in a context of rejection and judgment (8:12–20).

The parallelism between 7:37–38 and 8:12 suggests that the scene of the action has not changed. The smaller units comprising 7:37–8:20, loose-knit though they may be, are legitimately treated as one unfolding drama in the temple on the last and greatest day of the Feast. Jesus’ self-revelation in 7:37–39 provokes a division in the crowd (vv. 40–43) or, rather, brings to a head the division that has existed all along (cf. v. 12). The events of verses 30–31 seem to be happening again, but with more intensity. This time some actually confess Jesus as the Prophet or the Christ (vv. 40–41), but others raise theological objections: Jesus the Galilean cannot be the Messiah because the Messiah must come from Bethlehem in Judea (cf. Micah 5:2). An attempt is made to arrest Jesus, but no one laid a hand on him (v. 44; cf. v. 30). The narrator might have added, “because his time had not yet come,” but there was no need to labor the point.

Instead of describing in detail the second unsuccessful effort to arrest Jesus, the narrator simply chooses this as the place to give the outcome of the first attempt. Verses 45–52 are the sequel to verses 32–36. The temple guards who are abruptly mentioned as returning to the chief priests and Pharisees in verse 45 are the same guards sent out in verse 32. Their testimony to the power of Jesus’ speech and presence (v. 46) refers to his baffling pronouncement in verses 33–34. The guards can only carry their bafflement back to the religious authorities who sent them.

From verse 47 at least through 8:20, the Pharisees move center stage. Jesus will confront them directly, but first their attitudes and their character will be demonstrated. It is probably to be assumed that they speak for the chief priests as well as themselves. They are intensely conscious of their own status, in contrast to that of the crowd, which knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them (v. 49). The Pharisees’ implication is that Jesus and his followers fit this description as well. It was probably common knowledge that Jesus’ disciples came mostly from the social class known as the ‘Am Ha-’aretz, or “people of the land.” Because they had neither studied the law systematically nor been brought up to obey it in anything but a very general way, they were regarded by some of the pious as cursed of God (for illustrations of this in rabbinic literature, see the Mishnah, Aboth 2.6; 3.11). The authorities’ first impression of Jesus when he appeared at the festival was that he was unschooled in the law (cf. v. 15), and despite all that had transpired since then the Pharisees persisted in keeping this impression alive. Their scornful question in verse 48 implies that none of their number has believed in Jesus, and that no one who truly knows the law would ever do so.

Out of nowhere, and as if in reply to this claim, Nicodemus (who has not been heard from since chap. 3) speaks up. Introduced as a “member of the Jewish ruling council” and a Pharisee (3:1), Nicodemus had functioned as an individual example of those in Jerusalem who had “believed” in Jesus but whose faith Jesus did not accept as genuine (2:23–25). Formally, at least, he is a living refutation of the sweeping judgment the Pharisees have just made on Jesus and his followers (cf. also 12:42). Yet the genuineness of his faith remains in doubt. His remark (v. 51) is no ringing confession, but merely a plea for fairness. He appears in the narrative more to demonstrate the Pharisees’ intransigence than to mark a stage in his own spiritual development. When their opinions are gently questioned even by one of their own, they are quick to brand the questioner, half in mockery, as a Galilean (v. 52). The intent is not to probe seriously Nicodemus’ family background but to rebuke his apparent sympathies with Jesus the Galilean. The Pharisees’ parting shot is a corollary of verses 41–42: If the only prophet expected is the Messiah descended from David and born in Bethlehem, then there are no authentic Galilean prophets. Only those ignorant of the Scriptures will follow a Galilean.

Nicodemus disappears as abruptly as he appeared, and the stage is now set for Jesus to confront the Pharisees again (8:12), this time not through emissaries but directly. Yet his pronouncement I am the light of the world …, the sequel to 7:37–38, is not for them exclusively but for whoever follows me. It is universal in scope and probably, like 7:37–38, future in its orientation. The desire of Jesus’ brothers that he “show himself to the world” (7:4) is coming to realization but with the outcome Jesus foresaw, that the world “hates me because I testify that what it does is evil” (7:7). Only when the Spirit comes will the outcome be different.

The world’s representatives immediately challenge Jesus’ authority. The ensuing debate is a virtual re-enactment of 5:30–38. Jesus’ claim to be the light of the world is invalid because he is testifying on his own behalf (8:13). The Pharisees have in mind the principle of the oral law that witnesses were not to be believed when testifying on their own behalf (the Mishnah, Ketuboth 2.9). Jesus had acknowledged this very principle in 5:31, but here he takes exception to it (v. 14). What is different is not the conclusion toward which he is moving but the logic by which he will reach it. His testimony on his own behalf is valid, he says, for I know where I came from and where I am going. The reason the Pharisees question his authority is that they do not know these things (v. 14b).

It is not clear how such knowledge validates Jesus’ testimony until, in subsequent verses, Jesus makes the same point again in different words: where I came from and where I am going, it appears, is an indirect way of referring to the Father. Jesus’ testimony is valid because he knows the Father. The Father, in fact, is speaking in and through the testimony of Jesus. Verses 14, 16, and 18 are three progressively clearer ways of saying that there are actually two witnesses, Jesus and the Father, speaking through Jesus’ lips. That is why his testimony is self-authenticating. The reader understands this because the same point emerged from the earlier discourse in 5:30–47, but here the Pharisees are baffled by it. A major difference is that the earlier discourse began with a systematic presentation of the relation between the Father and the Son (cf. 5:19–29), whereas here the Pharisees seem to be hearing of the Father for the first time. Not once has Jesus referred to God as his Father throughout this discourse, using instead circumlocutions such as “the one who sent me,” or where I came from, or where I am going. Now he unveils this mysterious Source and Goal as his Father, and the Pharisees do not understand. Even later, in 8:27, it has still not dawned on them that “the one who sent me” means the Father.

Why this apparent regression in terminology? Had the Pharisees forgotten that the very reason Jesus was a wanted man was that he was “calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (5:18)? It is not likely. The intent of the narrative is rather to dramatize the Pharisees’ ignorance of what it means for God to be Jesus’ Father, that is, their ignorance of all that Jesus taught in 5:19–47. That earlier discourse, though clear and decisive to the readers of the Gospel, was lost on its immediate hearers. A monologue from beginning to end, it is intended by the narrator more for Jesus’ followers and would-be followers than for the Jewish authorities. The temple discourse, on the other hand, is punctuated by sharp exchanges between Jesus and his opponents. Because it aims at actual communication within the actual literary setting, the breakdowns in communication, when they occur, are painfully evident—as, for example, in the Pharisees’ question, Where is your father? (v. 19).

The Pharisees are not questioning the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth, as some commentators have suggested, but responding to his mention of the scriptural principle that two witnesses are necessary to validate a statement in court (v. 17; cf. Deut. 19:15). There are two witnesses, Jesus says: He himself is one, and his Father is the other (vv. 16, 18). Where is your father? is the Pharisees’ challenge to Jesus to bring on this second witness. They have not yet grasped the point that the second witness speaks not as an identifiable external entity but only through Jesus himself (cf. 5:31–40). To hear Jesus is to hear the second witness as well. To know him is to know his Father. But Jesus’ grim verdict in the present case is that you do not know me or my Father (v. 19). The summary statement that “he spoke these words while teaching in the temple area” (8:20) corresponds in form to the ending of the synagogue discourse two chapters earlier (“He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum,” 6:59) and so gives the impression that the temple discourse is now concluded. In fact, the discourse continues to the end of the chapter. What is concluded is merely one stage of the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees, in the Court of Women on the eighth day of the festival. The allusion in verse 20 to the offering boxes (and thus, implicitly, to the Court of the Women) suggests that the festival is now over, yet Jesus does not leave the temple until verse 59. At some point in the collection of this material, verse 20 may have served to terminate the temple discourse, but the phrase once more (v. 21; cf. v. 12) allows the Gospel writer to append further discussions probably remembered in connection with the same visit of Jesus to Jerusalem. The seams that are now and then visible in the fabric of the narrative only highlight the Gospel writer’s intention to weave a single continuous account of Jesus’ temple ministry from 7:14 to 8:59.

The festival ends with Jesus still at large. The Pharisees are no more able to arrest him than the guards they sent out earlier, for still his time had not yet come (v. 20).

Additional Notes

7:37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast: The last day of the festival proper was the seventh day, but the eighth day was a distinct celebration in its own right, a time to rejoice and sing the Hallel (i.e., Psalms 113–118). The special festival of the eighth day is discussed at length in the fifth-century midrash, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 28 (ed. W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975], pp. 424–44). In the Mishnah (Sukkah 4.8) the eighth day is called “the last Festival-day of the Feast,” while Josephus (Antiquities 3.245) clearly refers to the Feast of Tabernacles as an eight-day festival. These considerations suggest that v. 37 indeed refers to the eighth day, which, if not most important to everyone, was at any rate a day set apart from all other days for special observance.

7:38 As the scripture has said: The passage of scripture being cited remains unidentified. On the assumption that Jesus himself is the source of the water, two of the commonest suggestions have been Ps. 78:16 (“He brought streams out of a rocky crag and made water flow down like rivers”—referring to the incident described in Exod. 17:1–7) and Zech. 14:8 (“On that day [i.e., the day of the Lord], living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea”; cf. also Ezek. 47:1–12, and the NT use of the theme in Rev. 22:1–2). A metaphorical identification of Jesus either with the life-giving rock in the Sinai desert (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4) or with the city of Jerusalem itself and its temple, must be presupposed.

On the assumption that the believer is the source of the water, suggestions include Prov. 18:4; Isa. 58:11; and especially (in the Apocrypha) Sir. 24:28–31: ‘Now I, like a rivulet from her [wisdom’s] stream, channeling the waters into a garden, said to myself, “I will water my plants, my flower bed I will drench’; and suddenly this rivulet of mine became a river, then this stream of mine, a sea. Thus do I send my teachings forth shining like the dawn, to become known afar off. Thus do I pour out instruction like prophecy” (NAB).

None of these texts comes close to providing a source for any kind of exact quotation. It is likely that the passage the Gospel writer (or Jesus) had in mind contained the striking phrase, from within him (lit., “out of his stomach”; Gr.: ek tēs koilias autou), and there is no biblical passage that combines this phrase with the imagery of streams of water. Justin Martyr in the second century (Dialogue with Trypho 135.3) identified Christians as “the true Israelite race” because they were “quarried from the heart” [Gr.: ek tēs koilias] of Christ like rock from the heart of the earth (cf. also Dialogue 114.4). It may be that both he and John were aware of already existing applications to Christ of such texts as Zech. 14:8, Ezek. 47:1–12, and Ps. 78:16, and that John is quoting just such a Christian midrash, or paraphrase, as his Scripture.

7:40–41 The Prophet … the Christ: cf. 1:20–21. The real dispute is not between those who say Jesus is the Prophet foretold in Deut. 18:15–18 and those who say he is the Messiah descended from David but between both groups and those who ask, How can the Christ come from Galilee?

7:52 A prophet does not come …: Every tribe in Israel had had its prophets (cf. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 27b), and it was not strictly true that no prophets had come from Galilee (Jonah, e.g., came from Gath-hepher in Galilee, 2 Kings 14:25). Because of this, the reading of the NIV margin (“the Prophet,” based on one very early papyrus manuscript, P66) is an attractive one, for it would create a parallel with v. 41: “the Prophet,” since he is in fact the Messiah, will not come from Galilee but from Bethlehem in Judea. But there is no evidence that in Jewish expectation there was such a complete merging of the Mosaic Prophet with the Davidic messianic king. More likely, the Pharisees are saying that a prophet is not arising out of Galilee now, i.e., this Galilean called Jesus is no true prophet.

8:1–11 This section (designated as 7:53–8:11 in standard editions of the Greek text and in most English versions) is not found in the earliest manuscripts, and therefore cannot be regarded as an original part of John’s Gospel. Most of the later manuscripts that do contain the passage place it here, but some place it in Luke’s Gospel (after 21:38), and some at the end of John’s Gospel; one manuscript places it after John 7:36, and in one ancient translation it is found after John 7:44. Though it is undoubtedly a true incident in Jesus’ life, the story of the adulteress does not belong in the New Testament and specifically does not belong here, where its presence divides one day’s action into two and interrupts the narrator’s development of 7:37–8:20. Its more appropriate historical setting is that described in Luke 21:37–38, in which Jesus, during the last week of his ministry, spent his nights on the Mount of Olives and his days teaching in the temple (cf. vv. 1–2), answering questions from the Pharisees and chief priests about the law.

This helps explain why some late manuscripts insert the passage after Luke 21:38 but not why so many more place it here. Two factors seem to have been at work in this: (a) The story illustrates with respect to one woman Jesus’ statement to the Pharisees in 8:15: You judge me by human standards; I pass judgment on no one (cf. v. 11). (b) At the same time it illumines the Johannine theme that judgment nevertheless emerges from Jesus’ ministry. By refusing to condemn the adulteress, he condemns the religious establishment before which she stands accused. This implicit theme of judgment on Jerusalem and the temple may be what impelled later copyists to place the story within the temple discourse at the Feast of Tabernacles. Even the detail that it was the older ones [or “the elders”] first who were put to shame recalls the ancient example of judgment on Jerusalem’s first temple in Ezek. 9:6 (where the “leaders” who are judged first are literally the “elders” of Israel).

8:17 Your own Law: It is sometimes urged that Jesus is represented as speaking here as if he himself were not a Jew (cf. the same phrase in 10:34 and the phrase “their Law” in 15:25). This is said to reflect the Gentile, even anti-Jewish, perspective of the author of this Gospel.

Two other factors, however, more plausibly explain Jesus’ language in these places. (a) The pronouns strengthen his argument by making it ad hominem. Jesus’ opponents are refuted by the very scripture that they themselves acknowledge and proclaim to be true; the fact that Jesus also acknowledges it is assumed but is not crucial to the argument. (b) Jesus may be speaking in the style of OT prophets who at times, in the name of God, stood over against Israel and pronounced judgment on Israel’s institutions (e.g., Isa. 1:13–14: “your incense … your evil assemblies … your New Moon festivals … your appointed feasts”).

8:20 Near the place where the offerings were put: lit., “in the treasury.” The reference is not to the actual chambers used to store the temple treasure but probably to the place of access to these chambers, i.e., the Court of the Women (so called to distinguish it from the holy precincts where sacrifices were offered and women were not permitted). Because the Court of the Women was where the lamp-lighting ceremony of the eighth day took place (cf. the Mishnah, Sukkah 5.2), it is the natural setting for the accompanying discourse. That it is called the treasury rather than the Court of the Women may simply echo other narratives in which “the treasury” is the scene of Jesus’ temple ministry (e.g., Mark 12:41–44 and Luke 21:1–4, where contributions to the treasury actually figure in the story).

Jesus and the Unbelievers

Verses 21–29 serve to document Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees in verse 19, “You do not know me or my Father.” The Father is Jesus’ past and his future. Jesus has come from God and is going to God again, but his hearers understand neither of these things. The earlier bewilderment about where Jesus is going (cf. 7:32–36) is echoed here as well (vv. 21–22), but with the somber added note that you will die in your sin (v. 21). His words should be taken not as an absolute pronouncement of doom but as a warning. The Jewish authorities (like everyone else) will die in their sins if they do not believe that I am the one I claim to be (v. 24). The reverse side of this warning is the promise of life in verse 51: “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” Even in the nearer context, Jesus can speak more positively: When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be (v. 28).

Which is it then? Will they die in their sins, or will they come to believe in Jesus and know who he is? The dialogue presupposes the same gulf between the world below and the world above that governed the conversation with Nicodemus in chapter 3. The Jewish authorities are of this world (v. 23) and cannot begin to understand Jesus without a new birth from above. When he says he is going away where they cannot follow, they can only think he is planning suicide (v. 22)! Yet just as a similar misunderstanding had earlier pointed to the profound truth of a mission to the Gentiles (7:35), so here the mention of suicide points forward to Jesus’ voluntary death on a cross to take away sin. Not until they have lifted up the Son of Man on that cross will they know who Jesus is and realize that he has spoken the very words of God (v. 28). The reference to a future moment of understanding only serves to accent their present ignorance. Who are you? they ask Jesus (v. 25), and they are told that all along from the very beginning of his ministry he has been making himself known, if only they would listen (v. 25). There is much he could say now in condemnation, but Jesus refuses to be drawn into bitter argument (v. 26). His intention is rather to deliver the message the Father has given him (vv. 26, 28b).

Insofar as this revelation is a self-revelation, it centers on the strange phrase, I am the one I claim to be (vv. 24, 28). Literally, the phrase in Greek (egō eimi) is “I Am” with no predicate (cf. v. 58). Is a predicate to be supplied from the context—for example, in verse 23, “I am from above,” or in verse 28, “I am the Son of Man”? Or does the point of the self-disclosure lie precisely in the absence of a predicate? The latter is more likely. Jesus’ identity is not linked to a particular predicate but emerges from all his words and actions up to this point in the Gospel. What the hearers must accept, and what the “lifting up” on the cross will verify, is that he is indeed who he claims (explicitly and implicitly) to be.

Additional Notes

8:25 Just what I have been claiming all along: The Greek is obscure (lit., “the beginning, what I speak to you”). It has been translated, “Primarily just what I tell you” and even (as a question), “Why do I speak to you at all?” One ancient papyrus has a longer reading: “I told you in the beginning what I speak to you now,” and although this reading is probably not original, it may represent an early paraphrase that captured the intended meaning.

8:28 When you have lifted up the Son of Man: For “lifting up” as an allusion to crucifixion, cf. 3:14. The apparent implication that the Jewish authorities themselves crucified Jesus is surprising in light of 18:31 (which seems to focus on crucifixion as a Roman method of execution), but the present passage anticipates, instead, 19:16: “Finally Pilate handed him over to them [the Jewish priests] to be crucified.” The assumption is that in some sense the Jewish authorities (though not the Jewish people) did crucify Jesus.

Then you will know: Alongside the striking claim that the Jewish leaders themselves would crucify the Son of Man is an equally surprising note of hope. As a result of Jesus’ death, they will come to realize who he is and on whose authority he speaks. The emphasis, however, is not on the faith or repentance of these religious leaders in particular but simply on the fact that Jesus and his claims will be vindicated before the whole world by what happens after he is “lifted up” (i.e., by his subsequent resurrection).

Though this vindication is future, the verse as a whole (together with v. 29) intends primarily to affirm something about the present: Jesus is who he is now; he does nothing on his own, but speaks now what the Father has instructed him; God is with him, and he lives to please God now and always.

8:29 He has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him. The argument of the previous section that in the words of Jesus both the Father and the Son speak is here presupposed and continued (cf. v. 16). The reason Jesus is not alone is that he does what pleases the Father (cf. 4:34; 5:30; 6:38). The same terminology is used of Christian believers in 1 John 3:22.

Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by J. Ramsey Michaels, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Adultery

One of the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Narrowly interpreted, the prohibition forbids extramarital relations with a married woman (Lev. 20:10), but it is applied more broadly in Lev. 20 and Deut. 22 24 to cover a variety of sexual offenses.

Conscience

An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:1 2; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1 Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).

Curse

The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in a worldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimate dispenser of each. God is the giver of blessing and ultimately the final judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source of every good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strength to prosper (Deut. 8:17).

Old Testament. The sovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation. The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), to Jacob through Isaac (Gen. 26 27), and to the people through the priests (Num. 6:24–26).

The theme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 and Lev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of these books. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is not symmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, the blessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for the purpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy also includes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse, on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associated with the relationship.

The creation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology of blessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessing in Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and human beings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, the blessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8), Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation of Israel and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, the blessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipients in material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts 17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).

The blessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhance and prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creation is the object of blessing (Gen. 2:7; Exod. 20:11), perhaps giving it a sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life such as baskets and kneading troughs (Deut. 28:5), barns (Deut. 28:8), and work (Job 1:10; Ps. 90:17) are blessed.

God promises to bless those who fear him (Ps. 128:1). Blessing is designed for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’s character, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embraces God’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’s warnings. The blessings itemized in Ps. 128 are comparable to those detailed in Deut. 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (cf. Ps. 128:2 with Deut. 28:12; Ps. 128:3 with Deut. 28:4, 11). The Deuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned when God-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’s apparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job; cf. Jesus).

New Testament. In the NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both food and joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt. 6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and it focuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift that originates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritual individuals.

Regarding curse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to free us from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3 anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will be completely removed and the blessing associated with creation will prevail. “Anathema” is a transliteration of a Greek word that means “curse” (see NIV). Paul invokes it for those who pervert or reject the gospel of God’s free grace (1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9).

Galilee

The northern region of Israel. 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 composed 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).

Law

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

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

Moses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mount of Olives

A ridge of peaks about two miles long running north-south to the east of Jerusalem. It may also refer to the middle two of these peaks directly east of the temple. Kidron and Gethsemane lie at the foot of the mount. It was so named for the large number of olive trees there in ancient times.

David wept here because of Absalom’s betrayal (2 Sam. 15:30). Here the glory of the Lord rested after withdrawal from Jerusalem (Ezek. 11:23). The Lord will return to the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4).

Sometimes Jesus spent the night here (Luke 21:37). He customarily withdrew to Gethsemane at the foot of this mount (John 18:2). Thus, on the evening before his trial Jesus and the disciples went to the Mount of Olives (specifically Gethsemane) after leaving the upper room (Matt. 26:30), and it was there that the betrayal by Judas took place.

Jesus’ triumphal entry began on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 21:1), and he discoursed about the future there (Matt. 24:3). After his resurrection, Jesus gathered and instructed his disciples on the Mount of Olives before ascending to heaven (Acts 1:12).

Nicodemus

Nicodemus is mentioned by name five times in Scripture, only in the Gospel of John. He was a Pharisee and a member of the ruling council of the Jews (the Sanhedrin), and most of what we know about him comes from John 3. He came for discussion with Jesus at night, presumably to avoid being detected while having an amicable interaction with Jesus. Unlike his colleagues, Nicodemus recognized the authority of God in Jesus because of the miracles. Yet Nicodemus failed to understand the true nature of spiritual things (3:4 9) that Jesus subsequently explained to him (3:11–21). Jesus noted that since Nicodemus was a teacher in Israel, he should have understood such things (3:10).

Later, Nicodemus showed a sympathetic disposition toward Jesus when the rulers of the Pharisees aligned themselves against Jesus. Nicodemus noted that the law forbade condemnation before examination, and the other leaders reproached him for his defense of Jesus (John 7:50–52).

Then, after Jesus’ crucifixion, Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea with the preparation and entombment of the body of Jesus (John 19:38–42). The testimony of Nicodemus prior to this time had been silent or less overt in front of the council, and this more overt act at the burial may testify to his conversion to discipleship of Jesus.

Pharisees

Five of the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The first three seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of the Hasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, and the other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by the Romans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.

Pharisees. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups that opposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposed Jesus on issues related to their received tradition, which they considered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues were ceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. All three Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesus concerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow the tradition of the elders by eating with “unclean”—that is, “unwashed”—hands (Matt. 15:1 2; Mark 7:1–5; Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees confronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11) and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).

In response to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of the elders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of human need that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 12:7).

Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercy toward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This is especially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on the fine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7; 23:23).

In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted as adversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authorities in plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). One passage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). One Pharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesus before his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’ body for burial after his death (19:39).

The Pharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time to time, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke 20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetic toward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in regard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in a confrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, some early Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

Sadducees. The Sadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood. “Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” a descendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Some members of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok” as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, if not direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of the Qumran community.

The Sadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John, although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesus with the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. All three Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadducees posed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answered that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, and that God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).

The book of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected to the priesthood 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with the Pharisees over the resurrection (23:6–8).

Essenes. Josephus delineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows: (1) They ascribed every happening to God. (2) They believed in the immortality of the soul.

Zealots. Scholars tend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to three different groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii (Assassins), and Zealots. The three groups have different political ideologies and emerged at different times in the first century. They can all be described as revolutionaries.

Herodians. The Herodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reported to have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after he healed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are also described, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesus concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13).

The Herodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and the Romans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to be some overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”), whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religious beliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too little information about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions. One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Roman aristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees in opposing Jesus.

Priests

A priest is a minister of sacred things who represents God to the people and the people to God. The OT identifies priests of Yahweh and priests of other gods and idols. The only pagan priest that the NT mentions is the priest of Zeus from Lystra who wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, whom the crowd mistook for deities (Acts 14:13). All other NT references build upon OT teaching about priests of Yahweh.

Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:7 8; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).

In NT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders of the Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, were portrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said to have come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assigned by Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priests underscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the role they played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continued after the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of the apostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar had been healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed, interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about charges of blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a follower of Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix (24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him before Festus (25:1–3).

Hebrews uniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OT priesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but their sacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, the faithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that never needed repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesus also surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore, since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, not just priests, could draw near to God.

The NT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking the concept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring it to the church (1 Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflecting the general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritual sacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his works of salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In the NT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office in the church is never expressly mentioned.

Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stone

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

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

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

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

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

Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Matches

Adultery

The prophets invoked the commandment in condemning God’s wayward people (Hos. 4:2; Jer. 7:9). They also used it as a metaphor for spiritual unfaithfulness to the God of the covenant (Hos. 3–4; Ezek. 16:30–34), as does Revelation for succumbing to false teaching (Rev. 2:22).

Jesus brought out the original force of the commandment, saying that a lustful look amounted to adultery (Matt. 5:27–30). He listed this commandment in Mark 10:19 (and pars.) when talking to the rich young ruler. Paul and James also made clear that the prohibition was still in force (Rom. 2:22; 13:9; James 2:11). Jesus taught that adultery springs from the unregenerate heart (Matt. 15:19 pars.), and for Paul adultery was one of “the acts of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19).

The OT penalty for adultery was stoning (Deut. 22:22–24), though it is not clear how rigorously this was enforced. Jesus forgave the woman “caught in adultery” (John 8:3–11) and told her not to repeat her sin. His leniency may have been motivated in part by the hypocrisy of her accusers, who had let the guilty man go free.

The exception clause in Jesus’ teaching that forbids divorce and remarriage (“except for sexual immorality,” which includes adultery) is found in Matt. 5:32; 19:9. Matthew only spells out what is implicit in Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18. Jesus stated that if a man divorces his wife so as to marry another woman (more attractive to him for some reason), this is nothing but legalized adultery. The notorious example of Herod’s marriage to Herodias may be part of the background to this teaching (Mark 6:17).

Nicodemus

Nicodemus is mentioned by name five times in Scripture, only in the Gospel of John. He was a Pharisee and a member of the ruling council of the Jews (the Sanhedrin), and most of what we know about him comes from John 3. He came for discussion with Jesus at night, presumably to avoid being detected while having an amicable interaction with Jesus. Unlike his colleagues, Nicodemus recognized the authority of God in Jesus because of the miracles. Yet Nicodemus failed to understand the true nature of spiritual things (3:4–9) that Jesus subsequently explained to him (3:11–21). Jesus noted that since Nicodemus was a teacher in Israel, he should have understood such things (3:10).

Stone

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

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

Stoning

Stoning is the most common method of capital punishment in the OT and is often prescribed by the law (Lev. 20:2; Num. 15:32–36; Deut. 13:1–10; 17:2–5; 22:24). It requires that the primary witnesses against the accused be the first to take up stones, although often the “entire assembly” participates in the stoning (Lev. 24:14, 16; cf. Deut. 21:21). In the NT, Jesus uses the attempted stoning of a woman caught in adultery as an object lesson in mercy (John 7:53–8:11). While the Romans used crucifixion as a means of execution, the Jewish authorities continued to use stoning, as in the case of Stephen (Acts 7:54–60). See also Capital Punishment; Crimes and Punishments.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because John 7:45--8:11 is mentioned in the definition.

Administration of Law

Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan. Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.

Old Testament

Courts in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge, a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen. 23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut. 22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut. 16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).

With the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge, and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice (1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the “Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7). Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).

The OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary, or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan, “accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job 31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7). If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15) or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty (Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine, compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).

Ideally, judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut. 16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes, perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11). Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak, just, and no respecter of persons.

New Testament

During the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin, consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26). The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor. 11:24).

The Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’ trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was condemned on Friday during Passover.

The trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law. Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example, Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time. Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).

Paul expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom. 13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they should be able to settle disputes within the church.

Bible Texts

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Bible Versions

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Court Systems

Old Testament

New Testament

Feast of Ingathering

The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.

We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23).

Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread

Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2 Kings 23:21–23; 2 Chron. 30; 35:1–19).

Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.

The Festival of Weeks

Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.

Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.

The Festival of Tabernacles

So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1 Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).

The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m. Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.

The Festival of Trumpets

Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m. Rosh HaSh. 1:2).

The Day of Atonement

Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).

In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.

Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).

The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.

Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses . . .” (m. Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.

The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m. Yoma 8:9).

The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).

Sabbath Year

Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2 Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1 Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).

This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.

Jubilee

God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.

New Moon

The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).

Purim

Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22).

Festival of Dedication

During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices. . . . Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1 Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)

Summary

What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.

The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.

The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.

Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.

Feasts

Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread

The Festival of Weeks

The Festival of Tabernacles

The Festival of Trumpets

The Day of Atonement

Sabbath Year

Jubilee

New Moon

Purim

Festival of Dedication

Summary

Festivals

Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread

The Festival of Weeks

The Festival of Tabernacles

The Festival of Trumpets

The Day of Atonement

Sabbath Year

Jubilee

New Moon

Purim

Festival of Dedication

Summary

Gestures

In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the body or items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body. For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures in relation to the different body parts that are identified with the gestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line on classifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described in Prov. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclear whether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether all signify different things or the same thing.

Head

Gestures that relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolent acts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting of one’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head in mourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery and derision (2 Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult (Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).

A common action is the shaving of the head, which can be for purification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all body hair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer. 41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden from shaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), while the high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificial duties (Exod. 29:6).

Anointing of the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7; Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing on a person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand on the head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod. 29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals is a symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:18, 22).

In the OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut. 21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be a cause for disgrace (1 Cor. 11:5–6).

Face. Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching or covering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6) or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh. 7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2 Chron. 20:18; Ps. 138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1 Sam. 20:41; 25:41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:23; 1 Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod. 3:6]).

The face can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev. 13:45), in grief/mourning (2 Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), in resignation (1 Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery (Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12). It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).

God can be described as hiding or turning away his face against wickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer. 33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholding blessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8; 59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment (Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1 Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of the Philistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant, apparently overpowered by Yahweh.

Acts of humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic. 5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shaming judgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone by the nose (2 Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek is humiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the other cheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29).

One can lift one’s face in worship (2 Kings 20:2; Job 22:26; Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it in shame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards in mourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37), the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).

Eyes. Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act (Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship and expectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).

Mouth. Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while a hand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5; 40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the desert tribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” in defeat.

Ears. An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his or her earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear for purification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), while supplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear (2 Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifies paying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20; 5:13).

Neck. The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor (Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched in arrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns against heaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put a yoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonian conquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in a yoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on the neck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation (Josh. 10:24).

Body

Nakedness in public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment (Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign of promiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a sign of mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 19:24). A certain kind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection (Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is an act of humiliation (2 Sam. 4:12).

Chest. In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning (Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts of sacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering” before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).

Hand, arm. Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship, clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth in awe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Kings 17:36; 2 Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21; Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is often used of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies and enemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act for the sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).

Since the right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the right hand indicates being favored (1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under the thigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen. 48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).

Clapping the hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse (25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job claps his hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission and repentance (Job 40:4–5).

Hands can be lifted in worship (1 Kings 8:22; 1 Tim. 2:8), to beseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath (Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 2 Sam.1:14; 18:12).

Pilate washes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:24), while 1 Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humble themselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that in due time they will be lifted up.

Buttocks. Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult and provocation, as happens to David’s men (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cushite captives (Isa. 20:4).

Leg. The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductive organs, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animal thighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21; 10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery cause a guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).

The most common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship or reverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), in defeat (2 Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps. 57:6), or in respect (1 Kings 1:31). In what seems to be a somewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees in prayer (1 Kings 18:42).

Feet. Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures in the Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), or in supplication (1 Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as a blessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandals can be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace (Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplication before the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans can signal deception (Prov. 6:13).

Enemies can be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1 Kings 5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), have their feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15; 105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation and defeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).

Those overwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2 Kings 4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), while those emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2; 3:24; Dan. 8:18).

In the NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication of divine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying at a person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt. 15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37; 5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an act of love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared his body for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washes his disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood and discipleship (John 13:5–14).

Fingers, Toes. Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. A finger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of the right thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).

One wears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture of restoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motion in deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writes with his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture of indifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).

Clothes and Shoes

Garments. Garments attain significance as they are related to specific emotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen. 37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2 Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments in mourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).

Ripping someone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2 Sam. 10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer. 13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’s clothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons with defiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing torn clothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).

By laying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may be acknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Sandals. A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10), while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicate giving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). A sandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast over a piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).

Prophetic Gestures

Prophetic gestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentance and approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiah puts a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekiel cooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah strips off his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries an unfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).

In the NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinks wine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35; 1 Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christian practices.

Greek Language

The OT was written in Hebrew, with some parts in Aramaic, but the NT comes to us exclusively in Greek. Greek developed from an Indo-European language spoken by the people referred to in the Iliad as the Achaeans. It is suggested that primitive Greek speakers migrated from the area north of the Black Sea and began to settle in the Aegean Sea area around 2000 BC. These people groups called themselves “Hellenes.” Later the Romans called them “Greeks.”

Classical versus Koine

Classical Greek is commonly dated to the years 900–330 BC. Although three notable dialects of Greek were prevalent (Doric in the west, Aeolic in the north, and Ionic in the east), a dialect of the Ionic family known as Attic, the language of Athens and the great writers Thucydides, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthenes, eventually gained supremacy. It was this form of Greek that Alexander the Great took with him on his conquests.

Koine (lit., “common”) Greek became the new lingua franca in the years 330 BC–AD 500. Koine Greek, which itself was influenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT, was closely related to the language of the LXX. This common form of Greek is in part the result of the imposition of Greek upon nonnative Greek speakers. The Koine Greek of the NT reflects the style of writing found in the papyri and ostraca discovered in the Egyptian desert. These writings are more a nonliterary Koine—found in wills, deeds, receipts, and private letters—and not the polished Greek of the literary works. While the literary writers of the day tried to imitate the Attic models by means of an artificial literary tradition, the Greek of the NT has much more in common with the spoken Greek of the average person.

One of the distinctive elements of Koine Greek at the time of the NT was the tendency toward greater simplicity. Although this is a natural occurrence within a language over time, it became accelerated when the Greek language was forced upon nonnative Greek speakers. The Koine Greek of the NT, then, may be characterized by the relative absence of subtle nuances among words, the replacement of complex forms by simpler ones, and the almost complete disappearance of the optative mood. Other changes include the increase in the use of pronouns as subjects, more adverbs, pronunciation and vocabulary differences, and the tendency toward more-explicit expressions.

Features of Biblical Greek

Greek is a highly inflected language. Inflection refers to changes that words undergo in accord with their grammatical function in a sentence. With regard to verbs, the changes reflect the word’s aspect (similar to the English tense [see below]), voice (active or passive), and mood (generally speaking, mood refers to the author’s attitude toward the kind of reality behind the statement: whether the action actually took place or whether it is merely a potentiality). For nouns and adjectives, these changes reflect the word’s gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter [similar to the English pronouns “he,” “she,” “it”]), number (singular or plural), and case (nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative [technically, a fifth but rarely used case is the vocative]). It cannot be overstated that grammar is always secondary to context. Thus, one should not seek to find too much meaning in the form of a word, or the meaning of a word, without contextual warrant.

Verbs: tense, aspect, and mood. Whereas English verbs employ tense (past, present, future, past perfect, etc.), which strongly links the action of the verb to a time, Greek verbs reflect a verbal aspect. Aspect primarily refers to the way the action of the verb is viewed by the author. Consequently, the time (past, present, future, etc.) is secondary at best. This distinction is especially important for verbs that are not in the indicative mood (the mood utilized by an author to speak in terms of reality rather than potentiality). In the indicative mood, the aspect generally reflects the time of the event.

For years, one of the most debated features of biblical Greek was the verb in the aorist tense (aspect). It often was suggested that the aorist reflects a onetime event that occurred in the past. Modern scholarship is nearly unanimous today that the aorist serves instead as the default aspect. That is, authors used the aorist when not wishing to make any specific pronouncement regarding the action of the verb. The aorist functions as the simple or undefined aspect. Therefore, in biblical Greek the statement “I studied Greek,” if in the aorist, would have been the author’s way of simply stating that this event occurred. The use of the aorist alone would not have made any assertion about the duration of the action (I studied for ten minutes, months, or years) or as to whether this act was completed (I know Greek well). Thus, John 11:35 says, “Jesus wept.” The use of the aorist here does not tell us how long he wept. Some have argued that since the aorist is used in reference to Christ’s death (Rom. 5:6), it means that Jesus died once and for all. Although this conviction is true, its truth derives not from the use of the aorist, but rather from the context of Scripture.

Two other aspects occur in the Greek NT. The imperfective aspect regards an action as a process or as habitual. The perfective aspect views the action as completed with ensuing results (I have studied Greek [and still remember it]).

Biblical Greek employs two moods. The mood of a Greek verb indicates whether the author viewed the action as one that actually occurred or one that was merely potential. Greek verbs in the indicative mood tend to suggest that the author viewed the action as something that either has happened, is happening, or will happen. It is very important to note that in the Greek NT verbs consistently have temporal relations only in the indicative mood. The potential mood in biblical Greek displays a variety of potentialities. The subjunctive mood often expresses a contingency, a hope, or a desire for the event to occur. The optative mood, which was prominent in Classical Greek but had fallen almost completely out of use by the time of the NT, expresses a possibility or a wish. The imperative mood is the mood for a command or prohibition.

Nouns and adjectives: case. Nouns and adjectives are inflected by means of various cases, depending on the function of the noun or the adjective in the sentence.

The nominative case is used primarily for the subject of a Greek sentence. In the absence of a noun or noun phrase in the nominative case, the subject of the Greek sentence is found in the pronominal suffix of the verb. Pronouns in the nominative, though much more common in biblical Greek than in Classical Greek, are not grammatically necessary, and thus they often express a degree of accent or stress (cf. the use of “you” and “I” in the Greek text of John 7:8, 28, 34, 36, 47; 8:14, 15, 22, 23, 31, 38, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 54).

The genitive case is the most varied in its use. Generally speaking, it is the case of possession, source, or separation. Nouns and adjectives in the genitive case are often translated into English by adding the preposition “of.” The ambiguity inherent in the genitive case is evidenced even in English. Note, for example, Rev. 1:1: “The revelation of [NIV: “from”] Jesus Christ” (in Greek, “Jesus Christ” in the genitive case). Does this mean that the revelation is from Jesus Christ or about Jesus Christ?

The dative case is used to indicate location, instrumentality, accompaniment, or reception, as well as for the indirect object of the verb. Nouns and adjectives in the dative case are often translated into English by adding the preposition “to” or “for.”

The accusative case serves as the primary case for the direct object of the verb. This case generally connotes the ideas of extension or limitation of an act or movement.

A fifth case, less common than the others, is the vocative. The vocative is reserved for the purpose of direct address. It often serves as a discourse marker, as in “My dear children” in 1 John 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21.

Word order. One of the important by-products of the inflections found in biblical Greek is the measure of freedom afforded to authors in regard to word order (the order of words in a sentence is referred to as syntax). This relative freedom allows authors to emphasize words or phrases by means of their location in the sentence.

New Testament Textual Criticism

NT textual criticism is the science of discerning the reading of the original Greek text of the NT. NT textual criticism is relatively different from the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT, since the two Testaments were copied in substantially different ways, resulting in quite different issues and types of copying problems.

Textual criticism is necessary for two reasons: (1) none of the original texts for any of the books of the NT (the autographs) have survived; (2) all the surviving copies that we do have differ from one another in at least minor ways. NT textual criticism is the discipline of examining all the readings found in the surviving copies (including other early translations and the writings of the church fathers) in order to discern the most-likely original text of the NT.

In many ways there is nothing surprising or unusual about this activity. This same discipline is used in the case of all ancient documents where the original no longer exists and there are multiple, but different, surviving copies. What sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of Plato, Aristotle, or any other extrabiblical author is the importance of Scripture. It is absolutely crucial that scholars be as accurate as possible in discerning the words of the Bible. Present-day doctrinal statements about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture usually focus on how it is the actual documents written by the original authors of the Bible (the autographs) that were inspired and inerrant, and not necessarily each and every copy or translation that was ever made. At the same time, NT textual criticism provides strong and ample evidence that the standard translations of today are reasonable copies of the original texts and therefore are inspired and authoritative.

Another reality that sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of any other ancient document involves the large number of manuscripts containing all or parts of the NT. Aristotle’s writings (384–322 BC) have survived in only five ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which was last copied around AD 1100. Thus, the manuscript support for discerning the proper wording of Aristotle’s writings is five manuscripts, the earliest of which was copied some fourteen hundred years after its original composition. The NT, by contrast, has been preserved in almost 5,500 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which may be only decades removed from the actual composition of the NT. In addition, there are tens of thousands of other manuscripts of the NT translated into other languages of the early church (especially Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) and perhaps something like a million quotations and allusions to the NT in the writings of the church fathers. The amount of manuscript support for the Bible is without parallel when compared with any other ancient writing, thus providing a firm foundation for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

New Testament Manuscripts

If all the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT from all the museums and ancient-book rooms around the world could be gathered together and examined, there would be a number of obvious differences. For one thing, these manuscripts are written on different materials. The oldest manuscripts include some 116 papyri written on papyrus sheets (made from the stems of a papyrus plant pressed together to make a flat writing surface) and date from as early as AD 125 until the eighth century. Virtually all the rest of the hand-copied manuscripts were written on parchment (leather from animal skins stretched thin) and range in date from the second century to as late as the sixteenth century.

Another significant difference involves the style of handwriting. Here there are two primary categories: uncials (majuscules) and minuscules. The three hundred or so uncial manuscripts were written using an early style of “capital letters” (comparable to hand-printing a text in all capital letters) and range in date from the second century to as late as the tenth or eleventh century, with the majority between the fourth and tenth centuries. The 2,800 or so minuscule manuscripts were written in a later style of semicursive using primarily “lowercase letters” (more comparable to cursive penmanship today) and range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.

A third basic difference involves the arrangement of the material. In addition to standard biblical texts arranged in regular canonical order, almost half (about 2,200) of the manuscripts of the Greek NT are lectionaries composed of series of short passages designed to be read on a fixed regular schedule, almost like the responsive readings found in many modern hymnals. These range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries and cover the vast majority of the passages in the NT, and thus they constitute another significant source of information about the proper reading of the original text.

Other obvious differences in outward appearance involve the scope of the original work and how well it has been preserved. Only a small number of manuscripts were written to encompass the entire Bible, including the OT (usually the Greek translation called the “Septuagint”), the NT, and frequently various books of the Apocrypha as well. Other manuscripts were designed to include only the NT. However, the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT originally included only a portion of the NT (due primarily to the cost in materials and labor), most often a collection of the four Gospels, or the Pauline Epistles, or some other smaller subset of the NT. Still another reality is that many ancient manuscripts may have lost pages or the binding may have broken, leaving only incomplete sections of the original manuscript. Some NT manuscripts have survived only in the form of torn fragments, sometimes only a portion of a page in size.

Different Readings

Different readings among these manuscripts fit into two broad categories: unintentional changes and deliberate corrections. Unintentional changes took place when a scribe was genuinely trying to make a good copy and due to simple human error failed to read a letter clearly, did not hear a word clearly (assuming that the text was being dictated aloud), inadvertently wrote a homonym instead of the right word, lost the proper place on the page, or mistakenly assumed that some marginal note on the page belonged in the text. Deliberate corrections were also a recognized part of the work of a scribe whereby a scribe tried to make a text read better or more clearly. Although some of the early church fathers warn of heretics making deliberate changes in the text for theological reasons (actual instances of this are hard to document), sincere Christians sometimes sought to improve the theological clarity or style of the text.

There are various estimates of the number of places where different manuscripts have different readings. If one is taking stock of any and all differences regardless of how minor, then there are more than ten thousand different places in the text that have textual problems. The Textus Receptus, or Majority Text (underlying the KJV translation), has some five to six thousand differences from the Greek texts underlying most other, more recent English translations, although most of these are minor differences in word order, spelling, and so forth and make no practical difference in content. The standard scholarly United Bible Societies Greek NT includes a discussion of something like 1,440 sets of variant readings that were deemed sufficiently significant for inclusion in the critical apparatus. A contemporary translation such as the NIV lists over a hundred specific instances of textual uncertainty in the NT of sufficient significance to provide a possible alternative translation.

Still another question involves the theological significance of these differences among the surviving manuscripts. Although this can be a potentially threatening topic, it should be noted at the beginning that no area of Christian doctrine stands or falls because of possible textual problems. The entire foundation of theology is firm and certain. Nevertheless, there are perhaps several dozen places where textual differences have definite implications for either doctrine or practice. For example, does 1 Tim. 3:16 help establish the deity of Christ by referring to Christ as “God” (KJV), or is “he” (most modern translations) the correct reading? Or when we quote the Lord’s Prayer, should we include the final words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (from the KJV)? Or, for still another issue, is it proper to preach and teach from the resurrection stories in Mark 16:9–20 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11 (both of which are absent from early and reliable manuscripts)? English versions answer these questions differently.

However, a large number of textual problems are more minor in nature and involve little if any practical differences in application. For example, in 1 John 1:4 was John focusing on “your” joy or “our” joy? But by far the largest category involves textual differences that make no discernible differences at all in our English translations. Examples include differences in Greek word order, a choice between certain Greek tenses, similar grammatical constructions, the usage of synonyms, and some spelling differences. Differences in this final category are so minor that often they cannot be detected in English translations.

Different Families or Text Types

Another difference involves the “text type,” or family of manuscripts. Certain manuscripts with similar readings have a family resemblance with other similar manuscripts. The issue here involves patterns of copying errors among these manuscripts. In the late nineteenth century, two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, developed what they identified as the genealogical method for NT textual criticism. One component of this approach involves the recognition of at least three different “families” of related manuscripts presumably related to three different geographical areas of the early church: Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (based in Syria or the later Byzantine Empire in Turkey), Alexandrian manuscripts (based in Egypt), and Western manuscripts (based more in Italy and North Africa). This classification system involves generalizations comparable to discerning a person’s nationality and ethnic background by various physical features. Some manuscripts are relatively easy to classify using this system, others are more difficult, and still others turn out to be quite mixed in nature. Yet there is a certain helpfulness to this system.

Certain conclusions can be drawn from this classification system. The vast majority of manuscripts (some 80 to 90 percent) are the Byzantine text type. These include virtually all the minuscules and lectionaries and tend to be relatively later in date. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts tend to be earlier and include the Alexandrian manuscripts, the handful of Western manuscripts, and a good number of early manuscripts that cannot be easily placed in either of these two categories. The Alexandrian readings tend to be briefer and more succinct in style, while the Western readings tend to be more unusual and eccentric, in contrast to the Byzantine ones, which tend to be more polished and harmonizing.

Applying Textual Criticism

There are different approaches to NT textual criticism. The two primary ones are (1) the King James/Majority Text approach associated with the KJV, and (2) the contemporary scholarly approach followed by virtually all other standard translations beginning with Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version of 1881. Both approaches are built around an understanding of the history of the text. The Majority Text argument is built on the assumption that the original reading will have been preserved in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, in this case the relatively later Byzantine manuscripts. The contemporary scholarly approach assumes a so-called genealogical method whereby the Majority Text of the Byzantine manuscripts is believed to be the later “offspring” of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore more or less irrelevant for discovering the original text. Thus, this method essentially rejects the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the earlier ones, especially the Alexandrian ones. Manuscripts are still counted and dated, but priority is given to the earlier manuscripts and to readings found in several different text types.

Textual Criticism, Old Testament–Centuries separate the earliest attested Hebrew manuscripts (MSS) and the canonical form of the biblical text. The transmission of the Hebrew Bible in many ancient and medieval sources reveals differences between the texts; consequently, textual criticism involves the comparison and analysis of those textual differences in both ancient sources and modern printed editions of the OT. Text critics collect from MSS and other textual witnesses all the details in which these texts differ from one another and then evaluate those differences to arrive at the most accurate original reading. Some of these differences were created in the course of textual transmission, while others are the result of scribal additions and the processes that created readings and texts over the centuries. In many cases, these differences are minimal and exert no significant theological or interpretational influence on the text itself.

Goals and Assumptions

The text critic seeks to recover the processes of the text’s written transmission so as to restore it not to the most ancient form or earliest literary strand of the biblical corpus, nor to the earliest attested textual form, but rather to the copy that contained the finished literary product and that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. Consequently, the text critic accepts the notion of a single, authentic text (Urtext) from which all extant MSS of a specific book have evolved rather than the existence of ancient parallel texts. Text critics identify and resolve textual errors in the text by revealing the history of their emergence, explaining how those errors or inconsistencies occurred. They consider and evaluate deviant or differing readings from the textual apparatus (notes written at the bottom of the printed critical versions) of the Masoretic Text (MT), such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Textual scholars remove or correct readings from extant or existing final forms of MSS and sometimes, in the absence of manuscript evidence, conjecturally emend or “suggest translational alternatives” for the text when the extant evidence defies a reasonable or clear reading. The most recent work by the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) eliminates all scholarly conjectures proposed without manuscript evidence from its consideration in the text-critical process.

Discrepancies between textual witnesses to the OT include differences in book, chapter, and verse divisions, as well as layout and chapter sequence. The nature of scribal transmission assumes that although the scribes carefully copied the sacred texts, errors occasionally occurred. These textual corruptions may be unintentional, such as the reduplication of a letter or a word, confusion between letters that resemble one another, wrong word divisions, incorrect vocalization, or the accidental reversal of two letters. Occasionally a word may have been omitted, or words from marginal or interlinear comments (called a “gloss”) may have been inserted in the main text. In the case of intentional corruptions or alterations, scribes attempted to harmonize the morphology or grammar of a text, give explanations (also called “conflation”), incorporate material from parallel passages, substitute euphemistic words or phrases in place of offensive material, and, rarely, alter the texts theologically when the original wording seemed disrespectful to God.

Text Families and Translations

Some scholars theorize that the Hebrew MSS evolved from three local textual families arranged geographically, though more-recent scholarship seems to refute this view as simplistic. According to this theory, during the fifth century BC two local texts developed independently of each other in Babylon and Palestine. A third, the Alexandrian family, broke off from the Old Palestinian text and eventually served as the “source” or “model” for the translation of the Septuagint (LXX) between 250 BC and AD 150. The Samaritan Pentateuch resulted from the Palestinian family and, combined with the Babylonian tradition, formed the official corpus of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The corpus of the Latter Prophets derived solely from the Palestinian text. This combination of texts formed the authoritative basis for the MT. The Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) is the oldest preserved complete Hebrew Bible, providing one of the best examples of the MT. The 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls gave text-critical scholars access to customary scribal activity and affirmed the existence of pluriform, or multiple, text types. These scrolls, transmitted during the third through first centuries BC, represented all the OT books except Esther and provided a Hebrew text witness that reinforced the relative veracity of the MT.

Ancient translations, such as the LXX, provided the source text from which the Old Greek, Lucian, Eusebius, and other Greek versions developed. In addition, the LXX formed the basis of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions as well as the Targumim. The importance of the elementary text-critical principle “Texts do not count, they weigh,” which forms the basic assumption when evaluating textual witnesses and comparing potential readings, becomes clearer in light of these developments. For example, a text critic would consider a reading in a Qumran witness as the equivalent or superior to readings attested in the LXX and its offspring texts.

Weighing Variant Readings

A consideration of variant readings involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details that differ from an accepted form of the MT, including additions, subtractions, letter and word differentiation, differences in word division, vocalization (or pronunciation), and word sequence. Scholars denote the MT as the textus receptus, or “received text,” which forms the translation base then of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some cases, critics of the OT believe that the MSS and versions reflect varying stages or versions in the editing of a final text. For example, 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 are parallel texts in slightly different forms. Text critics acknowledge the existence of alternate forms of identical texts that were equally acceptable to the ancient poet by assuming that during the time of the OT, authors modernized or contemporized texts in an appropriate manner. One text does not have to be superior to the other; instead, both are legitimate, as in the case of Isa. 2:2–4 and Mic. 4:1–5.

OT text critics explore explanations for contradictory or different readings among text traditions, evaluate the weight of the textual evidence, and analyze a host of readings to determine which reading best explains the others or harmonizes with the literary evidence. In addition, text scholars ask whether a particular reading is grammatically acceptable and whether the word or phrase fits into the syntactic context of the sentence and the scope of the wider passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, text critics generally prefer the shorter reading because throughout history texts have a tendency to expand. In addition, when the MT and all other witnesses offer a text that is unobjectionable, makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant, scholars often assume that it is the “original text” preserved by the tradition and should be accepted. Furthermore, in the case of two alternative readings, if an explanation is available as to the manner in which one of these may have arisen from the other, then scholars consider the explicable reading as the weaker of the two.

The complexity of the text-critical enterprise, particularly when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures, requires a combination of intuition, skill, experience, careful attention to detail, and facility in cognate languages. The absence of extrabiblical Hebrew texts makes the OT textual analysis more difficult, since the scholar has a limited corpus of material from which to draw conclusions. OT text criticism is an ongoing process that will engage biblical scholars for years to come.

People of the Land

This phrase (Heb. ’am ha’arets) occurs approximately fifty times in the OT in the singular and about fifteen times in the plural (“peoples of the land”). On the surface, the phrase appears to simply refer to the inhabitants of any particular geographical location. However, in the last few decades there has been much discussion as to whether the phrase might have a more limited or technical meaning. Some of the suggestions are that the phrase refers to (1) a ruling national council; (2) the elite, aristocratic, influential, upper class; (3) the poorer, landless segments of society; (4) the common people, as opposed to the ruling elite, though these could still be landed; (5) free, property-owning citizens; (6) unsophisticated country dwellers versus refined city dwellers; (7) those who are ritually impure and less pious.

While there is some justification for some of these proposals, especially for the plural (“peoples”), they are perhaps, for the most part, overly pressed. Inasmuch as ancient Near Eastern societies were patriarchal and largely male dominated, it seems safe to suggest that in those contexts where decision making, judging, and/or military activity is predicated of the “people of the land,” a free, male, and land-owning group is in view. When Abraham negotiates with Ephron the Hittite for a burial plot for his deceased wife, Sarah, in front of the “people of the land” (Gen. 23), we may assume the group was comprised of citizenry who regularly witnessed such transactions. Various coup attempts or struggles for power seem to presuppose that the “people of the land” were those capable of bearing arms (2 Kings 11:13–20; 21:24; 23:30; 25:19). In 2 Kings 24:14; 25:12 reference is made to the “poorest people of the land,” and the use of the adjective indicates that the phrase “people of the land” was in itself insufficient to denote the poorer classes. In Jer. 1:18; 37:2; 44:21 the “people of the land” may be separate groups from the officials mentioned in those passages. Other than these passages, all preexilic uses of the phrase seem to refer simply to inhabitants in general.

The postexilic books Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as the apocryphal book 1 Esdras, with one exception (Ezra 4:4), use the plural, “peoples of the land” (the NIV variously translates as the “people around us,” “peoples around you”). In these instances the phrase is used to indicate the various non-Judaic peoples in the Judean province who proved, on various occasions, to be hostile to the Jews returning from exile in Babylon. Some of the returning Jews also intermarried with these groups, something that Ezra and Nehemiah considered an abomination because it might lead to idolatry. It is probably out of this postexilic situation that the later pejorative use of the phrase “people of the land” was employed by the Pharisees to refer, not to Gentiles, but to Jews whom they considered, by their standards, to be ritually impure and thus ignorant of the Mosaic law. It is possible that there was a virtual equation made between “people of the land” and “sinners.” The phrase does not occur in the NT, but the attitude toward those whom the Pharisees considered to be ritually impure is evidenced on numerous occasions (e.g., John 7:49).

Solemn Assembly

Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread

The Festival of Weeks

The Festival of Tabernacles

The Festival of Trumpets

The Day of Atonement

Sabbath Year

Jubilee

New Moon

Purim

Festival of Dedication

Summary

Suffering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Textual Criticism

New Testament Manuscripts

Different Readings

Different Families or Text Types

Applying Textual Criticism

Goals and Assumptions

Text Families and Translations

Weighing Variant Readings

Showing 1 to 50 of255 results

1. When the Invitation Comes

Illustration

Larry Bethune

You never know where the invitation will come. Abraham was sitting at home. Moses was out in the wilderness. Isaiah was in a worship service. Matthew was at work. The woman caught in adultery was, well, caught in adultery and about to be stoned. I would call that a crisis, wouldn't you? But it doesn't matter where you are or in what situation; God will find you. As the psalmist suggests:

Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If Itake the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.

2. Two Most Important Questions a Christian Can Answer - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Isidor Isaac Rabi, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, and one of the developers of the atomic bomb, was once asked how he became a scientist. Rabi replied that every day after school his mother would talk to him about his school day. She wasn't so much interested in what he had learned that day, but how he conducted himself in his studies. She always inquired, "Did you ask a good question today?"

"Asking good questions," Rabi said, "made me become a scientist."

In order to ask a good question I think you need to have noble motives behind the question. You have to want to know the truth. The Pharisees, by contrast, already had the answers to their questions. They felt they already knew the truth. How many times have we had it in for someone, asking a question designed to trap them? We do it to our loved ones all the time. In a moment like this we are not trying to learn; we are trying to injure.

The Pharisees come to Jesus once again with a question designed to do damage to the reputation of Jesus. And once again Jesus proves he is equal to the task. Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest? Now, even though this question was used to test Jesus, it is nonetheless an important question. Perhaps in the life of Israel at that time it was THE most important question. But Jesus had a question of his own. A question, which signified that the times were changing; a new theological season had come. He put this question to the same Pharisees who had tested him: "What do you think of the Messiah. Whose son is he?"

These were the two most important questions of that era and my friends they are the two most important questions of our time. Let us consider…

1. Which Commandment Is the Greatest?
2. What Do You Thing of the Messiah

3. Wisdom: The Secret of Effective Living

Illustration

Robert Allen

Jack was a big man who always seemed to have a smile on his face. In fact, joy and happiness seemed to bubble in his life. His happiness was so genuine that others discovered that joy and happiness increased in their lives when they were around him. But, why shouldn’t he be happy? He had a good family. He had a lovely wife and two college-age daughters. He had a large home in the country. He was active in his church. He was the vice-president of a large defense-oriented company and it paid him a six-figure salary. He seemed to have it made.

One day, without warning, he was called into the boss’ office and fired. He was devastated. He had invested his life in the company. He had worked his tail off. He had helped the company grow and now, they were letting him go.

Financially, he was set for life. But he was devastated that his company would let him go in the prime of life. For weeks he was lost and didn’t know what to do. His self-confidence was replaced with frustration. His friendly attitude changed to one of bitterness. The anger and emptiness he felt even made him consider suicide.

After weeks of feeling helpless and not knowing what to do, Jack began to take an inventory of his life. His wife, who had been his high-school sweetheart, still loved him. His children were in college and their grades were excellent. He was still a respected member of the community. His only real problem had been that he had allowed the anger and bitterness and rejection to wage a war within his soul.

Once he stopped dwelling on what was wrong in his life and started looking at what was right, once he understood that his only real problem centered on the way he looked at himself, once he stopped waging war within himself, Jack was wise enough to realize that he was on his way to living an effective life.

And what is the secret of effective living? The writer of Proverbs paints a beautiful panoramic view of wisdom being the secret of effective living. Wisdom is depicted as being the first thing God created and an essential characteristic for every man or woman if they are going to experience any joy in living. The writer of Proverbs expressed this very clearly when he wrote: Happy is the man who listens to me (wisdom) watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favors from the Lord.

This tantalizing glimpse at wisdom is clearly portrayed as an appeal for men and women to discover her secrets. Wisdom offers a high reward to those who follow her way and the reward is not just in money and wealth. The reward of wisdom is the secret of effective living.

4. A Good Word for The Pharisees

Illustration

Jirair Tashjian

It may come as a surprise to Christian listeners, who are used to thinking of Pharisees as hypocrites and enemies of Jesus, that in this passage it is Pharisees who warn Jesus to flee from Galilee because Herod wants to kill him. Not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. While Jesus and the Pharisees did not see things eye to eye, we find in Luke and Acts that Pharisees are often in the company of Jesus and not always antagonistic. Jesus is often invited to the home of a Pharisee for dinner (Luke 7:36, 11:37; 14:1). In Acts 5:33-39, when the Jewish Sanhedrin wanted to kill the apostles, a well-known Pharisee, Gamaliel, counsels them to be careful how they treat these men. If the undertaking of the apostles is of human origin, Gamaliel says, it will fail; "but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them in that case you may even be found fighting against God!" Some Pharisees had even become Christians (Acts 15:5). And of course we know that Paul himself was a Pharisee. In fact, in his defense before the Sanhedrin he uses the present tense and says, "I am a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6).

5. Give To God The Things That Are God's

Illustration

Phyllis Faaborg Wolk

"Tell us what you think, Teacher. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" When the Pharisees asked Jesus that question, he responded with a request, "Show me the coin used for the tax," and someone handed Jesus a coin embossed with the head of the current Roman emperor, Tiberius. Engraved around his head was the inscription, "Tiberius Caesar, majestic son of the majestic God, and High Priest." "Whose image is on this coin?" Jesus asked. "The emperor's," they responded. "Well then," Jesus said, "give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor." The image of the emperor was embossed on the coin, therefore the coin belonged to him.

But in answering the Pharisees' question, Jesus didn't stop with the issue of taxation. He continued, "and give to God what belongs to God." As Jesus spoke the words, "give to God what belongs to God," standing right before him were those on whom the image of God had been embossed. The Pharisees, teachers of the law of Israel, children of Abraham whom God had claimed as his own, had been created from the very beginning in the image of God. In the image of himself, God had created them. They belonged to God. Those in whose eyes Jesus looked as he spoke were the coins of God. "Give to God what belongs to God," Jesus said. But when he spoke those words, the Pharisees left him and went away.

Should we pay taxes to the government? Yes, Jesus would say. But again, Jesus wouldn't stop there. Today he looks you in the eye and says, "Give to God what belongs to God." And as he looks at you, Jesus sees the image of God. In the beginning God created you and embossed his image upon you. In the waters of baptism, God marked you with the cross of Christ forever. God has given himself to you and has promised to love you and be with you forever.

Mrs. Detweiler was created in the image of God. She worked at Murray Elementary as the special education teacher. It didn't take her students long to recognize the image of God within her which made them feel special and loved. Even though she was a special education teacher, the students of Murray Elementary considered it a privilege to be invited to Mrs. Detweiler's room. The walls of her small classroom were covered with stars made out of bright yellow construction paper. Neatly written in black permanent marker on the star at the top of each row was the name of one of her students. As soon as a student finished reading a book, the title of that book was placed on another star that soon appeared directly beneath the star bearing the student's name. The more books a person read, the more stars accumulated under the name. Whenever her students finished a book, Mrs. Detweiler made them feel like stars, themselves. Her ability to make her students feel special and important was a mark of the image of God shining through her.

Mrs. Detweiler bore the image of God. She loved her students -- that was the image of God. She gave of herself by teaching them to read -- that was the image of God. She believed in her students -- that was the image of God. But even as one created in the image of God, Mrs. Detweiler would be the first to say that she had her faults. There were times when she let her students down; times when she lost her patience; times when her mood affected her ability to respond to her students enthusiastically. Mrs. Detweiler wasn't perfect, but she had been created in the image of God, claimed as God's child through her baptism and renewed each day with the gift of forgiveness. As she gave God what belonged to God by giving of herself to her students, Jesus worked through her. Through Mrs. Detweiler, God's love, acceptance and encouragement was shown to many students as they grew and matured into the people God had created them to be. As she gave God what belonged to God, God continued to give himself to her, revealing his love again and again through the sparkle in her students' eyes.

You are God's. His image has been placed within you. When I look at you, I see the image of God. I see the image of God in your faces as you greet one another before worship. I see the image of God each time you pray for each other and share one another's concerns. I see the image of God when I go to the nursing home and watch you hug and hold and gently speak with those who reside there. I see the image of God when I watch the Sunday school staff relate with the children -- so often God's love is given and received in the simple interactions they share. I see the image of God in the church kitchen, as members of this congregation work side by side to prepare a meal after a funeral or before a fellowship event. I see the image of God every time one of you gives to the Lord's work in a generous and cheerful way, sharing with others the blessings God has given you. God's image shines when you invite and welcome your neighbors to church -- not only those who are like you, but those who bring different perspectives and talents and needs to this body of Christ. I see God's image as this congregation reaches beyond itself to support missionaries and relieve world hunger. Whenever you give of yourself to others, the image of God within you is being revealed.

You are the bearers of God's image. Jesus said, "Give to God the things that are God's." You are God's. Jesus says, "Give yourself to God." But before you can even respond to Jesus' call to give yourself to God, God gives himself to you. Even before you have a chance to respond to Jesus' command, Jesus goes to the cross. Jesus goes to the cross to give to God what belongs to God. Jesus goes to the cross to give you to his Father in Heaven, who then blesses you with salvation and eternal life. Jesus goes to the cross for you and gives you life.

Give to God the things that are God's. When you give yourself to God, God will nurture his image within you. Jesus who now lives in you will give himself to others whenever you give of yourself to those in need. Jesus will use you to reveal God's love and forgiveness, to show all God's children how special they are to God, and to proclaim salvation to all who have been created in the image of God. Give to God things that are God's, remembering that Jesus has already given himself for you. Amen.

6. Cheating Spouse Statistics

Illustration

Marriage has been a time honored tradition in society throughout human history, but it's also a time honoered tradition that spouses will cheat on one another. How and why? Here are some statistics:

The percentage of affairs that begin at work: 60%.
Up to 60% of all spouses will take part in some form of infidelity at least once during their marriage.
56% of men who have affairs claim to be happy in their marriages.
Women and men cheat at the same rate within a marriage, although the reasons why women cheat are very different from the reasons that men cheat.
The most common reason why a woman cheats on her spouse: emotional satisfaction.
Research consistently shows that 2 to 3% of all children are the product of infidelity.
Infidelity is becoming more common among people under 30.
In many cases, infidelity never gets discovered.
Most people are surprised by their own behavior at the start of an affair.
Almost everyone admits to having fantasies that involve someone other than a spouse.
34% of women who had affairs claimed to be happy or very happy in their marriages.
Cheating is not the leading cause of divorce in the world today. Incompatibility is the #1 document reason, making communication the leading cause.
Some studies put the percentage of husbands who will eventually cheat at close to 50%.
High school dropouts and couples in which one partner is largely dependent on the other’s income are more apt to become cheating spouses.
Although the cheating laws are rarely enforced, adultery is considered to be a crime in Michigan, Minnesota, and South Carolina.
The percentage of marriages where one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional: 41%.
22% of men admit to straying at least once while being married.
The average length of an extra-marital affair: 2 years.
31%. That’s the percentage of marriages that stay together after a cheating spouse has been discovered or the affair is admitted.
Men [74%] are more likely than women [68%] to say that they would have an affair if they knew that they wouldn’t be caught.
17% of cheating spouses have an affair with one of their in-laws.
The percentage of cheating spouses who have a fling while on a business trip: 35%.
Only 3 to 4% of spouses have cheated on their significant other in any given year.
99% of Americans state that they expect their spouse to stay faithful to them.
More Americans today [80%] say that infidelity is wrong than they did in 1970 [70%].
The overall chances that a marriage will have one spouse cheat over the life of the marriage: 1 in 4.

7. The Difference between Information and Wisdom

Illustration

Allen Brehm

We live in an amazing era. We are surrounded by more information than at any other time in human history—literally at our fingertips! There is virtually no fact or information that you cannot look up on the internet. On-line encyclopedias, which were once frowned upon, have become wonderful learning tools. In fact, the internet is one giant encyclopedia! And yet we seem unable to translate all that information into making our lives more meaningful—and we all tend to struggle with the whole question of meaning in life. That's not a question you can "Google" or look up on the internet and expect to find answer in 30 seconds or less.

Part of the problem is that there is a vast difference between information and wisdom. Information is as accessible as a reliable source. If you have a readily accessible source, it's easy to get information. Wisdom, on the other hand, is something very different. Wisdom is like learning a skill, where you have to develop "muscle memory." That's what athletes and musicians strive to achieve in their practice routines. But "muscle memory" doesn't happen overnight. It must be learned and developed over time and repeated practice.

Wisdom is like that. The wisdom that translates into a meaningful way of life must be cultivated. The writers of the Hebrew Bible called it "the fear of the LORD." That's probably not your favorite phrase from the Bible, because we don't much like the whole association between religion and fear. After all, fear only goes so far as a motivation—when the one we fear isn't looking, we tend to do whatever we please. But we should not assume too quickly that "the fear of the LORD" is that kind of fear.

8. Check Yourself

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

Max Lucado said that one day his wife brought home a monkey. His daughters were thrilled but he wasn't; he had all kinds of questions. Where was the monkey going to eat? His wife said that it was going to sit at the table and eat with them, just like the rest of the family. Then he asked her where it was going to sleep? And she told him it was going to sleep in their bed. Then he asked, "But what about the smell?" And she said, "Oh, he'll get used to you. I did."

Then Dr. Lucado went on to say, "Before you comment on the odor of someone else, check your own odor first." That's what Jesus meant when He said, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." Unity has to begin with us. And it has to begin with our personal relationship with Christ. We have to be one with Christ, first.

9. Scribe

Illustration

Stephen Stewart and Esther Lense

Ezra 7:6 - "... this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses which the Lord the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was upon him."

In pagan Greek, the word "scribe," had a variety of meanings, including government secretary, recorder, clerk, and notary. In biblical Greek, however, it had a more specialized meaning, being used to translate the Hebrew word "sopher," a term which had undergone a change in meaning between the days of the Israelite kingdoms and the beginning of the Christian era.

In early biblical Hebrew "sopher" usually designated an important court official. During the first two-thirds of the period of the second commonwealth (@400 B.C. to 1 A.D.), where Judea was successively a province of the Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires, "sopher" meant an interpreter of scripture. It was in this capacity that Ezra (@ 400 B.C.) was called a scribe. In the early part of the second century B.C. Jesus ben Sirach, the head of a school of wisdom in Jerusalem, celebrated the intellectual and moral pre-eminence of the scribes (Ecclesiastes 8:24--39:11).

During the last three centuries before the beginning of the Christian era the scribes were the professional interpreters and teachers of biblical law and ethics. Since the Jewish community enjoyed cultural autonomy under foreign rules it was premitted to govern itself by its own constitution, namely the Pentateuch. However, the Mosaic laws required interpretation and expansion to meet the needs of this later age and the work in interpretation was undertaken by the scholars whom we call the scribes.

The two leading religious-political parties, the Pharisees and Sadducees, both had their professional scholars and scribes, but as the Pharisees enjoyed greater influence among the Jews as a whole, it was the Pharisaic scribes whose interpretation of the law was considered authoritative by later Rabbinic scholars. It is the Pharisaic scribes who are meant in most of the Gospel references. It should not be noted also that the Gospels treat this word "scribe" as synonymous with "jurist" and "teachers of the Law" (i.e., biblical law).

The chief Jewish legislative and judicial body meeting in Jerusalem from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 70, known as the Great Sanhedrin, was made up of scribes of the Pharisaic party as well as the scribes and priests of the Sadducean party. Which party was in the majority throughout this period we do not know, but sources indicate that on certain matters the opinions of the Pharisaic scribes prevailed.

However, there was a difference in the usage of the word "scribes" between the Jewish and Christian writings of the first two centuries A.D. The Rabbinic sources of this period apply the word to the biblical interpreters and jurists of the period between Ezra and their own time, while the Pharisaic rabbis and scholars of their own time are called "sages," although they performed the same function as the scribes. The latter term was usually applied by them to less eminent persons, such as writers of legal documents, copyists, notaries, and teachers of elementary schools.

When the Gospels speak of scribes as contemporaries of Jesus, they meant the jurists and teachers who were called "sages" by the rabbis.

The chief functions of the scribes throughout the greater part of the second commonwealth were: 1. to interpret the biblical law and to provide new legislation by the construction of the written text or on the basis of the tradition of the leders (the oral law); 2. to give instruction in all fields of knowledge relevant to the study of Scripture; 3. to act as legal advisers to judges and those who administered the law.

Although they became preverted in their interpretations, so that eventually the word of the scribe was honored above that of the Law, and it became a greater crime to offend against the scribes than to break the Law, still we are indebted to them for the preservation of the Old Testament canon, which was formulated almost exactly as we have it today, at the. Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, by these scribes.

To compare these men with their modern-day counterparts is a little difficult, since we are no longer a theocracy. However, I think we could compare their duties with those of legal advisers to heads of government, on whatever level, or to accomplished and efficient legal secretaries. If you will recall what was said about the doctors of law, I think the same would hold true here also for modern man.

10. O, Lord Give Me a Penny

Illustration

Staff

A man asked God, "What does a billion dollars mean to you who are all powerful?"

"Hardly a penny." God said.

Then the man asked God , "And what are a thousand centuries to you?" God answered "Hardly a second!!"

Thinking he had God backed into a corner, the man then said, "Then if that's the case, O, Lord give me a penny !!"

God replied, "Sure, just give me a minute."

Wisdom isn't outsmarting God, wisdom is living in and with God. Wisdom is being in Christ and surrounded by Christ. Wisdom is eating and drinking from the feast which God has prepared for us.

11. Take the Free Gift

Illustration

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, evangelist and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, told a simple story from his life. It seems that one day Dr. Chafer was walking along the street when he encountered a flagman sitting in a little house at a railroad crossing. He noticed that the man was reading a large family Bible. A sign on the door said, "No Admittance,"

Dr. Chafer went boldly through the door to greet the man. In reply to a question from Dr. Chafer, the man said that he read the Bible a lot. So Chafer asked a second question, one most people are too timid to ask these days, "Are you saved?"

The answer of the flagman carries the sentiments of many: "I could never be good enough to be saved."

Dr. Chafer countered, "Friend, if God would make an exception of your case, and give you salvation outright as a gift, would you receive it?"

"Mister," the flagman replied, "I don't know what brand of fool you think I am that I wouldn't take a gift like that!"

Chafer asked the flagman to read John 10:28. It took the man awhile to find the passage, but then he read, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish..." Then Chafer directed him to Romans 6:23, where he read, "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The flagman was amazed. He said to Dr. Chafer, "Stranger, I don't know who you are, but you've done more for me today than any other man." Chafer crisply replied, "What have I done for you? I've got you in a trap. You told me that if it was a gift, you'd accept it. Now, what are you going to do about that?" "I will accept it right now," the flagman responded. And he did. Dr. Chafer prayed with him and left. That is the simplicity of the gospel. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

12. The Laughter Of Faith

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. At the Root of Rebellion

Illustration

Alexander Maclaren

Important lessons are given by this alternation of the two ideas of faith and unbelief, obedience and disobedience. Disobedience is the root of unbelief. Unbelief is the mother of further disobedience. Faith is voluntary submission within a person's own power. If faith is not exercised, the true cause lies deeper than all intellectual reasons. It lies in the moral aversion of human will and in the pride of independence, which says, "who is Lord over us? Why should we have to depend on Jesus Christ?" As faith is obedience and submission, so faith breeds obedience, but unbelief leads on to higher-handed rebellion. With dreadful reciprocity of influence, the less one trusts, the more he disobeys; the more he disobeys, the less he trusts.

14. Everything He Says Is True

Illustration

Ray Pritchard & Brett Blair

When you read the story about the Pharisee, a number of specific statements are made about his piety. Please note this. Everything the man says about himself is true. For instance, when he says, "I thank you that I am not like other men," indeed he wasn't like other men. He had a standard of morality that was far above the standard of that day.

When he said, "I fast twice a week;" it happens to be literally true. The Pharisees fasted on Monday and Thursday of every week.
When he says, "I give tithes of all I possess," he means he tithes on the gross and not on the net. He went beyond the Law of Moses. That's no big deal; all the Pharisees did that.
When he says, "I am not a crook," he really isn't a crook.
When he says, "I am not like this filthy tax collector," he's really not like that guy.
When he says, "I do not commit adultery," he really doesn't commit adultery. He is faithful to his wife.
When he says, "I am honest, I am faithful, I am zealous for my religion," he means it and every word of it is true. He truly is a genuinely good man.

What we are to understand is this. When he prayed he was telling the truth. When he said, "Lord, you're lucky to have a guy like me, because I'm one of the best guys I know," it was really true. He really was a wonderful guy.

While he prayed, people would be standing around watching. And they would say, "Yep, he's a fine man." While he prayed, they probably applauded. He was the kind of guy you'd want living next door to you. A good citizen. A law-abiding man. A good, religious kind of person. If he were to come to this church today we'd love him because he would be faithful, loyal, and give us a lot of money. We'd probably make him an elder or a deacon. He's just that kind of guy. He looks really good on the outside. Everything he says about himself is absolutely true.

So what's wrong? Well, for all his goodness he isn't perfect, no one is, and the Law requires perfection. I like to call this narcissistic righteousness. What good is all the law if you don't have love? If you are not reaching out to those around you. If the center of your righteousness is You, you've missed the center. The center is love God and love your neighbor.

15. What Is Caesar’s and What Is God's? - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

A young lady was soaking up the sun's rays on a Florida beach when a little boy in his swimming trunks, carrying a towel, came up to her and asked her, "Do you believe in God?" She was surprised by the question but she replied, "Why, yes, I do." Then he asked her: "Do you go to church every Sunday?" Again, her answer was "Yes!" He then asked: "Do you read your Bible and pray everyday?" Again she said, "Yes!" By now her curiosity was very much aroused. The little lad sighed with relief and said, "Will you hold my quarter while I go in swimming?"

The little boy was straightforward and honest in his questions because he wanted to entrust to the lady something valuable. The Pharisees are not being honest. They have no intent in entrusting Jesus with anything. They are not looking for the answer to a question. They don't want someone to hold their quarter. They are looking for a way to get rid of this trouble making Nazarene named Jesus.

The Pharisees were so angry it blinded them. Think for a moment about the ironies here: We know, because we live on this side of the resurrection, that Jesus was God. They thought he was demonic, an agent of Satan. We know that Jesus is the King of kings. They thought he wanted to be the King of Israel. We know that he was the Son of God. They thought he was simply Joseph and Mary's son. We know that Jesus has influenced the world for 2000 years. They thought his influence would end at the cross.

It's a fascinating story. We look at the Pharisees and we shake our heads. How could they have been so wrong when the truth was standing right in front of them? I believe they were upset because Jesus held them accountable and exposed their hypocrisy. "Teacher, we know that you are sincere," they say to him, "and teach the way of God." Not for a moment did they believe in Jesus' sincerity. It was a set up. It was a way of putting him at ease before they stabbed him in the back. Tell us then, they continue, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor?

I suppose we ought to be grateful to the Pharisees. In their question, which Jesus says was motivated by malice, they prompt one of the greatest of Jesus' teachings. It may not seem like much on the face of it, but the implications of this teaching have echoed through the centuries and they have shaped western societies. Jesus said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Let us ask three questions this morning and find out why this little teaching has had such a great influence.

1. What Is Caesar's?
2. What Is God's?
3. Which Will You Choose?

16. Misleading Questions

Illustration

Brett Blair

Misleading Questions:

Luke 20:1-2 Chief Priest and Elders question Jesus about his Authority
Luke 20:20 Spies are sent to catch him in a slip of the tongue
Luke 20:27-33 Sadducees

All are insincere tricks but Jesus proves to be more than a match for his adversaries.

With the third misleading question, the Sadducees try to expose the resurrection as a ridiculous theological concept by posing an impossible scenario and thereby trap Jesus in his thoughts: A woman is married seven times to a series of brothers who father no children and she survives them all. In the resurrection whose wife is she? Jesus reveals that the question is built on a false premise since the institution of marriage ceases to exist with the advent of the age of resurrection.

Score now: Jesus -- 3

Religious leaders -- 0.

17. Rising to the Occasion

Illustration

James W. Moore

Have you heard the story about the elderly woman who lived in a small town in East Texas... who had car trouble on the way to the supermarket one morning? Her car stalled at a stop sign... she tried everything to get her car started again, but no luck. Suddenly, a man in a pick-up truck came up behind her and with obvious agitation he started honking his horn at her impatiently. She doubled her efforts to get her car going. She pumped the gas, turned the ignition, but still no luck... the man in the pick-up truck continued to honk his horn constantly and loudly. I love what the elderly woman did. Very calmly she got out of her car, walked back to the pick-up and motioned for the man to lower his window and then politely she said: "I'll make a deal with you. If you will start my car for me I'll be happy to honk your horn for you!"

Now, that is what you call "Rising to the occasion!" and that is precisely what Jesus does here in Luke 10. The lawyer was "testing" Jesus... honking his horn loudly. He was trying to trap Jesus and trip Him up with a loaded question... but Jesus (as He so often did) rose to the occasion and passed the test with flying colors... and in so doing... He reminded the people back then (and us today) of what is the main thing in the Christian faith.

18. The Completely Accurate, but Totally Absurd Answers

Illustration

King Duncan

In the children's classic, THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH, Milo, Tock and Humbug are traveling to the Lands Beyond. They are greeted by the twelve-faced Dodecahedron who is a specialist in problems.

"I'm not very good at problems," admits Milo.

"What a shame," sighs the Dodecahedron. "They're so very useful. Why, did you know that if a beaver two feet long with a tail a foot and a half long can build a dam twelve feet high and six feet wide in two days? All you would need to build Boulder Dam is a beaver sixty-eight feet long with a fifty-one foot tail."

"Where would you find a beaver that big?" grumbled Humbug.

"I'm sure I don't know," he replied, "but if you did you'd certainly know what to do with him."

"That's absurd," objected Milo.

"That may be true," he acknowledged, "but it's completely accurate, and as long as the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong? If you want sense you'll have to make it yourself."

The Sadducees' question was that kind of question. It was a test. It was a trap. Jesus, though, saw this as an opportunity to set the record straight. In heaven, he explained, there is no need for marriage, "because they are like angels and are children of God."

19. DOCTOR OF THE LAW

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Clean Hearts and Clean Hands

Illustration

Paul Janke

The American Society of Microbiology recently issued a report on cleanliness in America. Microbiologists know that some simple, common sense habits of cleanliness—like washing our hands—can do a great deal to prevent the spread of disease. All it takes is rubbing your hands together for 10 to 15 seconds using soap and warm, running water.

Unfortunately, the message hasn't gotten through to some people yet. The American Society of Microbiology knows this because they once stationed people in the restrooms of airports in five major cities in the U.S. and in Toronto. These monitors pretended to be brushing their hair or applying make-up when in reality they were keeping track of how many people washed their hands after using the restroom. The numbers that year were about the same as in previous surveys, except in Toronto, where the SARS scare had about 95% of people washing their hands. Otherwise, in places like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, only about two-thirds of people washed their hands. The other one-third were contributing to the spread of everything from SARS to the common cold.

Hand washing was also on the minds of the Pharisees and teachers of the law we meet in today's Gospel lesson. After a bit of observation, they asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples wash their hands?" Their concern was not the hygiene of the disciples. People in those days didn't know what we know now about germs theory and the spread of disease. No, their concern was that the disciples were not following "the tradition of the elders," which prescribed ritual hand washing before meals and after returning from the marketplace. In his response to the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus makes it clear that Clean Hearts are More Important than Clean Hands.

21. He With the Most Toys

Illustration

Steve Farrar

Christopher Winans, in his book, Malcolm Forbes: The Man Who Had Everything, tells of a motorcycle tour that Forbes took through Egypt in 1984 with his Capitalist Tool motorcycle team. After viewing the staggering burial tomb of King Tut, Forbes seemed to be in a reflective mood.

As they were returning to the hotel in a shuttle bus, Forbes turned to one of his associates and asked with all sincerity: "Do you think I'll be remembered after I die?" Forbes is remembered. He is remembered as the man who coined the phrase, "He who dies with the most toys wins." That was the wisdom of Malcolm Forbes. In fact, that was his ambition. That's why he collected scores of motorcycles. That's why he would pay over a million dollars for a Faberge egg. That's why he owned castles, hot air balloons and countless other toys that he can no longer access.

The Lord Jesus Christ gave us words of superior wisdom when he said, "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" (Matthew 16:26). It is a fatally deficient wisdom that declares "He who dies with the most toys wins."

22. SENATOR

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Acts 5:21 - "Now the high priest came and those who were with him and called together the council and all the senate of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought."

Psalm 105:22 - "To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom" (KJV).

The quotation from the Psalms is the only place in the Old Testament where we find the use of the term "senator;" generally the Hebrew uses the word "elder." It may have been this use of the term which made Luke think that there was a separate branch of the Great Sanhedrin which was composed of "senators." However, although some have thought that the Sanhedrin was in fact composed of three bodies - senators, scribes, and priests - it was, in fact, an entity, always considered as a whole, not separate factions.

However, again the apocryphal writings do use it rather more frequently; according to II Macc 6:1, Antiochus Epiphanes sent an "Athenian senator" to the Jews to force their acceptance of the worship of Olympian Zeus. The earliest historical writings to use the term in referring to members of the Great Sanhedrin come from Josephus, that fount of ancient knowledge - in Antiq. XII. iii. 3, again it is Antiochus the Great who uses the term.

We can, then, by gathering together all these divergent uses, conclude that the term was at least one of respect, indicating a person of rank within the legal and judicial system of the Jews. We can easily bridge the time gap and consider the "senator" today as a member, perhaps, of a supreme court or other law-making and law-enforcing body. Just as the term implies a person of wisdom, experience, and sound judgment, so we think of the officials whom we elect to be the arbiters and maintainers of our way of life. We, of course, still use the term in connection with the members of our state and federal governmental systems. And, hopefully, the men that we elect to fill these positions are also men of wisdom and judgment.

23. Some Rules Need to be Broken

Illustration

Larry Powell

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

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

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

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

24. Creeds and Deeds - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Rev. David Chadwell posed a rather interesting question: Which would you prefer for a next-door neighbor: a person of excellent habits or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a good friend: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a husband or a wife: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a child: a child with excellent habits, or a child with a good heart?

It is wonderful to have a neighbor who conscientiously cares for his property while respecting your property. It is wonderful to have a friend who always treats you with consideration. It is wonderful to be married to a husband who always is thoughtful and courteous, or to a wife who always is gracious in her comments and deeds. It is wonderful to have a son or daughter who shows respect and uses good manners.

As wonderful as those situations are, none of them compare to having a neighbor, a friend, a husband, a wife, a son, or a daughter with a good heart.

When you discuss good behavior, you are discussing the quality of a person's self-control. When you discuss a good heart, you are discussing the quality of the person.

This is the focus of today's Scripture. Pharisees and teachers have come down from Jerusalem and, interestingly, they are gathered around Jesus watching the disciples. The disciples, it seems, are eating lunch. They have come in from the day's work. Too tired and too hungry to care that their hands and faces were dirty, they immediately sat down to eat without washing.

The Pharisees cease upon this ceremonial oversight and question Jesus: Why don't your disciples live according to the traditions of the elders and clean their hands before they eat? This is all that Jesus needs to hear. He sticks up for his disciples, turns on these teachers and says in essence, "Why do you not live according to the traditions of God and clean your hearts?"

What mistake did these Pharisees make? What is Jesus trying to convey, not only to them, but to us as well. For you see, it is just as easy for us to fall into a good habit and leave behind a good heart. What is Jesus' warning to us?

1. We prefer creeds rather than deeds.
2. We look at the outside not the inside.
3. But God requires good Creeds, Deeds, and Hearts.

25. Best Advice

Illustration

Brett Blair

Fortune Magazine asked 19 accomplished people what was the best advice they ever got. Here are some of them: (Don't try to preach all 17 excerpts below. We suggest using 3 to 4 examples that mean the most to your community. Then skip down and use the conclusion to this illustration.)

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, got his from his days at Salomon Brothers: "Always ask for the order, and second, when the customer says yes, stop talking."

Mark Hurd, the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, got his years ago from his days under NCR CEO Chuck Exley who was listening to an executive's presentation. At the end Exley said to the presenter: "Good Story, but it's hard to look smart with bad numbers." Hurd said he has reflected on that over the years, and says, if you "deliver good numbers and you earn the right for people to listen to you."

Indra Nooyi, an India born woman and Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, says her father was an absolutely wonderful man who taught her: always assume positive intent. Whatever anybody says or does assume positive intent. She went on to say, "you will be amazed how your whole approach to a person or problems becomes very different. If you assume negative intent your anger goes up and your response is random. Assume positive intent and you listen, you're non defensive, and you seek to understand.

Sam Palmisano, the chairman and CEO of IBM, was told this but he has observed it. The most effective leaders, CEO's and head of state, which he has observed, don't make themselves the center of attention. They are respectful and they listen. This makes people comfortable; they open up and speak up.

Eddie Lampert chairman and CEO of Sears Holdings, said that when he was 7, 8, 9, and 10 almost every weekend he and his dad would toss a football in the backyard. He would say, "Go out ten steps and turn to the right." The ball would reach me just as I turned. He asked his dad why he did this. He said, "If I waited for you to turn, you and the defensive player would have an equal chance to get the ball. Your opportunity is gone." His conclusion from those football days in his back yard? Anticipation is the key to investing and business generally.

In 1982 Gen. David Patraeus, then a captain with eight years military experience was weighing various options for his life. His boss Maj. Gen. Jack Galvin, said, "I think you ought to look for an out-of-your-intellectual-comfort-zone experience. He took that advice and went to staff college and then graduate school at Princeton getting his Ph.D. in international relations. There he learned that seriously bright people can think differently about issues and come to very different conclusions about world problems.

Thoams M. Murphy, former CEO of ABC, learned from his father, "Doing the wrong thing is not worth the loss of one night's good sleep."

Nelson Peltz, who along with his father bought Snapple in 1997, learned from his father a very simple lesson about business: "Get sales up, and keep expenses down."

Peter G Peterson, Chairman of the Blackstone group, learned from his professor Milton Friedman, at the University of Chicago, "Focus on those thing that you do better than others."

Joaana Shileds, the president of BEBO.com, says she always goes back to the things that her dad said, "Your career is long and the business world is small. Always act with integrity. Never take the last dollar off the table."

Elon Musj, founder and CEO of SACEX, learned from the very humorous book "The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy," a very short piece of advice: "Don't Panic." You have to be wary of emotion clouding your decision-making process.

Tina Fey, the comedian from Saturday Night Live, learned from an Oprah Winfrey show, "Always be the only person who can sign your checks."

U. Mark Schneider, the CEO of Frensenius, was pushed by his father to become fluent in English. He told him, "No matter what you are going to do this will give you an edge. The English language is the operating system of the free world."

Tony Robbins, a performance coach, learned that the selection of your friends and advisors matter more than anything else. He got this advice from a personal-development speaker, who said, "Tony, think of it this way, If your worst enemy drops sugar in your coffee, what's the worst think that is going to happen to you? Nothing. But if your best friend drops strychnine in your coffee? You're dead. You have to stand guard at the door of your mind."

CONCLUSION: Perhaps a few of the Disciples would have said that this was the best advice they ever got from Jesus: When you construct your house build it on the rock. When the winds blow and rains come it will still be there after the storm. Those who build on the sand will find otherwise. Many of us can probably articulate the best advice we ever received. We either got it from our Father or Mother or from some teacher or boss. I wonder what Matthew would have said were I to ask him, "What was the best advice you ever got from Jesus?" Perhaps it was this story about the wise and foolish builders.

Being able to identify wise ideas is important; it's even more important to put those ideas into practice. This separates the fool from the philosopher, the simpleton from the sage. Jesus starts his parable with this very warning: Everyone who hears my words and puts them into practice is wise; those who hear and do not are fools. Hearing wisdom is one thing, putting it into practice is another.

But there is a third element here to the wisdom of Jesus' parable that might be easily over looked by careless reading. It is true that Jesus offers the disciples a wise word: Build on rock not sand. That's the obvious first point of the story. Secondarily, he reminds them to put this advice into practice. Now the third: There is the difference between Jesus and every leader, teacher, boss, or father you will ever encounter. Jesus draws a sharp contrast between him and the rest of the world in the phrase "my words." Those who hear MY WORDS and put them into practice. It begs the question: What do you think of THIS man? Will you listen to HIM? Will you practice HIS teachings? Will you live as HE directs?

Will you?

After all Jesus is not talking about building a house here or simply offering this well crafted image of rock and sand as a way to approach life. He is claiming that his Words, his teachings, make the difference between wisdom and folly.

26. Spiritual Teaching Gifts

Illustration

Dr. Earl Radmacher

The following is an attempt by Dr. Earl Radmacher and Gordon McMinn to identify and define spiritual gifts centered around teaching.

Prophecy: setting before people the Word and wisdom of God persuasively.
Encouragement: drawing alongside to comfort, encourage, rebuke, and lead someone into insight toward action.
Teaching: laying down in a systematic order the complete truth of a doctrine and applying it incisively to life.
The message of wisdom: Locating formerly unknown principles as well as combining known principles of God's Word and communicating them to fresh situations.
The message of knowledge: Arranging the facts of Scripture, categorizing these into principles, and communicating them to repeated or familiar situations.
Service Gifts. Contributing: Giving most liberally and beyond all human expectation. Mercy: Being sensitive or empathetic to people who are in affliction or misery and lifting internal burdens with cheerfulness.
Helps: Seeing tasks and doing them for or with someone in order to lift external burdens.
Distinguishing spirits: Detecting a genuine or spurious motive by distinguishing the spirit-source behind any person's speech or act.
Evangelism: Communicating the gospel with power and persuasiveness as well as equipping the saints for evangelism.
Leadership Gifts. Leadership (executive ability): Standing before people and inspiring followers by leading them aggressively but with care.
Administration (legislative ability): Standing behind people to collect data, set policy, and develop plans which will guide a course of action with wisdom.
Faith: Seeing through any problem to the Ultimate Resource.

What about the so-called sign gifts, such as healing and speaking in tongues, referred to in today's text? To us, Hebrews 2:4 suggests that they were intended to be confirming signs for the Apostles, and ceased with them. Others feel they are still for today, but if so, one thing is clear: they are given sovereignly by the Spirit for specific purposes and are the exception, not the rule.

27. Historical Information about the Sadducees

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

It is generally thought that their name came from Zadok, who was the high priest under David, or possibly a later Zadok. The group by this name first appeared in the 2nd century BC and disappeared in the 1st century AD after the destruction of the temple in 70. There would be no need for temple priests if there were no temple.

According to Josephus as reported by the Harper's Dictionary of the Bible, "the Sadducees are said to reject the immortality of the soul, to attribute all human activity to free will and none to fate (or providence), and to reject other traditions, especially those of the Pharisees."

The article goes on to state:

The Sadducees were influential with only a few wealthy families and not with the people, who followed the Pharisees' interpretation of the law.... [they] were boorish in their social interactions,... they encouraged conflict with rather than respect for their teachers, were more stern than the Pharisees in recommending punishments for crimes, and ... aroused Herod's suspicions because they supported the Hasmoneans against him. From this data many commentators have surmised that the Sadducees were mostly priests and wealthy, powerful community leaders who sat in the Sanhedrin, were greatly hellenized (i.e., influenced by Greek culture), and cultivated good relationships with the Romans. [p. 891]

28. Paying Caesar

Illustration

David G. Hagopian

The poll tax mentioned in this passage was levied by the Romans against the Jews beginning in A.D. 6 when Judea became a Roman province. This poll tax was still around years later during Christ's ministry but when it was imposed for the first time, it provoked the rebellion of Judas the Galilean recorded in Acts 5:37 and discussed in more detail below. The Herodians favored the tax, but the Zealots, Pharisees, and people resented it. The Pharisees and the Herodians, though common adversaries in New Testament times on the very issue of rendering obedience and taxes to the Roman Empire, found themselves in common alliance in this instance to trap Christ in His words, trying to impale him on the horns of a serious dilemma. Should the authority of Caesar be recognized and the poll tax be paid to him?

If Christ were to have affirmed payment of the poll tax to Caesar, he would no doubt have pleased the Herodians but would have made Himself an even greater enemy of the Pharisees and an enemy of the people who shared popular resentment to the poll tax as an unlawful imposition by a heathen government. If, by contrast, Christ were to have denied that the poll tax be paid, he would have made Himself out to be an enemy of Rome and possibly, subject Himself to the charge of sedition.

29. Funny but Critical Bible Erros

Illustration

Staff

CAMELS BIBLE In 1832 an edition had Rebekah leaving her tent to meet Isaac with a group of - not damsels - but camels.

WIFE-HATER BIBLE An 1810 version read, "If any man come to me, and hate not . . . his own wife (instead of :life"), he cannot be my disciple."

"SIN ON" BIBLE. The first English-language Bible to be printed in Ireland, in 1716, encouraged its readers to "sin on more" rather than "sin no more." A similar error in 1653 had declared: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?"

THE WICKED BIBLE of 1631 reported the Seventh Commandment as "Thou shalt commit adultery," a mistake that infuriated King Charles. He ordered all copies destroyed and fined all printers whose hands had touched the edition.

MURDER'S BIBLE. This 19th-century faux pas had Mark 7:27 as "Let the children be killed" instead of "filled."

PLACEMAKER BIBLE. a 16th Century printer had Jesus blessing the "place-makers" instead of "peacemakers." An American printer later substituted the "Parable of the Vinegar" for the "Vineyard."

PRINTERS Bible. Perhaps King David was on target in a 1702 edition, which quoted him as saying "Printers (instead of "princes") have persecuted me without cause.

30. The Good Samaritan - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

The parable of the Good Samaritan arises out of a discussion between Jesus and a Pharisee. Here is a religious lawyer and he is asking a question on the nature of the law. The stage is set by Luke with these words: "Behold a lawyer stood up to put him to the test." Well, it's not the first time and probably won't be the last time that a lawyer phrased a trick question. It was the kind of question in which any kind of an answer would pose still further problems. It was a test question: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life." Now right away we know that this man was a Pharisee, because the Pharisees believed in eternal life and the Sadducees did not. Jesus could tell that this man was an astute student of the law so he asked him: "What is written?" In other words, use your own mind to discern the essence of the law. Jesus, like a good discussion leader, throws the question right back in his lap.

The lawyer had a good answer. He said: "You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart and soul and mind and strength and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." This was a direct quote from Deuteronomy 6. It was part of the Shema, a confession regularly made in Jewish worship. Jesus says: "Excellent. You are correct." If he were a teacher I suppose he would have said: "You get A+." I have no complaint with this says Jesus. Do this and you shall live. You have not only penetrated to the essence of the law but you have worded it succinctly.

The question had been asked and the answer given. You would think that the man would be pleased and go home. But lawyers are never happy. A lawyer's responsibility is to define the limits of liability. "But he, desiring to justify himself, asked ‘Who is my neighbor.'" In other words, where does my responsibility stop? Who exactly am I responsible for?"

At this point, instead of further defining the question, Jesus tells a story. A way of indirect teaching.

A certain rich man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. We can surmise that this man was probably a Jew because this was a road going right through the heart of Judea. He had probably been up to Jerusalem to worship and now he's going back to the City of Palm Trees. It was a very long serpentine road starting at Jerusalem, the highest point, 2,500 feet above sea level, and going straight down to Jericho, nearly 800 feet below Sea Level. The lowest place on the face of the earth not covered by water the deepest city in the world.

The Jericho Road was a notoriously thief-infested stretch of rocky mountain road, a long, lonely seventeen miles crowded with caves and danger. Since the road was so often traveled by religious pilgrims and businessmen and because it was so crooked, robbers frequented the road often. In fact, the route was so ripe for pillage that it had been nicknamed "The Bloody Pass". By the time you rounded a bend the bandits were there and you really had no chance to escape. I suppose if there had been newspapers it would not have been unusual to read about the latest mugging on the Jericho Road.

And so, too, the particular traveler in Jesus story fell victim. He was ambushed, robbed, beaten, stripped, and left to die in a pool of crimson red. Now, the question in the story is who is going to stop and help? Who is it that will not fall prey to the temptation to pass by on the other side?

1. The Priest Passes By
2. The Levite Passes By
3. The Samaritan Stops

31. Divorce and Children - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

The U.S. Census Bureau report for the decade of the 90's was released in 2001. Here are its disturbing findings concerning the family. Households headed by unmarried partners grew by almost 72 percent from 1990 to 2000. Most of these arrangements were men and women living together out of wedlock. Other studies have shown that cohabitation increased by close to 1,000 percent from 1960 to 1998. Households headed by single mothers increased by more than 25 percent, and those led by single fathers grew, get this, by almost 62 percent. And this next finding is astounding: For the first time ever, nuclear families dropped below 25 percent of households. That's a mom and a dad and children, the nuclear family, represents less than a quarter of all homes.

Another finding partially explains why this is happening: A third of all babies are born to unmarried women (33 percent) compared to only 4 percent in 1940. There are a growing number of women in their late 20's and 30's who are deciding to bear and raise children on their own. Our culture is teaching that this is normal. In this new world old taboos against divorce and cohabitation are disappearing. Culture is abandoning its commitment to lifelong marriage. It is predicted now, based on these trends, that about half of the children today will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

This moral breakdown in our society has many factors: The sexual revolution of the sixties, the secularization of our society, the women's movement, even the increase in leisure time is responsible. But there is one reason more than any other for the demise of the family—divorce.

One day Jesus is in Judea, when a great crowd came to him. In this crowd are Pharisees who decide to step forward and test Jesus. They ask, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" In other words, is it God's will that a man should be able to divorce his wife? "What did Moses command you?" Jesus asked. The Pharisees knew the answer, ‘Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife and send her away." It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law, Jesus replied. His response is not so much a glimpse into the mind of God as it is an indictment on the human heart.

This morning let us look at God's heart concerning:

1. Divorce
2. Children
3. And the Family

32. The Chart Room

Illustration

For many years, on large ocean-going ships, there has been a certain very important room. Usually it is called the chart room. Here are kept the maps, the drawings, the charts, which contain all that is known of the great waters of the world - shore lines, ocean depths, islands, reefs, rocks. Here the ship's officers check to see where they are, what their position is, how best to steer in order to reach their distant port.

When you come to church, you are checking the charts, as it were, for the guidance of that precious life of yours. As you move on from here, you will be sailing in waters you've never sailed before: every day is new, and not one is like any that were before it. You need to know all you can of what others have discovered before you. If there is some half-hidden reef on which other lives have foundered, you need to know it is there, so that you may steer carefully by.

In the Church you have the world's most complete chart room for the guidance of human life. For purposes of charting life's course, here you are exposed, more than anywhere else, to the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Elsewhere there may be as much knowledge or more, but nowhere is there more wisdom.

So we welcome you to the chart room - and may your voyage from here be smoother, safer, and more pleasant because you have checked in here today.

33. The Senility Prayer

Illustration

Brett Blair

Have you ever felt unprepared? I mean for Christ's second coming? At times I know that if the sky cracked open and the trumpet sounded for the saints to be called home I would not be ready. Reinhold Niebuhr was a famous theologian known to most all us clergy. You perhaps are not familiar with him but you are familiar with his prayer:

God grant me the serenity,
To accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

The world has adopted this prayer and made it powerless. Here's the rest of it...

Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as the pathway to peace.
Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it.
Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will. [there's the power]
That I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen.

We know it as the Serenity Prayer and it conveys an attitude I like very well. On many occasions I absolutely refuse to accept people I know I have no possibility of changing. On other occasions I don't have the courage to root out some sin from my life. Why? Cause I don't wanna'. And wisdom? Well, you know very well that's in short supply. The more I can adopt the attitude of the serenity prayer the more ready I know I will be for His coming.

But unfortunately many of us are like the elderly lady who in jest posted on her door in the retirement village the "Senility Prayer":

God, grant me the senility
To forget the people I've never liked,
The good fortune to run into the ones that I do like,
And the eyesight to tell the difference.

34. The Gospel on Trial

Illustration

Larry Powell

Let us begin by abruptly relating three contemporary examples:

1. In late March of 1981, a mother drove her son John to an airport in Denver, put him out, and told him not to come home again. He didn’t. A few days after being dropped off at the airport, John Hinckley shot and wounded President Ronald Reagan, presidential press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy, and D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty. A grim reminder that we inhabit a violent society.

2. Israel, the same family of earth from which emerged Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago, today is the largest supplier of weapons to at least three countries in Central America. We live in a world of contradictions.

3. A recent ad in the New York Times invited persons to purchase a high-rise on Manhattan’s swank east side, and drive away in a free 1983 Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit. Apartments range from $583,000 to $1.2 million, but the automobile is free. Meanwhile, unemployment cripples thousands of our fellow citizens, and people stand in line to receive surplus cheese. Our society extends from the irresponsibly affluent to the painfully poor.

Change the examples above, but retain the italicized phrases, and see how similar our world is to that of Paul’s. The gospel was on trial then; it is on trial today. Has there been a time when it has not been on trial?

Both the Gospel and Paul were on trial in Jerusalem. But then again, as we have seen in Paul’s letters, the apostle had actually been on trial in Macedonia, Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus. Oh, he was not dragged into court in those places, but he was on trial all right. And now he had come to Jerusalem, bearing an offering collected from the Gentile churches. He had been warned not to enter the city (21:10-14), but he still came. Soon, he stood before Ananias, the Sadducees, and Pharisees ... on trial again. Whether intentional or incidental, Paul managed to accomplish a ruse which worked to his advantage. He reminded the assembly that he was a Pharisee and that he had been brought before them with respect to the resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection, angels, or spirits; the Pharisees did. Shortly, they were so busy arguing among themselves that they forgot the real issue and Paul was dismissed.

Can you think of instances where Christians have been so busily engaged with arguing among ourselves that we have forgotten the real issue or reason for our existence?

35. Increasing Our Standard of Giving - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Before John Wesley became the founder of the Methodist Church he was a teacher at Oxford University back in the 1700's. When he began his career he was paid 30 pounds per year - in those days a lot of money. His living expenses were 28 pounds - so he gave 2 pounds away.

The next year his income doubled - but he still managed to live on 28 pounds - so he gave away 32 pounds. The third year he earned 90 pounds - lived on 28 - and gave away 62. The fourth year he earned 120 pounds - lived on 28 - and gave away 92. One year his income was a little over 1,400 pounds - he lived on 30 and gave away nearly all of the 1,400 pounds.

Wesley felt that with increasing income, what should rise is not the Christian's standard of living but the standard of giving. Increasing our standard of giving. What a great Christian man and what a great lesson he taught us. It is the same lesson found in the parable for today. Let's take a look. The Pharisees are standing off to the side watching Jesus as was their custom. Jesus' disciples are listening intently as he tells his story. Probably on this occasion there were more than just the 12. A large number of followers are gathered around. He tells them about a steward who handled all the business affairs of a wealthy man. But the steward has squandered his master's money; he was reckless and wasteful. Notice that this story follows another story about a reckless young man who squandered his father's wealth, the prodigal son. But in this story the reckless young man does not come to his senses in time and he is fired from his job.

Then he does something so shrewd and conniving. As he is cleaning out his desk and clearing out his things he calls in his master's debtors, those who had outstanding accounts, and cut those debts in half. You owe 800 gallons of olive oil? Write me check for 400 and we will call it even. You owe a thousand bushels of wheat? Write me a check for 800 and we'll call it even. He forgives the debts that are not his to forgive, and he gains friends in the process. As a result his master commends him.

So what is Jesus' point? Well, there's not just one point there are a few. Let's take a look.

First, He Explains the Wise Use of Worldly Wealth.
Second, Trustworthiness Is Measured by Character.
Third, Our Service Must Be Singular.

36. The Complexity of the Situation

Illustration

The Constitution of the United States started off with only 7 articles and 21 sections that took up only four handwritten pages including signatures! 4 pages! But to that we added 27 amendments.

Today, the United States Code, which is all of the laws in this country, fills up around 80 volumes of books, nearly 800,000 pages, and this doesn't even include the Federal Regulations. In 1942, the Virginia Code was a single book that had 2800 pages. Today, the Virginia Code is a 25-volume set of books with 15,000 pages, nearly 20,000 separate laws! And that is just Virginia!

But, let's not think for a moment that we are the only ones to take something simple and make it complex. God gave the Israelites something simple to follow, the Ten Commandments. Just ten simple rules to follow. Nothing complex about it. But were the Israelites content with just ten commandments? Oh, no. They ended up making 613 separate commandments, 365 negative and 248 positive. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Try following all those laws in order to be considered faithful and righteous, and you probably thought the original ten was hard enough.

For the lawyer and the Pharisees there was certainly a complex issue at stake. The Israelites were under assault from a man who claimed to be God, and who did God-like things. But this man was a Jew; he should have known better, no one is God, but God. Yet, he was a man who knew and quoted the Hebrew scripture, who knew the laws and commandments better than any religious leader.

The Pharisees had to put a stop to it, the situation was getting out of control, it was becoming too complex to let it go on much longer. This man must be stopped and the only why to stop him was to discredit him. And what better way to discredit Jesus, the Jew, than to ask him such a question, on a complex issue about the greatest commandment, that any answer he gave would spell defeat.

37. Tragic Flaws of Pharisees Laws

Illustration

J. Stowell

In contrast to the two commands of Christ, the Pharisees had developed a system of 613 laws, 365 negative commands and 248 positive laws...By the time Christ came it had produced a heartless, cold, and arrogant brand of righteousness. As such, it contained at least ten tragic flaws:

New laws continually need to be invented for new situations.
Accountability to God is replaced by accountability to men.
It reduces a person's ability to personally discern.
It creates a judgmental spirit.
The Pharisees confused personal preferences with divine law.
It produces inconsistencies.
It created a false standard of righteousness.
It became a burden to the Jews.
It was strictly external.
It was rejected by Christ.

38. What Do I Believe In?

Illustration

Charles L. Allen

One of our best-known American preachers and theologians was Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). In his early years, Bushnell believed that a child ought to grow up as a “Christian” and he opposed the idea of a personal, spiritual crisis in children. Bushnell also helped select the Berkley site for the University of California campus.

But while a law student at Yale, Bushnell was an unbeliever. During a great spiritual revival that was sweeping the Yale campus, Bushnell became disturbed when he learned that many of the undergraduate students refused to attend the services because he didn’t attend them.

One day he faced his unbelief squarely. “If I do not believe in Christ, what do I believe in?” he asked himself. He then firmly decided that there had to be an absolute difference between right and wrong. Then he asked himself, “If I put myself on the side of what is right, do I tend to follow it regardless of the consequences?”

His answer was that he had not, but he would. It was then and there he dedicated himself to the principle of doing what is right.

After Bushnell had been in the ministry forty-seven years, having moved a great distance from the unbelief of his immature years, he confessed, “Better than I know any man in Hartford, I know Jesus Christ.”

39. I Should Have Taken the Money

Illustration

King Duncan

The college faculty gathered for their weekly meeting. A professor of archaeology brought with him a lamp recently unearthed in the Middle East. It was reported to contain a genie, who, when the lamp was rubbed would appear and grant one wish.

The Dean was intrigued. He grabbed the lamp and rubbed it vigorously. Suddenly a genie appeared and made him an offer. He could choose one of three rewards: wealth, wisdom, or beauty. Without hesitating, the Dean selected wisdom. "Done!" said the genie and disappeared in a cloud of smoke.

All the other faculty members turned toward the Dean, who sat surrounded by a halo of light. At length, one of his colleagues whispered, "Say something."

The dean looked intently at his colleagues gathered around and said, "I should have taken the money."

40. The Life We Have Lost

Illustration

Michael P. Green

Man’s wisdom is not enough. It is limited, partial wisdom. T. S. Eliot put it so beautifully when he said in “The Rock”:

All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to God.

Then he asks the question that hangs over this whole generation:

Where is the Life we have lost in living?

41. Final Exam

Illustration

King Duncan

There’s a difference between intelligence and wisdom, as illustrated by the old story of the favorite course at the University. The favorite course? A survey of the New Testament. It was a favorite because there was no homework, no reading, and no tests before the final. And on the final, for 25 years, the same professor had always presented the same question: “Describe the Missionary Journeys of Paul.”

A young man by the name of “Meathead,” a star on the school’s football team, took the course. And a tutor helped him prepare, all semester long, for the final exam. When the day of the test came, Meathead was ready. He knew everything about every journey Paul ever took. He knew about Philippi and Thessalonica, Rome and Tyre. He knew about Timothy and Barnabas and Luke. He was ready.

But when the final exam was passed out, students all over that great auditorium were stunned to see a new question. For the first time in a quarter-century, the professor decided to ask a different question. Instead of a question about Paul’s missionary journeys, there was this question: “Critique the Sermon on the Mount that was preached by Jesus.”

The shock was felt across the room. And a young man got up, took his blue book - a little book that was designed to hold his essay - and threw it down on the professor’s desk. It was empty. He didn’t know how to answer the question. And one by one, all of the students left, none of them able to answer the question . . . except for Meathead.

Meathead opened his blue book and began to write. He wrote and he wrote and he wrote. The professor’s assistant came back an hour later, and Meathead was still writing. Two hours later, and Meathead was going at it. For a full three hours, Meathead filled up his blue book.

That afternoon, the professor had two stacks of blue books. On his right, a tall stack of empty blue books, all with the grade of F. On his left, one, single blue book, with a big, bold A+ right on top. It was Meathead’s.

“What in the world did you write about?” Asked a classmate. “Read it,” said Meathead. And on the first page was the opening sentence. “Who am I to criticize the Sermon on the Mount? Instead, let me tell you about the missionary journeys of Paul.”

Meathead had discovered wisdom.

42. Moses’ Seat

Illustration

Brett Blair

The Jews had a tradition that stated that angels gave the law to Moses. Moses, in turn, passed it onto Joshua; Joshua passed it onto the elders; the elders passed it onto the prophets; and the prophets passed it onto those who led the synagogue, i.e., the Pharisees and the scribes. So, because the law originated with Moses, the position of being a teacher of God's law became known as Moses's eat. In fact in the synagogue, there was a raised platform at the front. On that platform was a special seat, reserved for the most respected teacher in the synagogue. Today, we speak in universities of the chair of philosophy or the chair of history. The chair is reserved for the most esteemed person in any given subject. Well, Moses' seat was, in essence, the chair of philosophy in ancient Israel. So Jesus is attacking the highest symbol of religious authority. Well, that's what the Pharisees and scribes claimed. He actually wasn't attacking the chair; rather, he was attacking those who occupied the chair. He was saying they were unworthy of the chair.

43. The Beginning of Wisdom

Illustration

Abdul Kassem Ismael (A.D. 938 to 995) was the Grand Vizier of Persia. Legend has it that the avid reader was so enthralled with literature and learning that he never left home without his personal library. The 400-camel caravan carried 117,000 books and must have been more than a mile long! Nevertheless, Ismael’s camel-drivers were also librarians, each responsible for the books on his camel, and could locate any book almost immediately because the animals were trained to walk in alphabetical order.

The Bible says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10) and “knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). We may, like Ismael, pursue all the knowledge of the Lord. But Paul says that if we don’t have love, we are nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2). John says that when we know God, we love. (1 John 4:7, 8) True wisdom—a knowledge of God—will result in His love being embodied in us. Until then, our knowledge means nothing.

44. AMBASSADOR

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Isaiah 18:2 - "which sends ambassadors by the Nile, in vessels of papyrus upon the waters! Go, you swift messengers, to a nation, tall and smooth, to a people feared near and far, a nation mighty and conquering, whose land the rivers divided."

Ezekiel 17:15 - "But he rebelled against him, by sending ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army ..."

There are several ways in which we can translate the words used for "ambassador" in the Bible, but the most frequently used interpretation is that of messenger, from the Hebrew mal’ akh, or malach, which means messenger. This word has an interesting biblical history of its own. We are, of course, familiar with the Old Testament book of Malachi, and no doubt assumed that this was the author’s name. However, this was a clerical error at some time in the past, so that a word which meant "messenger" was wrongly given as the name of a man! We also find this as being used when referring to any supernatural messenger from God - an angel. Angels, then, can be considered ambassadors from God, carrying messages to men.

We can also use the Greek words in the New Testament, which translate into "to be older," or "aged, dignity," or "aged." This incorporates the idea of wisdom and experience, and certainly these were needed qualities, just as much as today. Why should this be so? Well, let’s consider the position of the ambassador.

These men were used to send congratulations, to make alliances, and to protest wrongs, among the more outstanding of their duties. Now, obviously, you can’t send just anyone on such missions. So, these men of wisdom, as we have said, and also men who possessed great education and ability. They were usually men of high rank, as Sennacherib’s chief-marshall, Tartan; chief eunuch, Rabsaris; and chief-officer, Rabshakey, met by Hezekiah’s house-master, scribe and recorder (2 Kings 18:17ff).

Today our ambassadors, our consuls, our emmisaries, and other statesmen who confer with heads of state of other nations, are representative of our government and its policies. Most of these positions are resident ones - that is, the individual is the personal representative of the President and Congress, living in a certain foreign land. He is a go-between in conveying messages from our nation to another. In that manner, his function is the same as his biblical predecessor’s. However, the concept of his actually living in another land is probably foreign to the biblical idea. An ambassador was sent out to wherever and whenever it was necessary, and then returned to home base.

In one other way, however, the ancient and the modern ambassadors share; that is, both had (and have) diplomatic immunity. We are sometimes upset because representatives of other nations violate our laws, and cannot be prosecuted. In just such a way 2 Samuel 10:4, did the poeple of Hunan violate the immunity of the ambassadors sent by David. There is really nothing new under the sun!

45. The Uniformed Doorman

Illustration

King Duncan

American Humorist Robert Benchley was leaving an elegant salon one evening. As usual he had imbibed excessively. He found himself face to face with a uniformed man whom he took to be the doorman. "Would you get me a taxi, my good man?" he requested. The uniformed man drew himself up proudly. "See here, I happen to be a rear admiral in the United States Navy." Benchley said belligerently, "Just get me a battleship then." In Benchley's condition the plumage of the admiralty was no different than that of a doorman.

Uniforms are important to us, aren't they? Listen as Jesus describes the uniforms of the Pharisees: "They act holy by wearing on their arms large prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and by lengthening the memorial fringes on their robes!" (LIVING BIBLE) "They love to sit in places of honor at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues. And they like to be called, Teacher, Teacher." (paraphrase)

In other words the Pharisees were just like us.

46. Is Your Church a Museum or Mission?

Illustration

Wallace H. Kirby

An inner city church, located in an area of the downtown where there were few residents, was forced to a decision. A large corporation was offering them a great deal of money for their site, on which the corporation wanted to put a parking lot. The money would enable the church to move to another part of the inner city where they would find many more people to serve. Even though this was exciting to some of the congregation, other members were resistant to the idea. They pointed out that the church was the guardian of a building whose history and architecture reached back into the early part of the nineteenth century. Denominational history had been made in that building, and some of the grand figures of the church had passed its portals.

Eventually the congregation decided to sell the site and make the move to a new building in a teeming inner-city neighborhood. The pastor who was with this congregation through all this upheaval said, "We had to decide whether we wanted to be in a museum or in mission." They couldn't have it both ways. It meant either staying on their site, glorying in their past history and serving a few people, or giving up their past and gearing themselves to a significant ministry among the city's people. They opted for mission status over museum status.

Something of this same struggle is indicated in this scripture passage. The Pharisees and scribes came down on the side of museum religion. They wanted attention given to those who were stable, pious and not a liability if invited to the country club. Theirs was a "let's have our synagogue programs be for us dependable, like-minded types," as some present-day church-growth advocates. Jesus disappointed them by insisting that the issue was one of mission: to reach out to those who needed great mercy, lessons in etiquette, social graces, and perhaps a bath. Paying attention to these "lost" persons would change the comfortable fellowship the scribes and Pharisees enjoyed at the synagogue, to say nothing of putting a dent into its budget.

47. Mary Magdalene: An Adulteress?

Illustration

David J. McBriar

I don't know if you realize it or not, but lately there's a great preoccupation with Jesus' relationship with women. The Da Vinci Code has sold 80 million copies. It's a fast paced thriller that claims Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and the church knew about this, the novel claims, but suppressed it. And let me ask you, as an aside, whenever you hear the name “Mary Magdalene," what comes to your mind? The woman accused of adultery? The woman history says was a prostitute? If it does, then you've been taken in.

In the year 591, in a sermon, Pope Gregory the Great, identified Mary Magdalene with the adulteress woman. And in 1969, the Vatican said he was wrong. The Vatican moves slowly. 1,378 years is a long time. There's no relationship in the New Testament between the woman taken in adultery and Mary Magdalene. Mel Gibson erroneously identifies her with the adulterous woman in his famous film, The Passion. It's clear that Jesus had a fondness for women. Luke, far more than any of the other gospel writers, points that out. Women were the first evangelizers, the first to tell the good news of Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. Martha and Mary, Lazarus' sisters were always considered to be his confidants. Their home was a place he could go for refreshment and peace. And it is this "Samaritan" woman who is a bit troubled but nevertheless brings many people, a whole village, to believe in Jesus.

48. Finding Fault

Illustration

Hugh Drennan

A singer in the choir has joined a group of complainers at a school board meeting. They complain about poor teaching and bad administration. They grumble about the sports program, losing seasons and poor coaching. They find fault with the taxes, which are too high, and the budget which is too low to allow for the programs they want. They criticize, gripe and whine about a myriad of issues and people. The Singer’s voice is among the loudest and most vocal. The board surprises the complainers by inviting them to take one of their number who will be invited to have a seat on the board at that very moment. The Singer is selected.

As the Singer moves forward to assume her new responsibility, it dawns upon her that now she has to find solutions rather than just find fault. She looks back to her fault-finding companions, and finds no wise counsel. She then looks at the members of the board who smile back at her, who recognize her revelation about their common task. The Singer bows her head and prays for wisdom, wisdom to find and implement solutions for this important cause. As she lifts her head to begin her work, she feels blessed by the opportunity to be of service.

Reflection

It is easy to find fault. One can always find company in the household of complainers and scoffers. But that company is not a blessing, it just makes you an angry person in the midst of angry folk. Solutions to difficult problems that face society are not easy to come by. They require a good deal of work, dedication and willingness to be criticized by others. But they also contain great reward. When one seeks to serve, not for personal glory or power but just to serve, you are caught up in something greater than self. At those times we are partners with God, God’s agents and stewards here on earth. And in knowing that we are blessed and bear fruit.

49. People of the Lie

Illustration

M. Scott Peck

M. Scott Peck wrote his book, People of the Lie, about those who appear virtuous but are in fact evil. Ironically, he says they are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them…They dress well, go to work on time, pay their taxes, and outwardly seem to live lives that are above reproach.

The words "image," "appearance," and "outwardly" are crucial to understanding the morality of the evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their "goodness" is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. That is why they are the "people of the lie."

Actually, the lie is designed not so much to deceive others as to deceive themselves. They cannot or will not tolerate the pain of self-reproach.

50. A Mother's Prayer for Her Children

Illustration

Staff

Prayer by a Bishop Anselm for the Members of His Church, adapted as a Prayer of a Mother for Her Children.

Jesus, good Shepherd, they are not mine but Yours,
for I am not mine but Yours.
I am Yours, Lord, and they are Yours,
because by Your wisdom You have created
both them and me,
and by Your death You have redeemed us.

So we are Yours, good Lord, we are Yours,
whom You have made with such wisdom
and bought so dearly.
Then if You commend them to me, Lord,
You do not therefore desert me or them.
You commend them to me:
I commend myself and them to You.
Yours is the flock, Lord, and Yours is the shepherd.
Be Shepherd of both Your flock and shepherd.

You have made an ignorant mother,
a blind leader, an erring ruler:
teach the mother You have established,
guide the leader You have appointed,
govern the ruler You have approved.

I beg You,
teach me what I am to teach,
lead me in the way that I am to lead,
rule me so that I may rule others.
Or rather, teach them, and me through them,
lead them, and me with them,
rule them, and me among them.

Adapted from Anselm (1033 – 1099), Archbishop of Canterbury, translated by Sister Benedicta Ward, S.L.G. Adapted for mothers by Ruth Bell Graham.

Showing 1 to 50 of 255 results