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

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

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

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith and the Church

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

To pass judgment on someone and, usually, elicit some form of punishment. The word is used throughout the Bible, especially in reference to the acts of God toward those who choose not to obey him. Other uses usually involve a political leader passing judgment on some person.

There are only a couple of references in the Pentateuch. One is in Deut. 13:17, which refers to the required condemnation of all things within a city that are captured and destroyed during the invasion of the Promised Land. Everything in specific cities was to be condemned as an offering to God.

The book of Job carefully focuses on the question of condemnation in light of Job’s troubles. While Job questions God’s seeming condemnation of him (10:2), he realizes that his claims of innocence before God might be, ironically, worthy of condemnation (9:20). Nevertheless, he continues to maintain his own innocence before both God and his friends. Later, God asks Job whether his claim of innocence would imply a condemnation of God’s actions (40:8). Ultimately, Job is vindicated in his claim of innocence before God, but not before God reminds Job that divine methods and plans are ultimately beyond human understanding.

Psalm 34 highlights the fact that those who serve God will not be condemned (v. 22). The psalms also emphasize that God actively pursues and condemns some because of their actions (37:33). Proverbs strongly criticizes those who work to pervert justice in the courts by condemning the innocent (Prov. 17:15).

In the Gospels the word “condemn” is often used in connection with Jesus. Usually it is found in a reference to the impending condemnation of Jesus to the cross (Matt. 20:18; 27:3). Interestingly, John highlights the fact that followers of Jesus are not condemned on account of their sin (John 3:18; 5:24). In a similar display of compassion, when a woman caught in the act of adultery is brought before Jesus, he, after challenging her accusers so severely that they leave, tells her that he does not condemn her (8:1–11).

One of the best-known verses about condemnation is Rom. 8:1, where Paul states, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Paul bases his claim on Jesus’ dying and removing, by his death, the power that the law had in condemning those who could not follow the law. In Rom. 14 Paul also argues that it is one’s own conscience that condemns a person. When discussing the issue of eating meat offered to idols, Paul observes that some Christians who believe that eating meat offered to idols is not sinful condemn those who do not eat meat and vice versa. Paul’s solution is to say that in this case the condemned person is condemned because of violating his or her conscience, not because of eating or not eating meat (14:22–23).

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

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

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

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

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

A fuller revelation of God’s will is given in the Mosaic law. God gives commandments in part to heighten the Israelites’ awareness concerning right and wrong, so that with their obedience they might enjoy a covenant relationship within God’s holy presence (e.g., Deut. 28:1–14). This informed social conscience was intended to curb evil behavior (Gal. 3:19). The author of Judges anticipates the need for the law by complaining that “everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25).

However, the biblical narrative also makes room for paradoxical situations and competing values, which complicate moral reasoning (e.g., Gen. 38; Judg. 11:29–40). In the law, God expressly forbids child sacrifice, but he commands Abraham to present his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:1–14). On a rooftop Peter receives a vision in which the Lord commands him to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts 10:1–8). In both cases, God tests faith by commanding the believer to betray personal conscience, to open his heart to a fuller revelation of the divine plan. Even the moral reasoning of God is not always straightforward. God is committed to doing right, but he also weighs decisions with compassion and mercy. Abraham and Moses appeal to God’s character, and they are able to intercede on behalf of sinful people (Gen. 18:22–33; Exod. 32). Jonah even comes to despise this quality of God’s character, which appears to compromise justice (4:1–11).

These tensions anticipate the gospel, which claims that God loves sinners and has provided a means to express mercy toward them without compromising justice (Rom. 3:21–26). Like the Mosaic law, the gospel also provides further revelation into God’s will and therefore a more informed conscience. With citations drawn from throughout the OT, Paul claims that all people suffer from a distorted conscience (Rom. 3:9–20). God has spoken to all people through their conscience, but despite this innate awareness of right and wrong, both Jews, who possess God’s commandments, and non-Jews, who know something about God from nature (creation), have compromised their own ethical stance, so that they have only themselves to blame (1:18–32). This universal inner conflict, emphasized by Jesus and Paul, removes appealing to one’s conscience as a means of justification at the future judgment (Mark 7:1–23; Luke 13:1–5, 22–30). Furthermore, this habitual compromising leads to present self-deception and a skewed perception of the world.

But through repentance and faith in the gospel, returning to God (the Creator), a person’s conscience may be renewed and aligned with the mind and actions of Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1–2; 1 Cor. 2:16). Despite this restoration, the complexity of moral reasoning is not always overcome. Indeed, living in Christ with others from different cultural backgrounds and values often requires deeper reflection. Paul acknowledges that there can be different perceptions by believers, which can lead to different practices. Eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols is neutral or wrong depending upon one’s conscience and that of the observer (1 Cor. 8:1–3). He applies the same perspective to Jewish calendar observance and food laws (Rom. 14:1–23; but see Gal. 4:8–11). But the apostle also presumes that personal conscience can grow in knowledge. Ultimately, believers’ consciences should be informed by relating everything to the lordship of Christ (Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2; 5:11), meditating on the goodness of all creation (Titus 1:10–16), and placing the well-being of others before their own (Phil. 2:1–11).

Edification is the building up, strengthening, and encouraging of others in the body of Christ. This is primarily a Pauline concept and takes place in the context of mutual relationships among members in the local church: “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing” (1 Thess. 5:11). The frequency of this concept in Paul’s letters shows how important this was and how much he sought to develop this practice among his readers: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19). This building up of one another in the body should lead to a properly functioning local church where Christ is at the center and “the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Eph. 4:16). Put simply, “Knowledge puffs up while love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1).

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith and the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith and the Church

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Food

In the biblical era, food consisted primarily of meats, cereals, vegetables, and fruits, though cereals and vegetables made up the bulk of the diet of people in the ancient Near East. Grains generally were ground into either coarse or fine flour. With or without leaven, the flour was made into a loaf of sorts, baked, and consumed. Usually, one grain was used for any particular bread, though in difficult times multiple types of grains could be combined to create a loaf large enough for consumption (Ezek. 4:9).

Vegetables and fruits were not as varied in the ancient cultures as they are today. Generally, among vegetables, the consumer was limited to various types of lentils, cucumbers, onions, and leeks. These were eaten raw or cooked. Fruits were limited to dates, grapes, melons, olives, and figs. Fruits generally were dried, but they were also eaten raw and prepared in various ways. Nuts, including almonds and pistachios, also were consumed (Gen. 43:11), as were pulses such as lentils and legumes such as beans (2 Sam. 17:28).

Meat consumption usually was reserved for festivals and special occasions. The most important animals used for consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. Lamb was much more common as a dietary element than beef because it was less costly and more common. As prescribed by Scripture, the blood could not be consumed when eating meat (Lev. 17:10–11). Meat generally was boiled when prepared, though it could be roasted on a spit (1 Sam. 2:15). On a rare occasion, game meat was consumed, but this was considered a delicacy (Gen. 27:5–7). In order to be considered clean and capable of being consumed, the animal from which the meat was acquired had to have chewed a cud and have a divided hoof (Lev. 11:2–8).

Fish were consumed in good quantity but are mentioned much less often in the OT than in the NT, especially the Gospels. There is mention of the Fish Gate in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), which suggests that fish were sufficiently available to merit their own marketplace in the city. Fish were salted and dried before their consumption and seem to have been primarily an import item in Israel’s early history (Neh. 13:16), though by the time of the NT, Israel had obviously developed its own thriving fishing industry. To be ceremonially clean and fit for consumption, fish had to possess both fins and scales (thus shellfish were unclean; Lev. 11:9–12).

Animal by-products, such as honey, milk, and cheese, were a staple in Israelite diets (Deut. 32:14; Prov. 30:33; Isa. 7:15). These were stored in skins or in wooden vessels and sometimes were mixed to create a sweet milk or cheese. Milk was also used as a cooking element, though it was forbidden to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exod. 34:26).

Meals and Dietary Issues

A formal dinner or banquet typically consisted of an appetizer (usually something pickled), the meal proper, and a dessert. Wine was consumed, sometimes flavored with spices or honey. The people consuming the meal reclined at the table with their feet away from the food, thus allowing servants to continue to wash feet as necessary. Some sort of entertainment usually took place, including music, reading, or dialogue on some significant matter.

The early church struggled with various dietary issues. The first of these was the matter of the consumption of unclean animals. The events of Acts 10; 15 suggest that for the early church, these dietary laws were abandoned. In fact, of the OT regulations, only the one prohibiting the eating of meat with blood in it was enforced by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29). Paul seems to go further than this in stating that no food is unclean in and of itself (Rom. 14:14; cf. Mark 7:19). The second dietary issue centered not on the food itself, but rather on the prior use of that food, in this case meat, in pagan rituals and worship (see Food Sacrificed to Idols). Like most ancient Near Eastern cultures, the Greeks acquired some of their meat from the temples, which had a ready supply of it following religious rites and festivals. Most meat used for consumption had already been offered to an idol, and Christians debated whether it was appropriate to eat such meat. Paul responds to this question in 1 Corinthians, arguing that believers are free to eat such meat if their conscience is clear in doing so, but not if doing so offends or troubles the faith of fellow believers (1 Cor. 8; 10:23–11:1).

Scope and Uses of the Word “Hope”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope as a Biblical Theme

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

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

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

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

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

Speech (2 Kings 19:16; Isa. 37:17) or gesture (2 Sam. 10:4) that shames, demeans, disrespects, abuses, offends, or slights someone. Insults in the biblical world were also part of propaganda and warfare; for example, Nabal hurled insults at David (1 Sam. 25:14; cf. Lam. 3:61–63). Divine wrath is implored for vengeance against those who insult God (2 Kings 19:22–23; Neh. 4:4; Ezek. 21:28; Zeph. 2:8), while responding in kind seems to be acceptable (Isa. 37:23), since, as the psalmist bemoans, insults directed at God include the psalmist too (Ps. 69:9). Romans 15:3 puts these sentiments in the mouth of Christ (cf. Ps. 22:7).

Jeremiah bewails insults directed at him for simply being a prophet (Jer. 20:8) and laments the desecration of the temple as an insult to God and his people (51:51). While prudence ignores insults and shows self-control (Prov. 12:16), correcting mockers invites insult (9:7; 22:10).

Jesus’ followers are to anticipate insults (Heb. 10:33) and even count them as blessings (Matt. 5:11; Luke 6:22) because they are partaking of what Jesus himself went through (Matt. 27:39; 27:44; Mark 15:29; 15:32; Luke 18:32; 23:39; 1 Pet. 4:14). But 1 Pet. 2:23; 3:9 discourage responding in kind when insulted. Paul, as part of his suffering (1 Thess. 2:2), even delighted in insults for Christ’s sake (2 Cor. 12:10). Discriminating against the poor is an insult to them (James 2:6), while insulting the Spirit of grace results in divine judgment (Heb. 10:29).

The Bible makes strong distinctions between righteous and sinful judging. God commands his people to exercise fair and impartial judgment, especially to society’s poor and helpless (e.g., Exod. 23:1–9; Prov. 31:9; Isa. 1:17), punishing the perversions of favoritism and bribery (Deut. 16:19; Amos 5:12). The NT warns against partiality (James 2:1–9) and judging by outward appearances (John 7:24). Jesus denounces selfish and hypocritical judgment: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matt. 7:1 [cf. Luke 6:37]). This kind of judging presumes moral superiority over others (Rom. 2:1–5) and reveals an unrepentant heart, blind to its own sinfulness. It criticizes others over spiritually disputable matters (“specks” [see Matt. 7:3–5]), whereas Christian love defers such judgments to God (Rom. 14:1–18). Believers still must confront sin in the church (Matt. 18:15–17; Heb. 3:12–13; James 5:19–20) and the world (2 Cor. 10:5), but they must do so in a humble, gentle spirit (Gal. 6:1) that repents of its own sin before addressing another’s (Matt. 7:5).

Judgment Day in the Bible

The book of Revelation concludes with a harrowing vision of final judgment. On that day, when the God of all creation sits on his great white throne and holds court, the dead will rise and answer for their deeds, whether good or bad (20:11–13). The record of each person’s conduct appears in books, one of which is the Book of Life (20:12–13). Anyone whose name does not appear in the Book of Life is thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).

The apostle Paul refers to this same event in Acts 17:30–31. All human beings will face their scheduled day in court, as God certified by raising Christ from the dead. It will be a day of wrath, among other things, when God’s righteous anger against sin is fully displayed (Rom. 2:5). In the presence of this God, Isaiah proclaimed himself to be ruined because of his sinfulness before the one who is called “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–5). We therefore confess with the author of Hebrews, who says, “It is [and will be] a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31).

Many other texts of Scripture forecast the same event: judgment day is coming, and nothing can stop it. They also describe this day in equally frightening terms, anticipating fire, darkness, and weeping for some, but everlasting joy and peace for others. Even Christians will be judged on this day, notwithstanding the promise of everlasting life for everyone who believes (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24; Rom. 3:21–24; 8:1–2; 2 Cor. 5:21). In Rom. 14:10–12 Paul says, “For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat,” at which time, “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.” Similarly, in 2 Cor. 5:10 Paul warns, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

Justification and Judgment

In these texts, an apparent tension exists between the promise of justification, upon which all Christian hope stands, and the certainty of final judgment, including the judgment of believers. It will not do simply to downplay the one or the other, as if the biblical writers had not really intended one or both of them. These texts say what they say, the good news no less plainly than the bad. Yet, closer inspection shows that the tension is merely apparent.

We must first recognize that Scripture treats piety as the evidence of regeneration and saving faith. Jesus says that a “good tree,” which is a genuine disciple, bears good fruit (Matt. 7:17). That is, the observable righteousness of such a disciple will surpass the hypocritical casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). On judgment day, therefore, no actual conflict will or ever could arise between the general tendency of the believer’s conduct and his or her position in Christ. Over a lifetime, the believer’s habitual behavior will have differed fundamentally, though never satisfactorily, from that of a lost person. As for unrepentant sinners, they will be sentenced to eternal damnation because of their lawlessness (Rom. 3:9–19). Their conduct demonstrates that they have rejected the gospel and are deserving of wrath (Heb. 2:3). This linkage between justification and right conduct accounts for James’s polemical statement: “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Abraham’s positional righteousness, secured by faith in what God would do on his behalf, became publicly evident through his obedience (James 2:21–22).

We should also note the different purpose that God has in judging his church. One aspect of it certainly is to grasp the enormity of our sins, so that we might properly acknowledge the depth of his mercy on that day. But also this judgment will occur in order to mete out the differing rewards that Scripture anticipates for the people of God. The definitive text in this regard is 1 Cor. 3:1–17, which connects the believer’s rewards and losses to the quality of his or her behavior within the body of Christ. Some are building on Christ, the sure foundation, using the available materials, and they receive their proper reward. Others build selfishly on themselves, with the result that they are saved, “though only as one escaping through the flames” (1 Cor. 3:15). In both cases, however, the question seems to be one of greater and lesser reward, as opposed to salvation or damnation. Even in hell itself, various degrees of suffering come into play. According to Jesus, one can receive a heavy or light “beating” for disobedience, based on one’s prior knowledge of the master’s will (Luke 12:47–48). Judgment day, therefore, should not frighten Christians. Jesus really did suffer the full measure of God’s wrath against our sin. But this day reminds us that we are accountable for what we do as his disciples, and it motivates the evangelism that we are commanded to practice.

A platform (Gk. bēma) from which civil officials held session to hear legal cases and render judgments (Acts 18:12; 25:6, 10, 17). Jesus was brought before the judgment seat of Pilate (Matt. 27:19; John 19:13), and Paul before that of Gallio (Acts 18:12). The NT claims that all people will stand for judgment before God (Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Rev. 20:11–15). Paul asserts that Christians too will give an account for how they lived and will have their works tested (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). In Rom 14:10 some Greek manuscripts, probably influenced by 2 Cor. 5:10, read “judgment seat of Christ” (followed by the KJV) rather than “judgment seat of God.”

The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While the theme is most fully developed in the NT, its origin is the OT, where the emphasis falls on God’s king-ship. God is king of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1–4; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reign as king are references to a day when God will become king over his people (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). This emphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism and takes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and its anticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, which abandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the age will the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom is further developed throughout the NT.

The Synoptic Gospels

In the Synoptic Gospels the phrase “the kingdom of God” occurs over one hundred times in Mark, Luke, and Matthew (where “kingdom of heaven” is a synonym for “kingdom of God”). Three views have been defended regarding whether and to what extent the kingdom of God was present in Jesus’ ministry. In other words, how are we to interpret the phrase “kingdom of God” in the Synoptics? The three views are consistent eschatology, realized eschatology, and inaugurated eschatology.

Consistent eschatology. Albert Schweitzer, a biblical scholar from the late nineteenth century, first popularized consistent eschatology. Here, “consistent” means consistent with the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day, which interpreted the kingdom of God as something coming in the future. Judaism at the time of Christ divided history into two periods: this age of sin, when sin rules, and the age to come, when the Messiah is expected to bring the kingdom of God to earth. Schweitzer concluded that an apocalyptic understanding of the kingdom was foundational not only for Christ’s teaching, but also to understanding his life. Thus, Schweitzer maintained that Jesus believed that it was his vocation to become the coming Son of Man. Initially, Jesus revealed this messianic secret only to Peter, James, and John. Later, Peter told it to the rest of the Twelve. Judas told the secret to the high priest, who used it as the grounds for Jesus’ execution (Mark 14:61–64; cf. Dan. 7:13).

According to Schweitzer, when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a mission to proclaim the coming kingdom of God, he did not expect them to return. The Twelve were the “men of violence” (cf. Matt. 11:12) who would provoke the messianic tribulation that would herald the kingdom. Whereas some earlier scholars believed that one could only wait passively for the kingdom, Schweitzer believed that the mission of Jesus was designed to provoke its coming. When this did not happen, Jesus determined to give his own life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45) and so cause the kingdom to come.

According to Schweitzer, Jesus took matters into his own hands by precipitating his death, hoping that this would be the catalyst for God to make the wheel of history turn to its climax—the arrival of the kingdom of God. But, said Schweitzer, Jesus was wrong again, and he died in despair. So for Schweitzer, Jesus never witnessed the dawning of the age to come; it lay in the distant future, separated from this present age.

On the positive side, Schweitzer called attention to the fact that the message of Jesus is rooted in first-century apocalyptic Judaism and its concept of the kingdom of God. This connection is still foundational to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy and the Gospels today. On the negative side, Schweitzer’s selective use of evidence and rejection of the historicity of much of the Gospel tradition resulted in a skewed perspective on the present dimensions of Jesus’ eschatology.

Realized eschatology. In contrast to futurist eschatology, where the kingdom of God awaits a final consummation at the end of history, realized eschatology views the kingdom of God as already realized in the person and mission of Jesus. The futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching are reduced to a minimum, and his apocalyptic language is viewed as symbolic of theological truths.

The person most responsible for advocating this position is British scholar C. H. Dodd. In his 1935 book Parables of the Kingdom, he focused on Jesus’ teachings that announced the arrival of the kingdom with his coming. For instance, in Luke 11:20 Jesus says, “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (cf. Luke 17:21; Matt. 13). Eschatology becomes a matter of the present experience rather than any kind of future event. The kingdom has fully come in the messianic ministry of Jesus.

Most interpreters have criticized Dodd’s realized eschatology for ignoring Jesus’ teachings that point to a future consummation of the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 24–25; Mark 13). When all of Jesus’ teachings are considered, futurist eschatology balances realized eschatology. To be sure, the kingdom arrived with Jesus, but Jesus himself taught that history still awaits a final completion. The kingdom of God is both “already” and “not yet,” which leads us to the third view of the relationship of the kingdom of God to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Inaugurated eschatology. The third view, inaugurated eschatology, is commonly connected with the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Oscar Cullmann. Like others before him, Cullmann understood that the Jewish notion of the two ages formed an important background for understanding the message of Jesus. According to Judaism, history is divided into two periods: this age of sin and the age to come (i.e., the kingdom of God). For Jews the advent of the Messiah would effect the shift from the former to the latter. In other words, Judaism viewed the two ages as consecutive. According to Cullmann, Jesus Christ announced that the end of time, the kingdom of God, had arrived within history (see Mark 1:15 pars.; esp. Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17, 24–25, 29; Acts 28:31). Yet other passages suggest that although the age to come had already dawned, it was not yet complete. It awaited the second coming for its full realization (Luke 13:28–29; 14:15; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; Acts 1:6). Hence the adjective “inaugurated” characterizes this eschatology. Such a view is pervasive in the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:17–21; 3:18, 24; 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18). So for inaugurated eschatology, the two ages are simultaneous: the age to come exists in the midst of this present age. Christians therefore live in between the two ages until the parousia (second coming of Christ).

We may break down the data in the Synoptic Gospels regarding the “already/not yet” aspects concerning the kingdom of God in this manner: Mark, probably the first Gospel written, records Jesus’ programmatic statement in 1:15: “The time has come. . . . The kingdom of God has come near.” Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, then goes on to demonstrate that Jesus’ miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection inaugurated the kingdom of God. Yet it is also clear from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that the final manifestation of the kingdom has not yet happened. We may draw on Luke as representative of all three Synoptics. Luke’s Gospel indicates that the kingdom was present for Jesus (Luke 7:28; 8:10; 10:9–11; 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21), but it also awaited the second coming for its completion (6:20–26; 11:2; 12:49–50, 51–53; 13:24–30; 21:25–29; 22:15–18, 30). The same dual aspect of the kingdom pertains to Luke’s second volume, Acts. The kingdom was present in Jesus’ ministry and now through his disciples (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23–31), but it will not be completed until Christ comes again (1:6; 14:22).

The Gospel of John

John’s Gospel has only three references to the kingdom of God. Nicodemus was told by Jesus that he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom of God (3:3–5). Yet Jesus’ kingdom is not worldly in nature, but spiritual (18:36). Although the Gospel of John contains both the present (“already”) aspect and the future (“not yet”) aspect, the focus is clearly on the present. This is why many scholars label the Fourth Gospel the “Gospel of Realized Eschatology.” This emphasis on the “already” can be seen in John in the following ways: (1) Eternal life, or entrance into the kingdom of God, can be a present possession (3:5–6, 36; 6:47, 51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:24–26). (2) The eschatological promise of sonship is granted to the believer in Jesus now (1:12–13; 3:3–8; 4:14). (3) The general resurrection has already begun (5:25). (4) The Spirit, the gift of the end time, currently indwells believers (7:37–39; 14:15–31; 15:26–27; 16:5–16; 20:22–23). (5) Final judgment is determined by one’s present response to Jesus (3:19; 5:22–24, 27, 30–38; 9:38; 12:31–33). (6) The spirit of antichrist has already entered the world scene to oppose Christ (6:70; 13:2, 27). (7) Jesus’ death on the cross seems to absorb some elements of the messianic woes or aspects of tribulation. In other words, Jesus’ passion was where the end-time holy war was waged, and his death and resurrection began the end of the forces of evil (15:18–16:11).

On the other hand, the Gospel of John also includes some typical future (“not yet”) aspects of eschatology. For example, the future resurrection is still expected (5:26–30). Likewise, the future second coming of Christ is alluded to (14:1–4; 21:22). Admittedly, however, the “already” aspect of the kingdom of God seems to overshadow the “not yet” perspective in the Fourth Gospel.

Pauline Literature

The phrase “kingdom of God” and/or “kingdom of Christ” occurs twelve times in Paul’s writings.

Rom. 14:17 – kingdom of God (present tense)

1 Cor. 4:20 – kingdom of God (present tense)

1 Cor. 6:9-10 – kingdom of God (2x) (future tense)

1 Cor. 15:24 – kingdom of Christ/God (present/future tense)

1 Cor. 15:50 – kingdom of God (future tense)

Gal. 5:21 – kingdom of God (future tense)

Eph. 5:5 – kingdom of Christ/God (future tense)

Col. 1:13 – kingdom of the Son (present tense)

Col. 4:11 – kingdom of God (present tense)

1 Thess. 2:12 – his [God’s] kingdom (future tense)

2 Thess. 1:5 – kingdom of God (future tense)

Three observations emerge from the chart: (1) The kingdom of Christ/God is both present and future, already here and not yet complete. This is consistent with the Gospels and Acts. (2) Christ and God are, in at least two instances, interchanged, suggesting equality of status between them (cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10). (3) In 1 Cor. 15:24 we find the most precise description of the exact relationship between the kingdoms of Christ and God: the interim messianic kingdom begun at the resurrection of Christ will one day give way to the eternal kingdom of God. Such a temporary kingdom is attested to in apocalyptic Judaism and may underlie Rev. 20:1–6.

Christians therefore live in between the two ages, in the messianic kingdom.

Hebrews and the General Epistles

Hebrews and the General Epistles continue the theme of the “already/not yet” aspects of the kingdom.

Hebrews. The following ideas associated in Second Temple Judaism with the arrival of God’s kingdom are seen by the author of Hebrews to have been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ: (1) the appearance of the Messiah of the last days indicates the dawning of the kingdom of God (1:2; 9:9–10); (2) the great tribulation/messianic woes that were expected to occur in connection with the advent of the Messiah are now here (2:5–18; cf. 5:8–9; 7:27–28; 10:12; 12:2); (3) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit has happened (6:4–5); (4) the manifestation of the eschatological high priest at the end of history has taken place in Jesus (7:26–28), who has also established the new covenant of the last days (8:6–13). Compare the preceding statements in Hebrews with that author’s explicit mention of the presence of the kingdom of God in 12:18–28. And yet the kingdom of God is not yet fully here. The church continues to suffer the messianic woes, as is evidenced in the intermingling of Jesus’ suffering of the great tribulation with the present afflictions of the Christian (2:5–18; 3:7–4:6; 5:7–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:1–2; 13:11–16). Furthermore, the exhortations to persevere in the faith that punctuate the book of Hebrews (2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) are a familiar theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

The General Epistles. The main message of James is that the last days are here (1:2; 5:3) and with it the messianic woes (1:2–12; 5:1–12). Therefore, believers will need to faithfully endure the great tribulation until the second coming of Christ. But there are two indications that James also teaches that the kingdom of God has dawned in the midst of the great tribulation. First, Christians experience even now the eschatological quality of joy (James 1:2–3; cf. Joel 2:21–27). Second, Christians also share in the end-time gift of wisdom (James 1:5–8).

First Peter is similar to James with regard to its inaugurated eschatology. Thus, the church suffers the messianic woes/great tribulation (1 Pet. 1:6, 11; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 5:1–9). Nevertheless, the age to come/kingdom of God has broken into the midst of this age, as evidenced by the eschatological joy and God’s protective power that it brings (1:5–6).

Second Peter does seem to stress the “not yet” aspect of the kingdom of God. Thus, the kingdom of God still waits to be entered (1:11), is hindered by end-time apostasy (2 Pet. 2), and has been postponed (3:1–10). Yet the “already” aspect of the kingdom is not entirely absent. This is evidenced by the fact that the transfiguration of Christ on the mountain was a display of the coming power and glory of the age to come, a glory revealed to the disciples on the mountain and now communicated to all believers (1:16–19).

Jude is devoted to alerting Christians to the reality that they are in the midst of the end-time holy war (vv. 3, 20–23), as can be seen by their struggle with the false teaching of end-time apostasy (vv. 5–19). Nevertheless, because believers possess the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, they will prevail to fully enter the kingdom of God (v. 20).

The Letters of John attest to the overlapping of the two ages—that is, inaugurated eschatology. Thus, on the one hand, the spirit of antichrist is here (1 John 2:18; 2 John 7), along with the false teaching that it breeds (1 John 2:20–29; cf. 2–3 John); but on the other hand, the Johannine community has the end-time anointing of the Holy Spirit, which preserves believers from evil and deception (1 John 2:20–21; 3:1–10). Moreover, Christians presently have eternal life through Christ, one of the blessings of the kingdom of God (1 John 5:11–13).

Revelation

The “already/not yet” aspects of the kingdom of God are manifested in Revelation in the following way: the kingdom of God has already dawned in heaven, but it has not yet appeared on earth. Regarding the former, it is clear from 1:9; 5:1–14; 12:1–6 that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated the advent of the kingdom of God in heaven. Thus, Jesus obediently underwent the messianic woes on the cross and was then raised to heavenly glory, triumphant over the great tribulation. There in heaven, Christ reigns as the invisible Lord over all (including Caesar). But that the kingdom of God has not yet descended to earth is clear in Revelation from two present realities. First, even though Jesus has endured the great tribulation/messianic woes, his followers continue to face many trials (chaps. 6–18). There is no deliverance for them from such affliction until the return of Christ in glory (chap. 19). The only possible exception to this is the divine protection of the 144,000 (chaps. 7; 14). Second, the kingdom of God has not appeared on earth; that event awaits the parousia (chap. 20 [assuming that the premillennial interpretation of that chapter is the most viable reading]). In all of this, it seems that the messianic woes/great tribulation are the divine means for purging the earth in preparation for the future arrival of the temporal, messianic kingdom (chap. 20). After Christ’s one-thousand-year reign on earth, this temporal messianic kingdom will give way to the eternal kingdom of God and its new earth and new heaven (chaps. 21–22). It must be acknowledged, however, that interpretations of chapters 20–22 greatly vary, depending on whether one takes a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial perspective.

Conclusion

The preceding data thus seem to confirm that the most apt description of the relationship between the two ages and the kingdom of God that informs the NT is inaugurated eschatology: with the first coming of Christ, the kingdom of God/the age to come dawned, but it will not be until the second coming of Christ that the age to come/kingdom of God will be complete. The church therefore lives in between the times. That is to say, the age to come has broken into this present age, and it is only through the eye of faith that one can now perceive the presence of the kingdom of God.

Old Testament

The Hebrew word for “Lord,” yhwh (usually pronounced “Yahweh”), occurs more than 6,800 times in the OT and is in every book except Ecclesiastes and Esther. “Yahweh” is God’s personal name and is revealed as such in Exod. 3:13–14. God tells Moses to declare to the Israelites in Egypt, “I am has sent me to you” (3:14). The Hebrew behind “I am” connotes active being; the Lord is the one who is there for his people and, in the book of Exodus, does so through miraculous events (14:13–14). This demonstrates the close association between one’s name and one’s character in the ancient world. Yahweh is one who is with his people (Exod. 3:12; 6:2, 4; Isa. 26:4). Although the divine name is used before the exodus (Gen. 12:1; 15:1), it is not until the time of Moses that God reveals its redemptive significance. Nonetheless, the divine name is used in Genesis in contexts where the immanence of God is evident. In Gen. 3:8 “the Lord God . . . was walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Further, the Lord makes a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12; 15; 17), and the Lord will remain faithful to his covenants for a thousand generations (Deut. 7:9). Later in Israel’s history, Micah, in the face of those who worship other gods, reassures the people of Israel that Yahweh is distinct from all others, and that they will walk in his name because he will one day act to effect justice for all (Mic. 4:3–5).

The divine name also occurs as a form of address in various prayers throughout the OT (Gen. 15:2, 8; Exod. 5:22; 2 Sam. 7:18; 2 Kings 6:17), most notably in the psalms, where it occurs over two hundred times. In the psalms an abbreviated form of the name is often seen in an exclamation of praise, hallelu yah, “praise Yah[weh]” (e.g., Pss. 149:1; 150:1).

It is interesting to note the origin of the pronunciation of yhwh as “Jehovah.” To avoid breaking the third commandment, against misusing the name of God, pious Jews did not pronounce the divine name yhwh, substituting the word ’adonay (“my master”) in its place. In medieval times Jewish scholars added vowels to the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible to aid in correct pronunciation. For yhwh, they used the vowels of ’adonay, which, when pronounced, creates a name unknown to the biblical authors, “Jehovah.”

In the postexilic period the appellation “Yahweh” occurs far less frequently, being replaced by adonay (Hebrew) or kyrios (Greek). The latter is used for Yahweh over six thousand times in the LXX. In Hellenistic literature kyrios is used to describe various gods and goddesses. The Roman emperors were also called kyrios, often with implications of deity. Some argue that the early Christians employed the title polemically to refer to Christ, the true kyrios. A clear example is found in Phil. 2:11, where it is said that every tongue will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5–8). Kyrios was also used nonreligiously to refer to a “master” of a slave and as a term of respect to address someone of superior status (“sir”). Peter addresses Jesus as “lord” when he washes Peter’s feet (John 13:6).

New Testament

In the NT, the majority of occurrences of “Lord” (kyrios) appear in Luke-Acts and the writings of Paul, perhaps due to the predominantly Hellenistic audiences of these texts, who would know well its Greco-Roman connotations. As for Paul, the use of “Lord” by Luke may point to the deity of Jesus. In the Lukan birth narrative, Elizabeth wonders why “the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43; cf. 7:19; 10:1). In Acts 1:21 the name “Jesus” is preceded by the definite form of “Lord,” reflecting an oft-repeated confessional title in Acts and Paul (Acts 15:11; 20:35; 2 Cor. 1:2). According to some, if Matthew intends a divine connotation by his use of the term “Lord,” it is more oblique. For instance, in Matt. 4:7 Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16, where “the Lord” is Yahweh and not Jesus (cf. Matt. 9:38). There are occasions in Mark where “lord,” although appearing to function in a nonreligious sense, does seem to point to Yahweh. In Mark 2:28 Jesus claims that “the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath” (NRSV). Since the Sabbath belongs to Yahweh and falls under his sovereign authority (Exod. 20:8–11), it is quite probable that Mark’s readers would now ascribe that dominion to the Son of Man. This is not unlike his authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), which, as the scribes rightfully point out, is something that only Yahweh can do. In light of these usages, one cannot help but think that the use of the term in Mark 11:3, at the triumphal entry, also carries divine significance. In John, there are examples of both the nonreligious use of “lord,” as a reverent form of address (5:7; 9:36), and the religious, divine sense, particularly after the resurrection (20:28; 21:7).

It is quite likely that Jewish Christians, even before Paul, regarded Jesus as one who shares in Yahweh’s divinity. In his letter to the Corinthians, a Greek-speaking congregation, Paul uses the expression marana tha (1 Cor. 16:22), a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic phrase that means “Our Lord, come!” This term likely was a part of an early Jewish Christian liturgy. Further, there are places where Paul refers to Jesus simply as “the Lord,” suggesting a common understanding of the appellation among the early Christians (Rom. 14:6; 1 Cor. 3:5). In addition to Phil. 2:11, Paul expresses the divinity of Jesus by alluding to Deut. 6:4, the Shema, in 1 Cor. 8:6: “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” In the book of Revelation divine status is ascribed to Jesus. While in the vision of God in Rev. 4 the title is used of God (4:8, 11), at the conclusion of the book appears the invocation “Come, Lord Jesus” (22:20; cf. 22:21).

For Paul, a particularly important component of the lordship of Jesus is his resurrection, through which he becomes “the Lord of both the dead and the living” (Rom. 14:9; cf. 1:4), and his return marks the “day of the Lord,” which in the OT was the day of Yahweh (1 Thess. 5:2; cf. 5:23). Exactly how Jewish Christians could attribute such a status to Jesus and yet maintain a strict monotheism remains a matter of considerable debate. Is Christ included in the identity of the Godhead, or is he an intermediary figure (of which Second Temple Judaism had many), possessing a quasi-divine status? If Jesus is an intermediary figure, then his authority to do that which only Yahweh can (such as forgiving sins and fulfilling roles originally referring to God) suggests a very close identification between Yahweh and Jesus himself. See also Names of God; YHWH.

Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this day belongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. The term itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions how he was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” when Christ commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10). There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture about the identification of this day or how it was observed. Our understanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages of Scripture touches on three separate issues.

A special day. First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in a special way? At least some believers throughout history have believed that it is possible to observe every day of the week as equally special in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paul regards the observance of special days for worship as an area of Christian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The same principle is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “the Lord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during the week when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.

A specific day. Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way? When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear: it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both the idea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day are based ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. This Sabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicate that the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and their animals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews in the present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-Day Adventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OT evidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day for worship.

Nevertheless, most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the early church to gather together for worship on the first day of the week. Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. In Acts 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supper specifically “on the first day of the week,” and in 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect an offering specifically “on the first day of every week” (presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christians have concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16), and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “on the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).

A sacred day. Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and others throughout church history have considered Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day of the week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age, but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for the Sabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, most Christians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,” when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OT ceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working. Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering together on a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolved around various annual feasts and festivals when people would gather together at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year. The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during the Babylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue. Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer a transposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, and consequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).

In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb “to associate with.” This is an important connection because relationships of various kinds are central to the issue of neighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend (2 Sam. 13:3), a rival (1 Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1), or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentially defines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethical responsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29). Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technical meaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite” (= “brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literature prohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) as well as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife (Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor are prohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negative stipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 are climactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically. Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev. 19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even the resident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev. 19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).

When the NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that is routinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotes Lev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt. 19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more important than conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor was anyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” in purely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits of one’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism, denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in” or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expand social, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality of relationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NT now prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).

Either a sin or wrongdoing (often in the NIV) or a cause of stumbling (usually in other versions). In the first category, sometimes “offense” and “sin” translate similar Hebrew words (Job 10:14; 13:23; Ps. 59:3). Those who break the law commit an offense (Deut. 19:15; 21:22; Acts 25:8), but the term can have a more relational sense (1 Sam. 25:28; Prov. 17:9; 19:11). In the second category are those offenses that “trip people up” by offending them; such offenses are often not intrinsically wrong. Thus, Jesus and his teaching were an offense (e.g., Matt. 13:57; 1 Pet. 2:8), and Christians can offend weaker brothers and sisters by engaging in activities that are allowed within Christian liberty (Rom. 14:20; 1 Cor. 10:32).

The male head of a family. The OT describes the Israelite nation as an extended family descended from a line of common ancestors, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called “Israel” [see Gen. 32:28]). Each of Jacob’s sons (or his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh) traditionally gave his name to one of the tribes that made up the Israelite people. The NT applies the term “patriarch” to individuals of the generations from Abraham (Heb. 7:4) to his twelve great-grandsons (Acts 7:8) and, in one case, to the tenth-century king David (Acts 2:29). In the OT the term “patriarch” is not used, though the concept of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as national fathers is frequently expressed, as in Exod. 3:15, which refers to Israel’s God as “the Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

The Bible regards the patriarchs as the original recipients of God’s promises, as in Deut. 6:10, which speaks of “the land [God] swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you.” Similarly, Rom. 15:8 speaks of the patriarchs as the recipients of God’s promises. The reference to David as a patriarch in Acts 2:29 also has in view his role as the recipient of a divine promise. The terminology of national fatherhood is applied particularly to the unnamed ancestors of the generation of the exodus (Josh. 24:6; 1 Kings 8:21) and to the line of Judahite and Israelite kings, as in 2 Chron. 25:28, where Amaziah is said to have been buried “with his fathers” (ESV, NASB) (i.e., his royal predecessors) in Jerusalem. In fact, the deaths of several kings are described as going to rest “with his fathers” (cf. Luke 16:22, where Lazarus is taken to Abraham when he dies).

The patriarchs are most significant in the Bible for explaining Israelite national origins (descent from the patriarchs), the Israelite position in the land of Canaan (the land promised to the patriarchs), the origins of Israelite religion (“the God of the fathers”), and the nature of death (going to be with the fathers).

The Patriarchs and History

The implied chronology of the Bible places Abraham in the mid-second millennium BC, in the Middle Bronze Age. A more precise date depends on the controversial matter of dating the exodus from Egypt. The traditional date of the exodus in the fifteenth century BC places the patriarchs in the final centuries of the third millennium BC, based on the tabulation of life spans reported in the Bible and anchored to the date of Solomon’s temple given in 1 Kings 6:1. One recent calculation dates the birth of Abraham to 2166 BC. A low date for the exodus (in the thirteenth century BC) in turn lowers the date of Abraham. Because they pertain to the story of a single family, it is difficult to date the patriarchal stories based on extrabiblical historical records and archaeological findings. When Abraham and his descendants interact with figures of international prominence, they are either unnamed (the unnamed pharaohs of Egypt), have generic royal names (Abimelek), or are otherwise unknown in extrabiblical historical records (the many kings named in Gen. 14:1–2). In contrast, the biblical history of the monarchic period of Israel and Judah names several Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings known from securely dated inscriptions.

In light of this methodological difficulty, some have examined the cultural world of the patriarchal narratives and attempted to correlate customs attested in the stories to those known from datable external sources. In particular, proponents of this approach have sought connections between the customs pertaining to marriage and family depicted in the Nuzi tablets (fifteenth century BC), thought to reflect earlier customs on the basis of their similarities to texts found at Mari (eighteenth century BC). Certain behaviors of the patriarchs, including their use of cultic practices known to have been condemned in first-millennium BC biblical texts, suggest that the patriarchal narratives are an authentic reflection of the early second millennium BC. On the other hand, the patriarchal narratives contain some information inconsistent with an early-second-millennium date, notably the presence of Philistines (Gen. 21:22–34), who did not appear in the region until the twelfth century BC. The cultural history of the patriarchal narratives remains disputed.

The Importance of the Patriarchs

Apart from the historical questions treated above, one thing is clear: for Israelites of the first millennium BC who wrote, edited, and read the book of Genesis, the patriarchs held great interest and importance.

For the biblical authors, the God of Israel was the “God of the fathers,” and the Israelite religion was understood as a special relationship between God and the nation that began with the famous ancestors. The patriarchal stories explained other social “facts” observable in Iron Age Israel. The relationship between the Israelites and the Edomites alternated between peace and hostility. Linguistically, culturally, and geographically, the two peoples were closely connected, so it is not surprising that the biblical stories about Jacob (or Israel) and Esau (or Edom) show a brotherly relationship that mirrored the later regional rivalry of their descendants. Similar observations can be made regarding the Ishmaelites (descended from the brother of Isaac), the Moabites and the Ammonites (both descended from Abraham’s nephew Lot), and the Midianites (from Abraham through his wife Keturah). Other local groups, such as the Philistines, are not incorporated into the patriarchal extended family, accurately reflecting the origin of this population and its culture outside the land of Palestine. The patriarchal stories account for the founding of several important cultic sites. Thus, the patriarchal stories served to organize the social and geographical world of the Israelites, who cherished them as their national history.

Within Israel itself, the status and relationships of various tribes corresponded to the depiction of the eponymous patriarchal ancestors. The special prominence of the Levites, the Ju-dah-ites, and the Ephraimites is explained by stories focusing on the exploits of Levi, Judah, and Joseph (the father of Ephraim). The presentation of the tribes as coming from twelve brothers of four different mothers reflects the complex political parity and disparity of the “twelve tribes.” Apart from the twelve-tribe structure, other, less prominent Israelite groups are known from the Bible. “Makir” is a prominent group in Judg. 5:14 (one of the earliest biblical texts), where it is listed on an equal footing among the other tribes. In the usual twelve-tribe “patriarchal” depiction of Israel, however, Makir recedes in importance and is named as a son of Manasseh (a tribe not mentioned in the list of Judg. 5) in Gen. 50:23. Presumably, the two texts represent varying conceptions of which groups were most important in the Israelite society of their respective times. For the author of Judg. 5, Makir was one of the principal groups in Israel; for the author of Gen. 50:23, Makir was less important than Manasseh.

Outside Genesis, the names of Abraham and Isaac usually appear only in the formula “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The name of Jacob or Israel, in contrast, is regularly used to denote the people of Israel, as are the names of Jacob’s son Judah (for the southern part of the country) and his grandson Ephraim (for the northern part). The name of Isaac is used twice in Amos 7:9, 16 to refer to an apparently northern entity, the “high places of Isaac.”

The state of remaining faithful to God in light of the revelation given to persons at their particular stage of redemptive history. Perseverance has always required a continued trust in God, obedience to his commands, and reliance upon his merciful provision.

Old Testament. In the OT, perseverance is related to the covenantal relationship that God had with his people. Abraham was the quintessential model of perseverance, as he was faithful in waiting for God to provide him with the heir that had been promised him. Israel had to persevere by remaining faithful to its covenant with God, which meant being obedient to his commandments and decrees. In the subsequent history of Israel, however, the nation lacked perseverance and fidelity and often turned away from God to worship the gods of other nations. Indeed, the sweep of Israel’s history, according to the prophets, was that Israel had failed miserably at persevering in the covenantal promises and thus had incurred God’s judgment (e.g., Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:1–39; Dan. 9:4–19).

New Testament. In the Gospels, Jesus is the ultimate example of the faithful Israelite and also provides many exhortations about perseverance in light of the dawning kingdom of God. Jesus perseveres when tested by Satan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). The parables of growth warn about those who do not persevere in their reception of the word (e.g., Luke 8:15). Endurance under the duress of eschatological trials is also the means by which one gains one’s life (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:19). In his farewell speech in the Gospel of John, Jesus exhorts his disciples to abide in him as branches stay rooted in a vine or else risk being cut off (John 15:1–11).

In the course of his letters, Paul has much to say about persevering in faith in Christ. Paul considers “endurance” (hypomonē) to be among the cardinal qualities of a believer (Rom. 5:3–4; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:4; 8:25; 1 Tim. 6:11; Titus 2:2). There is a sense in which God himself gives endurance to the believer (Rom. 15:5; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 3:5). Paul offers some stern warnings about apostasy and falling away (Rom. 11:21–22; 1 Cor. 10:1–12; Gal. 5:4), but he also adds that Christians experience a sense of assurance because God is “faithful” and will keep believers “blameless” on the day of Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:8–9; Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Paul also writes that nothing in creation can separate a believer from the love of God in Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:31–39).

The General Epistles provide further teaching about perseverance. James commends the virtue of perseverance that leads to maturity (1:3–4) and urges his audience to endure just as Job endured sufferings (5:11). Jude writes that believers should endeavor to “keep yourselves in God’s love” while also acknowledging that God himself will “keep you from falling” (vv. 21, 24). The book of Hebrews is built around the theme of perseverance and endurance, with key statements about not “drift[ing] away” (2:1) and the exhortation to “run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (12:1).

The book of Revelation focuses strongly on persevering in light of persecution and hardship. In the letters to the seven churches there is the repeated promise of the blessings that await those who “overcome,” which means enduring in the faith (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. 21:7). The churches of Asia Minor corporately are admonished to remain faithful to the point of death (2:10) and in light of the coming judgment (14:12). Three times calls for patient endurance are made (1:9; 13:10; 14:12). In Revelation, perseverance means holding to the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4).

Summary. The biblical teaching on perseverance attempts to balance divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The warnings of apostasy and the promises of assurance are interwoven in such a way so as not to compromise the grace and justice of God.

The state of remaining faithful to God in light of the revelation given to persons at their particular stage of redemptive history. Perseverance has always required a continued trust in God, obedience to his commands, and reliance upon his merciful provision.

Old Testament. In the OT, perseverance is related to the covenantal relationship that God had with his people. Abraham was the quintessential model of perseverance, as he was faithful in waiting for God to provide him with the heir that had been promised him. Israel had to persevere by remaining faithful to its covenant with God, which meant being obedient to his commandments and decrees. In the subsequent history of Israel, however, the nation lacked perseverance and fidelity and often turned away from God to worship the gods of other nations. Indeed, the sweep of Israel’s history, according to the prophets, was that Israel had failed miserably at persevering in the covenantal promises and thus had incurred God’s judgment (e.g., Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:1–39; Dan. 9:4–19).

New Testament. In the Gospels, Jesus is the ultimate example of the faithful Israelite and also provides many exhortations about perseverance in light of the dawning kingdom of God. Jesus perseveres when tested by Satan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). The parables of growth warn about those who do not persevere in their reception of the word (e.g., Luke 8:15). Endurance under the duress of eschatological trials is also the means by which one gains one’s life (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:19). In his farewell speech in the Gospel of John, Jesus exhorts his disciples to abide in him as branches stay rooted in a vine or else risk being cut off (John 15:1–11).

In the course of his letters, Paul has much to say about persevering in faith in Christ. Paul considers “endurance” (hypomonē) to be among the cardinal qualities of a believer (Rom. 5:3–4; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:4; 8:25; 1 Tim. 6:11; Titus 2:2). There is a sense in which God himself gives endurance to the believer (Rom. 15:5; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 3:5). Paul offers some stern warnings about apostasy and falling away (Rom. 11:21–22; 1 Cor. 10:1–12; Gal. 5:4), but he also adds that Christians experience a sense of assurance because God is “faithful” and will keep believers “blameless” on the day of Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:8–9; Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Paul also writes that nothing in creation can separate a believer from the love of God in Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:31–39).

The General Epistles provide further teaching about perseverance. James commends the virtue of perseverance that leads to maturity (1:3–4) and urges his audience to endure just as Job endured sufferings (5:11). Jude writes that believers should endeavor to “keep yourselves in God’s love” while also acknowledging that God himself will “keep you from falling” (vv. 21, 24). The book of Hebrews is built around the theme of perseverance and endurance, with key statements about not “drift[ing] away” (2:1) and the exhortation to “run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (12:1).

The book of Revelation focuses strongly on persevering in light of persecution and hardship. In the letters to the seven churches there is the repeated promise of the blessings that await those who “overcome,” which means enduring in the faith (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. 21:7). The churches of Asia Minor corporately are admonished to remain faithful to the point of death (2:10) and in light of the coming judgment (14:12). Three times calls for patient endurance are made (1:9; 13:10; 14:12). In Revelation, perseverance means holding to the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4).

Summary. The biblical teaching on perseverance attempts to balance divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The warnings of apostasy and the promises of assurance are interwoven in such a way so as not to compromise the grace and justice of God.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

It is hard to offer a simple definition of praise because multiple words are used in the Bible to describe praise and its many different forms. The physical aspects of praise include bowing (1 Chron. 29:20), kneeling (Ps. 95:6), singing (Ps. 96:2), being quiet (Ps. 131:2), making noise (Luke 19:37), opening hands (1 Kings 8:54), lifting hands (Ps. 134:2), meditating (Ps. 145:5), exulting (Ps. 21:13), and living an obedient life before God (Rom. 15:7). The emotive aspects of praise include adoration (Ps. 9:1), prayer (Ps. 66:20), thanksgiving (Ps. 69:30), and joy (Ps. 71:23). Furthermore, praise can be given in any location and at any time. Finally, God is to be praised because of his creation, his good works, his love, and the life, death, and resurrection of his Son.

Generally, praise acknowledges and thanks God for all the good things in life. The Bible is full of examples of such praise; best known are the numerous psalms of praise in the Psalter. The Hebrew expression hallelu yah literally means “praise the Lord” and is used in both Testaments (Gk. hallēlouia). In the OT, God is portrayed as jealous for the praise of his people (Isa. 42:8); God is supposed to be the only object of praise. Conversely, Jesus cautions his followers to seek praise from God rather than from other humans (Matt. 6:1–4).

Not only are humans to be active in giving praise to God, but also all creation, including the sun, the moon, and the stars (Pss. 19:1–3; 148), takes part. The final psalm in the Psalter encourages “everything that has breath [to] praise the Lord” (Ps. 150:6). Throughout the OT praise was an important part of the tabernacle and temple worship, with specific people being assigned the duty of making music and singing praises to God (1 Chron. 6:31–32). Moses and Miriam broke into spontaneous praise after the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea and seen the Egyptians drowned (Exod. 15:1–21). David praised God not only in words but also in dance (2 Sam. 6:14). The angels praised God during the announcement of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:13). Both James and Peter encouraged Christians to praise God in spite of their external circumstances (James 5:13; 1 Pet. 4:16). Revelation records the praising of God forever as one of the final eschatological events (19:1–10).

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word “tongue” has several senses in both Testaments. In the OT, lashon refers to the physical organ (Judg. 7:5; Job 20:12; 41:1), the physical tongue that creates speech (2 Sam. 23:2; Job 6:30), and the physical organ in reference to individuals as they profess before God (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11).

The word “tongue” frequently refers to language (Gen. 10:5; Neh. 13:24; Isa. 28:11; cf. 1 Cor. 14:21). Related to this, the word refers to speech as deceitful (Ps. 52:2), as speaking strife (31:20 KJV, RSV), or as that which praises God (35:28). The tongue sings (Ps. 51:14) and extols (66:17).

The tongue is able to produce very powerful speech that can bring life and death (Prov. 18:21). To guard one’s speech is to be trouble-free (21:23). Soft and forbearing speech is persuasive and wins the day rather than aggravates (25:15). Flattering speech seems favorable but will be disregarded in the end (28:23).

The speech of God is a consuming fire (Isa. 30:27). The mute will have speech when all things are set right in the eschaton (35:6).

In the OT, the word “tongue” is used in parallel with several other words. The physical organ is parallel to lips (Ps. 12:4), mouth (Job 33:2; Pss. 10:7; 50:19), or throat (Ps. 5:9, where the tongue is the source of flattery).

A similar Hebrew word, sapah, has several senses, among them “lip” (and so also often of the edge or shore of a body of water), and can refer to the language produced by lips. It is sometimes placed in parallel with lashon (Ps. 12:4).

In the NT, the word glōssa refers to the physical organ (Mark 7:33–35) and language (Acts 2:11; 1 Cor. 14:21 [heteroglōssos]) and can refer to the miraculous gift of languages (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12–14). Luke also uses the word in the unusual description of the gift of languages coming on the disciples—tongues of fire resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3).

Finally, James, writing in the style of OT wisdom literature, notes that an uncontrolled tongue—unbridled speech—is not indicative of the people of God (James 1:26–27) and is ultimately destructive (3:5–10). See also Speech Impediment.

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith and the Church

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

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

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

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

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

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith and the Church

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

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

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

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

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

The books of Samuel tell the story of how kingship began in Israel and was subsequently secured under David. Almost all of David’s own story is recounted in Samuel, including God’s promise to him of a dynasty. This promise became a key seedbed for the messianic hope within the OT, which finds its fulfillment in Jesus as David’s son (Matt. 1:1).

Genre and Purpose

Samuel is part of a block of texts running from Joshua through Kings (excluding Ruth), which is known in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets. This block offers a more or less continuous account of Israel’s life in the land of promise from its entry under Joshua until the exile after Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25). Any assessment of the genre and purpose of Samuel must consider its relationship to these surrounding texts, though it should also recognize the distinctive elements of Samuel itself.

At its simplest, Samuel is a work of narrative prose that tells how kingship began in Israel and was secured under David after the failure of Saul, though it also contains a number of important poems. Although contemporary history writing would not be done in the same way, since Samuel points to the ways in which God is active throughout this time, Samuel certainly offers a testimony to this crucial period in Israel’s history. It is not the whole story of the period, as its testimony is concerned with a specific set of issues, and that testimony is related through God’s purposes for Samuel, Saul, and David. But this observation is vital for appreciating that Samuel is not just the story of how kingship came to Israel but is specifically a theological examination of it. It explores how God was at work, fulfilling the hope for kingship that had been expressed through Judg. 17–21, while also providing hope that the exile was not the end of his purposes for Israel as a whole and the kings of David’s line in particular. We should not think of this as a dry piece of history writing, for an important element is also that the telling of this story should entertain and grip those who either read or (perhaps more likely) heard it. Knowing that God had acted in the past for his people and that these actions continued to be important was not enough; the excitement that this should generate also needed to be apparent in the skill with which the story was told.

Outline

I. The Rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1–7)

II. The Birth of Monarchy (1 Sam. 8–12)

III. Saul’s Early Reign and Rejection (1 Sam. 13–15)

IV. Long Rivalry Narrative: David and Saul (1 Sam.16–2 Sam. 1)

A. David’s anointing and arrival at court (1 Sam. 16–17)

B. David within Saul’s court (1 Sam. 18–20)

C. David as an outlaw in Judah (1 Sam. 21–26)

D. David in Philistine territory and Saul’s death (1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1)

V. Short Rivalry Narrative: David and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:1–5:5)

VI. First Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 5:6–8:18)

VII. Narrative of David’s Court (2 Sam. 9–20)

A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9)

B. The war with Ammon and David’s sin (2 Sam. 10–12)

C. Long rebellion narrative: Absalom against David (2 Sam. 13–19)

D. Short rebellion narrative: Sheba against David (2 Sam. 20)

VIII. Second Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 21–24)

Composition

Authorship and sources. The books of Samuel are anonymous, and any assessment of their authorship needs to start with this basic fact. There is a tradition in the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b; 15a) that associates the book with Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, presumably concluding that the books of Samuel constitute the source mentioned by 1 Chron. 29:29. But this reference is only to information on David’s life and thus is unlikely to refer to the whole of Samuel. Since Samuel’s own death is recorded in 1 Sam. 25:1, the book’s title in our tradition (in the LXX the books of Samuel are the first two books of Kingdoms, which continue into Kings) is unlikely to refer to authorship. Rather, it is more likely that a later author has drawn together a range of source materials in order to offer a coherent testimony about the origins of kingship.

For some time, the main sources behind Samuel seemed to have been identified, and they included a series of Shiloh traditions concerning the end of the house of Eli and the rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1–4:1a), an ark narrative (2 Sam. 4:1b–7:1; 6), traditions concerning Saul and the origins of kingship (1 Sam. 7:2–15:35), a history of David’s rise (1 Sam. 16:1–2 Sam. 5:5), a succession narrative (2 Sam. 9–20), and a Samuel appendix (2 Sam. 21–24). Within this analysis, the place of 2 Sam. 5:6–25 and 2 Sam. 7:1–8:17 remained unclear, but the general thought was that the sources were more or less placed one after the other in their chronological sequence. But the probability of this conclusion has been challenged in recent times because the various sections of the books are clearly aware of information in other parts, so that the whole is actually well integrated. In addition, the actual boundaries of the sources remained unclear. An unfortunate effect of the source theories is that they tended to downplay some parts of the book, especially 2 Sam. 21–24, as being of less importance, whereas some recent studies have shown that they are closely integrated into the rest of the book, tying together themes developed elsewhere while also showing the structural integrity of the whole of Samuel.

Samuel is likely the end product of several stages of material collected together, rather than being the product of sources that are kept intact, but it is still a unified work. Possibly the oldest material is the collection of longer poems in 1 Sam. 2:1–10; 2 Sam. 1:17–27; 22:1–23:7, all of which draws on common themes and language and comments on the nature of kingship. The opening and closing blocks form the bookends, raising the hope of kingship (1 Sam. 2:1–10) and then commenting on how the king must submit to God’s reign (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7). In the central poem (2 Sam. 1:17–27) David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. It is likely that these poems were joined with the stories about Samuel, Saul, and David in the ninth century BC but were then carefully placed to comment on the stories and yet also be commented on by them. Further editing may have continued until the time of Hezekiah in the late eighth century BC. Later on, more or less the whole of Samuel as we know it was included in the Former Prophets, perhaps during the exile. The important point to note here is that Samuel is a carefully composed whole and not simply a collection of source materials.

Literary devices. Evidence for the nature of the book’s composition can be seen in how it employs certain literary devices throughout. Two that are worth noting are the way the text plays with narrative chronology and employs repetition in various forms. The play with narrative chronology means that although the movement of the book is broadly chronological (moving from the origins of the monarchy to the latter period of David’s reign), not every element is recorded in its actual chronological sequence, since at some points other factors were more important. Alternatively, at some points different narrative strands are brought into a chronological relationship with one another, most notably in comparing the locations of David and Saul in 1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1. A simple example of relating material outside its chronological sequence occurs in 1 Sam. 26:12, where it is said that God had caused Saul’s soldiers to sleep so that David could enter Saul’s camp only after David had reached Saul, though clearly the soldiers must already have been asleep.

At other points, the breaks with chronological sequence cover different stories about David. For example, in 2 Sam. 5:17–8:14 there are four accounts about David, two in which he overcomes enemies (5:17–25; 8:1–14) and two associated with events in Jerusalem and public worship (6:1–7:29). Since 7:1 tells us that David’s desire to build a temple came after God had delivered him from all his enemies, it follows that the events of chapter 7 must have come after those of 8:1–14. Here, arranging the material to highlight the theme of public worship was more important than placing it in chronological sequence.

This same section also demonstrates the use of repetition. Hence, 5:17–25 recounts two nearly identical defeats of the Philistines in which David must trust God, while the victories in 8:1–14 are twice said to come about because God gave David victory wherever he went (8:6, 14). Similarly, both 6:1–23 and 7:1–29 depend upon interest in the ark and thus mutually interpret each other. Other large-scale repetitions include two announcements of the coming of kingship (1 Sam. 2:10, 34), two announcements of the end of Eli and his family in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:10–14), and two times when David does not kill Saul (1 Sam. 24; 26). In an oral culture, such repetitions are not evidence of poor composition but rather are a crucial tool for emphasizing the central themes being developed. In addition, variations within each repetition are a tool for increasing the audience’s interest, showing that the authors of Samuel were interested in both giving historical testimony and entertaining their audience.

Text

It is generally agreed that the text of Samuel poses more than its fair share of difficulties, something that can be seen in the often significant differences between the received Hebrew text (MT) and the early translations, especially the main Greek translation (LXX). For example, in 1 Sam. 17 the best-regarded edition of the LXX lacks vv. 12–31, 50, 55–58, and even in shared material it is sometimes significantly shorter. It is generally agreed that the Greek version resolves a number of anomalies, but is this because the MT has been expanded or because the LXX has been abbreviated? In addition, three significant Samuel manuscripts were found at Qumran. Although two of these are only fragmentary, one covers significant portions of Samuel. Although the disputed portions of 1 Sam. 17 are absent from it, there are some points where it appears to support the LXX and others where it agrees with the MT while also introducing some other issues of its own.

It is clear, therefore, that complex issues are involved in determining the text of Samuel, and one must avoid taking a doctrinaire position and allow each point to be resolved on its own merits. At the same time, the difficulties should not be magnified beyond reason, since large sections of the text can be established with reasonable certainty, and for all the problems, the MT remains a reliable guide. One might suggest in the case of 1 Sam. 17, for example, that the LXX text represents an early attempt to address apparent difficulties in the narrative (especially the question of when Saul met David) that nevertheless failed to realize that not everything in Samuel is narrated in exact chronological order. Nevertheless, anyone who compares different translations of Samuel (e.g., NIV and NRSV) will notice variants and should make use of good commentaries at that point.

Central Themes

The reign of God. Kingship lies at the heart of Samuel. But although it is concerned with the story of Israel’s first two kings (Abimelek in Judg. 9 is an aberration and probably only a local figure), it places their story within the framework of God’s reign. No matter what authority a king in Israel might claim, it was always subject to God’s greater authority. Indeed, Samuel makes clear that God did not need a king but rather chose the monarchy as the means by which his own reign might be demonstrated.

An important way in which God’s reign is demonstrated is through the motif of the reversal of fortunes, in which the powerful are brought down and the weak raised. This is announced in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:4–8) and is then demonstrated when God removed the corrupt family of Eli from their position of power in the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:27–36; 4:1–18). On the other hand, Samuel himself came to prominence even though he had no position of power. Saul, likewise, although a member of a relatively wealthy family (9:1–2), knew that he was not someone who had automatic power (9:21) but still was raised up to be king by God. Yet when he, like Eli before him, became corrupt and clung to power rather than submit to God, he too was removed so that he could be replaced (15:28–29).

David also came from a humble position as the youngest son in his family (1 Sam. 16:11), but unlike Eli and Saul, he would not grasp power for himself. Indeed, he twice refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (1 Sam. 24; 26) and punished those who claimed that they could exercise violence on his behalf (2 Sam. 1:11–16; 4:9–12). Even when it seemed that David had later lost all to Absalom, he held to the fact that he could reign only as long as he had God’s support (2 Sam. 15:25–26). This, in fact, is a central theme in 2 Sam. 7 when David wanted to build a temple for God, for there it is made clear that David cannot act without God’s authority, and that his descendants will have authority as long as they too submit to God (2 Sam. 7:11b–15). David’s closing songs (22:1–23:7) make clear that the king has no authority apart from God.

Kingship. Kingship in Israel is closely related to the theme of God’s reign. The possibility of kingship first arises in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:10) and is confirmed by the man of God who announces the judgment against Eli’s family (2:34). Both references occur before Israel’s elders requested a king because of the failure of Samuel’s sons (8:1–9), indicating that the request for a king did not take God by surprise. In addition, it indicates that authentic kingship in Israel could only be that which was initiated by God.

The story of Saul’s rise to the throne needs to be read in light of this. Although the human move to kingship stemmed from the request of the elders for a king (1 Sam. 8:4–9), it was still the case that Saul could become king only because of God’s decision. Although 1 Sam. 8–12 often has been broken down into supposedly conflicting sources, it is better to read it as a unified text but to note that the narrator’s voice is not equivalent to any of the characters that speak through it. When the text is understood in this way, it is possible to appreciate that kingship was part of God’s purposes for Israel, but it needed to follow his model. Kings in Israel could prosper only when they submitted to the greater reign of God. It was Saul’s mistake that he did not recognize this. David, although he made some terrible mistakes, always understood this truth, and his closing songs (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7) reflect on it. David learned what Saul never did: power is never something to be grasped; rather, it can only be accepted as a gracious gift from God to be used for his purposes.

New Testament Connections

The importance of the books of Samuel for the NT is far greater than its five direct citations there (Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:9; 2 Cor. 6:18 [2×]; Heb. 1:5) might indicate. The theme of kingship and the associated promise to David in 2 Sam. 7 are fundamental to the messianic hope throughout the OT and are picked up in the NT. Even when the NT cites other OT texts (such as Ps. 2) with reference to Jesus, it is still the books of Samuel that lie behind the citation. In addition, the NT frequently indicates that Jesus was a son of David (e.g., Matt. 1:1). Although such texts do not cite Samuel directly, they clearly allude to it because of God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Jesus’ ministry transcends that of David in every way, but we cannot understand his ministry apart from David and God’s promise to him.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

The burning of the body of a deceased person as a final act of disposition of the body. Christians today are confronted with the question of whether the body of a loved one should be buried or cremated. Scripture reveals three basic principles: (1) the Bible does not use the word “cremation” or directly address this as a practice, so it would be improper to conclude that cremation is a sin; (2) the burial of the body in the ground or a tomb/vault is the clear and consistent pattern throughout Scripture for the proper handling of the body of the deceased; and (3) what references there are in Scripture to people’s bodies being burned following death are often associated with judgment and disrespect for the person’s body.

The early church rejected cremation, partly because of its association with pagan cultures of Greece and Rome. Thus, early Christians followed earlier Jewish practices and buried their dead in graves or catacombs (underground vaults). The strong preference for burial has continued for most of church history. The practice of cremation has emerged in the Western world only in the past century or so. Christians today are often attracted to cremation for reasons of cost and/or saving the environment. The best way to handle such matters that are not clearly specified or given directives in Scripture is to show tolerance for the views of others and for each person to “be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5).

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

A prescribed selection of foods. The Mosaic law requires a distinctive diet for Israel that excludes, among other foods, camel, hare, rock badger, and blood (see Lev. 11; Deut. 14:1–21) and requires a day-long fast on the Day of Atonement. The basis is not entirely clear. Some argue for a nutritional advantage to the diet; others view the commandments as an opportunity to express obedience and self-discipline. Although God allows the consumption of the flesh of certain animals, but not their blood (Gen. 9:2–4; Lev. 17:10–16), the ideal diet appears to be fruits, grains, and vegetables (Gen. 1:11–12; 2:5; Exod. 16; Dan. 1:11–16; Matt. 6:11). Israelites could also make a Nazirite vow, by which they abstained from wine and anything derived from grapes (Num. 6:1–21; Judg. 13:5–7). John the Baptist adopted a restrictive diet of locusts and wild honey, probably as an expression of mournful fasting—a diet that Jesus departs from, leading to accusations of him being a drunkard and glutton (Matt. 3:4; 9:14–17; 11:16–19). Otherwise, the Bible eschews stringent asceticism. With rampant poverty and drought, few people then struggled with the modern preoccupation with overeating and becoming overweight (but see Judg. 3:17). Within the bounds of moderation, humaneness toward animals killed for food, and sensitivity to the conscience of others, Christians are free from restrictions concerning food (Mark 7:19; Rom. 14:14; Phil. 3:19). Like Paul, they may choose to adopt a Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18) or observe other restrictions for the sake of their conscience (e.g., vegetarianism), but they should do so without judging another’s diet.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Hope is one of the main themes of Scripture, and many of these hopes focus on the future. For example, Jeremiah gave his fellow countrymen in the Babylonian captivity this promise: “ ‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’ ” (Jer. 29:11). The apostle Paul picks up this theme of hope: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:13).

Hope Based on Promises

A believer’s hope focuses on several different kinds of promises. First, there are many promises of God’s assistance in the struggles and difficulties of life. Paul, for example, concludes, “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39). Christians can have the confidence that “no temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

Second, believers also have promises that God will be with them and go with them through the future experiences of physical suffering and death. Here the classic promise is found in words of the psalmist: “Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Ps. 23:4). It is because of promises such as this that Paul can wonder whether it is better to die or to keep on living: “I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (Phil. 1:23).

Third, there are promises related to the whole constellation of events surrounding Jesus’ return and the conclusion of human history as we know it. Jesus’ return is described as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Furthermore, the trials and struggles of this present life will be over, and God will complete all his transforming work in our lives in one final moment of glorification. John describes this process this way: “When Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (in 1 John 3:2). The classic depiction of the future hope is in Rev. 21–22, when “ ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (21:4).

The Present World and the Future Hope

At the same time, it is no secret that the broader culture does not accept this future hope. Paul foresees, “The time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3). Peter warns, “In the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation’ ” (2 Pet. 3:3–4). There is always the danger that “the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth” (Matt. 13:22) will choke out and negate whatever positive spiritual influences a person has received in this present life.

Christians are called to protect themselves from this danger of being sidetracked by the attractions of this present world by learning to live life with a daily sense of expectation for Jesus’ return. Three verbs stand out in the description of this proper lifestyle: (1) “watch,” in the sense of being spiritually alert and ready at any time (Matt. 25:13: “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour”; 1 Thess. 5:6: “So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober”); (2) “wait,” in the sense of being prepared for a long wait (see the story of the five foolish virgins in Matt. 25:1–13); and (3) “work,” making the best use of our time (see the parable of the talents in Matt. 25:14–30). Truly, “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” (Rom. 13:11). The biblical teachings on eschatology are given not merely as information but rather to transform us. The future hope described in Scripture is repeatedly used as the basis for exhortations as to how we should live our lives here in the present. Jesus did not simply affirm that these great events were to occur; he also emphasized the appropriate behavior in light of this future reality. “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).

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

Head

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clothes and Shoes

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

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

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

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

Prophetic Gestures

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

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

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Judgment Day in the Bible

The book of Revelation concludes with a harrowing vision of final judgment. On that day, when the God of all creation sits on his great white throne and holds court, the dead will rise and answer for their deeds, whether good or bad (20:11–13). The record of each person’s conduct appears in books, one of which is the Book of Life (20:12–13). Anyone whose name does not appear in the Book of Life is thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).

The apostle Paul refers to this same event in Acts 17:30–31. All human beings will face their scheduled day in court, as God certified by raising Christ from the dead. It will be a day of wrath, among other things, when God’s righteous anger against sin is fully displayed (Rom. 2:5). In the presence of this God, Isaiah proclaimed himself to be ruined because of his sinfulness before the one who is called “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–5). We therefore confess with the author of Hebrews, who says, “It is [and will be] a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31).

Many other texts of Scripture forecast the same event: judgment day is coming, and nothing can stop it. They also describe this day in equally frightening terms, anticipating fire, darkness, and weeping for some, but everlasting joy and peace for others. Even Christians will be judged on this day, notwithstanding the promise of everlasting life for everyone who believes (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24; Rom. 3:21–24; 8:1–2; 2 Cor. 5:21). In Rom. 14:10–12 Paul says, “For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat,” at which time, “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.” Similarly, in 2 Cor. 5:10 Paul warns, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

Justification and Judgment

In these texts, an apparent tension exists between the promise of justification, upon which all Christian hope stands, and the certainty of final judgment, including the judgment of believers. It will not do simply to downplay the one or the other, as if the biblical writers had not really intended one or both of them. These texts say what they say, the good news no less plainly than the bad. Yet, closer inspection shows that the tension is merely apparent.

We must first recognize that Scripture treats piety as the evidence of regeneration and saving faith. Jesus says that a “good tree,” which is a genuine disciple, bears good fruit (Matt. 7:17). That is, the observable righteousness of such a disciple will surpass the hypocritical casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). On judgment day, therefore, no actual conflict will or ever could arise between the general tendency of the believer’s conduct and his or her position in Christ. Over a lifetime, the believer’s habitual behavior will have differed fundamentally, though never satisfactorily, from that of a lost person. As for unrepentant sinners, they will be sentenced to eternal damnation because of their lawlessness (Rom. 3:9–19). Their conduct demonstrates that they have rejected the gospel and are deserving of wrath (Heb. 2:3). This linkage between justification and right conduct accounts for James’s polemical statement: “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Abraham’s positional righteousness, secured by faith in what God would do on his behalf, became publicly evident through his obedience (James 2:21–22).

We should also note the different purpose that God has in judging his church. One aspect of it certainly is to grasp the enormity of our sins, so that we might properly acknowledge the depth of his mercy on that day. But also this judgment will occur in order to mete out the differing rewards that Scripture anticipates for the people of God. The definitive text in this regard is 1 Cor. 3:1–17, which connects the believer’s rewards and losses to the quality of his or her behavior within the body of Christ. Some are building on Christ, the sure foundation, using the available materials, and they receive their proper reward. Others build selfishly on themselves, with the result that they are saved, “though only as one escaping through the flames” (1 Cor. 3:15). In both cases, however, the question seems to be one of greater and lesser reward, as opposed to salvation or damnation. Even in hell itself, various degrees of suffering come into play. According to Jesus, one can receive a heavy or light “beating” for disobedience, based on one’s prior knowledge of the master’s will (Luke 12:47–48). Judgment day, therefore, should not frighten Christians. Jesus really did suffer the full measure of God’s wrath against our sin. But this day reminds us that we are accountable for what we do as his disciples, and it motivates the evangelism that we are commanded to practice.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

A recurring theme in both Testaments involving freedom from bondage. God values liberty and expects his people to live in a way that exhibits and promotes this value. The event of the exodus (Exod. 12:31–14:31) is often referenced to encourage the people of God to live in a way that encourages liberty (e.g., Exod. 22:21; Lev. 25:10; Deut. 10:17–19; cf. Ezek. 46:17). Following God’s precepts is considered walking in liberty (Ps. 119:45). Jesus explains his ministry in terms of God’s liberation (Luke 4:16–20; cf. Gal. 5:1). Liberty is valued not for its own sake but rather for the freedom to follow God (Lev. 25:42; Rom. 14:7–8; 1 Cor. 6:12–20). Living in freedom must include living a life of love for others (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:29).

A recurring theme in both Testaments involving freedom from bondage. God values liberty and expects his people to live in a way that exhibits and promotes this value. The event of the exodus (Exod. 12:31–14:31) is often referenced to encourage the people of God to live in a way that encourages liberty (e.g., Exod. 22:21; Lev. 25:10; Deut. 10:17–19; cf. Ezek. 46:17). Following God’s precepts is considered walking in liberty (Ps. 119:45). Jesus explains his ministry in terms of God’s liberation (Luke 4:16–20; cf. Gal. 5:1). Liberty is valued not for its own sake but rather for the freedom to follow God (Lev. 25:42; Rom. 14:7–8; 1 Cor. 6:12–20). Living in freedom must include living a life of love for others (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:29).

Meat, or food, sacrificed to idols refers to animal offerings to pagan deities. The expression translates the Greek word eidōlothyton, meaning “idol sacrifice,” which was a wordplay on the pagan term hierothytos meaning “offered in a temple sacrifice.” Consumption of this meat was prohibited for Gentile converts by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29; 21:25) because it was linked to pagan worship, especially when combined with sexual immorality (cf. Ezek. 18:5–6, 15; 22:9; Rev. 2:14, 20). However, the ban eventually created problems for Christians (e.g., dining out), as most meat markets in the Greco-Roman world obtained their inventory from local temples (Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 8; 10:18–33). Paul therefore modified the teaching by upholding the prohibition in cases where eating the meat violated one’s conscience, harmed Christian witness, or caused a weaker Christian to stumble, but relaxing it in cases where partaking was a social courtesy or otherwise separated from pagan practice.

Those who bring rest, harmony, and well-being into their environment. Jesus pronounces blessing upon peacemakers and promises that God will call them his children (Matt. 5:9; see also Rom. 14:19; Heb. 12:14). We are to make peace with God, other people, and the rest of creation. Within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, the vehicles for peace are love and forgiveness (Matt. 5:39).

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

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

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

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

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

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

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

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

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

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

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

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

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

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

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

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

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

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

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

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

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

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

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

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

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

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

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

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

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

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

The state of remaining faithful to God in light of the revelation given to persons at their particular stage of redemptive history. Perseverance has always required a continued trust in God, obedience to his commands, and reliance upon his merciful provision.

Old Testament. In the OT, perseverance is related to the covenantal relationship that God had with his people. Abraham was the quintessential model of perseverance, as he was faithful in waiting for God to provide him with the heir that had been promised him. Israel had to persevere by remaining faithful to its covenant with God, which meant being obedient to his commandments and decrees. In the subsequent history of Israel, however, the nation lacked perseverance and fidelity and often turned away from God to worship the gods of other nations. Indeed, the sweep of Israel’s history, according to the prophets, was that Israel had failed miserably at persevering in the covenantal promises and thus had incurred God’s judgment (e.g., Neh. 9:6–37; Ezek. 20:1–39; Dan. 9:4–19).

New Testament. In the Gospels, Jesus is the ultimate example of the faithful Israelite and also provides many exhortations about perseverance in light of the dawning kingdom of God. Jesus perseveres when tested by Satan in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). The parables of growth warn about those who do not persevere in their reception of the word (e.g., Luke 8:15). Endurance under the duress of eschatological trials is also the means by which one gains one’s life (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:19). In his farewell speech in the Gospel of John, Jesus exhorts his disciples to abide in him as branches stay rooted in a vine or else risk being cut off (John 15:1–11).

In the course of his letters, Paul has much to say about persevering in faith in Christ. Paul considers “endurance” (hypomonē) to be among the cardinal qualities of a believer (Rom. 5:3–4; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:4; 8:25; 1 Tim. 6:11; Titus 2:2). There is a sense in which God himself gives endurance to the believer (Rom. 15:5; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 3:5). Paul offers some stern warnings about apostasy and falling away (Rom. 11:21–22; 1 Cor. 10:1–12; Gal. 5:4), but he also adds that Christians experience a sense of assurance because God is “faithful” and will keep believers “blameless” on the day of Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:8–9; Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23). Paul also writes that nothing in creation can separate a believer from the love of God in Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:31–39).

The General Epistles provide further teaching about perseverance. James commends the virtue of perseverance that leads to maturity (1:3–4) and urges his audience to endure just as Job endured sufferings (5:11). Jude writes that believers should endeavor to “keep yourselves in God’s love” while also acknowledging that God himself will “keep you from falling” (vv. 21, 24). The book of Hebrews is built around the theme of perseverance and endurance, with key statements about not “drift[ing] away” (2:1) and the exhortation to “run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (12:1).

The book of Revelation focuses strongly on persevering in light of persecution and hardship. In the letters to the seven churches there is the repeated promise of the blessings that await those who “overcome,” which means enduring in the faith (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. 21:7). The churches of Asia Minor corporately are admonished to remain faithful to the point of death (2:10) and in light of the coming judgment (14:12). Three times calls for patient endurance are made (1:9; 13:10; 14:12). In Revelation, perseverance means holding to the testimony of Jesus (12:17; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4).

Summary. The biblical teaching on perseverance attempts to balance divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The warnings of apostasy and the promises of assurance are interwoven in such a way so as not to compromise the grace and justice of God.

Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this day belongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. The term itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions how he was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” when Christ commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10). There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture about the identification of this day or how it was observed. Our understanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages of Scripture touches on three separate issues.

A special day. First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in a special way? At least some believers throughout history have believed that it is possible to observe every day of the week as equally special in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paul regards the observance of special days for worship as an area of Christian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The same principle is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “the Lord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during the week when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.

A specific day. Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way? When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear: it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both the idea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day are based ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. This Sabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicate that the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and their animals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews in the present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-Day Adventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OT evidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day for worship.

Nevertheless, most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the early church to gather together for worship on the first day of the week. Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. In Acts 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supper specifically “on the first day of the week,” and in 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect an offering specifically “on the first day of every week” (presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christians have concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16), and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “on the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).

A sacred day. Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and others throughout church history have considered Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day of the week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age, but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for the Sabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, most Christians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,” when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OT ceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working. Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering together on a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolved around various annual feasts and festivals when people would gather together at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year. The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during the Babylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue. Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer a transposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, and consequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.