1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."
by Charley Reeb
The assumption of this last sermon of the series is probably wrong for most people. I have entitled this sermon, “I Wonder about Life after Death,” but the truth of the matter is that most of us typically do not wonder about death. Most of us choose to ignore the subject altogether. It scares us too much.
When I bring up the subject of death to people, I often get the reply, “Why would I want to think about that?” or “I don’t want to think about that until I am old. I am young now, and I will have plenty of time to think about that much later.” I am impressed with the fact that people continue to think that they are invincible, that is, until they are confronted with their own mortality.
I recall going to a funeral home with a grieving family for a wake. One of the family members was a cancer doctor who faced death and dying quite a lot. However, he refused to be in the room with the open casket. When I caught up with him later and asked him where he had been, he replied angrily, “Life is for the living!” Even a cancer doctor could not deal with death.
Many people get very upset when the subject of death is mentioned. Some even get angry. In fact, some get so upset and angry about the subject that they virtually deny their own death. The denial of death is an interesting phenomenon in our culture. Many feel like Woody Allen when he said. “I don’t want to die. I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”
The Fear of Death
Why do we avoid the subject of death? Why do some people seem to be in denial about death? I believe our avoidance of the subject of death stems from the fact that death is a journey into the unknown. It is the ultimate mystery. We are afraid of those things that we don’t understand and can’t control.
To a degree it is healthy to be afraid of death. It keeps us alive, and we need to have a healthy sense of caution for what we don’t know. However, what is not healthy is to try to ignore the subject of our own death. All of us are going to die. There are no exceptions. As the old saying goes, “We don’t get out of this world alive.” We might as well face up to the fact that one day we will die. However, the fact we will die should not make us sad; it should make us grateful.
Many of us see death as the great taker of life when actually the opposite is true; death is the great giver of life. As we struggle with the mystery of our death, we discover the meaning of our lives. Albert Schweitzer put the proper perspective on death:
“We must all become familiar with the thought of death if we want to grow into really good people. We need not think of it every day or every hour. But when the path of life leads us to some vantage point where the scene around us fades away and we contemplate the distant view right to the end, let us not close our eyes. Let us pause for a moment, look at the distant view, and then carry on. Thinking about death in this way produces love for life. When we are familiar with death we accept each week, each day, as a gift. Only if we are able to accept life—bit by bit, does it become precious.”
Now, this is the right attitude about death! Death teaches us that life is a precious gift from God. If it wasn’t for the fleeting nature of life, we would not love and appreciate it like we do. When we realize the preciousness of our time, we will make full use of our time. We cannot live life with courage, joy, and confidence unless we face the reality of our own death. In fact, M. Scott Peck reminds us that we cannot live fully unless there is something we are willing to die for. This is why Don Juan, the great Indian guru, called death the great ally.
If we choose to see the great things that death can teach us, death can become a very powerful friend. The beautiful irony is that once we come to accept death and what it teaches us, we truly begin to live. Why is there a cross before Easter? Why is there the crucifixion before the resurrection? Many Christians do not like to focus on Good Friday. They want to skip over it and go straight to Easter, but there is no Easter without the cross. We must go through Good Friday to get to Easter. There is no life without death!
What’s On The Other Side?
Let us dive deeper into the great mystery of death and try to catch a glimpse of the other side. After all, the wonder of this sermon begs the question, “What happens to us when we die?” Well, our faith tells us a great deal about death.
This is when I hear atheists chime in and say that religion is a crutch for people who are scared of the mystery of death. I believe this is totally false. I don’t believe that faith is a crutch; it is the truth. More importantly, atheists are the ones who are really scared. Most atheists like to downplay death as if it is no big deal. They deny the importance of it. The reality is that they are terrified to go beyond the surface and see the truth behind death. And the truth is that behind the curtain of death for believers is a new dimension of life beyond our wildest dreams. What is beneath the mysterious surface of death is a loving, caring God with the answers to all of our questions, the fulfillment of all of our deepest longings, and the fruition of all God’s great promises.
What the Bible says about Life after Death
How do we know that life after death promises to be an overwhelming experience of joy for those who believe? The Bible tells us so. Let’s take a look at what the Bible says about life after death.
Perhaps the most familiar passage of Scripture that promises the gift of life after death is found in John 14:1-3. Here we find Jesus in the upper room comforting his disciples before his own death:
Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. In my father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am you may be also (John 14:1-3).
These are beautiful words that should comfort believers who find themselves apprehensive about death. This passage also reveals interesting aspects about life after death. For example, the word “rooms” could also be interpreted as “rest areas.” In other words, these rooms are not permanent but provide respite. This implies that death is really a threshold to a whole new journey with God. On this journey we will be provided with comfort and rest along the way.
In addition to the passage in John, we find profound passages about life after death in the letters of Paul. If we had lived during the time of the apostle Paul and we asked him what he believed about life after death, I believe his answer would be what we find in 2nd Corinthians 5:1-2:
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling.
Later on in verse five of the same chapter Paul reminds us that God, who has prepared our heavenly dwelling, has given us the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our extraordinary life after death.
Maybe the most compelling of Paul’s words about life after death can be found in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians where Paul reminds us that “if for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (verse 19). Paul’s argument is clear: If there is no resurrection of the dead then Christ has not been raised from the dead. If Christ has not been raised from the dead then our faith means nothing (1st Corinthians 15:12-13). Paul’s conviction leads us to the central promise our Lord gave us about life after death when he said, “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19).
We Are In Good Hands
As Christians we have nothing to fear from death. With Paul we know that “nothing can separate us from the love of God,” especially death! We are promised that death is simply a journey into a deeper intimacy with God.
Perhaps you are still asking, “Well, what is death going to be like?” All of our conjecture and speculation about it is limited and finite because we are dealing with a journey that is beyond our comprehension. However, from my experience as a pastor and Christian I will tell you what we, as Christians, can expect when we die.
First, hear a story from John Bailey about the old country doctor who made his rounds in his horse drawn carriage. He had his dog with him, and he stopped at one house to visit a man who was dying of cancer. He entered the man’s bedroom to check on him. The man asked the doctor, “How am I doing.” The doctor replied, “It doesn’t look good.” And they were both quiet for a few moments. Then the man asked, “Doctor, what is it like to die?” The doctor just sat there for a moment trying to think of something to say to the man. As the doctor was thinking, he heard his dog come up the stairs of the house, and because the bedroom door was shut, he could not get into the room. So, the dog started to scratch and whine at the door.
The doctor said to the man, “You hear my dog outside the door? He has never been in this house before. He has never been in this room before. He does not know what is on the other side. But he knows one thing: his master is in here. Because he knows that, he knows that everything is alright. Then the doctor said, “And that is what death is like. We have never been there. We don’t know what is on the others side. But one thing we do know: our master is there, and because of that everything is alright.”
Perhaps that is not good enough. Maybe you want me to be more specific. Well, the experience of death could be compared to something I experienced as a kid. In fact, most of you have experienced this. I would fall asleep in front of the TV or at an event. And my mother or dad would carry me to my bedroom, and put me to bed. When I awoke the next morning, the sun would be shining. I didn’t remember how I got there, but I knew my parents had something to do with it.
Death is like that. It is like we have fallen asleep and God has us in his hands. When we awake, the world will be changed, our bodies will be changed and God’s Kingdom will be established forever and ever. We don’t know how we got there, but we know God made it happen.
The most profound attempt at explaining what we can expect from the mystery of death came from my colleague and friend Ed Beck. When Ed was serving a church in Denver he had a seven year old member of his congregation named Ellen who was dying of an incurable disease. And each time he would visit her in the hospital she would take him by the hand and lead him to other rooms to meet her friends. She was a real precocious child. A month before Ellen died he was visiting her and she said, “Rev. Beck, my mother told me to talk to you about dying. I don’t want to die. Can you tell me what will happen when I die?”
Ed sat in a rocking chair and put Ellen on his lap and responded, “Ellen, before you were ever born you were in your mother’s tummy, tucked away very near your mommy’s loving heart. At that time, let’s suppose someone had said to you, ‘Ellen, you can no longer live in your mommy’s tummy. It is time for you to die out of your mommy’s tummy.’ Now, Ellen, let’s suppose you said, ‘I don’t want to leave my mommy’s tummy. I love it here. It is nice and comfortable, and I feel very much loved in my mommy’s tummy. I don’t want to die out of my mommy’s tummy. I don’t want to be born because that means I’d have to leave my mommy’s tummy.’” Ed continued and said, “But Ellen, you already know what happened. You did die out of your mommy’s tummy and look what you discovered. You discovered in this world loving arms to hold you, loving faces smiling at you and everyone wanting to meet your every need. And now for seven years you have discovered how wonderful it is to be out of your mommy’s tummy. In fact, it is so wonderful that you don’t want to die. You don’t want to leave here. You don’t want to leave here because you know you are loved by mommy and daddy, your grandmas, and your brother and so many, many others, including me.”
Ellen thought for a moment about the things Ed was saying to her. And then Ed said, “Ellen, there will soon come a time when you will die, and here is what is going to happen. The moment you die you will discover strong, loving arms holding you, loving faces smiling at you, and everyone will want to meet your every need. You will be surrounded by such love and beauty that soon, very soon you will say, ‘I love it here. I don’t want to leave here.’ And Ellen, you won’t leave. You will remain there and live with Jesus in heaven forever. Ellen, that is what is going to happen when you die.” Then Ed concluded, “Oh, and one last thing. When you welcome me into heaven, take my hand and lead me from room to room so I can meet all your friends. Promise. Promise me you will do that. Promise!”
Jesus said, “I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2).
Series: The Seven Wonders of the Faith
It has been an emotional evening for the disciples, and Jesus urges them to stop being troubled. He calls for faith to replace their fears (14:1). Jesus is leaving to prepare a place for them and will return one day to bring them home (14:2–3). This could refer to Jesus’s preparation of a heavenly home for his followers or to his sending of the Holy Spirit to live wit…
1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."
In early Christianity, the problem of Jesus’s departure was resolved by looking forward to his return, or second coming (Greek parousia). For some this was the only comfort. However, the discourse in chapter 14 is a carefully designed reassessment of this. It begins with a description of the traditional futurist hope (14:1–3). Jesus is preparing rooms in heaven (14:2) and someday will return to transport his followers there (14:3). The discourse then introduces three questioners (Thomas, 14:5; Philip, 14:8; Judas, 14:22) who ask leading questions so that Jesus’s answer may be sharpened. In the end this futurist eschatology is refashioned into what is called realized eschatology. That is, hope and comfort are not in the future but can be realized now. Thus the coming of Jesus (14:3) shifts to the coming of the Spirit (14:23, 28). The “rooms” (Greek monē, 14:2) of heavenly dwelling become rooms (monē, 14:23; NIV “home”) of divine indwelling.The sequence of exchanges has an interesting thematic development. There are four interlocking steps:
1. Jesus: I am going and coming (Greek erchomai, 14:1–4). Thomas: We do not know the way you are going (14:5).
2. Jesus: I am the way to the Father (14:6). Philip: Show us the Father (14:8).
3. Jesus: You have seen the Father already. I will manifest him (and myself) to you (14:9–11). Judas: How will you manifest yourself (14:22)?
4. Jesus: In the Spirit—by coming (Greek erchomai, 14:23) to you.
The single theme of the first block of teaching material is developed in dialogue form, with a series of questions and answers (13:36–14:24) ending with a postscript in the form of a monologue (14:25–31). Each question is occasioned by a previous statement of Jesus, so that each interchange has three parts: Jesus’ initial statement, the question that it occasions, and Jesus’ answer to the question. In all, four disciples take their turn as inquirers: Peter, Thomas, Philip, and Judas (not “the son of Simon Iscariot,” but another disciple named Judas).
The Question of Peter
Peter’s question, Lord, where are you going? builds on Jesus’ statement in verse 33, “Where I am going, you cannot come.” It is a natural question, because Jesus’ destination has not yet been established, but it is not a mere request for information. Behind it is the plaintive cry, Why are you going? or Why must you go? The discourse that follows (13:36–14:31) is Jesus’ response to that cry as well as his formal answer to the question explicitly asked.
Jesus’ initial assertion that he was going away had pointed back explicitly to similar statements made earlier to the Jewish authorities (7:33–36; 8:21). It is the common NT scandal of the cross (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23), but it is seen here as an offense even to Christian believers. For them it is the scandal of an absent Lord.
Instead of answering Peter’s question directly by saying that he is going to the Father, Jesus begins by qualifying his initial statement, “Where I am going, you cannot come.” In verse 36b he says, Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later. The experience of the disciples is not entirely parallel to that of Jewish authorities, for the disciples’ separation from Jesus will be only temporary. Jesus’ response is directed first to Peter personally; he will follow later, presumably in death (cf. 21:18–19). Embedded within this part of Jesus’ response to the scandal of his departure is a reference to Peter’s own personal “scandal” (using the word in a somewhat different sense). Peter professes his willingness to follow Jesus even to death (and he will), but in the more immediate future he will deny his Lord three times (vv. 37–38). This prediction, though a fixed part of the tradition (cf. Mark 14:27–31 and parallels) is not elaborated. The thread of it is picked up in 18:15–18, 25–27, and probably 21:15–17, but it plays no real part in the argument here.
In 14:1 Jesus widens the application of his words to all the disciples as the pronouns change from singular to plural. The recurrence of the words where I am (14:3) and where I am going (14:4), however, indicate that the statement in 13:33, which occasioned the whole series of questions, is still in mind. The scandal of Jesus’ absence is alleviated by an emphasis on hope. Jesus’ assurance to the disciples is that their separation from him will be only for a limited time. The purpose of his departure is to make room for them all in the Father’s house. He will return for them, and they will join him there forever (vv. 2–3; cf. 12:26). The reference is to Jesus’ future coming (cf. 1 John 2:28) and to the resurrection of those who believe in Jesus (cf. 6:39–40, 44, 54). In principle both Peter’s question and his plaintive cry, both the “where” and the “why,” have now been answered. Yet the dialogue goes on.
The Question of Thomas
The statement prompting Thomas’ question is part of the answer to Peter: You know the way to the place where I am going (v. 4). The words where I am going still echo 13:33 and 36. Jesus’ answer to Thomas’ question, How can we know the way? (v. 5), introduces the new thought that Jesus himself is the way (v. 6). Jesus’ answer centers on himself; it is neither necessary to know where he is going, in the sense of Jewish apocalyptic speculations about the structure of the heavens, nor the way, in the sense of a formula for escaping this world and attaining salvation (as in Gnosticism and the Hellenistic mystery religions). What is necessary is simply to know Jesus in personal faith and to trust him as the only one who can lead the searching disciple to the Father. Thomas’ question changes the focus of discussion from the destination to the way to reach it, while at the same time underscoring that Jesus has not yet answered Peter’s question in so many words (Lord, we don’t know where you are going, v. 5). Even though it is occasioned by Jesus’ mention of the way, it is still basically a rephrasing of Peter’s Where are you going? in 13:36 (now with particular reference to the implied corollary, “Where are we going when we follow you later?”). Jesus has implied that he is going to the Father’s house (v. 2), but he has not said what this really means. He speaks more explicitly in v. 6: No one comes to the Father except through me. The simultaneous stress is on Jesus as the Way and on the Father as the Destination. The center of interest is no longer time (you will follow later) but persons (Jesus and the Father).
The Question of Philip
The Father now becomes the subject of the third interchange. The terms where I am going and the way have now been replaced by “the Father” and “the Son” respectively. Thus Jesus’ introductory statement, If you really knew me you would know my Father as well (v. 7), echoes Thomas’ complaint, Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way? (v. 5). So when Philip asks Jesus to show us the Father (v. 8), he is actually raising for a third time the question, Where are you going? The problem is still what it was in 13:33: If Jesus is going away, the disciple is no better off than the Jewish authorities who rejected Jesus.
The parallels between this exchange and Jesus’ debate with “the Jews” in 8:12–20 are especially instructive. There, in the context of a debate over the credibility of Jesus’ testimony to himself, the expression “where I came from and where I am going” (8:14) was used as an indirect way of referring to the Father. Jesus’ real indictment of his hearers was that they did not know his Father (8:19), but to say that they did not know the Father was the same as saying they did not know where Jesus came from or where he was going. This passage sheds light on chapter 14 both in its similarities and its differences. Its major theme is the validation of legal testimony by two witnesses, Jesus and the Father (8:17–18), with Jesus’ departure from the world as a subsidiary minor note (though it comes to the fore in 8:21). In chapter 14, the departure is the major theme, with the question of the validity of Jesus’ testimony as a side issue (Trust in God; trust also in me, v. 1; cf. vv. 10–11). Thomas’ acknowledgment that we don’t know where you are going (v. 5) corresponds to Jesus’ claim in 8:14 that his questioners do not know “where I come from or where I am going.” Philip’s request in verse 8 to show us the Father is formally similar to the question, “Where is your Father?” in 8:19a, but in substance there is a world of difference. The Jewish leaders in their sarcasm were challenging Jesus to produce his second witness, while Philip is restating in personal terms the question of Peter and Thomas, Where are you going? The immediately preceding comment to Philip and the others, “If you really have known me, you will know my Father as well” (v. 7a, NIV margin) corresponds closely to what he said to the Jewish authorities in 8:19b (“If you knew me, you would know my Father also”) but with a crucial difference in the tenses (the contrary-to-fact condition has become a condition assuming reality, like “now that you know these things” in 13:17), and with the added assurance that from now on, you do know him and have seen him (v. 7b).
These words shift the thrust of the argument decisively from the future to the present. To Jesus’ disciples, the fact that he will be with them only a little while longer (13:33) makes it imperative to realize what his presence on earth has already meant (I have been among you such a long time, v. 9), and to respond in faith to his revelation in words and works (vv. 9–11). The way to the Father is more than the resurrection at the last day (cf. vv. 2–3). It is a way accessible right now to any disciple who hears Jesus’ words in faith as the Father’s words and sees Jesus’ works as the works of the Father. This is what the disciples at the table have not yet done (v. 9), and what the readers of the Gospel are expected to do.
Though the emphasis here is on the Son’s historical revelation on earth, there is no sharp distinction between this period and the impending time of Jesus’ absence. The shift from the one to the other in verse 12 is easy and natural, in contrast to Jesus’ earlier warning about the night “when no one can work” (9:4; cf. 11:9–10). The public ministry as a whole drew its urgency from the warning with which it concluded: “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you.… Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light” (12:35–36). But in chapter 14, Jesus’ departure to the Father means not an end to the works of God but greater things (v. 12) accomplished by the disciples, with the assurance that Jesus, now with the Father, will answer their prayers (vv. 13–14). The situation of the public ministry has been transcended; what is true for the disciples is not at all the same as what is true for the world. Despite their failure thus far to understand or believe that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus (v. 10), the opportunity exists from now on to recognize exactly that (vv. 7b, 11).
After each of the four questions that punctuate this first farewell discourse, Jesus, in addressing the disciples, shifts at some point from singular to plural (cf. vv. 1–3, 7, 11–21, 24b). These plurals suggest that generalized discourse material has been worked into the question-and-answer framework. The longest block of pure discourse consists of verses 11–21, where the content almost (but not quite) submerges the question-and-answer form. This content consists of a series of promises held out to those who “see” (vv. 7, 9) and believe (v. 11) Jesus and his revelation. Jesus promises them the power to do greater things than even he has done (v. 12) and, closely associated with this, the privilege of having their prayers answered (vv. 13–14). But the most important promise is the one on which the first two depend: Jesus’ own continuing presence with them (vv. 15–21).
The brief monologue introducing the last disciple’s question (v. 22) is constructed according to a simple pattern repeated in verses 15–20 and verse 21. In answer to the last question, Jesus does not carry the thought further, but simply repeats the pattern for a third time, only now with a negative corollary (vv. 23–24). The section as a whole yields the following picture:
If you love me, you will obey what I command (v. 15).
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him (v. 21).
If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him (v. 23).
I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor.… I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.… On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you (vv. 16–20).
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me (v. 24).
The framework for the love command is somewhat different here from the triangular framework of chapter 13: Love moves first of all in an upward direction; the disciples are to love Jesus, and in turn they will receive the divine love. The sequence is as follows:
(a) The disciple is to love Jesus and keep his commandments.
(b) Consequently the Father (and Jesus) will love the disciple and grant the disciple a revelation.
The only reference in this first discourse to the love between the Father and the Son has the love moving in the same upward direction: Jesus loves the Father and does what the Father commands him (v. 31; contrast 15:9–10). This simple pattern is best described as “covenantal.” In Judaism, the core of God’s demand was summed up in the daily prayer known as the Shema, taken from Deuteronomy 6:4–6: “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.” Loving God and keeping his commandments became a common way of describing the duty of Israel (e.g., Exod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 7:9; 11:1). The emphasis was on love as a demand and, consequently, more on people’s love for God than on God’s love for them. Jesus’ language at this point recalls his answer in the synoptic Gospels to the scribe who asked, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” (Mark 12:28–34/Matt. 22:34–40/Luke 10:25–28), except that in John it is love for Jesus rather than love for God that stands at the center (cf. 21:15–17). In a manner typical of this Gospel, Jesus identifies himself so closely with the Father that as far as the disciple is concerned, the two are virtually equivalent (cf. 10:30; vv. 9, 23).
The Question of Judah
The name Judah can be used to distinguish this disciple (cf. Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) both from Judas the traitor and from Jude the brother of Jesus (cf. Mark 6:3/Matt. 13:55; Jude 1). Judah’s question, which at first glance seems overshadowed by the preceding discourse material, is actually a key to understanding the whole, for it picks up details from Jesus’ promises in verses 16–20 that might otherwise have passed unnoticed. Judah asks, But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world? (v. 22). Jesus had spoken in verses 16–17 of another Counselor (Gr.: paraklētos) whom he called the Spirit of truth. Of this Counselor, Jesus said, The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him or knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you (v. 17). Again in verse 19 he had picked up the language of his opening pronouncement in 13:33, but now with a crucial qualification: Before long [Gr.: eti mikron; cf. 13:33], the world will not see me any more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. This was what called forth Judah’s question. The world will not see Jesus after he departs. As far as the world is concerned, he is absent; a real (and permanent) separation has taken place. But for the believer, the separation is not real. Even though Jesus goes away in the sense of departing from human view, the disciple continues to see him (v. 19; cf. vv. 7b, 9) by sharing his life and by knowing the other Counselor, the Spirit of truth who takes his place. Jesus departs from the world only to be closer to his disciples than ever before. Because he goes to the Father, he says, his disciples will one day know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you (v. 20; cf. 10:38). Paradoxically, it is in departing that he returns, for in his reunion with the Father he unites himself (and his Father) with the disciples as well (cf. 20:19–23).
Here most decisively the scandal of Jesus absence is overcome. At the beginning (13:33) the disciples seemed to have no advantage over the world, for they could not follow where Jesus went. In answer to Peter’s question, this was qualified: They would follow, but only later, when Jesus had prepared a place for them (13:36; 14:3). Now the full truth comes out: For those who have faith there is no real separation from Jesus. His departure means that he and the Father will be together again and that in the Spirit both will be present, and accessible, to the believing disciple. Judah’s question is a natural one, for Jesus’ words seem to resist the claims of sense experience. What the eyes see—Jesus’ departure from the world by death—is an illusion. What is real—the presence of the Spirit, and Jesus’ union with the Father and with his disciples—cannot be seen in the usual (i.e., the world’s) sense of the term. Judah is simply asking why the disciples and the world see things so differently. Jesus’ answer (vv. 23–24) sounds at first as if he has not heard the question, but the negative corollary that he adds in verse 24 speaks to the issue that Judah raises by defining (in a way characteristic of John’s Gospel) the difference between the church and the world: He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. The “world” consists of those who do not love Jesus, while the “church” (a term never used in this Gospel) consists of those who love and obey him (vv. 15, 21). The Spirit will come only to those who know the Spirit (v. 17; cf. 1 Cor. 2:11–14); Jesus and the Father are present only to those who have the eyes to see them (v. 19). Judah’s question is based on the common early Christian expectation that Jesus will return to earth with “splendor” (2 Thess. 2:8) so that “every eye will see him” (Rev. 1:7). This outlook responds to Jesus’ absence by affirming his visible presence—but in the future. John’s Gospel responds instead by affirming his invisible presence here and now, with those who love him. Even when the coming is future, as in verse 3, it is a coming specifically to the believer, to take you to be with me, not a public epiphany of the Son of God upon the earth. For John, that epiphany has already taken place in the ministry of Jesus. The world has made its decision and shown itself to be blind. John therefore feels no necessity to submit his assertions of Jesus’ coming to the tests of ordinary sense experience. Outward appearances to the contrary, Jesus and the Father will come to make their home with the disciples (v. 23), in and through the Counselor (v. 16) who will be with them forever. Thus, the heart of chapter 14 is the reinterpretation of the eti mikron (“only a little longer”) of 13:33 with a corresponding eti mikron (before long) in 14:19. The former has to do only with sense experience; the latter introduces what is for John the core of Christian existence—new life in the Father and the Son.
Conclusion
Only in the last few verses of the chapter does the question-and-answer framework give way to monologue. The concluding summary, marked off by the formula All this I have spoken … (v. 25; cf. 15:11; 16:1, 4, 25, 33; 17:1), continues to speak of the Counselor (v. 26) and of Jesus’ departure and return (v. 28), with some indications that the disciples’ anxiety about their impending separation from Jesus has not been entirely relieved. Jesus describes more concretely than before the ministry of the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name—he will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (v. 26)—with the particular purpose of calming their fears (cf. 16:4b; also Mark 13:11; Matt. 10:19–20; Luke 12:11–12). It is not surprising that at this point Jesus repeats his earlier reassurance, Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid (v. 27; cf. v. 1). More surprising is his use of a contrary-to-fact condition, If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father (v. 28), especially in view of the fact that he has just defined the world as those who do not love Jesus (v. 24). Until the disciples have overcome their grief and fear, they cannot be said to love Jesus perfectly (cf. 1 John 4:18), and to that degree they are still on the same footing as the world.
Here for the first time in the discourse is the implicit recognition of a crisis to come that will test the faith and love of the disciples. It is a crisis of separation, and even though Jesus has gone to great lengths to show that the separation is not ultimately real, he tacitly admits that it will be real to them, at least for a time. It is a temptation, a cause for anxiety, and though it has already been overcome in the words of Jesus, it must still be overcome in the disciples’ experience. To this end Jesus leaves with them his wish of peace, given not … as the world gives (v. 27). It is not a peace to be measured by outward circumstances but a peace within the disciples themselves, not the kind that depends on freedom from conflict, but the kind that remains constant when trouble comes.
There is a certain tension between the four questions and answers that comprise most of the farewell discourse and the summary with which it concludes. If 13:36–14:31 is viewed as a farewell discourse complete in itself, verses 25–31 can be regarded as John’s way of making a transition from the idealism of the discourse to the realism of the Passion narrative. The crisis will come in the person of Satan, the prince of this world (v. 30), and Jesus calls the disciples to join in confronting this their greatest foe (Come now; let us leave, v. 31). It is significant that a discourse built on the announcement that Jesus was going where the disciples could not follow should end with a summons for them to go out with Jesus to meet the adversary. This final call to immediate action (used differently in the synoptic Gospels, Mark 14:42/Matt. 26:46) preserves here the distinctly Johannine emphasis on Jesus’ unity with his disciples as he turns his face toward the cross.
Additional Notes
13:37 I will lay down my life for you. The idiom is the same as that used by Jesus in 10:11, 15, 17.
14:1 Do not let your hearts be troubled: The same verb was used of Jesus in 11:33; 12:27; and 13:21. Having quieted his own heart in preparation for the Passion, Jesus now begins to prepare his disciples for what lies ahead.
Trust in God; trust also in me. The two verbs can be read either as imperatives (as here) or indicatives (i.e., “You do trust in God, and you trust in me”); or one can be read as indicative and the other as imperative (i.e., “You do trust in God; therefore trust in me”). But consistency favors translating the two verbs in parallel fashion, and the double indicative would be trite and redundant at this point. The NIV rendering is therefore preferable; Jesus is not speaking of belief in God (or himself) in a generalized sense but in relation to a specific hope for the future: “Trust God and trust me; this is what will happen, and there is no cause for fear.”
14:2 In my Father’s house are many rooms: The “many mansions” of the AV has been changed in most modern versions because of the incongruity of “mansions” within a house. Rooms is literally “dwelling places” (Gr.: monai), the original meaning of “mansion” (from the Latin manere, “to dwell”); cf. Jesus’ promise in v. 23 that he and the Father will come and “make our home” (lit., “dwelling” [monē]) with the person who loves and obeys Jesus.
The phrase my Father’s house recalls 2:16–17, where similar terminology was used of the temple in Jerusalem. Here it refers metaphorically to heaven. The metaphor, however, is probably that of an actual house or household (cf. 8:35–36), not the “heavenly temple” of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature (as, e.g., in Rev. 4). The emphasis is not on individual “compartments” in heaven but simply on the assurance that there is plenty of room for all who belong to Jesus.
If it were not so, I would have told you. It is better to follow the GNB margin in taking the sentence as a question: “If it were not so, would I tell you that I am going [lit., ‘going away’] to prepare a place for you?” Grammatically, this translation is preferable because it takes account of the conjunction “that” (Gr.: hoti), which otherwise has to be ignored. The difficulty it presents is its implication that Jesus had said on a previous occasion that he was going away to prepare a place for his disciples. Nowhere else in the Gospel did he say this in so many words, but he did state clearly that he was going away (e.g., 7:33; 8:21), and it may be that the preparing of a place for believers was regarded as implicit in such passages as 6:39; 10:16; and 12:32.
14:6 I am the way and the truth and the life. The main thrust of the context is carried by Jesus’ claim that he is the way; the other two self-designations are corollaries of this (cf. NEB: “I am the way; I am the truth and I am life”; but Moffatt’s “I am the real and living way” goes too far in this direction).
14:7 If you really knew me you would know. The NIV makes the condition contrary-to-fact, but the stronger manuscript evidence favors the NIV margin: “If you really have known me, you will know” (cf. GNB). Jesus’ immediate positive statement that from now on, you do know him and have seen him (i.e., the Father, v. 7b) and his surprised question, “Don’t you know me, Philip?” (v. 9), further support the notion that Jesus is assuming knowledge—not the lack of it—on the part of his disciples. In this respect their situation stands in contrast to that of the Pharisees in 8:19.
14:11 Believe on the evidence of the miracles (lit., “believe because of the works”). Jesus’ “works” or “deeds” are not confined to his miracles. The NIV tacitly acknowledges this with its translation “greater things” (not “greater miracles”) in v. 12.
14:12 Greater things: lit., “greater works.” The works the disciples will perform after Jesus’ departure are greater than Jesus’ works not in intrinsic value or glory but in scope: The disciples will do the works of God on a much wider scale as they bring the message of eternal life to the whole world, Gentiles as well as Jews (cf. 10:16; 11:52; 12:32).
14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. A characteristic of this first farewell discourse is its terminology of prayer: Prayer is made not only in Jesus’ name, but to Jesus (rather than to the Father), and Jesus himself is the one who answers prayer (some early manuscripts omit me, perhaps because it seemed awkward with in my name, but it is retained in the most important of the ancient textual witnesses). Jesus’ assumption here is that because he is “going to the Father” (v. 12b), he shares in the Father’s work of answering prayer, and in fact guarantees the answer. The phrase in my name means “on my authority”; the prayer is answered when the petitioner and the One being petitioned are united in faith and love, i.e., when the conditions described in verses 15–21 are in effect.
14:16 Another Counselor: Another implies that Jesus too is a Counselor (Gr.: paraklētos; cf. 1 John 2:1, which speaks of the risen Jesus helping believers by serving as their advocate before God). The Spirit is here characterized as continuing to do for believers all that Jesus did for them while he was on earth—especially teaching and encouraging them. The Spirit’s function is a revelatory and a pastoral one. He (or she; the term paraklētos in any case accents the personality of the Spirit) is a Counselor in the specific sense of illuminating the revelation from God that Jesus brought and applying it to the ever-changing needs of Jesus’ followers.
14:17 “He lives with you and is in you”: (NIV margin). The tenses are present, but Jesus is referring to the future: when the Spirit comes, he will come to stay and will live in the disciples’ hearts. Some manuscripts make the second verb a future (NIV text: will be in you) as if Jesus were distinguishing between the Spirit’s presence with the disciples even then and in them after his departure. But such a distinction is foreign to the text; in NT references to union with God, in by no means implies greater intimacy than with (cf. Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 4:17), and here the two are virtually interchangeable.
14:18 As orphans: Gr.: orphanous (literally this means “orphaned” or “abandoned”).
14:19 Because I live, you also will live. The words because I live refer to Jesus’ resurrection; the promise that you also will live probably points both to the disciples’ hope of future resurrection and to their present possession of spiritual life through the risen Jesus (cf. 6:57).
14:26 Will remind you of everything I have said to you: Such language was used especially of warnings about trouble and persecution (cf. 13:18; 16:4; and perhaps 14:29), but memory also played an important part in the interpretation of Jesus’ deeds (cf. 2:17, 22; 12:16). The writer of this Gospel probably saw himself as one to whom the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, had given special insight and perspective, after the fact, on the words and deeds of Jesus as he wrote them down.
14:28 The Father is greater than I. Even though Jesus and the Father are “one” (10:30), Jesus can still characterize the Father as greater because there are certain aspects of their relationship that are not reciprocal or reversible: The Father sent Jesus, Jesus did not send the Father; Jesus goes away to rejoin the Father, the Father does not come to him. Functionally, the Father is greater. The disciples should be glad that the human being who eats with them as friend and teacher is not the end in himself, but the Way to God, who is the Beginning and the End of all things.
14:29 Before it happens, so that … you will believe: Before what happens? The only answer possible from the context is Jesus’ departure, i.e., all the events associated with his Passion. When did they believe? One possible answer is 20:28–29; another (assuming that the specific belief was that Jesus had gone to the Father) is 20:8, where the beloved disciple “saw and believed” simply on the basis of the empty tomb.
14:30 He has no hold on me: lit., “in me he has nothing.” It may be that even though the devil is ultimately in view here, Jesus has in mind first of all the devil’s embodiment in Judas, who because of 13:21–30 now “has nothing” in Jesus (cf. also 13:8, “no part with me”). As the farewell discourse draws to a close (v. 31), Judas is indeed coming (cf. 18:2–3); he and the Roman soldiers he will bring are the immediate enemy to be faced.
Direct Matches
People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.
Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).
Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.
Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.
Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.
Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.
Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.
The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1 Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1 Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1 Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1 Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2 Sam. 24:10; 1 John 3:20 21).
It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.
Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1 Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.
Direct Matches
Old Testament. In ancient Israel, and more broadly in the surrounding region, the “father’s house” (i.e., ancestral family) was the basic unit of kinship, more extensive than “brothers” (Gen. 46:31; Judg. 16:31) or the single “household” (Exod. 12:3) but smaller than the clan and tribe (note the contrasts in, e.g., Num. 1:2; Judg. 6:15). In genealogies the “father’s house” is often rendered “family” (e.g., Exod. 6:14; Num. 1:2 and throughout the chapter; 1 Chron. 4:38). In some instances, the twelve tribes of Israel are construed as father’s houses (Num. 17:2–6; 1 Sam. 2:28). In 2 Sam. 19:28 the extent of the “father’s house” is well illustrated: clearly, Mephibosheth refers not to the nuclear family of his biological father but rather to the family of his grandfather Saul. In 1 Chron. 23:11, two small families are artificially combined into a single “father’s house,” illustrating that the concept was not strictly biological but instead corresponded to a set of social functions, in this case priestly service.
In addition to censuses and the organization of military service, other functions of the father’s house included the reckoning of collective guilt (2 Sam. 14:9; 24:17; Neh. 1:6), delimiting retaliation in kin-based blood feuds (1 Sam. 22:16, 22; 2 Sam. 3:29; see also Judg. 2:12, 18), and defining a context for endogamous marriage (Gen. 24:38–40). The father’s house played an important role in the life of women, who were identified with their father’s house before marriage and could return to it in the event of widowhood, demonstrating a persistent connection to it (Lev. 22:13; Num. 30:4, 16; Deut. 22:21; Judg. 19:2–3; Esther 4:14; Ps. 45:10; see also the political significance for Abimelek of his mother’s father’s house in Judg. 9:1).
The expression “father’s house” can also refer to a location (Gen. 12:1; 20:13; Judg. 14:19; 1 Sam. 18:2), and indeed this local sense may have largely overlapped with the kinship sense, as extended families inhabited large architectural compounds or even entire small villages.
New Testament. On two occasions Jesus referred to the temple in Jerusalem as his “father’s house,” once when he was a young man (Luke 2:49), and once when he drove merchants from the temple (John 2:16). On another occasion, he referred to a “place where I am going” as “my father’s house” (John 14:2–4). In addition, we have two references to the “father’s house” as a kinship unit (Luke 16:27; and possibly Acts 7:20).-
On the night of his arrest, Jesus promised his disciples that he was going away “to prepare a place” for them. He assured them that his “Father’s house” had ample room. In John 14:2 the KJV translates the Greek term monē as “mansion.” In the Latin Vulgate, the Greek term is translated mansio, meaning a “dwelling” or “home.” The KJV translators rendered the term as “mansion,” meaning a “dwelling place.” Today, however, the word “mansion” refers to a large, elaborate home and thus can be misleading as a translation of monē. Thus, Jesus promised his disciples that he would prepare eternal places for them to live with him, and so monē is better translated as “dwelling place” or “room,” as in the modern translations.
Secondary Matches
The visible and bodily ascent of Jesus from earth to heaven concluding his earthly ministry, which then continued through the promised Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost.
A detailed historical account of the ascension is given only by Luke (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:4–11 [cf. Mark 16:19, in the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel]). The event, however, was anticipated in John’s Gospel (John 6:62; 20:17).
The ascension is frequently implied throughout the NT by reference to the complex of events that began with the death of Jesus and ended with his session at the right hand of God in glory. Paul writes of the divine-human Christ’s ascent to the heavenly realms as the beginning of his supreme cosmic reign in power (Eph. 1:20–23) and as the basis for holy living (Col. 3:1–4; 1 Tim. 3:16). In Hebrews, the ascension is a crucial stage that marks off the completed work of Jesus on earth, in which he offered himself as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin (9:24–26), from his continuing work in heaven as our great high priest, which is described in terms of sympathy (4:14–16) and intercession (7:25). Peter makes the most direct reference to the ascension, explaining that Jesus, who suffered, is resurrected and “has gone into heaven” (1 Pet. 3:22). Therefore, just as Jesus, the righteous sufferer, was vindicated by God, so too will his people who suffer for doing good.
Paul understands the OT as predicting Christ’s ascension (Eph. 4:7–10; cf. Ps. 68:18) and containing incidents that in some way prefigure it (2 Kings 2:11–12).
The ascension is significant for at least three reasons. First, Christ’s death could not have full effect until he entered the heavenly sanctuary. From heaven he acts as advocate and communicates to believers through the Holy Spirit all the gifts and blessings that he died on the cross to gain (Heb. 4:14–16; 1 John 2:1). Second, glorified humanity is now in God’s presence, guaranteeing that we likewise will be raised up with body and soul to share the glory yet to be revealed (John 14:2; 17:24; Eph. 2:4–6). Third, the ascension previews the manner of Christ’s second coming (Acts 1:11). Jesus’ ascension was followed by his enthronement in heaven, where he reigns (1 Cor. 15:25) and from which he will physically return in the same glorified body as judge (Luke 21:27). See also Advent, Second; Second Coming.
Traditionally identified with John the son of Zebedee, the Gospel of John depicts him as the ideal eyewitness to Jesus and as the ideal author. He first explicitly appears in John 13–21. In representing the Beloved Disciple as the author of the Gospel of John (John 21:24–25), the author thus claims a privileged place for its revelation about Jesus, perhaps in relation to the Gospel of Mark, which many in the early church considered to have Peter as its primary source of testimony.
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 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.
When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).
Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).
Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.
Nakedness
“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).
Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).
Marriage and Adultery
Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).
Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.
The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).
The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).
When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).
Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).
Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).
Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).
Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).
Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)
Self-Control and Purity
The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.
Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.
God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).
The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.
When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).
Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).
Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.
Nakedness
“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).
Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).
Marriage and Adultery
Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).
Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.
The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).
The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).
When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).
Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).
Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).
Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).
Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).
Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)
Self-Control and Purity
The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.
Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.
God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).
The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.
The NT conception of tribulation is perhaps best summarized in Paul’s pastoral reminder, “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). The Greek term used here for “hardship” is thlipsis.
In the NT, thlipsis may refer generally to the sufferings and afflictions that occur in the normal course of human living (John 16:21; Acts 7:11; 1 Cor. 7:28; James 1:27). In its more common and specific usage, “tribulation” relates directly to the experience of the people of God as a consequence of their faithful proclamation of the gospel. Thus, in the parable of the sower, “tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word” (Matt. 13:21; Mark 4:17 ESV).
One of the primary aspects of the biblical view of tribulation relates to the tribulation and suffering of Christ as the pattern for the church (Rev. 1:9). That his followers would suffer tribulation was made explicit by Jesus to his followers in the Farewell Discourse (John 14–17). There he informs them, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33 ESV).
Closely related to the impending tribulation that confronts all believers is the NT affirmation that the sufferings of Christ serve as the model for the tribulation of the people of God. Jesus thus warns the disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18; cf. 15:20). Paul continues this concept in Col. 1:24 (cf. 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10–12; Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). The tribulation that the people of God experience serves to equip them in a variety of ways. Most significantly, tribulation results in the transformation of the people of God into the likeness of Christ (Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 4:8–12).
The book of Acts records the fulfillment of Jesus’ warning to his followers: it was because of persecution that the church was scattered (Acts 8:1). Later, Paul notes that he has experienced tribulation (2 Cor. 1:8), as did the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:6) and the recipients of Hebrews (Heb. 10:33). The reality of “tribulation” is seen in the exhortation of John to the church in Smyrna (Rev. 2:9).
Another important aspect of the tribulations that await the people of God in the NT era is the relationship of tribulation to the kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 24:9–14; Rev. 1:9; 7:14). Many hold to the notion that there will be an intensification of tribulation immediately prior to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:24).
The “great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14 has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Some understand this as a future event limited to seven or three and one-half years. Many others, however, associate this event with the tribulation, suffering, and affliction of the people of God throughout the entire era from the resurrection to the second coming. The expression “great tribulation” alludes to Dan. 12:1. The Danielic context incorporates a time of persecution and suffering among the people of God. The use of “tribulation” in Revelation (Rev. 1:9; 2:9–10, 22; 7:14) corresponds with the persecution of the people of God. A comparison with Matt. 24:21 confirms this conclusion. Therefore, regardless of how one reads the “great tribulation” in Rev. 7:14, as present or future reality, it appears that this tribulation refers to the suffering of God’s people and not to an exemption from it (cf. John 17:15).
The idea of unity has always been significant for God’s people and their relatedness to one another. In the OT, unity centered on the covenant and on Yahweh, who is the heart of the covenant. In 2 Chron. 30:12 the hand of God was on the people to give them unity to carry out the tasks that had been ordered by the king at God’s command. In Ps. 133:1 the psalmist notes the goodness of the unity of the extended family, no doubt also to be extended to the unity of God’s people, Israel.
In the NT, unity centers on Jesus Christ, who is the heart of the new covenant. John emphasizes this unity as he records the teaching of Jesus on the relationship of the Father and the Son (John 14). The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. In John 16 Jesus notes that this is the standard by which oneness is to be compared; the disciples are to be one, just as the Father and the Son are one. There will also be oneness between the triune God and his people as the Holy Spirit comes to reside in the disciples. Unity and its various outcomes are the subject of Jesus’ final prayer in the garden (John 17).
In Acts 1 Luke notes that the disciples were unified after the resurrection and ascension as they worshiped and prayed together in the upper room (v. 14 NASB, NET: “with one mind” [homothymadon]). Luke uses the same word in Acts 2:46 when he notes the same unity for the early church as they gathered for the sake of worship and praise to God in the temple (cf. 4:24 [unison prayer for power from God]; 5:12 [meeting together at Solomon’s Colonnade]; 15:25 [unanimity in a decision to send representatives to Antioch]). Indeed, the story of the beginning of the early church is the story of the fulfillment of Christ’s command to be unified. It is sometimes supposed, probably correctly, that the apostles from Jerusalem went to the Samaritan church to lay on hands for the bestowal of the Spirit in order that the long-standing Jewish-Samaritan rift might not destroy the unity of the growing body (see Acts 8:14–17).
In Eph. 4:3 Paul commands the believers to be zealous to keep their unity based in the Spirit as they are bound together by the peace that Christ gives. Later, in 4:13, Paul notes that God has given gifted people to the body of Christ so that the believers may be trained for the ministry of building up that body. This has its goal in the unity of believers and maturity of the faith in the knowledge of Christ—so that the body might be like him. So the unity of believers here is linked to the ubiquitous NT goal of Christlikeness. This also entails rejecting false teaching (4:14).
Ceremonies marking entry into marriage. In the Bible, weddings initiate the formation of new households with the blessing of family and community.
Old Testament
In the OT, weddings were important to the patriarchs and to Israel because the new couple was expected to produce children to help fulfill the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2; 17:6; 22:15–18; Ruth 4:11–13; Isa. 65:23). Heirs were also the assurance that a man’s name remained eternally with Israel, so much so that if a man died childless, his brother was obligated to wed the widow and produce children in his name (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–10). Moreover, weddings assured that property was kept within families and tribes and also transferred in an orderly way from one generation to the next (Num. 36:1–12; Ruth 4:5; Ps. 25:13).
Multiple wives were allowed in the OT (Gen. 30:26; Deut. 21:15; 1 Sam. 1:2; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3), as were multiple concubines, who had official standing in the household, though lower than that of wives. Weddings usually were associated with a man publicly taking a wife; he acquired concubines with less fanfare (Gen. 16:1–3; 30:3–5; Judg. 19:1, 3).
OT weddings included certain distinctive elements. The bridegroom or his father paid a bride-price, or dowry, to the father of the bridegroom’s prospective wife (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16–17; 1 Sam. 18:25). The bridegroom had a more central role than the bride. He emerged from a chamber or tent to claim his wife (Ps. 19:5; Joel 2:16), who, in the case of a royal wedding, may have processed to him (Ps. 45:13–15). Both he and the bride were adorned (Song 3:11; Isa. 49:18; 61:10; Jer. 2:32); the woman was also veiled (Gen. 24:65; 29:23, 25; 38:14, 19; Song 4:1, 3; Isa. 47:1–3). Their wedding was the occasion of much rejoicing and feasting (Gen. 29:22; Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11) and lasted seven days (Gen. 29:27; Judg. 14:17). The main event was their sexual union (Isa. 62:5), which occurred on the first night (Gen. 29:23; Ruth 4:13). Unless she had been a widow, the bride was presumed to be a virgin on her wedding night, and evidence of her virginity, a bloodstained cloth, was retained as proof (Deut. 22:13–19). Virginity was essential to a previously unmarried bride; a woman who had been raped or otherwise engaged in premarital sexual relations was deemed defiled and unmarriageable to any but the first man with whom she had intercourse (Deut. 22:21; 2 Sam. 13:1–20). The importance of this underpins the shock value of the book of Hosea (see esp. 1:2), an extended metaphor that presents Israel as a prostitute nevertheless pursued by Yahweh as her husband.
New Testament
The NT continues to testify to many of these wedding traditions, significantly including the gathering of community (Matt. 22:2; John 2:1–2) in joyful celebration (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34; John 2:9–10). Wedding feasts could be lavish affairs (Matt. 22:4; John 2:6–10), with protocols regarding seating (Luke 14:8–10) and attire (Matt. 22:11–13; Rev. 19:7–9).
In the NT, these and other first-century wedding customs illustrate aspects of the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1–14) contrasts the invited guests (corrupt religious leaders in Israel) who ignored the king’s wedding invitation and murdered his servants with those people, good and evil, gathered from the streets (the downtrodden) who took their place. Their willingness to attend is qualified only by their coming properly attired in wedding robes, which by inference were provided by the king himself (Rev. 19:7–8).
The parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) plays on the understanding that weddings occurred not at a specific time but when the bridegroom was ready. His readiness was determined by, among other things, the readiness of a dwelling place for his new bride. In first-century Capernaum, this would have been a room or rooms built onto his father’s insula, a multifamily compound surrounding an interior courtyard; the same image is behind John 14:2–4. The parable, identifying the Son of Man as the bridegroom, illustrates that while his coming in glory is certain, its timing is unknown. Therefore, the bridal party is to be vigilant and prepared.
Elsewhere, Jesus is specifically named as the bridegroom preparing to marry his bride, the church (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 31–32). The wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1–11), which begins Jesus’ public ministry, points proleptically to the marriage supper of the Lamb, which inaugurates the eschatological age (Rev. 19:7–9). The culminating picture of God with his people (Deut. 16:13–16; Matt. 1:23; John 1:14) is a magnificent wedding (Rev. 21:2, 9) between Christ and the new Jerusalem.
- Christian business owner prays over Trump, sees hurricane as catalyst for community healing
- Reformation Sunday: 2M Koreans unite to protest law, prevent nation from going down liberal path
- Pastor Jack Hibbs poses question to Evangelicals for Harris after ‘wrong rally’ rebuke
- Christians will ‘go to court’ on Judgment Day over what they did, John Piper says
- Majority of practicing Christians admit to viewing porn, many comfortable with habit: study
- Russell Brand: People in Hollywood are 'terrified of being exposed' for their sins
- Therapists urge churches to offer more than celibacy for people with unwanted same-sex attraction
- White House hails record decline in drug overdose deaths
- UMC's highest court to determine how churches can leave denomination
- Christian convert in Somalia suffers 3rd brutal attack by Muslim relatives for praying to Jesus
- Christians will ‘go to court’ on Judgment Day over what they did, John Piper says
- Watch 'The Real Housewives of New York City' season 15 episode 4 for free
- Chabad Jews celebrate at 5,000-square-foot sukkah in New York
- Man exposed himself, committed lewd act in front of passengers on flight to Boston, feds say
- Michigan Pastor Charged With Pedo Crimes Is MAGA, Of Course
- Are Jews safe in America?
- Obama roasts Trump's bible: ‘He’s Mr. Tough Guy on China except when it comes to making a few bucks’
- ‘It’s About The Kingdom Of God!’ Trump Evangelical Rally Speaker Boasts ‘We Are Bigger Than Black Hispanic And Union Vote’
- What Campaign Signs Taught Me About Being a Good Neighbor
- An atheist for 35 years, she reencountered God at the tomb of St. John Paul II
- An Almost Christian Nation
- China and Vatican Agree to Extend Agreement on Appointing Bishops
- Harris Puts Religion Back in Spotlight in Closing Election Weeks
- Students Speak Out After Harris Told Them They were at 'Wrong Rally'
- Ukraine's Independent Orthodox Christians May Tear Country Apart
- The American Evangelicals 'Deconstructing' Their Religion To Save It
- I Left My Religion. Should I Still Raise My Kid With It?
- What Science Says About Power of Religion and Prayer to Heal
- How the Synodality Synod Comes to a Close
- Thousands of Paper Cuts, Then a Nuclear Bomb